After freshening up at the hotel for a bit, it was only 3:00 PM, so we decided to get a bit of sightseeing in. The major thing that Nanjing is know for outside China is the Rape of Nanking as termed in American history textbooks, now seemingly recognized properly at the Nanjing Massacre.
To this effect, we went to the appropriate memorial, named the Memorial for Compatriots Killed in the Nanjing Massacre by Japanese Forces of Aggression (侵華日軍南京大屠殺遇難同胞紀念館/侵华日军南京大屠杀遇难同胞纪念馆) after eating at a western restaurant. The food was quite good, there was just too much of it, so we ended up overeating.
The whole memorial was quite somber, as it was designed. The memorial was designed on a black and charcoal gray template, with the death toll on a cross made purposefully dirty juxtaposed with walls across a gray-pebble courtyard (evocative of Zen gardens) from the museum.
One point popped into the back of my head. It probably would have just gone away if my friend didn’t say anything about it. This memorial wasn’t built over any sort of ruins. The museum had fake ruins adorning the materials about the conflict and in no way was this site more historical than the rest of Nanjing.
This friend happened to have seen some of the major holocaust sites in Germany. She said that the Nanjing Massacre Memorial lacked the same authentic feel that Dauchau concentration camp did. I could see her point, but being that most of the museums that I’ve been to in the United States have been built on nothing more than their foundations of concrete and steel, this fact didn’t irk me.
The museum was more informative than anything else. Everything stated was presented as fact, and though the words “Japanese Invaders” were used more than once (or twice), artifacts from the conflict seemed to be displayed in a very impartial manner (though at the same time it was quite clear what country you were in).
It made me realize how much about Asia, and for that matter the world outside Anglophone North America and Europe I don’t know. I construe it as a simple statement on our Eurocentric public educations. I remember that in sophomore year of high school, the state set up a curriculum based on “World History,” but with our class being European History Advanced Placement, we were going to wait until after the AP test in May to cover the rest of the world. Thought it seemed to be a daunting task, covering the rest of the world in less than a month, we failed to accomplish anything at all. Instead, we watched Monty Python and the Holy Grail as well as Forrest Gump.
I do understand that in comparison with the eleven million people (six million Jews) that the Nazis killed, a simple 300,000 doesn’t seem like much by the Imperialist Japanese. The fact of the matter is though that 300,000 people make up still 300,000 lives, each one precious in its own regard.
To make matters special, whereas Germany likes to distance itself from its Nazi past, it is highly questionable whether Japan cares to do the same. Maybe 300,000 is a high estimate; “impartial” observers estimate 260,000; but Japanese historians head down to 100,000. I suppose the number isn’t important, but some Japanese officials say that all the deaths were military-related and that no war crimes occurred (being that you aren’t to target civilians nor attack when civilians are known to be present). Former Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi decided to go pay respect to the Japanese memorial honoring their fallen soldiers in the conflict.
The fact of the matter was that Japan was clearly the one that violated the well-established international law principle of territorial sovereignty, and in doing so continued to murder innocent civilians. I don’t hold anything against the Japan of today, because what’s past is the history. And though you are supposed to learn from your mistakes, I well understand many Chinese people’s anti-Japanese sentiment.
I suppose in some ways I’m a product of the whole conflict. Had Japan as well as Germany not started their courses in history in World War II, I, James Philip Jee, as I know myself would not be here today. People like to take guesses at my families’ histories. In Guilin, one American tourist decided to guess without solicitation that I have relatives who moved to the United States to build the railroads. Almost everybody assumes that having parents that are Chinese (meaning ethnicity) means that you can speak Chinese. To them it makes so much sense when I say that my mother’s from Hong Kong yet so much humor when I say my father’s from Detroit.
Because my parents didn’t meet in China, I don’t say my family’s from China, though I am proud of my Chinese heritage. In fact, my father’s never been outside of North America, so to say so would be an inaccuracy. If the conflict never started, would my mother’s parents have moved from Hangzhou? Would I have a much different set of relatives? Would I even exist? Could I be an only child?
Though my circumstances are rooted in a history so ugly, I guess I can say that thanks to my parents I have reestablished my roots in a way that they never would have predicted. In a way, I like to think that no one predicted it would come out this way.
I understand that I am one privileged individual. While I wouldn’t call myself filthy rich, I understand my circumstances well as being well, and it bothers me to see wastefulness in life and in spending.
So there is a reason I went to visit Nanjing, and it’s fitting in a way that it happened to be my last trip out of Hong Kong before my time here. Never should I forget where my past lives have been lived out, never should any one forget the horrors that we people have placed each other under.
I’ve come to appreciate my roots for my culture and my heritage for my traditions. I’ve come to respect my nation as something to subscribe to and my state as something to rely on, and though immigration regulations places restrictions where people are allowed to reside and work (which most notably means that certain places are more prosperous than others), we are all ultimately people, and the future of who we are and where we are lies nowhere else than with us.
