Your essay resonated deeply with me. Thank you for sharing such a sharp analysis of the identity-based contradictions you faced as a Filipino American applying for STEM-focused funding. Your point about the monolithic "Asian American" category erasing Southeast Asian experiences is critically important.

I’d like to add one layer to your reflection: this issue may extend beyond the need for disaggregated racial data and point toward a deeper structural imbalance—the unequal value our society places on STEM versus the humanities and social sciences (HSS).

Your advisor’s question—“Are you eligible?”—likely emerged from a context where:

1. A shifting labor market has reinforced the stereotype that “Asian Americans belong in STEM.”

2. Diversity in HSS fields like social psychology is often treated as less urgent or valuable than in STEM.

3. As a result, policies treat “Asian Americans” as a monolith already succeeding in STEM, completely overlooking the reality of HSS scholars like you from underrepresented Asian subgroups.

While data disaggregation is essential, we must also ask a more fundamental question: Why do we assume certain racial groups “belong” in certain academic fields? This speaks to what kinds of knowledge and insight our society chooses to value and support.

Your path as a social psychologist can help demonstrate the importance of HSS—and the diversity within it—even in a STEM-prioritizing world. I hope your work contributes not only to better racial data practices but also to a broader rethinking of hierarchies between disciplines.

Wishing you continued courage and impact in your research.

"Deeply resonate! As a Ph.D. in AI Engineering, I’m investigating the 'AI Paradox'—where technological acceleration causes systemic deadlocks in education and labor. Beyond the 'tech vs. social' dichotomy, I apply nonlinear modeling to decipher these structural dynamics. My initial study is under peer review, and I’ve launched a large-scale global analysis to further this critique."