The War On Asian-American Students' Success: Harvard Affirmative Action Lawsuit Goes To Trial

Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Arkain2K, Oct 12, 2015.

  1. Arkain2K

    Arkain2K Si vis pacem, para bellum

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    25,046
    Likes Received:
    14,978
    Location:
    Orange County, California.
    Thread Index:
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2018
  2. Arkain2K

    Arkain2K Si vis pacem, para bellum

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    25,046
    Likes Received:
    14,978
    Location:
    Orange County, California.
    To make elite schools ‘fair,’ New York city will punish poor Asian-American students
    By Dennis Saffran | The New York Post | July 19, 2014

    [​IMG]

    In 2004, 7-year-old Ting Shi arrived in New York from China, speaking almost no English. For two years, he shared a bedroom in a Chinatown apartment with his grandparents — a cook and a factory worker — and a young cousin, while his parents put in 12-hour days at a small laundromat they had purchased on the Upper East Side.

    Ting mastered English and eventually set his sights on getting into Stuyvesant High School, the crown jewel of New York City’s eight “specialized high schools.”

    When he was in sixth grade, he took the subway downtown from his parents’ small apartment to the bustling high school to pick up prep books for its eighth-grade entrance exam. He prepared for the test over the next two years, working through the prep books and taking classes at one of the city’s free tutoring programs. His acceptance into Stuyvesant prompted a day of celebration at the laundromat — an immigrant family’s dream beginning to come true.

    Ting, now a 17-year-old senior starting at NYU in the fall, says of his parents, who never went to college: “They came here for the next generation.”

    The plot against merit

    [​IMG]
    Bronx High School of Science
    New York’s specialized high schools, including Stuyvesant and the equally storied Bronx High School of Science, along with Brooklyn Technical High School and five smaller schools, have produced 14 Nobel laureates — more than most countries.

    For more than 70 years, admission to these schools has been based upon a competitive examination of math, verbal and logical reasoning skills. In 1971, the state legislature, heading off city efforts to scrap the merit selection test as culturally biased against minorities, reaffirmed that admission to the schools be based on the competitive exam.

    But now, troubled by declining black and Hispanic enrollment at the schools, opponents of the exam have resurfaced. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund has filed a civil-rights complaint challenging the admissions process. A bill in Albany to eliminate the test requirement has garnered the support of Sheldon Silver, the powerful Assembly speaker.

    And new Mayor Bill de Blasio, whose son, Dante, attends Brooklyn Tech, has called for changing the admissions criteria. The mayor argues that relying solely on the test creates a “rich-get-richer” dynamic that benefits the wealthy, who can afford expensive test preparation.

    As Ting’s story illustrates, however, the reality is just the opposite. It’s not affluent whites, but rather the city’s burgeoning population of Asian-American immigrants — a group that, despite its successes, remains disproportionately poor and working-class — whose children have aced the exam in overwhelming numbers.

    And, ironically, the more “holistic” and subjective admissions criteria that de Blasio and the NAACP favor would be much more likely to benefit children of the city’s professional elite than African-American and Latino applicants — while penalizing lower-middle-class Asian-American kids like Ting. The result would not be a specialized high school student body that “looks like New York,” but rather one that looks more like Bill de Blasio’s upscale Park Slope neighborhood in Brooklyn.

    Asian-American success

    [​IMG]
    Brooklyn Technical High School

    There is no dispute that black and Latino enrollment at the specialized schools, while always low, has steadily declined since the 1970s.

    Blacks constituted 13 percent of the student body at Stuyvesant in 1979, 5 percent in 1994 and just 1 percent the last few years, while Hispanics dropped from a high of 4 percent to 2 percent today.

    Similarly, at Bronx Science, black enrollment has fallen from 12 percent in 1994 to 3 percent currently and Hispanic enrollment has leveled off, from about 10 percent to 6 percent. The figures are even more striking at the less selective Brooklyn Tech, where blacks made up 37 percent of the student body in 1994 but only 8 percent today, while Hispanic numbers plunged from about 15 percent to 8 percent.

    These declining minority numbers have not been matched by a corresponding increase in whites, however. In fact, white enrollment at Stuyvesant, Bronx Science and Brooklyn Tech has plummeted as well, dropping from 79 percent, 81 percent and 77 percent, respectively, in 1971 to just 22 percent, 23 percent and 20 percent today.