Showing posts with label International Studies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label International Studies. Show all posts
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Seventy-eight, Part 1
Continuing on talking about classes, I figured I’d come back to Humanity in Globalization, coded POLI0078. This class has been by far the most applicable to what I studies overall, and continues to surprise me (and did surprise me, see part 2!) every day.
In response to genocide (specifically talking about Rwanda), we began talking about the Responsibility to Protect, lovingly abbreviated as R2P. This article itself came as, in part, a result of the Rwandan Genocide. Apparently, it seemed, that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights drafted back in the day (itself a response in part to the holocaust), forming an integral part of the United Nations, was no longer effective, so another piece of whatever you’d call it was drafted same in scale, larger in implications, would remedy the situation.
It reminds me of a problem that we have back in Los Angeles. It isn’t dealing so much with human rights as with convenience, but the same logic can easily be applied for both. In Los Angeles, we lack serious public transportation. Yeah, there are tons of bus routes that I’ve yet to hear any one I know of take, regarding what I’m talking about, buses crowd the roads too. It’s pretty apparent that we love our cars in (Southern) California. We have our sprawling freeways that traverse the landscape that frequently get clogged to the point of stopped traffic. For years and years, the solution has always been to expand the freeways, costing billions of dollars in the end, more often than not requiring the acquisition of additional right-of-way to accommodate the additional 12-foot-wide lanes.
In Thousand Oaks, California, my hometown, the secondary freeway was expanded from two lanes to three just a year or two ago and just a few months later began experiencing massive congestion again. Yeah, cars moving off surface streets onto freeways create a lot of the additional traffic, but the fact of the matter is that cars are big and roads are bigger, and creating more efficient infrastructure by expanding roads rather than building light rail/a subway system proves both illogical and inefficient.
For a city of Los Angeles’s size, it’s amazing that there are only a handful of light rail/subway lines. There is one dedicated bus route running at street-level that encountered more than its share of accidents in its first year of opening as well. The one (or two as they’re labeled) subway lines barely go anywhere, though I think that in the last I’ve read they’re in the process of being extended.
The Responsibility to Protect is, in essence, an expansion of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and while it purports increased accountability for states failing to intervene in critical situations, the fact of the matter is that in the current state-system set-up, it really can’t.
Take what France and Belgium did during the Rwandan Genocide. As people were being slaughtered in the country, they sent a surprise mission to rescue all the French and Belgian nationals, despite the fact that the Tutsis were in more dangerous than either.
Take what Bill Clinton, president of the United States of America did during the Rwandan Genocide. After all the Americans were successfully evacuated, he managed to say that there are no more American interests in Rwanda, so it would not be necessary to continue any further in the Rwanda conflict.
So what makes this piece of pseudo-legislation any different from the former? As I posted on the Humanity in Globalization class blog in early October, I said:
“What stands out to me the most in reading about R2P and watching Lloyd Axworthy go about this ‘responsibility’ is the thought that changing the words regarding such acts does nothing but change the words regarding such acts. Codifying rather than broadening the scope of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted in 1948, it seems, in my opinion, to serve as a feel-good measure ultimately lacking teeth.
“I would have to agree with Hannah[, friend and fellow blogger,] in saying that R2P seems rather difficult to fully implement. Ultimately the differences between a ‘right to intervene’ and a ‘responsibility to protect’ dissipate as leaders contemplate spending resources on something that has little national benefit.
“In the documentary ‘Ghosts of Rwanda’ that we watched in class, change of wording would likely do little to push states into protecting another state’s nationals. The original wording of the term ‘genocide’ was a majorly insignificant issue that turned politicians into lawyers as while people were being murdered, the official line of United States leadership was that what was happening were “acts of genocide” but not genocide itself, hence no right to intervene.
“To say that countries now have the ‘responsibility to protect’ would then have bureaucrats defining ‘responsibility,’ no matter how well or narrowly defined the term is in the appropriate documents.
“Not to sound overly pessimistic, but it appears that in the international community it is easier to do nothing and then apologize afterwards. And it makes sense (devoid of morality). If country A intervenes in country B’s business, it would be difficult to justify, not to mention resources would be diverted to something that may not have any benefit for country A. Alternatively, country A, not having any interests in the affairs of country B would not intervene, choosing instead to abstain from the conflict and apologize for not having done something after the fact. Apologies cost no money.
“And as a last point, to say that there would be some sort of framework so that developed countries intervene when appropriate, such as fines, would be to say that an organization such as the United Nations is entirely effective. Ultimately states are their own sovereigns and do what they please in our accepted international law framework.
“So in my logic, where would the solution be?
