Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This chapter addresses the unique features of Chinese international students in the United States in three dimensions. The first part includes the literature pertinent to the history and demographic information of Chinese international students in American higher education. In the second part, the review turns to the literature concerning what factors drive Chinese students to study abroad. The third part mainly discusses Chinese students’ acculturation features in terms of group-level factors such as culture, social life, and employment and immigration issues. In the next chapter, the discussion moves on to the special challenges Chinese students face while studying in the United States. In doing so, these two chapters synthesize the literature which provides a stage setting for this study.

The History and Demographics of Chinese International Students

Chinese International Students in the United States: 1890–1950

The Chinese government (Qing Imperial government, 1644–1911) sent the first group of 120 students to the United States from 1872 to 1875. The main stream of Chinese students came after China’s defeat by Japan in 1895 and the failure of the Boxer Rebellion in 1899 (Wang 1965). Through 1951, about 36,000 Chinese students had studied in the United States (Dow 1975). From the very beginning, the Chinese government had political expectations associated with sending students abroad. Sending students abroad was considered the natural way to face the Western challenge. Students left China with the special mission that linked their studies to the cause of national salvation. Almost all of early students in the United States were sent and supported by the government, and most of them were in the natural science and other technically oriented subjects. They were often quite young and many were not prepared for their studies in a foreign culture (Su 1942).

In terms of the goals of foreign study, the Qing government’s attitude was conservative and technically oriented. As illustrated by Li Hung-Chang, the Minister of the Qing Imperial government from 1870 to 1895, the goal of the foreign study was for these students “to learn about the sciences related to army, navy, mathematics, engineering, etc., for ten-odd years, so that after they have completed their study and returned to China all the technological specialties of the West may be adopted in China, and the nation may begin to grow strong by its own efforts” (Wang 1965, p. 78). In addition, the Qing government was concerned that young people exposed to American society would lose their own cultural identity. As a result of such concern, Chinese learning as substance and Western learning as functional had become the accepted slogan since the late 1890s (Wang 1992).

After the Qing Imperial government was overthrown in 1911, self-supported students from rich families increasingly became the kind of students who studied abroad. The noble goals of foreign study gradually yielded to personal interests (Wang 1965). The dream of saving China through foreign studies was discredited after 1925 (Wang 1965). By 1930, the motivation to go abroad had totally switched to personal factors, and a foreign education had become the rich men’s interest (Chen 1979). While abroad, students’ main interest became obtaining the US diploma, the symbol of prestige. In the study of overseas Chinese student history, Bourne (1975) reported, “an American degree was a guarantee of ascent in the social and political structure of China (in the early 20th century)” (p. 269).

Chinese International Students in the United States: After 1978

From 1949 until the end of Cultural Revolution (1966–1976), China was isolated from the rest of the world and foreign study was highly restricted. Since the late 1970s, however, vast political and economic changes have taken place in China. After nearly half a century of isolation, the post-Mao government abandoned the class struggle approach adopted during the Cultural Revolution to development that favored economic growth through scientific knowledge.