    Rather, it is New York City’s fastest-growing racial minority group, Asian-Americans, who have come to dominate these schools. Asians, while always a presence in New York, didn’t begin arriving in the city in large numbers until immigration restrictions were lifted with passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, championed by Sen. Edward Kennedy.

    Since then, their proportion of the city’s population has increased from less than 1 percent to about 13 percent, and their share of the specialized school population has skyrocketed. Asian students constituted 6 percent of the enrollment at Stuyvesant in 1970 and 50 percent in 1994; they make up an incredible 73 percent of the student body this year.

    The story is similar at Bronx Science, where the Asian population has exploded from 5 percent in 1970 to 41 percent in 1994 to 62 percent today, and at Brooklyn Tech, where their presence increased from 6 percent to 33 percent to 61 percent.

    The ‘rich’ fallacy

    [​IMG]
    Fiorello LaGuardia High School for the Performing Arts on the Upper West Side is another of NYC’s specialized high schools.

    Asians in New York are overwhelmingly first- and second-generation; some three-quarters of the students at Stuyvesant are immigrants or the children of immigrants.

    They’re hardly affluent, notwithstanding de Blasio’s implication that families who get their kids into the specialized schools are “rich.”

    True, Asians nationally have the highest median income of any racial group, including whites — and in New York City, their median household income ranks second to that of whites and well ahead of blacks and Hispanics.

    But Asians also have the highest poverty rate of any racial group in New York, with 29 percent living below the poverty level, compared with 26 percent of Hispanics, 23 percent of blacks and 14 percent of whites. Poor Asians lag far behind whites and are barely ahead of blacks and Latinos. Thus, the income spectrum among Asians in New York ranges from a surprisingly large number in poverty, through a hardworking lower middle class, and on to a more affluent upper middle class.

    It might seem reasonable to assume — as de Blasio and others apparently do — that the Asian kids at the specialized schools come largely from families at the top of this pyramid. But this isn’t the case.

    Half the students at the specialized high schools qualify for free or subsidized school lunches, including 47 percent at Stuyvesant and 48 percent at Bronx Science — figures that have increased correspondingly with Asians’ rising numbers at these schools. Based upon these figures, Stuyvesant and Bronx Science (as well as four of the other six specialized schools) are eligible for federal Title I funding, given to schools with large numbers of low-income students.

    Think about that: Two public high schools that, along with half their students, are officially classified as poor by the federal government rival the most exclusive prep schools in the world.

    The poor students get into such schools through hard work and sacrifice — both their own and that of their parents. The students typically attend local tutoring programs, which proliferate in Asian neighborhoods, starting the summer after sixth grade and for several days a week, including weekends, during the school year prior to the test. The costs are burdensome for poor and working families, but it’s a matter of priorities.

    A liberal nightmare

    [​IMG]
    Stuyvesant High School
    All this once would have been the stuff of liberal dreams: A racial minority group historically victimized by discrimination begins coming to America in greater numbers because of an immigration reform sponsored by Ted Kennedy. Though many in the group remain in poverty, they take advantage of free public schools established by progressive New York City governments. By dint of their own hard work, they earn admission in increasing numbers to merit-based schools that offer smart working-class kids the kind of education once available only at Andover or Choate.

    To modern “progressive” elites, though, the story is intolerable, starting with the hard work. These liberal elites seem particularly troubled by the Asian-American work ethic and the difficult questions that it raises about the role of culture in group success.

    While the advancement of Asian students has come overwhelmingly at the expense of more affluent whites, it has also had an undeniable impact on black and Latino students, whose foothold at these schools, small to begin with, has all but vanished.

    Alarm at this development has triggered a new wave of assaults upon the entrance exam — now known as the Specialized High School Admissions Test (“SHSAT”) — and the law that mandates its use.

    In September 2012, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund filed a complaint with the US Department of Education, which dispenses federal educational funding to the city, charging that use of the SHSAT as the sole basis for admission violates Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination by federal aid recipients.

    The complaint does not allege that the exam intentionally discriminates against black and Hispanic students. Instead, citing statistics regarding declining black and Latino enrollment and SHSAT pass rates, the LDF bases its argument entirely on the theory of “disparate impact” — that is, that discrimination should be inferred merely from racial differences in test scores.