“Well, there is no easy solution of course. In order for us as a people and as a world to be entirely effective at preventing such events from occurring, we must see ourselves as a collective whole in the cosmopolitan sense, and by extension, the government.
“And unfortunately, there is no legislation for this. (Though R2P seems to promote cosmopolitanism.) We can try our best, but ultimately only time and our future history will tell.”
Copyright © 2009 James Philip Jee
This work may not be reproduced by any means without express permission of the author.
In response to genocide (specifically talking about Rwanda), we began talking about the Responsibility to Protect, lovingly abbreviated as R2P. This article itself came as, in part, a result of the Rwandan Genocide. Apparently, it seemed, that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights drafted back in the day (itself a response in part to the holocaust), forming an integral part of the United Nations, was no longer effective, so another piece of whatever you’d call it was drafted same in scale, larger in implications, would remedy the situation.
It reminds me of a problem that we have back in Los Angeles. It isn’t dealing so much with human rights as with convenience, but the same logic can easily be applied for both. In Los Angeles, we lack serious public transportation. Yeah, there are tons of bus routes that I’ve yet to hear any one I know of take, regarding what I’m talking about, buses crowd the roads too. It’s pretty apparent that we love our cars in (Southern) California. We have our sprawling freeways that traverse the landscape that frequently get clogged to the point of stopped traffic. For years and years, the solution has always been to expand the freeways, costing billions of dollars in the end, more often than not requiring the acquisition of additional right-of-way to accommodate the additional 12-foot-wide lanes.
In Thousand Oaks, California, my hometown, the secondary freeway was expanded from two lanes to three just a year or two ago and just a few months later began experiencing massive congestion again. Yeah, cars moving off surface streets onto freeways create a lot of the additional traffic, but the fact of the matter is that cars are big and roads are bigger, and creating more efficient infrastructure by expanding roads rather than building light rail/a subway system proves both illogical and inefficient.
For a city of Los Angeles’s size, it’s amazing that there are only a handful of light rail/subway lines. There is one dedicated bus route running at street-level that encountered more than its share of accidents in its first year of opening as well. The one (or two as they’re labeled) subway lines barely go anywhere, though I think that in the last I’ve read they’re in the process of being extended.
The Responsibility to Protect is, in essence, an expansion of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and while it purports increased accountability for states failing to intervene in critical situations, the fact of the matter is that in the current state-system set-up, it really can’t.
Take what France and Belgium did during the Rwandan Genocide. As people were being slaughtered in the country, they sent a surprise mission to rescue all the French and Belgian nationals, despite the fact that the Tutsis were in more dangerous than either.
Take what Bill Clinton, president of the United States of America did during the Rwandan Genocide. After all the Americans were successfully evacuated, he managed to say that there are no more American interests in Rwanda, so it would not be necessary to continue any further in the Rwanda conflict.
So what makes this piece of pseudo-legislation any different from the former? As I posted on the Humanity in Globalization class blog in early October, I said:
“What stands out to me the most in reading about R2P and watching Lloyd Axworthy go about this ‘responsibility’ is the thought that changing the words regarding such acts does nothing but change the words regarding such acts. Codifying rather than broadening the scope of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted in 1948, it seems, in my opinion, to serve as a feel-good measure ultimately lacking teeth.
“I would have to agree with Hannah[, friend and fellow blogger,] in saying that R2P seems rather difficult to fully implement. Ultimately the differences between a ‘right to intervene’ and a ‘responsibility to protect’ dissipate as leaders contemplate spending resources on something that has little national benefit.
“In the documentary ‘Ghosts of Rwanda’ that we watched in class, change of wording would likely do little to push states into protecting another state’s nationals. The original wording of the term ‘genocide’ was a majorly insignificant issue that turned politicians into lawyers as while people were being murdered, the official line of United States leadership was that what was happening were “acts of genocide” but not genocide itself, hence no right to intervene.
“To say that countries now have the ‘responsibility to protect’ would then have bureaucrats defining ‘responsibility,’ no matter how well or narrowly defined the term is in the appropriate documents.
“Not to sound overly pessimistic, but it appears that in the international community it is easier to do nothing and then apologize afterwards. And it makes sense (devoid of morality). If country A intervenes in country B’s business, it would be difficult to justify, not to mention resources would be diverted to something that may not have any benefit for country A. Alternatively, country A, not having any interests in the affairs of country B would not intervene, choosing instead to abstain from the conflict and apologize for not having done something after the fact. Apologies cost no money.
“And as a last point, to say that there would be some sort of framework so that developed countries intervene when appropriate, such as fines, would be to say that an organization such as the United Nations is entirely effective. Ultimately states are their own sovereigns and do what they please in our accepted international law framework.
“So in my logic, where would the solution be?
