Skip to comments.At Magnet School, An Asian Plurality
Posted on 07/07/2008 6:33:25 AM PDT by liberallarry
Asian American students will outnumber white classmates for the first time in the freshman class at the region's most prestigious public magnet school this fall, a milestone reached as the number of African Americans and Hispanics has remained low and the Fairfax County School Board prepares to review the school's admission policy.
The rising concentration of Asian Americans at T.J. mirrors demographic trends in other elite math and science magnet schools. In New York, the selective and specialized Stuyvesant High School, Bronx High School of Science and Brooklyn Technical High School have Asian American majorities, although about 10 percent of the metropolitan population is of Asian descent. In San Francisco, Asian Americans make up more than 60 percent of the students at selective Lowell High School and about a third of the city's population.
The demographic imbalance in top public magnet schools has become a sensitive issue, however. Black and Hispanic students often are vastly under-represented. Many of the schools struggle to reflect the diversity of the wider population while maintaining a transparent admissions process with uniformly high standards.
Jenny Tsai, a recent Harvard University graduate, wrote her thesis about what she perceived as a growing sentiment that "too many Asians" were at top magnet schools. She attended the selective Hunter College High School in New York, where she sensed "a certain level of anxiety" as the portion of Asian American students in the entering class grew from less than a third to more than half between 1997 and 2003. Tsai said some students felt a need to justify their admission or their contributions.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Your model is absolutely beautiful. Please forgive my exploring your web site. The rest of the pictures are fantastic. Congrats!
BTW My wife is a Filipina, and I couldn’t be happier. They really are good people, as long as you don’t get mixed up in their various business deals haha. I especially love their cuisine.
And there are many other besides Armenians and Georgians who live in the Caucasus who could be called Caucasians.
Not really used in the UK, Scotland, or Ireland anymore. It is a worthless term rooted in junk science that should be abolished from general usage in the same way “negro” has.
Nothing to forgive guy. If we had a problem with sharing those photos, there wouldn't be a link on my profile page.
I find their cuisine to be somewhat bland.
Environmental factors are more easily manipulated than genes but that's far from saying it's easily done. In fact, it's almost impossible. If your parents are overweight, illiterate, morons who've never worked in their lives, and all their friends are similar, which is likely, then YOU ARE TOAST.
All that is assuming your interpretation of heritability is correct. I don't think it is...but it'd take quite a bit of research to be sure. I'll give you a hint as to why I think you're wrong. The IQ distribution curve is bell shaped, not linear.
Well, its meant to describe people who have a common gene pool which originated in a specific geographic area at a time when isolation was pretty much the norm among human populations. As far as I know that concept is still a good one no matter what names you give to the groups.
And those few points extra do not mean success , success come in application . Add 20 more points to the equation and there is still little difference (people in this IQ range still think in practical terms ) start adding lots more and thinking changes to theorem style thinking (think mathematicians )but they pretty lose out on practical thinking and have trouble tying their shoe laces ;)
Bottom line is if you want your children to be successful don’t blame their genes , teach them good work ethics.
(that starts 100% at home)
LOL Lera should never post while talking on the phone
(can’t do two things at once =P )
It is not my interpretation, it is based upon numerous studies, and you said you agreed with it until I explained what it actually meant to you.
So if you made it an average black kid instead of a white kid then of the 20 IQ point difference 12 points would be due to environment and 8 points would be genetic. If you raised that kid in an “Asian” environment his IQ would be 102 (higher than average), while if you somehow gave him Asian genetics his IQ would only be 98 (slightly below average).
Height distribution is also bell shaped not linear. The distribution of almost any quantifiable trait is bell shaped not linear. This has nothing to do with if it has a genetic or environmental cause or causes.
Yes, all asian females look like a plastic surgery altered blow up doll. We all have long hair and look like a bar hostess or a street walker-(movie: Full Metal Jacket - Hey, G.I. Me So Horny, Me Love You Long Time.) Oh, I thought these fantasies/stereotypes were long forgotten. It is like saying every white male would resemble a ken doll or Dan Quayle, nice and vanilla, like white bread and mayonaise./Just Asking - seoul62-(Father: American Of Irish Descent and Mother: Japanese).
Most geneticists cast doubts on the validity that all European people (to say nothing of the semitic peoples that are classified as “caucasian”) came from the caucauses mountains. This is a 19th century idea with few serious supporters.
Well, what exactly IS the inheritance that is being handed over?