The government of the People’s Republic of China aggressively promoted modernization through international scholarly and technological exchanges. This policy directly increased the United States-China educational exchange (Lampton et al. 1986). In 1978, when Mr. Frank Press, the science and technology advisor for President Jimmy Carter, visited China, the two countries agreed to exchange students and scholars. About 50 Chinese students were then enrolled at several elite American universities. After that, the number of students coming to the United States soared. The number of mainland Chinese students in the United States increased from nearly zero at the beginning of 1978 to a total of approximately 20,030 by 1988. This figure doubled by 1993 and tripled by 2003 (Institute of International Education 2015). The proportion of foreign students in the United States who are from China increased more than sixfold over the last fifteen years from 1997 to 2013 (Newman 2014). According to the latest statistics, the United States is the leading destination for Chinese students pursuing overseas studies, and almost one-third of all foreign students in the United States are from China. Chinese students now constitute the highest enrollment, and there were 304,040 students in the United States (Institute of International Education 2015). In terms of the specific rank among the international students in United States, China surpassed Taiwan in 1989 as the country sending the largest number of students to the United States. From 1995 to 1998, China dropped to the number two sending country after Japan. In 1998–1999, China became the leading sender again for 3 years, through 2000–2001. In 2001–2002, India replaced China and became the top sender of students to the United States and retained that position for 8 years. In 2009–2010, China surpassed traditional “study abroad” heavyweights like India and South Korea, to lead international enrollment across US higher education, and retained the top place for 4 years. In 2013, Chinese student enrollments increased by 21 % in total to almost 235,597. Students from China represent 29 % of total number of international students in the United States. While the majority of Chinese students study at the graduate level, the United States continues to experience an upsurge in the number of undergraduate students coming from China. Total undergraduate students from China jumped 257 % between 2009 and 2013. Identifying the academic level that students pursued during 2012–2013, the Open Doors reports that Chinese students constitute the highest enrollment, with 43.9 % at graduate program. Thirty-nine percent attended Baccalaureate I and II institutions, 6.1 % were at other types of institutions, and 10.2 % were obtaining their Optional Practical Training (OPT) (Institute of International Education 2013).

Following the traditional pattern, contemporary Chinese students in the United States are still concentrated in the natural sciences, engineering, computer programming, biochemistry, and other technology-oriented subjects (Frank 2000). In recent years, however, the enrollment of Chinese students has significantly increased in disciplines such as business and management, social sciences, liberal arts, humanities, education, communications, and library science (Zhao 2005). Since 2010, business and management has surpassed the so-called STEM field for 3 years as the most popular academic discipline for Chinese international students in America (Institute of International Education 1981–2013).

In terms of the composition, contemporary Chinese students can be divided into two subgroups: exceptionally capable students with strong academic backgrounds and exceptionally rich students with poor grades (Luan 2012). The former group of students get into elite Chinese universities due to their good grades. They choose to pursue a graduate degree abroad and get selected by American institutions based on their high academic records. In contrast, the latter, with high financial resources but low academic preparedness, typically bypass the national entrance exam with the very clear intention that they have the financial resources to directly go abroad to study. Most of them are unable to test into a Chinese university, and their parents pay their way into a mediocre university in usually the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States (Luan 2012). Besides these two extremes, the middle group is taking interest in studying overseas.

There is a growing middle class in China. They live in the cities, with a lot of knowledge and a certain level of education background. They value the importance of education and are willing to invest in the children by sending them abroad. They are seeking a higher quality of education, and they see that the world’s top-ranked universities are in the United States. Many students in this group flock to the elite US universities. In contrast to those who go abroad when they fail to secure a place at a local Chinese university, these group of students are the best test-takers with strong academic background. They usually forgo elite Chinese universities to study in the United States (Lai 2012; Narow 2011).

Lai (2012) analyzed the trends of Chinese international students and pointed out two generations have emerged since the late 1970s. China’s economic reforms and “opening-up” that began in 1978 under Deng Xiaoping gave rise to the first major generation of students, who were generally reliant on scholarships to study in the United States. Coinciding with China’s rapid economic growth, a distinctive second generation emerged in the early 2000s comprising much more affluent students. They don’t rely on scholarships anymore. Narow (2011) argued that the increasing number of affluent Chinese has played a significant role in the increasing number of students studying in the United States. This argument was supported by the most recent figures of World Education Service (Chang et al. 2014). The US-based institute’s study sorts the types of international students into four categories: explorers, highfliers, strivers, as well as strugglers based on students’ academic preparedness and financial resources. Chinese students were identified as more likely to be “explorers” (students with high financial resources but low academic preparedness) or “highfliers” (students with high financial resources and high academic preparedness). “Explorers” and “highfliers” constitute over 70 % of the total Chinese international students represented in their study (Chang et al. 2014).