“Well, there is no easy solution of course. In order for us as a people and as a world to be entirely effective at preventing such events from occurring, we must see ourselves as a collective whole in the cosmopolitan sense, and by extension, the government.
“And unfortunately, there is no legislation for this. (Though R2P seems to promote cosmopolitanism.) We can try our best, but ultimately only time and our future history will tell.”
Copyright © 2009 James Philip Jee
This work may not be reproduced by any means without express permission of the author.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Shopping for Classes, Part 2
The add/drop period for class registration ended September 14. For the Faculty of Social Sciences, September 15 was when we had to turn in a signed finalization of those classes. Though I met both deadlines, making sure that classes will be approved for meeting requirements for general education and my majors and minor has been a little more difficult.
With shopping for classes done and over with, I ended up with five six-unit classes and one three-unit class, Cantonese for Foreign Learners 1. That class may actually contain the majority of the fun I have on campus. Organized to give us conversational knowledge of Cantonese, the class is simple and entertaining. For the fifty minutes, twice a week that it’s worth, I can tell that the teacher is really enthusiastic about what she does. What makes it more fun is that, since I cannot apply this class to any graduation requirement back home, I’m going to take the class pass/no pass, I can enjoy myself and the content of the class without feeling to bothered about what grade I get.
The three five-unit classes that I plan to apply to requirements back at UCSD are Introduction to Arts of Asia: Past and Present, Traditional Chinese Society, Hong Kong and the World, Humanity in Globalization, and Phonetics.
To be rephrased as Introduction to Asian Art on my University of California transcript, this is the other class that I think I’ll take pass/no pass. This is to fulfill the non-western fine arts class for Eleanor Roosevelt College’s general education requirements. Being in Asia, I figured that this would be a good opportunity to do so.
The class is very interesting to say the least. As of yet we’ve been discussion Buddhist art and just last lecture we were discussing how Buddhism’s arrival to Japan reflected the native Shinto way of life and its reflection in art and architecture, particularly the design of temples. It was further related to the present day, in which reflecting the older works we went over selected contemporary works by such notables as Yoko Ono.
Traditional Chinese Society is an ethnographic, anthropologic class that deals more with contemporary Chinese society in light of traditional Chinese society. Right now, I’m trying to get it preapproved for my minor in the Study of Religion, with my case being that the class focuses on way of life, which is true religion in its essential form. Concretely, similar classes have been approved for the Study of Religion at UCSD, namely Chinese Society (a sociology class) and Traditional Chinese Society (an anthropology class). Here at HKU there is not an anthropology department, so this class is listed under Sociology. In crossing classes with UCSD, the description of my class here at HKU is in between the two UCSD classes, leaning more towards the anthropological one.
If the Study of Religion program refuses to see my logic, I plan to make my case to apply this as an anthropology class to the secondary focus of my International Studies-Political Science major. Unfortunately, UC transfers this course over as a sociology class by default, so I would have to prove its anthropological content through the syllabus and explaining the ethnographic methods used in analysis.
As of right now, we’ve been dealing with what it means to be Chinese (a topic which I have addressed and will address again personally in a later post). Last lecture we talked about creation stories as an aspect of Chinese culture and contrasted the shear view of culture to that of Christianity. Next week we focus on the body and the traditional Chinese view of it.
This class’s tutorial is also the only one I’ve been to so far. With such a small class, there is no teacher’s assistant and the tutorials, called sections at UCSD, are run by the professor himself. It was set up as an informal environment in which we could discuss the readings and the current class materials. In that tutorial, I had to make my case for why I call myself American, but more on that later.
Hong Kong and the World is another favorite class of mine. It is listed under politics and public administration, and rightly so. The professor doesn’t have a PhD but work experience, having a consulting firm with such clients as the William Clinton Foundation. I plan to apply this class to my International Studies-Political Science major.
In light of Hong Kong’s political situation as a highly autonomous part of the People’s Republic of China, we look at why Hong Kong as been such an economic success and evaluate its future competitiveness in light of rising Chinese cities and Hong Kong’s eventual return of full sovereignty back to China.
This particular professor organizes his classes with many guests. Our first is the current director of the InvestHK, and described his job as attracting and retaining foreign investment in Hong Kong. This was followed by an intense question-and-answer section which he handled like a seasoned politician.
Humanity in Globalization is another political science class taught by the same professor as Hong Kong and the World. This actually ended up being a substitute class for me, as I meant to take International Relations of East Asia, but was troubled by the lack of oratory skills of the professor. I opted for the more interesting, more grounded class (for IR talks about countries practically as sentient beings whereas Humanity in Globalization talks about individual people in relation to the world.
So far, we’ve talked about modern-day slavery (which most people don’t know about) with one source claiming that there are more slaves today than there have ever been before. (Though I wonder if you cast that data as a percent of the population whether the numbers would seem less dire.)