    In the complaint and in a subsequent report released last fall to coincide with de Blasio’s election, the LDF argues for replacement of the SHSAT with a “holistic” admissions process — one that would consider “multiple measures” of academic potential, “both quantitative and qualitative,” including not only grades but also such subjective indicators as interviews, recommendations, “portfolio assessments,” “proven leadership skills” and “commitment to community service.”

    Other factors could include applicants’ “backgrounds and experiences” and the “demographic profile” of their schools and neighborhoods. To the extent that a test would be allowed at all, it would merely “supplement” these other criteria. The LDF also called for guaranteed admission for valedictorians and salutatorians, and perhaps other top students, at each public middle school program — a proposal that sounds modest but would actually require a set-aside of at least 1,000 of the 3,800 seats in each class.

    Subjective backfire


    [​IMG]

    Such subjective admissions criteria would be likelier to favor the kids of New York’s professional class than children from less affluent backgrounds.

    De Blasio suggested, for example, that a student’s extracurricular activities should be one of the selection factors. But as a past president of the Stuyvesant Parents Association noted, “the kids that have the best résumés in seventh and eighth grades have money.”

    A Chinese student like Ting Shi who has to help out in his parents’ laundromat is not going on “service” trips to Nicaragua with the children in de Blasio’s affluent Park Slope neighborhood. The LDF’s suggested admissions criteria — student portfolios, leadership skills and community service — are all subject to privileged parents’ ability to buy their children the indicia of impressiveness.

    Ironically, eliminating the SHSAT would magnify the role of what progressives call “unconscious bias” — the idea that we have a preference for those who look like us and share our backgrounds. Subjective evaluation measures like interviews and portfolio reviews are much more susceptible to such bias than is an objective examination.

    Sure, the decision makers will do their best to admit a few more black and Latino kids (especially those from the same upper-middle-class backgrounds), but the primary beneficiaries will be affluent white students who didn’t study hard enough to perform really well on the test but seem more “well-rounded” than those who did. As always, the losers in this top-bottom squeeze will be the lower middle and working classes. Among the applicant pool for the specialized high schools, that means Asians.

    Comparing the specialized schools with other selective city high schools that don’t use the SHSAT bears this out. These “screened” high schools are, to varying degrees, more selective than regular neighborhood high schools; they choose students using the multiple criteria supported by SHSAT critics.

    A comparison of the eight most selective screened schools with the eight specialized schools shows that the screened schools, while more heavily black and Latino, are also considerably whiter and more affluent — and considerably less Asian.

    Remember that the specialized schools are 13 percent black and Hispanic, 24 percent white and 60 percent Asian. The top screened schools are 27 percent black and Hispanic, 46 percent white and only 26 percent Asian. And while 50 percent of the students at the specialized schools qualify for free or reduced-price lunches, only 37 percent of the students at the top screened schools do.

    Subjective selection criteria also inevitably favor the affluent and connected — as a comptroller’s audit of the screened-school admissions process revealed. The study found that most of the schools examined did not follow their stated selection criteria and could not explain the criteria that they actually did use.

    There is also a big difference between evaluating 17-year-old college applicants and 13-year-old high-school applicants. The younger candidates have had far less opportunity to distinguish themselves on such vague qualities as “character” and “leadership.” A selection process based on these intangibles can easily fall prey to arbitrariness, prejudice and parental gamesmanship.

    Critics of the SHSAT will reply that something must be done about declining black and Hispanic enrollment at the specialized high schools. The answer, however, can never be to lower objective standards.

    Adopting this cynical approach would do no favors for black and Latino children, while opening the door to discrimination against Asian kids like Ting. It is not the specialized schools’ emphasis on merit, but rather the advocates’ defeatist worldview that is truly — and tragically — wrongheaded.

    http://nypost.com/2014/07/19/why-nycs-push-to-change-school-admissions-will-punish-poor-asians/
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2018
  3. Arkain2K

    Arkain2K Si vis pacem, para bellum

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    25,046
    Likes Received:
    14,978
    Location:
    Orange County, California.
    *duplicate*
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2018
  4. Arkain2K

    Arkain2K Si vis pacem, para bellum

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    25,046
    Likes Received:
    14,978
    Location:
    Orange County, California.
    From NYC to Harvard: The war on Asian-American success
    By Betsy McCaughey | Dec 29, 2015

    [​IMG]
    Stuyvesant High School

    The year 2015 was a dismal one for American public education — at least by the numbers.

    But don’t blame the kids. Parents are missing in action.