Some Chinese inventions. Just some,,,,
Acupuncture (580 BC)
Anatomy (11th Century AD)
Axial rudder (1st Century AD)
Ball bearings (2nd Century BC)
Belt drive (5th Century BC)
Blast Furnace (3rd Century BC)
Calipers (AD 9)
Camera Obscura, explanation of (AD 1086)
Cast iron (5th Century BC)
Chain drive (AD 976)
Chess (4th Century BC)
Compass, magnetic Needle (AD 1088)
Crop rotation (6th Century BC)
Crossbow (5th Century BC)
Dating of trees by number of rings (12th Century AD)
Dominoes (AD 1120)
Draw loom (1st Century AD)
Fertilizers (2nd Century BC)
Firecrackers (AD 290)
Folding chairs (3rd Century AD)
Grafting (AD 806)
Gunpowder (12th Century AD)
Handgun (AD 1128)
Kite (4th Century BC)
Lacquer (13th Century BC)
Maps, relief (AD 1086)
Negative numbers, operations using (1st Century AD)
Paper, invention of (300 BC)
Toilet paper (hallelujah!) (AD 589)
Parachute principle (8th Century AD)
Playing cards (AD 969)
Reel on fishing rod (3rd Century AD)
Rockets, two-stage (AD 1360)
Rotary fan (1st Century BC)
Seawalls (AD 80)
Sterilization by steaming (AD 980)
Stirrup (AD 300)
Toothbrush (hallelujah again!) (9th Century AD)
Vinegar (2nd Century BC)
Weather vane (120 BC)
We agree, I think, that it is in every kid's interest to try his best, to learn as much as he can, to achieve whatever he can. Averages are not relevant to him. They're of interest only in determining social policy.
Social policy must recognize that significant differences in IQ among racial groups are a fact of life for the foreseeable future. Therefore diversity goals must be adjusted; aiming for racial parity is unrealistic and unachievable.
My point is that if you could pick smart genetics or smart parents you are better off (60% to 40%) with smart parents in an environment that fosters academic achievement, or both. Because people cannot change their genetics, it is far better to concentrate our efforts on fostering that environment than in saying either....
a) you are Asian or Jewish and just naturally smarter so no need to actually put in the sweat equity.
b) you are Black or Hispanic so no need to even try because of a few IQ points on average advantage that some have from having smarter than average parents.
I see this all the time in my school district.While the white,black and Latino kids seem to see school as a social club and state sponsored dating service,the Asian kids are putting the work in and excelling.
Ominous sign,however.Many Asian kids are seeing ghetto culture as a model and are often sucked into that state of mind due to the teenage need to”be cool”
Yep, and when they stop putting in the work they will stop being the best and brightest. Those who get the shaft the worst from affirmative action is a mediocre Asian. An Asian with scores that would get a white kid into Harvard or MIT is told to look elsewhere because they have “enough” Asians already.
America is better than that. If you can’t hack it then move on, if you can then welcome aboard. Counting colors is asinine.
I work around lots of Filipinos and the many of the women are family oriented and very nice looking.I like how they place great emphasis on the academic sucess of their children.
However,I think they are way too consumed by fashion,pop culture and gambling.They tend to be very materialistic and overly concerned with money and image.
Like women of all other ethnicities,they are a mixed bag.
As far as the materialistic thing is concerned, I have a top five list of the most materialistic females by ethnicity, but I won't post it due to the fact that it would offend.
When I sub,I often find it tempting to think that all I have to do is review the names on the roll sheet to know what kind of class I am going to get.Yet this technique is not foolproof.I had a Senior Civics class last year full of newly arrived Asian immigrants who were the rudest most obnoxious class I had all year while a US History class full of Miguel Rioses and Kennitra Washingtons were stellar both behavior and academic wise.
Yet I must say that the best chance of getting a well behaved and self directed class will be one full of Chens,Chans and Zhous.
Just curious if you think the gambling stereotype is unfair to put on Filipinos even though I have known them to host lavish three day parties at private homes where many thousands of dollars change hands.They themselves seem to see this habit as a cultural phenomenon to take pride in.
And as far as Filipino women being materilistic,you are right.They are probably no worse than other groups,especially the Irish,Italian and WASP girls I grew up with who wouldn’t give you any play unless you had rich parents,were a star jock or had some kind of unfathomable”game”.
I had none of the above so I was Mr Hermit in high school.
My least favorite thing to hear was “You are Cool!” and I would tell them that “I am not here to be cool. I am here to teach you. ‘Cool’ means I let you goof off and you didn't learn anything; I'll never see most of you ever again but I want you to learn.”