My last class is Phonetics, which at first I was really excited about, but now I’m questioning the content. With my second major being a specialization in linguistics, Phonetics is a core class for me, and deciding to take it here I thought would be a good experience.
At UCSD, Phonetics is taught in light of English, introducing anatomical features of producing speech, and focusing hardly at all at the International Phonetic Alphabet Chart. Regarding linguistics, I actually prefer phonetics and phonology over semantics and morphology because there is a quantifiable reality to the study. Semantics for me seemed a little soft because it seemed less logical than other linguistics sub-disciplines.
At HKU, Phonetics is taught much the same, with the exception that we go over sounds of Mandarin and Cantonese in addition to American English (I don’t know why we don’t go over British Received Pronunciation). It sounded good and all, but for the second lecture, we went over sounds of American English, and being that many local students (most all local students) don’t speak American English, he taught it more like a let’s-learn-how-to-speak-properly class.
This was problematic in my head because at UCSD a resounding message in my linguistics classes is that linguists (and social scientists) for that matter, being researchers, work to the effect of description and not prescription. That means that Linguists don’t dictate how we should speak, they just analyze how we do speak.
Being a native American English speaker, I had no problem, but as we have to go over that again in Mandarin and Cantonese, I hope he doesn’t continue in the same manner.
To make matters worse, the TA for the class makes all the announcements in Cantonese. I always end up raising my hand to request her to repeat what she said in English.
Though I hoped to write this post after I settled into a routine, I figured that I should get out my sentiments about my classes and reveal the results of my shopping before going any further.
With shopping for classes done and over with, I ended up with five six-unit classes and one three-unit class, Cantonese for Foreign Learners 1. That class may actually contain the majority of the fun I have on campus. Organized to give us conversational knowledge of Cantonese, the class is simple and entertaining. For the fifty minutes, twice a week that it’s worth, I can tell that the teacher is really enthusiastic about what she does. What makes it more fun is that, since I cannot apply this class to any graduation requirement back home, I’m going to take the class pass/no pass, I can enjoy myself and the content of the class without feeling to bothered about what grade I get.
The three five-unit classes that I plan to apply to requirements back at UCSD are Introduction to Arts of Asia: Past and Present, Traditional Chinese Society, Hong Kong and the World, Humanity in Globalization, and Phonetics.
To be rephrased as Introduction to Asian Art on my University of California transcript, this is the other class that I think I’ll take pass/no pass. This is to fulfill the non-western fine arts class for Eleanor Roosevelt College’s general education requirements. Being in Asia, I figured that this would be a good opportunity to do so.
The class is very interesting to say the least. As of yet we’ve been discussion Buddhist art and just last lecture we were discussing how Buddhism’s arrival to Japan reflected the native Shinto way of life and its reflection in art and architecture, particularly the design of temples. It was further related to the present day, in which reflecting the older works we went over selected contemporary works by such notables as Yoko Ono.
Traditional Chinese Society is an ethnographic, anthropologic class that deals more with contemporary Chinese society in light of traditional Chinese society. Right now, I’m trying to get it preapproved for my minor in the Study of Religion, with my case being that the class focuses on way of life, which is true religion in its essential form. Concretely, similar classes have been approved for the Study of Religion at UCSD, namely Chinese Society (a sociology class) and Traditional Chinese Society (an anthropology class). Here at HKU there is not an anthropology department, so this class is listed under Sociology. In crossing classes with UCSD, the description of my class here at HKU is in between the two UCSD classes, leaning more towards the anthropological one.
If the Study of Religion program refuses to see my logic, I plan to make my case to apply this as an anthropology class to the secondary focus of my International Studies-Political Science major. Unfortunately, UC transfers this course over as a sociology class by default, so I would have to prove its anthropological content through the syllabus and explaining the ethnographic methods used in analysis.
As of right now, we’ve been dealing with what it means to be Chinese (a topic which I have addressed and will address again personally in a later post). Last lecture we talked about creation stories as an aspect of Chinese culture and contrasted the shear view of culture to that of Christianity. Next week we focus on the body and the traditional Chinese view of it.
This class’s tutorial is also the only one I’ve been to so far. With such a small class, there is no teacher’s assistant and the tutorials, called sections at UCSD, are run by the professor himself. It was set up as an informal environment in which we could discuss the readings and the current class materials. In that tutorial, I had to make my case for why I call myself American, but more on that later.
Hong Kong and the World is another favorite class of mine. It is listed under politics and public administration, and rightly so. The professor doesn’t have a PhD but work experience, having a consulting firm with such clients as the William Clinton Foundation. I plan to apply this class to my International Studies-Political Science major.
In light of Hong Kong’s political situation as a highly autonomous part of the People’s Republic of China, we look at why Hong Kong as been such an economic success and evaluate its future competitiveness in light of rising Chinese cities and Hong Kong’s eventual return of full sovereignty back to China.