    Except most Asian-American parents, that is. They tend to oversee their children’s homework, stress the importance of earning high grades and instill the belief that hard work is the ticket to a better life.

    And it pays off. Their children are soaring academically.

    The outrage is that instead of embracing the example of these Asian families, school authorities and non-Asian parents want to rig the system to hold them back. It’s happening here in New York City, in suburban New Jersey and across the nation.

    As a group, Americans need to take a page from the Asian parents’ playbook. American teens rank a dismal 28th in math and science knowledge, compared with teens in other countries — even poor countries. Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan are at the top.

    We’ve slumped. For the first time in 25 years, US scores on the main test for elementary and middle school education fell. And SAT scores for college-bound students dropped significantly.

    Could changes in these tests be to blame? That convenient excuse was torpedoed by the stellar performances of Asian-American students. Even though many come from poor or immigrant families, they outscore all other students by large margins on both tests, and their lead keeps widening.

    Here in New York City, Asian-Americans make up 13 percent of students, yet they win more than half of the coveted places each year at the city’s selective public high schools, such as Bronx Science and Stuyvesant.

    What’s at play here? It’s not a difference in IQ; it’s parenting. That’s confirmed by a recent study by sociologists from City University of New York and the University of Michigan, which showed that parental oversight enabled Asian-American students to far outperform the others.

    No wonder many successful charter schools require parents to sign a pledge that they’ll supervise their children’s homework and encourage a strong work ethic.

    That formula is under fire at the West Windsor-Plainsboro Regional School District in New Jersey. The district, which is 65 percent Asian, routinely produces seniors with perfect SAT scores, admissions to MIT and top prizes in international science competitions.

    But many non-Asian parents are up in arms, complaining there’s too much pressure and their kids can’t compete. In response, this fall Superintendent David Aderhold apologized that school had become a “perpetual achievement machine.” Heaven forbid!

    Aderhold canceled accelerated and enriched math courses for fourth and fifth grades, which were 90 percent Asian, and eliminated midterms and finals in high school.

    Using a word that already strikes terror in the hearts of Asian parents, he said schools had to take a “holistic” approach. That’s the same euphemism Harvard uses to limit the number of Asians accepted and favor non-Asians.

    Aderhold even lowered standards for playing in school music programs. Students have a “right to squeak,” he insisted. Never mind whether they practice.

    Of course, neither Aderhold nor parents in charge of sports are indulging nonathletic kids with a “right to fumble” and join a mostly non-Asian varsity football team.

    Meanwhile, in New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio and the NAACP want to reduce the role the competitive exam plays in admissions for the city’s eight selective high schools in favor of a “holistic” approach. That means robbing poor, largely immigrant and first-generation kids — nearly half the students get subsidized school lunches — of the chance to study hard and compete for a world-class education.

    As Dennis Saffran explains in “The Plot Against Merit,” some Asian-American eighth-graders practice for two years for the test, while their parents toil in laundromats and restaurants to pay for exam-prep classes.

    What’s stopping white, Hispanic and black parents from doing the same thing?

    Betsy McCaughey is a senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research.
    http://nypost.com/2015/12/29/from-nyc-to-harvard-the-war-on-asian-success/
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2018
  5. Arkain2K

    Arkain2K Si vis pacem, para bellum

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    25,046
    Likes Received:
    14,978
    Location:
    Orange County, California.
    The model minority is losing patience
    Oct 3rd 2015

    [​IMG]

    Asian-Americans are the United States' most successful minority, but they are complaining ever more vigorously about discrimination, especially in academia

    MICHAEL WANG, a young Californian, came second in his class of 1,002 students; his ACT score was 36, the maximum possible; he sang at Barack Obama’s inauguration; he got third place in a national piano contest; he was in the top 150 of a national maths competition; he was in several national debating-competition finals. But when it came to his university application he faced a serious disappointment for the first time in his glittering career. He was rejected by six of the seven Ivy League colleges to which he applied.

    “I saw people less qualified than me get better offers,” says Mr Wang. “At first I was just angry. Then I decided to turn that anger to productive use.” He wrote to the universities concerned. “I asked: what more could I have done to get into your college? Was it based on race, or what was it based on?” He got vague responses—or none. So he complained to the Department of Education. Nothing came of it. “The department said they needed a smoking gun.”