Jiang (2012) viewed the rising generation of affluent students as China’s third wave of those studying abroad. According to him, the booming economy meant Chinese families could afford to send their child abroad and so began this third wave of students coming from China. Jiang also pointed out these students lack the cultural loyalty and patriotism of China’s first wave (students from 1890 to 1950) and the academic merit and diligence of the second wave (Chinese graduate students from early 1980s till late 1999s) (Jiang 2012) (Table 2.1).

Table 2.1 Number of Chinese students in American institutions
Full size table

In terms of the goals and outcomes of the foreign study movement, history seems to be repeating itself. Similar to the foreign study movement prior to 1949, students’ personal economic and academic motivations gradually overshadow the government’s unrealistic ideals. The Chinese government’s lofty ideals face a gloomy reality. Just as Wang (1992) argued, “after a brief initial period of enthusiasm, coordination between the government and the students has disappeared and the government has lost control over a movement initially designed to foster economic growth and national restoration” (p. 90). Government-supported visiting scholars have been gradually substituted by self-supported students. The turning point occurred at the end of 1984, when the State Council of China stipulated that anyone who had been admitted by a foreign institution and had received foreign financial support or any other kind of assistantship was eligible for applying to go abroad self-funded (Lin 1998). Since then, the number of nongovernment-sponsored Chinese students has rapidly increased and now represents a large majority of the Chinese students on American campuses (Huang 1997). Financially, they seek financial aid in the United States instead of relying on the Chinese government. As revealed by Orleans (1988), in 1979, the Chinese government provided 54% of the funding, while in 1985 only 17 % of funding came from the Chinese government. The share of funding by American universities increased from 18% to 57% over this time period. Academically, there is an ever increasing number of Chinese students who are in degree-seeking programs as opposed to the number of visiting scholars. The percentage of visiting scholars to the United States dropped dramatically, from 47 % in 1979 to 31% in 1985 (Orleans 1988). With students’ increasing disenchantment with government policies, the original goal of sending students abroad to bring back valuable Western technology to help modernize China has diminished.

The contemporary Chinese foreign study movement has not only followed the old patterns but it has also demonstrated some new trends. There is a striking difference between the contemporary movement and the one in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The contemporary students are more dubious about ever returning home and have a greater willingness to leave permanently. In the early periods, foreign study was home centered. On one hand, most American-educated Chinese returned to China after finishing their studies in the United States and were highly relied upon to provide service in higher educational institutions and the government (Meng 1931). Furthermore, most Chinese students in America had very limited interaction with American life while they were abroad. Most knew they would return home in the end, so their motivation to assimilate or participate in Western life was very limited (Chen 1979). In contrast to the earlier period, contemporary foreign study features a low rate of return to China. The rate has decreased sharply since the mid-1980s (Orleans 1988). Of about 80,000 students and visiting scholars who came to the United States between 1979 and 1989, only about 26,000 returned, most of them before 1986 (Orleans 1988). Major reasons accounting for contemporary Chinese students’ non-return were obviously the same as what had pulled them here: better living and working conditions, higher salaries, better research facilities, greater career development opportunities, and personal freedom. Apart from these factors, estrangement toward the home country, as revealed by Cao’s study (Cao 1997), was also one of the important factors which contributed to the students’ willingness to remain in America. The feeling of estrangement appeared to be the product of changes in both the Chinese students and the home environment. On one hand, having been exposed to the customs and lifestyle in the United States over a period of years, they faced countercultural shock when they went back home even for short visits. On the other hand, there were undoubtedly rapid changes in Chinese social and moral in recent years which went beyond their expectation. Compared to the older generation in the late nineteenth and early twentieth who were more inclined to return, the contemporary generation has less attachment to home. The “brain drain” phenomena became increasingly severe during the contemporary foreign study movement (Wang 1992).