My other comment that made an impression was “No disparaging language allowed” which I would write upon the board whenever I heard it, I would often have to DEFINE ‘disparaging language’ as speech meant to make people feel bad about themselves. I smiled when a girl told her friend, “NO DISPARAGING LANGUAGE! You are trying to make me feel bad about myself!”.
Subbing was a lot of fun!
The Chinese not only created a great civilization, but seem to have no trouble succeeding as a minority in other people's nations. The Chinese minority in Indonesia, for example, is a frequent target of hostility because it's so successful.
Likewise, the groups which lag in Western nations tend to lag everywhere. Their own ancestral homelands are impoverished and what little prosperity they have is usually the result of intervention by others (European colonialists, for example).
I'm not quite sure I know what you mean when you ask about cultural factors contributing to IQ in Persia, Greece, etc. Are you arguing that these nations ended up with high cultures because of high IQs, or vice-versa?
That is your argument. Do you think that because of Greece was civilized long before Norway was that you could find a higher IQ average in Greece than in Norway?
IQ is significantly determined by genetics, about 40% according to most studies. That means environmental/cultural factors account for the other 60%.
So if you had the choice of having “average” genetics and being raised as the son of high achieving high IQ parents or having the genetics of those same high IQ people and being raised by an “average” American family you are far better off (20% better off) picking being raised by those parents rather than having their genetics and being raised by average people.
In other words. “I haven't told you the half of it.”
Little could a rather backwards and provincial Europe believe in the grandeur and wealth and culture that lay far off to the East, and most of their lords and priests didn't want to believe it. They figured if there was any culture at all it was “Prestor John” or some such Christian fable of a Christianized East.
The biggest problem I have with my family currently, is their voting record. They should be a natural for the GOP, but they vote Dem, and they are lining up to vote for BO *gag*
Not necessarily, because no one factor controls IQ. I just argue that genetics is one important factor, and also that culture and IQ are symbiotic. High IQ people will tend to create a good culture, and a good culture will tend to benefit the populace in terms of its intelligence. In any given nation there could be other factors which affect things. Also, people migrate and immigrants flood into established nations, so even if a nation is the center of a very old civilization, if it takes in large masses of immigrants from other lands, its IQ could be affected.
IQ doesn't necessarily conform to economic performance. A constraining economic system, such as communism, will hold a nation back no matter how high its inhabitants' IQs may be. Also, a nation that is too isolated from other lands may be held back because it doesn't pick up ideas that other nations are sharing to their advantage. But the thing to remember is that such nations rise with surprising speed if the impediments are removed. The natural high IQ of the populace is unleashed and the nation rises.
China & Japan are good examples of this. China was impoverished and starving under Mao. But after his death, more pragmatic Chinese leaders chose to permit capitalism and look at how quickly the nation has become an economic power. Thirty years ago the tallest building in Shanghai was around ten stories, even though the city was one of the largest on earth. People were crammed by the dozens into shanties and small flats. Google a skyline photo of Shanghai today. It rivals New York City with soaring skyscrapers, many among the world's tallest, as far as the eye can see. But we knew this was all possible, because Chinese who lived outside the Maoist tyranny excelled (Taiwan, Hong Kong, etc.).
Japan is an island nation and for centuries they refused contact with other nations due to their isolationist feudal ideology. As a result new ideas never reached there, and old ideas stagnated. They lagged behind other high IQ populations in development. But once Admiral Perry opened the ports, the nation rose like a Phoenix. They were able to conquer half of Asia and give us a run for our money in WWII. And even when we beat them, they didn't stay down. By the 1960s they were booming again.
Compare that the African nations. They showed no development until the Colonial powers arrived. Those powers built those nations up, but when they departed those places went right back down again. We've dumped a zillion dollars into those places and it hasn't done a bit of good. South Africa & Rhodesia were turned over to blacks as thriving first world nations, and look what's happened there.
Yes, but if you take immigrants from those backwards African nations and put them in the U.S.A. they do so much better than American Blacks. African blacks do not have ‘high IQ’ European heredity, while many to most American Blacks are up to 50% or more European in terms of heredity. How to explain that one with genetic causes?
I really have no idea whether that's true or not. IQ is one factor in someone's chances for success in certain endeavors. Other factors play a part.
Suppose all the children in America were taken away from their parents and raised communally. Every child got an identical upbringing. Would they all become nuclear physicists or computer prodigies? Would just as many girls reach adulthood with ultra-high levels of math ability as boys? Would racial gaps disappear? I doubt it.
For example if both of someones parents are IQ 120 (20 points above average) there is a good chance that person would also have a IQ around 120. If those same parents also adopted a child whose parents both had IQ 100 that child would be expected to have an IQ around 112 from being raised in a ‘high IQ’ environment. If those same parents adopted out one of their kids to an ‘average IQ’ (100) couple that kid would be expected to have an IQ around 108 due to hereditary factors.