    In May this year Mr Wang joined a group of 64 Asian-American organisations that made a joint complaint to the Department of Education against Harvard, alleging racial discrimination. That follows a lawsuit filed last year against Harvard and the University of North Carolina by a group of Asian-American students making similar charges. The department rejected the claim in July, but another two complaints have since been filed by Asian-Americans, one against Harvard and one against nine other universities.

    On October 3rd 1965 President Lyndon Johnson signed the Immigration and Nationality Act into law, sweeping away a system that favoured white Europeans over other races. One of its main consequences was the beginning of mass immigration to America from Asia. By most indicators, these incomers have done better than any other ethnic minority group. Indeed, they have long been described as the “model minority”: prosperous, well-educated and quiescent. But there are problems, as a result of which they are becoming somewhat less quiescent than they once were.

    Before the 1965 act, the experience of Asian-American immigrants had not been entirely happy. The largest mass lynching in American history, in 1871, in which 17 Chinese were murdered; the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which prohibited Chinese immigration; the internment of 120,000 Japanese-Americans in the second world war, when relatively few German- or Italian-Americans were interned: all were symptoms of a racism that was reserved not just for African-Americans.

    [​IMG]

    Things changed after the war. The Chinese and Indians were seen as allies, and the internment of Japanese came to be seen as wrong. As the civil-rights campaign changed attitudes to race, the new immigration act enabled people to be admitted on the basis of skills and family relationships. Asia’s large population and fast-developing economies have meant an abundant supply of skilled aspirant Americans. In 2013 the numbers of both Chinese and Indian migrants overtook Mexicans for the first time.

    Asia being a big place, Asian-Americans are a various lot, who came at different times, for different reasons and with different levels of education and prosperity. The Japanese mostly arrived before the second world war, the Chinese from the 1980s onwards. The Indians and Chinese are on average well educated and prosperous, whereas the (small numbers of) Cambodians, Laotians and Hmong are struggling. The Japanese—the only Asian group mostly born in America and more likely than not to marry a non-Asian—are closer in attitudes and educational level to the American population as a whole. But on average Asian-Americans are unusually well educated, prosperous, married, satisfied with their lot and willing to believe in the American dream: 69% of Asians, compared with 58% of the general public, think that “most people who want to get ahead can make it if they are willing to work hard.”

    [​IMG]

    It is their educational outperformance that is most remarkable: 49% of Asian-Americans have a bachelor’s degree, compared with 28% of the general population. Whereas Asian-Americans make up 5.6% of the population of the United States, according to the complaint to the Department of Education they make up more than 30% of the recent American maths and physics Olympiad teams and Presidential Scholars, and 25-30% of National Merit Scholarships. Among those offered admission in 2013 to New York’s most selective public high schools, Stuyvesant High School and Bronx High School of Science, 75% and 60% respectively were Asian. The Asian population of New York City is 13%. Surging immigration is likely to increase the disparity between Asians and other groups, because recent immigrants are even more highly qualified than earlier cohorts: 61% of recent immigrants from Asia have a bachelor’s degree, compared with 30% of recent non-Asian migrants.

    [​IMG]

    Why do they do so well? Amy Hsin of the City University of New York and Yu Xie of the University of Michigan examined the progress of 6,000 white and Asian children, from toddlers through school, to find an answer. They rejected the idea that Asians were just innately much cleverer than whites: there was an early gap in cognitive abilities, but it declined to insignificance through school. The higher socioeconomic status of Asian parents provided part of the explanation, but only a small part. Their data suggested that Asian outperformance is thanks in large part to hard work. Ms Hsin and Ms Xie’s study showed a sizeable gap in effort between Asian and white children, which grew during their school careers.

    When the researchers asked the children about their attitudes to work, two differences emerged between Asian and white children. The Asians were likelier to believe that mathematical ability is learned, not innate; and Asian parents expected more of their children than white ones did. The notion that A- is an “Asian F” is widespread. Another study, by Zurishaddai Garcia of the University of Utah, shows that Asian-American parents are a lot likelier to spend at least 20 minutes a day helping their children with their homework than any other ethnic group.

    In “The Asian American Achievement Paradox”, a study based on interviews with young Chinese and Vietnamese in Los Angeles, as well as Mexicans, whites and blacks, Jennifer Lee and Min Zhou argue that it is not just what happens at home that matters. They point to “ethnic capital”—the fact that these groups belong to communities that support education—as part of the explanation.

