From: ASCKN@ASUACAD.BITNET (C. K. Ng)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asean
Subject: Re: More replies (long...)
Date: 11 Apr 92 03:12:11 GMT
Organization: Arizona State University


In article <1992Apr10.190305.4632@csc.canterbury.ac.nz>,
chuah@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (DanC) says:
>
>In article <92099.194024ASCKN@ASUACAD.BITNET> C. K. Ng <ASCKN@ASUACAD.BITNET>
>writes:
>>   All I was trying to say in my earlier posting was that those Chinese who
>>stay back AND fight their way into Malayan University are statistically
>>having higher IQ than those who run away, mostly on mum-and-dad's
>>scholarship.  To substantiate my argument, please refer to the 2nd and 3rd
>>columns, p 59, Time Magazine, 4/13/92 issue.  You may find some partial
>>but explicitly strong substantiation to my point made earlier.
>FYI, the number of NZ students in Malaysia during the time of my observation
>is in excess of 400.  I refer to a previous post which estimates the
>number of Malaysian students in the states to be approximately 430.
                                                                ^^^
Are you referring to my posting on 4/08/92?  I said that we could roughly
figure out 1991's Malaysian students in the States by taking the product of
.033*407,530.  Does the product come up to 430?  Is your reading compre-
hension or your multiplicative skill indicative of your training obtained
in NZ? :)  Or do you enjoy distorting someone's facts to support your
argument.  Also, I restricted my sample to the Malaysian Chinese who can
fight their way into MU alone.  I definitely recognize the fact that the
admission requirement, and therefore quality, has been less stringent for
Chinese who take the arts subjects in their STPM exams and enter into
other (other than MU) local universities.  But again, this is another
strategy used by the M'sian govt to encourage non-bumis to major in
arts subjects.  (I'm not saying whether such strategy is right or wrong here.)

>I would think the sample here is as good as, if not better than, the
>sample taken by Time mag. on the states.  In your statement, you
>said that most of the students who study in Malaysian Universities
>have a higher IQ than those studying overseas.  You also advocate
>that most of those do so at their parent's $$$ scholarship.  My
>rebutal is your claim based on the students in the states do not
>represent all Malaysian overseas students.  It may be true for the
>university you lecture in.  It may be true in the states.  It is
>certainly not true when I came to NZ.  FYI, the QUALIFYING factor
>back up your claim with enough Malaysian students studying overseas
>(please don't just give US statistics - The USA is not whats left
>of the world you know), I say your claim is baseless and WRONG.
                                                          ^^^^^
Sure you are right if you have successfully distorted what I said about
my sample size.  But, how right can you be if you even have difficulty
in reading and hence comprehending plain and simple English, and also
have difficulty in taking the product of .033*407,530?

  Well, having a nice forthcoming winter.

Sincerely,
 Chee-Keong Ng, Ph.D.
 A rubber tapper's son who didn't even have the money to go to NZ to
live in SUB-STANDARD CONDITIONS, and study there after Form 5.  I really
wish I could be poorer so that I didn't have to go thru 6th Form and NUS,
though they gave me vigorous trainings, and be a overseas university
student in NZ as soon as I finished Form 5.