And yes, IQ is correlated with success, but it is no guarantee. And communal anything produces an inferior product. But in answer to your question, it would tend to homogenize the differences between the parents who read to their child and buy him books and those parents who are not home and buy their kid a nintendo.
In the case of immigrants, it's more of a "truism" that Africans work harder than American blacks. Maybe it's true, I don't know. But usually the first wave of immigrants from anywhere are the smarter ones who had the initiative to get out of the bad conditions back in their homeland. However, that changes as time goes on and an immigrant community forms. Once that happens, more average and typical people from back home start showing up and things balance out.
BTW, the Somali Bantu certainly aren't outperforming American blacks. They've practically bankrupted some small towns such as Lewiston, ME with their welfare demands. But, you see, these aren't people from the upper tier of their nation who took the initiative to come here and escape poverty. They're refugees from war, meaning they're average folks from their homeland.
And, of course, all this begs the question of why Africa isn't performing well, or at least performing at a better level than American blacks. As poor as Detroit may be, it isn't as poor as Cameroon or Zaire. If African students and immigrants who come here and outperform American blacks are typical representatives of the African population, then why is Africa mired in poverty? And imagine where Africa would be today if the Colonial powers had just decided to sail on by, and had ignored the continent these past few centuries.
The discrepancy we see in IQ scores between the average African American and the average European American is mostly due to culture. If it was genetic one would expect that the American blacks who are of mixed African and European descent would do better than those straight out of Africa blacks, but they do not.
More importantly, why do they always seem to have a bad culture? Out of all the nations of sub-Saharan Africa, why are there not a few where they have a "good culture" and where the populace has created an economic miracle like Japan or Taiwan?
Yes, culture and political systems can seriously harm development. The people of the Korean peninsula are of the same ancestry, yet the South is thriving and the North is dead in the water. The cause for the difference is obvious. This was why China stagnated under Mao while free Taiwan boomed. It's why West Germany succeeded and East Germany collapsed.
But where in Africa do you find anything similar? Do the Bantu in one nation produce nanotechnology and send satellites into orbit, while the Bantu in a neighboring, more repressive land live in poverty? Prosperity in Africa is largely determined by how great the white presence is. South Africa had the greatest white presence and became the richest nation there. Rhodesia had the second greatest white presence and became the second richest nation.
Why do these same patterns exist everywhere? If culture is divorced from genetics, then why is there no land on earth where the black population has chosen a good culture and the white population has chosen a bad culture, and the result is that blacks are the intellectual, financial, and cultural elite and whites are the ones needing affirmative action to pass entrance exams? All these culture arguments seem to go around in circles. American blacks have a bad culture (we're told) so they don't do as well as African immigrants (allegedly). Then we're told that those African immigrants had a good culture back home, despite the fact that their nation as a whole had a bad culture, so they came to America to get away from that bad culture and its fallout. But why are there no nations in Africa with a good culture that has produced a European or East Asian style success story?
Your argument would be logical if, say, Zaire was a leader in robotics and microchip technology, while nearby Cameroon was impoverished under a corrupt Maoist style repressive regime. You could say, yes Nation A is poor, but Nation B, with a different culture and political system, is thriving, even though the people of the two nations are of similar ancestry. Therefore, it isn't genetics, it's culture.
BTW, the black populations of European nations are almost entirely composed of African or Caribbean immigrants, yet they have created the same types of neighborhoods there as blacks have in America. No-go zones for whites, where the people vote as a racial block for candidates promising affirmative action and more welfare programs.
Look at the distribution curve. Approximately 50% of the population will be within 10 points of the median, 68% within 15 points, 90-94% within 25 points.
That means about 55% of Jews and 50% of East Asians will have IQs above 110. The figure for blacks is 3-5%.
That 25 point difference in medians is 40% due to genes, 10% due to environmental factors which cannot be manipulated, and 50% due to environmental factors which, in theory, can be.
It's completely utopian to think that environmental factors can be equalized. Far more realistic is a goal of 25-50% equality...which means the black median IQ can be moved to the right - with lots of hard work - by 3-7 points to 88 to 92. Meaning only 8-13% of blacks will have an IQ above 110.
That's a social disaster.
Got a source for your numbers?
According to the numbers you provided....If the median African American IQ is 90 then 50% of that population is within 80 to 100 IQ, 16% would be 105 or higher and 3% would be 115 IQ or higher.