    The Asian-American interviewees recall wearily their parents dangling the PhDs of cousins and neighbours in front of them. Being part of an entrepreneurial society helps. The four-inch-thick Southern California Chinese Yellow Pages, which lists Chinese businesses, offers thousands of listings for Chinese-run SAT prep and tutoring services. Close links to the motherland are also an advantage, to parents at least. Children who rebel may be threatened with being sent to stay with family in China, and they know from relations there that teenagers in America, even Asian ones, get off relatively lightly compared with those in China.

    Thanks to such pressures and hard work, many Asian-Americans do end up in top universities—but not as many as their high-school performance would seem to merit. Some Asians allege that the Ivy Leagues have put an implicit limit on the number of Asians they will admit. They point to Asians’ soaring academic achievements and to the work of Thomas Espenshade and Alexandria Walton Radford of Princeton, who looked at the data on admissions and concluded that Asian-Americans need 140 SAT points out of 1,600 more than whites to get a place at a private university, and that blacks need 310 fewer points. Yet in California, where public universities are allowed to use economic but not racial criteria in admissions, 41% of Berkeley’s enrolments in 2014 were Asian-Americans and at the California Institute of Technology 44% were (see chart).

    [​IMG]

    Racial prejudice of the sort that Jews faced may or may not be part of the problem, but affirmative action certainly is. Top universities tend to admit blacks and Hispanics with lower scores because of their history of disadvantage; and once the legacies, the sports stars, the politically well-connected and the rich people likely to donate new buildings (few of whom tend to be Asian) have been allotted their places, the number for people who are just high achievers is limited. Since the Ivies will not stop giving places to the privileged, because their finances depend on the generosity of the rich, the argument homes in on affirmative action.

    Several states have banned the use of race as a criterion for admission to their public institutions and there have been several lawsuits against affirmative action. One, brought by Abigail Fisher (who is white) against the University of Texas, has been ricocheting between the Supreme Court and lower courts for seven years; in June the Supreme Court agreed to hear her appeal. In September, 117 Asian-American outfits under the umbrella of the Asian-American Coalition for Education filed a brief to back Ms Fisher. That case’s outcome will bear on the one brought by the group of Asian students against Harvard and the University of North Carolina. Given that several Supreme Court judges, including John Roberts, the chief justice, are unsympathetic to affirmative action, the court seems quite likely to rule against it.


    Read the full article at:
    http://www.economist.com/news/brief...successful-minority-they-are-complaining-ever
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2018
    Jackie Blue and Senkoy like this.
  6. Thunderflash500

    Thunderflash500 Double Yellow Card Double Yellow Card Yellow Card Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    10,853
    I had a race and ethnic studies teacher who was really butthurt about Asians. Every time she'd give some reason it's impossible for Black's to be successful like they are poor, don't have have white priveledge act. Then someone would say "what about Asian immigrants" and she'd get all pissy. Then she actually blamed Asians for making blacks feel bad and that held them back too. I actually completely don't blame Black's for failing. They are people like anyone else. So you have to look at why they do. It's culture. Why do they have the culture they do? Partly because of white people, politics, slavery, it all plays a role. I don't blame them at all. But I think we need all begin to recognize that culture does drive success or failure in different ways. Everything is based on culture. And most people act like culture doesn't even exist. They think they hold thoughts they do just because it's common sense. Now I'm rambling...
     
  7. wcisdoomed

    wcisdoomed Orange Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2015
    Messages:
    488
    Likes Received:
    302
    You're right about culture. Change that and everything will correct itself.
     
    MPD-Psycho likes this.
  8. wlu29

    wlu29 Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    19,705
    Likes Received:
    2,184
    Always hating on Asians
     
    Denter and HunterSdVa29 like this.
  9. nostradumbass

    nostradumbass Gold Belt

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,923
    Likes Received:
    24,833
    It's about time those Asians had their white privilege checked.
     
  10. Orgasmo

    Orgasmo Red Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2013
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    11,248
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    They do very often, but they also have a lot more financial freedom later on in life to do whatever they are into. I have Asian friends that studied their asses off in high school and university with very little play time. Now they make 6 figure salaries in high profile companies and they are living it up.

    It's not rocket science. Work hard and get rewarded later.
     
