<p>
</p>
<p>You can be white, black, almost anything and fit this description. While it certainly leans towards the Chinese, if you’re some white kid who was raised by former longtime China expats in Miami, you might grow up understanding Chinese.</p>
<p>Or, the child who had those parents who try to force their kid to learn every language when the child is two months old, would probably fit in here as well.</p>
<p>
Again, you don’t have to be Asian to be born in a Chinese-speaking country. When I was at Plattsburgh, and did foreign exchange assignments, I was assigned to a black girl, born and raised in Japan and knew nothing outside of Japanese culture.</p>
<p>I assume they make this distinction because, while these courses are more advanced, it makes sense. It’s like someone who knows English, may or may not be fluent in it – but knows enough, being required to take the most basic English course to re-learn the alphabet.
They’ve probably been there, done that, and it’s not going to improve their English proficiency to learn something they already know—which defeats the purpose of college.</p>
<p>That said, I don’t agree with requiring a student to take these “heritage” classes instead of the standard Chinese class. It should be an available option should the student decide the “non-heritage” is too simple for them.</p>
<p>What they’re (attempting) to do is assume a student’s skill level, so it’s still based on skill, despite whether their assumption is correct.</p>