Another significant difference between the contemporary generation of Chinese students studying abroad and those prior to 1949 is in their academic quality. Contemporary students’ academic quality and dedications to science surpass that of the older generations. Most contemporary Chinese students in America entered universities or colleges in China in the late 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. They represent the cream of Chinese higher education after the Cultural Revolution. Furthermore, the selection process of students was made by US universities rather than by Qing Imperial government or by wealth (after 1925). This shift means that the current students’ qualifications are based on their academic records and are likely to be higher than those of the nineteenth century or the early twentieth century (Wang 1992).

Chinese Students’ Motivation to Study Abroad

Once China opened its door to the rest of the world, the positive images of the West held before 1949 have returned with fast speed. With more contact with the West after 1979, the negative depiction of the West as Western imperialists before and during the Cultural Revolution quickly evaporated and was replaced with positive images, especially among the educated. The glorifying remarks about the West’s advancement and regretful emotion about China’s backwardness were pervasive in both the public media and private discussion. With increasing complaints about conditions at home and highly idealized descriptions of the outside world, China became caught in a fever of going abroad (Chen 1988). Wang (1992) pointed out the fad of studying abroad is strongly “push oriented.” According to him, individuals face little choice when the images of America are nourished by conditions of poverty at home. On one hand, they are frustrated by the insufficient opportunities to realize their potential in China, and on the other hand, they are pushed to study abroad by the “zealous valorization of American culture, education, and technology” (Zhao 2005).

The empirical study by Brzezinski (1994) explored the underlying reasons which drive Chinese students to study abroad. Based on his findings, the attraction of studying in the United States was expressed by Chinese students in terms of gaining prestige, an intrinsic-personal attraction, and as a way to get into a system perceived as more fair. Their motives were highly instrumental.

Brzezinski argued that for Chinese students, Chinese society seems to attribute a form of cultural capital to intellectuals with an experience abroad. Western know-how apparently provides better access to promotions and to certain positions. In Chinese students’ eyes, the Chinese society in general and the Chinese manpower system of promotions in particular encourage students to study abroad. The diploma, for instance, earned in Western-developed countries, such as the United States, is a glorious emblem of prestige, one deemed superior to the equivalent degree earned at home. In order to obtain meaningful positions and possible promotions in Chinese intellectual circles, Chinese students believe that they cannot afford to be without the cultural capital attributed to a study abroad experience (Brzezinski 1994). In the minds of Chinese students, status and societal respect as it related to educational achievement and prestige shifted from a Chinese university education to foreign education. If one desires to have a respected position within the Chinese intellectual community, Western knowledge and an experience abroad are essential for maximizing one’s potential.

The attraction of studying abroad was also viewed as a way to get into a system which was perceived as more fair, according to Brzezinski. Politically, the network system and manpower policies in China are specific forms of political constraint influencing Chinese students’ decision to study abroad. Chinese students view the American and Chinese system as diametric opposites. They believe personal goals can be best met via the merit-based system in the United States, one that they view as being primarily based on competition. This was contrasted with self-directed goals being met through relationships in their homeland. Since students felt they could get trapped in an occupation and because family and personal network is more important than merit, the system was resented. Based on the empirical findings, Brzezinski (1994) concluded that political constraint and internal, cultural-personal factors worked together to propel students abroad.

Besides the factors mentioned by Brzezinski (1994), some emerging factors driving mainland Chinese to study in the United States came into play during the late 2000s and early 2010s. The stream of students leaving the country represents an effort by China to facilitate the education of students that their institutions don’t have the capacity to enroll. College-age individuals in higher education increased from 1.4 % in 1978 to more than 20  % in the twenty-first century in China (Schuster 2013). The prestige of US institutions provides significant appeal especially when Chinese universities could not meet the domestic demand. Total undergraduate students from China jumped 257  % between 2009 and 2013 in the United States (Institute of International Education 2013). Chinese students are slightly overrepresented at American colleges in terms of global population ratios. College-age Chinese adults make up about 20  % of all college-age adults in the world (outside of the United States), but represent almost 30  % of all foreign students in the United States (Newman 2014).