    MPD-Psycho and Arkain2K like this.
  11. Michaelangelo

    Michaelangelo Genetic Jackhammer Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    24,026
    Likes Received:
    36,095
    must be the sushi
     
    Jackie Blue likes this.
  12. Warlord Palis

    Warlord Palis ♔ Lord of Jameson

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    19,546
    Likes Received:
    21,303
    Location:
    ✌ @King_Palis
    Pretty sad article. It's disgusting this type of shit is allowed and encouraged. Sorry but, no matter who it is, race or sex, the hardest workers deserve the rewards.
     
  13. Rod1

    Rod1 Yellow Card Yellow Card

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2010
    Messages:
    44,037
    Likes Received:
    29,002
    Location:
    Sonora, Mexico.
    I agree, but i dont think robbing kids from a childhood its healthy for a society.

    While i admire asians hardwork and dedication i think Finlands educative system is the best, plus studying for the test doesnt necesarily means you will end with good professionists, thats why despite asians success at educative level around the world, western civilization still leads the world in terms of science and technology.
     
  14. Warlord Palis

    Warlord Palis ♔ Lord of Jameson

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    19,546
    Likes Received:
    21,303
    Location:
    ✌ @King_Palis
    Hey great post. It's true of what you said. I think a good balance is good imo. I think a kid can play sports and also be hard working with schoolwork. It is their culture though and despite the flaws of a less fun childhood, it's still leaps and bounds better than many other cultures out there, as far as producing for society and contributing.
     
    MPD-Psycho likes this.
  15. MadSquabbles500

    MadSquabbles500 Steel Belt

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    26,167
    Likes Received:
    10,752
    Location:
    New Jersey now Queens
    Asians get into the Bronx HS of Science, Brooklyn Tech, etc because their competition is mostly poor welfare blacks, illegal hispanic immigrants, and some poor leftover Irish, Italians, and Poles. I say leftover because all the successful whites moved to the burbs a long time ago.

    Also, the Jews have their own schools that take some of that talent. All the successful WASPS send their kids to private schools in the Northeast like Deerfield Academy, Canterbury school, etc. I just played some open hockey against teens from those two places.

    And these asians are only good at the academics. None are standouts in athletics. None of them will make the hockey team at Canterbury or Deerfield. Plus the way academics is nowadays is memorization. People really vastly overestimate the asian.
     
    uppercutbus likes this.
  16. YoungBoyd

    YoungBoyd Good goy

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    5,630
    Likes Received:
    1,844
    Location:
    اسلام آباد
    Why is it the best?
     
  17. YoungBoyd

    YoungBoyd Good goy

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    5,630
    Likes Received:
    1,844
    Location:
    اسلام آباد
    I know a lot of east asians from my studies and it seems to be more about doing well on tests than actually trying to learn something. The a students may have better grades than me, but from working with them on different projects i can tell you they don't perform better than the average B/C student.
     
    MPD-Psycho and uppercutbus like this.
  18. YoungBoyd

    YoungBoyd Good goy

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    5,630
    Likes Received:
    1,844
    Location:
    اسلام آباد
    Also South Asia best Asia.
     
    mrsenor likes this.
  19. LionExMachina

    LionExMachina There are No Pacts between Lions and Sherdogs. Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    4,696
    Likes Received:
    1,367
    Location:
    Where Storms Are Born
    Well Nigerian's generally surpass all other ethnic groups when it comes to obtaining degrees.

    Not sure what to say about the rest of the whites, Hispanics or akata.
     
  20. Rod1

    Rod1 Yellow Card Yellow Card

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2010
    Messages:
    44,037
    Likes Received:
    29,002
    Location:
    Sonora, Mexico.
    Because its similar to a sports talent finder program. They dont burn out the kids, they have pretty well educted and paid teachers whose task is to teach kids not with the goal of passing tests, but with the goal of finding your natural aptitude, so by 16 a kid knows if he is fit for college or vocational school.

    Its llke trying to raise an athlete, everyone can get proficient enough with training, but without talent you aint becoming anyone remarkable, so you end up with a lot of asians who dont have the natural creativity and vision to perform at research so they end up in dead end spots in academic terms, since they are smart enough to pass tests into the school, but because their parents forced them to, not because they had a natural aptitude.

    People bitch about blacks getting into elite colleges with less grades, but i can assure you that any black getting there is doing it because he is passionate and motivated, not because of societal pressure.

    If success was measured in tests, it makes no sense for western civilization to be so ahead of the far east.
     

Share This Page