This particular professor organizes his classes with many guests. Our first is the current director of the InvestHK, and described his job as attracting and retaining foreign investment in Hong Kong. This was followed by an intense question-and-answer section which he handled like a seasoned politician.
Humanity in Globalization is another political science class taught by the same professor as Hong Kong and the World. This actually ended up being a substitute class for me, as I meant to take International Relations of East Asia, but was troubled by the lack of oratory skills of the professor. I opted for the more interesting, more grounded class (for IR talks about countries practically as sentient beings whereas Humanity in Globalization talks about individual people in relation to the world.
So far, we’ve talked about modern-day slavery (which most people don’t know about) with one source claiming that there are more slaves today than there have ever been before. (Though I wonder if you cast that data as a percent of the population whether the numbers would seem less dire.)
My last class is Phonetics, which at first I was really excited about, but now I’m questioning the content. With my second major being a specialization in linguistics, Phonetics is a core class for me, and deciding to take it here I thought would be a good experience.
At UCSD, Phonetics is taught in light of English, introducing anatomical features of producing speech, and focusing hardly at all at the International Phonetic Alphabet Chart. Regarding linguistics, I actually prefer phonetics and phonology over semantics and morphology because there is a quantifiable reality to the study. Semantics for me seemed a little soft because it seemed less logical than other linguistics sub-disciplines.
At HKU, Phonetics is taught much the same, with the exception that we go over sounds of Mandarin and Cantonese in addition to American English (I don’t know why we don’t go over British Received Pronunciation). It sounded good and all, but for the second lecture, we went over sounds of American English, and being that many local students (most all local students) don’t speak American English, he taught it more like a let’s-learn-how-to-speak-properly class.
This was problematic in my head because at UCSD a resounding message in my linguistics classes is that linguists (and social scientists) for that matter, being researchers, work to the effect of description and not prescription. That means that Linguists don’t dictate how we should speak, they just analyze how we do speak.
Being a native American English speaker, I had no problem, but as we have to go over that again in Mandarin and Cantonese, I hope he doesn’t continue in the same manner.
To make matters worse, the TA for the class makes all the announcements in Cantonese. I always end up raising my hand to request her to repeat what she said in English.
Though I hoped to write this post after I settled into a routine, I figured that I should get out my sentiments about my classes and reveal the results of my shopping before going any further.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Applying to Go Abroad
Now is when I get into the nitty gritties of my application. I’ve already told my reasons for going abroad and my reasons for choosing Hong Kong of all places. So now I will explain the Education Abroad Program (EAP) through which I am going and why I chose it.
There was a lot of lead-time involved in the application process. I had to submit my application on January 5, almost a full eight months before the start of the program. Programs to Hong Kong had one of the earliest application due dates I believe, but the latest one that I knew of was the program to Vietnam, to which a friend (and fellow International Studies major) of mine is going. For technical reasons, I could not turn in my application any earlier than January 5, which was risky since the my EAP website was down nearly all of winter break, with January 5 being the first day of classes for winter quarter. One copy of the application had to be submitted electronically through the website and one had to be submitted in person to the Programs Abroad Office, here on campus.
Before then, I had to meet up with country advisors. Mine was Tonia and she oversaw most of the East Asia programs. She looked over the basics with me, informed me of the dates, and laid out the scholarships (of which I was qualified for two). She said until further notice, I would not need letters of recommendation.
There, I decided to apply through EAP for a couple of reasons. First, I would pay tuition to the Regents of the University of California, so I would not have to deal more than I had to in HKU’s unfamiliar system. (It’s still unfamiliar). I would pay in United States Dollars and the EAP office would coordinate finances with my host university. If I had gone through a third party, I would still pay in USD, but to an organization that has no affiliation to UCSD. This way, I hope any problems that arise can be dealt with easier, as they would be with one bureaucracy than multiple ones.
And being affiliated with the University of California, I get direct UC credit for classes I take abroad. There are pros and cons to this set up, but I went with the pros. Advantages are that the classes count towards my GPA, so they have to potential to reflect my work abroad, and that credit is directly transferred without having to send transcripts to the UCSD Office of Admissions (and Relations with Schools). Recalling that I had to send transcripts from my high school, my community college, and the College Board (AP tests) there, the experience was not good. They had few people working, and they could not tell me if my transcripts arrived, even if they had not inputted the grades. Because of this, I sent multiple transcripts from each institution at different times to ensure that they did not lose my transcripts, nor could they say I did not meet deadlines.
Cons are that since the grades I earn abroad would be counted towards my UC GPA, if I do poorly, my GPA will reflect it. In addition, UCSD and HKU would not have a relationship in my interest, as I would have to go through a third party. In the end, I recommend, as I did, that if there is an EAP program going where you want to go, opt for that one rather than a third party.