Foreign study movements also reflect the bleak job market in China and the force of globalization across the world. Chinese students are seeking American credentials primarily to expand their career opportunities. On the one hand, facing the ever-increasing unemployment rate among college graduates, Chinese students are increasingly aware that obtaining a basic university diploma no longer guarantees decent jobs and good incomes (Lin 2010). A foreign degree can therefore be helpful for individuals who are anxious to differentiate themselves. They expect that a degree from a prestigious college in the United States will give them an edge over others in searching for a job. On the other hand, globalization is driving this increasing number of students who go abroad, because studying abroad will give them the opportunity to be educated for a global marketplace. A US education offers students a global perspective and different experiences, where soft skills vital to the global business world such as leadership, decision-making, and working in teams are emphasized and are often lacking in a Chinese university’s curriculum. The international exposure and the skills that they have acquired while studying abroad give students an advantage in terms of compensations and promotions (Luan 2012).

In addition to the factors mentioned above, social and peer pressure is found to be another significant factor propelling Chinese students for overseas study (Li 1993; Cao 1997). According to a qualitative study conducted at Columbia University, 14 mainland Chinese students mentioned that they were influenced by friends and relatives who had already gone abroad or they felt pressure in their work units because of the departure of their colleagues (Cao 1997).

Chinese Students’ Group-Level Acculturation Features in America

According to Berry’s acculturation framework (Berry 1997), group-level acculturation means that migrant (sojourner) groups usually change substantially as a result of living with two sets of cultural influences. These macro-level changes include economic changes, social changes, culture changes, language shifts, religious conversions, and value systems. This section discusses Chinese students’ acculturation features in terms of group-level factors such as culture, social life, and employment and immigration issues.

Culture and Ethnic Relations in America

Berry (1997) argued that the acculturation process is influenced by both societal and individual variables. The discriminating features of the receiving society such as ethnic composition, extent of cultural pluralism, and salient attitudes toward ethnic and cultural out-groups are particularly important. Thus, it is necessary to provide a brief picture about the culture relations in America before discussing Chinese students’ group-level acculturation features.

America has characteristics of a “world.” America is an ideal laboratory of modern cultural relations “given its lack of a centralizing cultural tradition, its acceptance of humanistic ideas such as freedom and democracy, its obsession with technology, and nationalism based on pride in these ideas and on economic power” (Wang 1992, p. 24). The culture and ethnic relations in a modern society characterized by rapid acculturation and group identity disintegration hold true for America.

On one hand, assimilation in America is increasingly an ideal rather than a reality. Structural assimilation, the entrance of immigrants into primary group relations with the dominant people, for example, has rarely occurred in American society (Gordon 1964). The transition from “melting pot ideals” to the acceptance of cultural pluralism, “mixed salad ideals,” reflects changing American cultural relations as a result of modernization in American society in the past two centuries (Archdeacon 1984)

On the other hand, American society has become increasingly homogeneous in terms of behavior and lifestyle. America excels in its power of acculturation. Forces of acculturation, represented by technology and a highly interdependent industrial lifestyle, are omnipresent and overwhelming; few can escape from them (Wang 1992).

Taken together, cultural interaction in America changes the behavior and lifestyle, but not the ethnic identity or ideology of different ethnic groups or social classes. Not surprisingly, acculturation in America is largely an individual effort; it is perceived as a choice made by the individual rather than a change forced by the society (Handlin 1951). The individual takes the risks and reaps the benefits of the change.

Chinese Students’ Group-Level Acculturation Features

Culture Features

Most Chinese students’ cross-cultural experiences have been one of confusion, uncertainty, and hastened adjustment. Marginal syndrome characterized most Chinese abroad and many of them are caught between their Chinese root and Western ideas. While expressing enthusiasm about Western ideas, real Western life is strange and alienating, and most Chinese students abroad cling to their native roots and demonstrate sojourner mentalities (Wang 1992). On the other hand, while longing for the native land and family culture, after years of study in the United States, students develop a special and deep feeling toward America and the brain drain phenomena has become an increasingly severe result of the contemporary foreign study movement (Xu 2006).