If the median Jewish or East Asian IQ is 110 then 50% are within 100 to 120 IQ, 16% would be 125 or higher and 3% would be 135 or higher.
If environmental factors account for 60% of that discrepancy then how would it be a social disaster to attempt to ameliorate those environmental factors?
If those factors could be changed completely and African Americans raised like Asians and Jews (which is of course unrealistic) the median African American IQ could be raised to 102, which is a couple points higher than the Euro American average.
Second, environmental factors account for 60% but that is broken down to 10% which cannot be adjusted (fetal environment, chance occurrences, etc.), 50% which can.
Third as I point out, and you concur, those factors cannot be completely changed. I estimate that we reduce the difference by a quarter to a half- which translates to 3-7 points, to 88-92. [the total difference is 25 points. Half of that is 12.5 points. 25-50% of that is 3-7 points, roughly]
These are rough estimates. You can easily adjust them to suit yourself. But anyway you cut it no more than 15% of blacks will have IQs above 110, almost none above 125, which is what's needed to work in the world of high-end jobs if merit is the measure.
That's a social disaster. Everyone will notice.
Sources: All this is pretty common knowledge and analysis. See, for example, “The Bell Curve”, or any reference on psychometrics.
Do you think Asians and Jews should be given preferential treatment because they are naturally smarter? Do you think we should continue to discriminate against Asians in the name of diversity as far as admissions to elite Universities? Or do you think we should abandon racial quotas altogether and go strictly by merit.
I embrace the last option.
On a social level there are two possibilities.
The first is that IQ is not really an accurate measure of ability. This is Thomas Sowell's position which he supports by reference to IQ creep. If he's correct then all these problems will disappear as black work habits, social attitudes, and opportunities improve.
The second is that Sowell is wrong and IQ measures really fundamental differences. That's bad. Very bad. Society will come apart.
I work in a highly technical Scientific field with many Asians, Indians and Jews. I know I wouldn't kick any of the cute ones (cute for me being synonymous with female) out of bed. ;)
You didn’t mention blacks...and I noticed.
The only Black I really work closely with is a older guy. A really great guy. There is/was a really cute black girl I used to flirt with, but she just got engaged so she fell off the radar! And unfortunately there are not that many blacks who work at my company, and the major city in the area doesn’t produce many who are even minimally qualified, which I blame almost entirely upon the predominant culture.
I am going out on the second date with a Jamaican black girl this Saturday. She thinks the Blacks in the area are all nuts, is highly educated, smart, sweet and sexy.
You’re in California. You work in high-tech or high end science, so my guess is Bay Area or Los Angeles. If those cities don’t produce qualified blacks then no place in the country does. So where are they?
That's excellent that you want to do away with racial quotas. The problem is, quotas are based on the assumption that racial IQ gaps are cultural/environmental in nature. The argument is that blacks would be proportionally represented in every top flight field if it weren't for societal factors. Thus, if blacks are 20% of the population in a particular area, then they should be 20% of the people who hold any leadership position, who gain admission to prestige universities, or who hold any high paying or high status job. If they fall short of those numbers because they don't pass the tests for admission or employment, then we're told that quotas need to be instituted because those blacks didn't get treated fairly.
"But weren't they given the same test as everyone else?" someone may ask.
"Yes,", the leftist will reply, "But because of white privilege, cultural factors, sociological distortions, test biases, and a zillion other factors, blacks just couldn't pass that test in significant numbers. So we need to adjust things for them. We need to lower the requirements for their admission so that they get in in exact proportion to their population numbers. If that means booting out some whites or Asians who did pass the test, then so be it. They only did better because they were culturally privileged, not because they really have higher average IQs."
So you can't simultaneously oppose quotas and reject the genetic basis of IQ. Once you say genetics has nothing to do with it, that any group which consistently lags is a victim of culture, and that they'd do just as well as everyone else otherwise, you've doomed yourself to accepting quotas in perpetuity. The argument is inevitably going to arise that it's the responsibility of society to compensate the poor performing group for the problems they face. It's the responsibility of the successful group to sacrifice "x" number of jobs and educational opportunities by giving them to the less successful group. After all, the successful group only did better because of "cultural factors", not because they really are better (on average) at those things.
I don't reject the hereditary basis for IQ, I just point out that it is only 40% compared to environmental factors that make up 60%.
Stopping discriminating against Asian Americans and for African Americans has nothing to do with the ideological justification of wither or not it is cultural or genetic factors that account for the discrepancy. Indeed such a merit based system doesn't care WHY there is such a discrepancy, if you got the chops you are in, if you don't then shove off.