From there, I had to go to a half-hour “First Steps” session, where we discussed the logistics of the application process. There we were given access to my EAP and reminded of due dates.
In mid-December I finished the bulk of my application. It consisted of a few essays, including questions asking, “Why did you choose this country and this school?” “What motivates you to do well abroad?” and “Why are you choosing to study abroad?” I had to also include my academic history and a list of classes that I was planning to take before I left.
Perhaps the most important part at the time was the pre-approval form. It had me list classes that I planned to take abroad based off of a database that EAP compiled of classes previously transferred. I chose classes such as “Hong Kong Politics” and “China and the World” for my first major (International Studies-Political Science) and Bilingualism for my second major (Linguistics). At the time of application, I had not yet taken on my minor in the Study of Religion, so I am not planning on taking any classes abroad to apply to it. I am also planning to take my non-western Fine Arts requirement class there. To this effect, I had to get department approval from my two (at the time) departments plus my college.
Unfortunately, my classes chosen were based on the database and not the listing of classes actually available (which is still not completely online). So I would later find out that I had to revise my class list and after that find out that I had only been accepted for two of those. Because of this, I am going to have to register for the rest of my classes when I arrive (during the first two weeks of class). But I’ll write more about that later.
So I turned in my application the morning of Monday, January 5. It was then that I was told that I needed a letter of recommendation. I had not been told earlier. It was not unreasonable, for there were 30+ applicants to the program at HKU for which there were eight available spots. However, as I had only been told then, Tonia gave me extra time to get those.
Scrambling through my coursework I decided on asking two TAs in hopes that one would give me one. They were both for classes that I had received my A+s in fall quarter. For MMW 1, I asked an anthropology graduate student, to which he graciously agreed, though the only writing samples of mine that he had were short answers and short essays on three exams. On the other hand, I asked my TA from INTL 101 Languages in Competition, a communication graduate student to write my second letter of recommendation, to which he also agreed. I figured he would know more about me and attest to my qualifications because I wrote a 4,700-word term paper on Hong Kong’s bilingual-trilingual society for that class, on which I earned an A.
As they were both kind enough to write letters, I walked into the Programs Abroad Office on Friday morning with two letters of recommendation, thereby completing my application.
Two or three weeks later (before many of my study abroad friends even had to submit their applications) I received my acceptance. To my shame, I let out a brief, high-pitched scream, but I was elated. I feel that I was accepted because I was to have senior standing by the time of the program, I submitted a 3.925 GPA (which was later adjusted to 4.0), and most of all because I submitted a letter of recommendation attesting to my knowledge and interest in Hong Kong itself.
To that effect, I owe much thanks to these two graduate students who so graciously aided my admission on such short notice. I also thank my departments and my college who support and encourage study abroad. My host country’s advisor, Tonia, was also extremely helpful and knowledgeable throughout the whole process. Of course the student workers, one of which my first roommate’s sister, at the Programs Abroad Office deserve mentioning for their work ensures the productivity and success of the entire operation. In fact, if one of them didn’t go over my application with me before I turned it in, I would have forgotten to sign a certain very important line.
Lastly I thank my family for their support in my endeavors. I know I spend a lot of their money (though with discretion), so I’ll be sure to do my best in this program in appreciation of their love of and faith in me. As it has now come to my attention that my mother is afraid of what I’ll do next, I’ll have to keep my future plans a secret from them (and most of you, the readers) for the next seven months (when my program ends) before unveiling the next chapter in my life.
What happens after I got accepted? That’ll be in a later post. Thanks for reading!
Copyright © 2009 James Philip Jee
This work may not be reproduced by any means without express permission of the author.
There was a lot of lead-time involved in the application process. I had to submit my application on January 5, almost a full eight months before the start of the program. Programs to Hong Kong had one of the earliest application due dates I believe, but the latest one that I knew of was the program to Vietnam, to which a friend (and fellow International Studies major) of mine is going. For technical reasons, I could not turn in my application any earlier than January 5, which was risky since the my EAP website was down nearly all of winter break, with January 5 being the first day of classes for winter quarter. One copy of the application had to be submitted electronically through the website and one had to be submitted in person to the Programs Abroad Office, here on campus.
Before then, I had to meet up with country advisors. Mine was Tonia and she oversaw most of the East Asia programs. She looked over the basics with me, informed me of the dates, and laid out the scholarships (of which I was qualified for two). She said until further notice, I would not need letters of recommendation.
There, I decided to apply through EAP for a couple of reasons. First, I would pay tuition to the Regents of the University of California, so I would not have to deal more than I had to in HKU’s unfamiliar system. (It’s still unfamiliar). I would pay in United States Dollars and the EAP office would coordinate finances with my host university. If I had gone through a third party, I would still pay in USD, but to an organization that has no affiliation to UCSD. This way, I hope any problems that arise can be dealt with easier, as they would be with one bureaucracy than multiple ones.
