But race also matters in terms of starting position.
Asians need to organize like people of other races and take bigger pieces of the pie.
It's a little crude to use race maybe, but it probably isn't a terrible approximation. What would be great is if people had to disclose any paid preparation for the SAT or the hours their parents spent with them growing up but that's probably a long way off.
Overall, this issue is framed to be as controversial as possible by political interests but it really isn't that big a deal.
Isn't that contradictory? Are you saying that african americans achieve the same as asian americans even though they did not have to study hard? Then why would affirmative action be necessary?
Affirmative action is applied to upgrade the scores of candidates with lower scores if they are of a disadvantaged minority. So, an asian american with higher scores (and who worked harder) will miss out on an opportunity to an african american with lower scores (who did not work as hard).
Also not sure why the parent user is posting it multiple times. Not cool...
Sorry for posting it a lot, its just relevant to what I wanted to say in my other comments.
They claim that East Asians develop cognitive capacity at an earlier age than other races and that gives East Asians a compounding practice advantage that gives them the edge in academic scores. The article claims, based on this premise, that universities like Harvard should actually discriminate even more against East Asians.
The article is full of obvious leaps designed to sound smart but are actually logically vacuous.
Much of the article essentially boils down to this: Young East Asians test highly > The quantity of older East Asian who are successful don't reflect the quantity of young East Asians who achieve academically > Therefore, East Asians start smart and then other races catch up cognitively in adulthood A) Racism is likely factor here. East Asians are less represented in leadership because leadership perceives East Asians are being less leaderly. Now we're using the symptoms of racism in order to justify the racism itself. B) Nurture versus nature is a complicated and unsettled debate yet the author tries to claim that because China has a creativity problem, it's proof that East Asians as a race has a creativity problem. Never mind that Japan is a world leader in innovation. C) Article repeatedly use test scores to say something qualitatively about the characteristics of a race. For example, East Asians test high on math therefore East Asians have more quantitative reasoning capabilities. You could just as easily attribute this to cultural differences in study priorities.
2) "If these children are scoring as high as 120 on average at the age of four (despite being hospitalized for malnourishment) and 110 to 112 at the age of ten, it is implausible that their IQ goes up as they grow older" Come on. Why? You can't just assume that hitting a high IQ at an early age means that it cannot continue growing. Especially when these IQ scores are being compared against age groups.
>East Asians are less represented in leadership because leadership perceives East Asians are being less leaderly.
Can you provide evidence that this is what's going on instead of something else? Plenty of leaders in the US are East Asian.
>using the symptoms of racism in order to justify the racism itself
You didn't present your own evidence that the 'symptoms' are actually due to racism. The author presents a compelling explanation backed up with data that explains what we see.
>Never mind that Japan is a world leader in innovation
The article quotes the Japanese government stating it believes it has an innovation challenge as well.
>You can't just assume that hitting a high IQ at an early age means that it cannot continue growing
IQ is relative to others the same age. This is evidence that East Asians develop cognitive ability more quickly than other populations. All healthy children continue getting smarter as they develop. This is all discussed in the article.
There are more Asian leaders in the world's top tech companies than there are Europeans. Why do you think that so many Asian people in Asia are able to assume leadership roles and grow their companies at breakneck pace and yet Asian Americans are somehow unfit to do the job in America?
It's wonderful how much economic progress China has made, and serious academic progress as well. But that's not relevant here.
China discourages non-ethnic Chinese from having control over Chinese companies, and has extremely few foreigners to begin with so that's not a valid comparison.
I don't know about silly, it certainly looks unlawful to me.