Culturally, sociocultural challenge in America is real and unavoidable, most Chinese students are caught in a deep dilemma of needing to change, and while at the same time, they are unable or unwilling to change. Most Chinese students’ responses to the American sociocultural challenge have been at a higher level of assimilation for their extrinsic cultural traits such as overt behaviors, dress, manners, lifestyle, and English language skills than for their intrinsic cultural traits including religious beliefs, ethnic values, and cultural heritage. They present an Americanized exterior while maintaining a Chinese interior.

Most of them end up ambiguous in their cultural existence, vacillating between Chinese culture and American culture, identifying with neither, nor, for that matter, being accepted by either. In most cases, their sense of cultural identity is substituted by scientific and economic pursuits. Little cultural reflection is conducted, as most students are more concerned about their personal survival (Wang 1992).

Social Features

America is strange and alien to most Chinese students. The strangeness of American life is either due to the short length of their experience in America or due to the enormous difference between the two cultures. High admiration of the West is mostly based on an affinity of Western science and humanitarian ideas, not real cultural participation and religious encounters (Wang 1992). Chinese students are strongly attached to China in social, cultural, and patriotic terms, and there is no change in identity while in America. Strong ties to home combined with a lack of knowledge about America leads to the severe social isolation (Xu 2006).

On one hand, Chinese students’ social interactions with American people tend to be limited. Most of them are socially isolated from Americans and immerse themselves in abstract technical learning (Chen 1979). On the other hand, most of them are structurally or socially segregated on a voluntary basis. They speak Mandarin Chinese and associate primarily with fellow Chinese students or those of similar socioeconomic status in their ethnic community (Tsai 1986). As a result, Chinese students inevitably are caught in a deep spiritual conflict between the professional world which is Western and Americanized and the private world which is related to Oriental and Chinese (Yeh 2000).

Student communities or Chinese associations in the United States are loosely organized and mainly engaged in academic matters, their work dependent on American academic atmosphere and research facilities, with very little organized communication with Chinese associations in China (Zhao 2005).

Employment and Immigration

Uncertainty about their future employment opportunities and immigration status is prevalent among the Chinese student population in the United States. Students’ strong sense of uncertainty results partly from their uncertain employment future and immigration status in the United States. After 9/11, the American job market is not promising because of the nation’s economic slump. No matter how capable a person is, without a green card, prospective employees find it difficult to land an interview (Xu 2006). In addition to the bleak job market, their uncertainty is enhanced by the instability of American immigration law. American immigrant policy is known for its ambivalence and unpredictability (Yeh 2000). Changes in immigration policy have been frequent and unpredictable. For instance, on June 13, 2007, the Department of State announced that starting July 2007, all employment-based categories for immigrant visas will be “current,” meaning that US businesses going through the lengthy and backlogged immigrant visa or “green card” process can, throughout July, file adjustment of status applications. However, only 20 days later, on July 02, 2007, the Department of State revised its July Visa Bulletin published on June 13 and rejected all the applications (Visa Bulletin 2007). Facing this type of unpredictable policy, most Chinese students realize that immigration is not impossible, it is difficult.

On the other hand, the changing Chinese economy and Chinese peoples’ attitudes toward returning students make them gradually less favorable in the Chinese job market. According to Xu (2006), the deprecation of returning students has been caused by a combination of three factors: (1) the steep rise in the number of returnees as the Chinese economy has boomed in recent years, (2) the growth of homebred talent, and 3) the returning students’ unreasonably high expectations and lack of working experiences. As a result, a strong sense of uncertainty characterized most Chinese students regarding the prospects of returning to China.

In terms of stay or return, in addition to employment and immigration consideration, sociocultural factors are taken into consideration in making final decisions. Due to their strong roots in China, to cultural alienation in America, and to the recency of their American experience, return expectations in the short term are low, while long-term intentions of staying in America are not high.