And being affiliated with the University of California, I get direct UC credit for classes I take abroad. There are pros and cons to this set up, but I went with the pros. Advantages are that the classes count towards my GPA, so they have to potential to reflect my work abroad, and that credit is directly transferred without having to send transcripts to the UCSD Office of Admissions (and Relations with Schools). Recalling that I had to send transcripts from my high school, my community college, and the College Board (AP tests) there, the experience was not good. They had few people working, and they could not tell me if my transcripts arrived, even if they had not inputted the grades. Because of this, I sent multiple transcripts from each institution at different times to ensure that they did not lose my transcripts, nor could they say I did not meet deadlines.
Cons are that since the grades I earn abroad would be counted towards my UC GPA, if I do poorly, my GPA will reflect it. In addition, UCSD and HKU would not have a relationship in my interest, as I would have to go through a third party. In the end, I recommend, as I did, that if there is an EAP program going where you want to go, opt for that one rather than a third party.
From there, I had to go to a half-hour “First Steps” session, where we discussed the logistics of the application process. There we were given access to my EAP and reminded of due dates.
In mid-December I finished the bulk of my application. It consisted of a few essays, including questions asking, “Why did you choose this country and this school?” “What motivates you to do well abroad?” and “Why are you choosing to study abroad?” I had to also include my academic history and a list of classes that I was planning to take before I left.
Perhaps the most important part at the time was the pre-approval form. It had me list classes that I planned to take abroad based off of a database that EAP compiled of classes previously transferred. I chose classes such as “Hong Kong Politics” and “China and the World” for my first major (International Studies-Political Science) and Bilingualism for my second major (Linguistics). At the time of application, I had not yet taken on my minor in the Study of Religion, so I am not planning on taking any classes abroad to apply to it. I am also planning to take my non-western Fine Arts requirement class there. To this effect, I had to get department approval from my two (at the time) departments plus my college.
Unfortunately, my classes chosen were based on the database and not the listing of classes actually available (which is still not completely online). So I would later find out that I had to revise my class list and after that find out that I had only been accepted for two of those. Because of this, I am going to have to register for the rest of my classes when I arrive (during the first two weeks of class). But I’ll write more about that later.
So I turned in my application the morning of Monday, January 5. It was then that I was told that I needed a letter of recommendation. I had not been told earlier. It was not unreasonable, for there were 30+ applicants to the program at HKU for which there were eight available spots. However, as I had only been told then, Tonia gave me extra time to get those.
Scrambling through my coursework I decided on asking two TAs in hopes that one would give me one. They were both for classes that I had received my A+s in fall quarter. For MMW 1, I asked an anthropology graduate student, to which he graciously agreed, though the only writing samples of mine that he had were short answers and short essays on three exams. On the other hand, I asked my TA from INTL 101 Languages in Competition, a communication graduate student to write my second letter of recommendation, to which he also agreed. I figured he would know more about me and attest to my qualifications because I wrote a 4,700-word term paper on Hong Kong’s bilingual-trilingual society for that class, on which I earned an A.
As they were both kind enough to write letters, I walked into the Programs Abroad Office on Friday morning with two letters of recommendation, thereby completing my application.
Two or three weeks later (before many of my study abroad friends even had to submit their applications) I received my acceptance. To my shame, I let out a brief, high-pitched scream, but I was elated. I feel that I was accepted because I was to have senior standing by the time of the program, I submitted a 3.925 GPA (which was later adjusted to 4.0), and most of all because I submitted a letter of recommendation attesting to my knowledge and interest in Hong Kong itself.
To that effect, I owe much thanks to these two graduate students who so graciously aided my admission on such short notice. I also thank my departments and my college who support and encourage study abroad. My host country’s advisor, Tonia, was also extremely helpful and knowledgeable throughout the whole process. Of course the student workers, one of which my first roommate’s sister, at the Programs Abroad Office deserve mentioning for their work ensures the productivity and success of the entire operation. In fact, if one of them didn’t go over my application with me before I turned it in, I would have forgotten to sign a certain very important line.
Lastly I thank my family for their support in my endeavors. I know I spend a lot of their money (though with discretion), so I’ll be sure to do my best in this program in appreciation of their love of and faith in me. As it has now come to my attention that my mother is afraid of what I’ll do next, I’ll have to keep my future plans a secret from them (and most of you, the readers) for the next seven months (when my program ends) before unveiling the next chapter in my life.
What happens after I got accepted? That’ll be in a later post. Thanks for reading!
Copyright © 2009 James Philip Jee
This work may not be reproduced by any means without express permission of the author.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
