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 ...
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.