Talk:Model minority

Recent Addition

The following was recently added to the article:

Asians are often found to be one standard deviation about the IQ of the general population. Furthermore, Asians are often found to be good at understanding, analyzing and remembering or applying patterns. These findings are disputed.

Where is the source for this? These statements seem to emphasize that the "model minority" stereotype is true. Simply putting that these "findings are disputed" does not make it NPOV. I feel this edit should be removed unless a source can be found. — J3ff 11:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not just those statements, but the whole passage attempts to provide a theory for the genesis of the stereotype with no source or support. It also has an air of illiteracy about it which should be edited out in any case. Demi 11:16, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

When you say "whole passage", do you mean the paragraph the quotes were taken from or the whole section "As applied in the United States"? — J3ff 11:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I mean the paragraph, introduced by As large numbers of people ... and concluding with the statements you call out above. -- Demi 20:25, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

I agree. This whole article is terrible. I don't really have an interest in improving it. However, I did insert the sentences about the IQ and pattern-recognition abilities of Asians. This comes from data in the controversial books, IQ and the Wealth of Nations and The Bell Curve. This is why I said that these findings are disputed. I included this because I thought it would add a different theory. That said, the above average IQ of Asians isn't really what is disputed - rather, it is the validity of IQ tests themselves. However, I do not mean to debate this controversy here. (Just so you know, I'm not Asian, and I'm not trying to promote any ideas of racial/genetic superiority.) I merely wanted to add another theory to the article. Edit at will. mat334 | talk 17:46, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

I've fixed up the non-NPOV paragraph. Unless someone has an objection, I'll remove the NPOV tag. --Rikurzhen 04:44, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me — J3ff 08:55, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Large reworking of article

I attempted to streamline the article and, among a number of other changes, removed the following sentences:

• "The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 barred Chinese from immigrating to the United States."

Already have enough examples, and barring Chinese immigration doesn't decrease chances Asian Americans would be successful.

• "The 1965 Immigration Act removed national origin based quotas."

unneccessary detail for this article; should be in an article on discrimination against Asian Americans

• "of which 92% (or over 1.1 billion) are of the dominant Han ethnic group"

Unless the article needs to specify a difference in performance between Hans and non Hans, "Chinese" encompasses both.

• "Furthermore, during the course of almost all of China's history, until the Communist regime began liberalising its economic policies in 1978, over 90% of China's people lived in horribly impoverished conditions."

Already encompassed in saying that they were poor - beyond that this detail is not relevant.

How do the changes look? Best, --Nectarflowed 22:28, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Other model minorities?

-Are there any other model minorities out there worth mentioning in the article?

I'm not sure. I've only heard the term "model minority" in reference to Asian Americans. — J3ff 18:00, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've heard it also applied to Indian-Americans, Cuban-Americans, and Persian-Americans, and in an historical sense to Jewish-Americans prior to assimilation. But it is most often used in reference to Asian-Americans of Chinese, Japanese and Korean descent.

Response:

Jewish-Americans aren't a "model minority" to the extent that Asian-Americans are. Their large presence in exclusive east coast schools is mostly a financial consideration: many of these students come from relatively wealthy backgrounds.

Indian-Americans certainly have model status. A factor similar to Asians is self-selection: with millions of candidates for immigration and limited admission to America, those that are successful tend to be superior in some way to their less-successful peers.

RE: [Jewish-Americans'] large presence in exclusive east coast schools is mostly a financial consideration [making them less of a 'model minority'].

Any racial minority group seems to meet the requirements of being considered a 'model minority group' through a high degree of success measured in factors such as income, education, IQ, and crime rate. A history of discrimination may also influence inclusion. Jewish-Americans meet these requirements*, though (as pointed out above) Jewish-Americans are assimilated. (*See Race_and_intelligence) --Nectarflowed ^(talk) 08:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jews were restricted from most of the prestigious schools in the United States for the early part of the 20th century by an informal Jewish quota. This was a time when Jewish Americans had below average wealth, but Jews were very overrepresented in institutions like the City University of New York. I think you will find that most of the Jewish American generation that can afford to send their children to exclusive east coast schools came from average backgrounds, but were considerably more likely to attend college than other Americans.--Pharos 03:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

The term "model minority" as applied to Jewish Americans is not referring to today's highly assimilated US Jewish population, but to the immigrants and their children of the early 20th century.

On a Related Note:

Whoever wrote this article originally, and to some extent those who edited it later, seem to continually be forgetting that "Asian American" includes those of South Asian descent (Indian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan, etc.), and South Asians make up a large majority of "Asian Americans." Although the terms "Indian American," "Pakistani American" etc. do exist, South Asians are still "Asian Americans." This article probably needs to be worked with a little so it is not centered so much on those of East Asian, and also include those of South Asian descent.

There is a bit. Check the fourth paragraph under "Self-selective immigration". It makes sense to lump together East Asians and South Asians in that section. I'm not sure why South Asians are not as represented in US media as East Asians, but the article is probably reflective of that. ViewFromNowhere 01:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

East Asia refers to China, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. Southeast Asian is from Burma to Vietnam to Indonesia. South Asia referse to the Indian Subcontinent. Being politically correct, by the USA goverment, being Asian means you are from any of these countries. Thus, Indian-Americans are included in the "model-minority" status. In fact, I saw an Asian census, and Indian-Americans are at par with Japanese-Americans in wealth.

re: --Nectarflowed 22:28, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC

You stated that numerical restrictions on Asian immigration to America were irrelevent; I disagree vigorously. Consider this: where are new immigrants likely to find adapting to a new country the most easy? Answer: within a group of their national/ethnic peers. So, Asian-American immigrants would have a far easier time after immigration if larger numbers of their group were present in established communities.

I believe you're referring to my mention above of my removal of the sentence:

• "The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 barred Chinese from immigrating to the United States."

The dynamic you describe sounds possible. I think though that this topic is currently dealt with adequately in the section Model_minority#History_of_discrimination, and going into too detailed history there is beyond what is needed for this article's purpose.--Nectarflowed ^(talk) 08:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Self-selecting immigration?

If you buy this theory, does it mean people who stayed in India, China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Thailand ... are more likely to be less intelligent? It isn't too convincing. -- Toytoy 10:47, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Well, it means that those who have who have succeeded in relocated themselves halfway around the world are more likely to be "driven" individuals, and may also be more likely to succeed in education and work life.--Pharos 04:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• No. Those that stayed include the wealthy and intelligent that are better off in their native country, who benefit from a more classist system, etc. ViewFromNowhere 01:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You are making the flawed assumption that the actual group possessing power and wealth in those countries completely corresponds to the entire segment of the population that may fairly be regarded as intelligent. Please read up on the history of the grossly inequitable class structures in China and Japan, where a tiny percentage of the population traditionally controlled all the power and wealth while more than 90% toiled in abject poverty. This situation changed in Japan only after 1900 when it started developing a lot of heavy industry, and in China only after 1980 thanks to the economic liberalization under Deng Xiaoping. The books of Edwin Reischauer and John King Fairbank are the usual place to start. Also see the work of Barrington Moore, Jr. --Coolcaesar 18:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that intelligence is the sole cause of wealth. I think it's the other way around. Wealth allows you to be better educated, which corresponds to "intelligence" as defined as the ability to perform well on intelligence tests. ViewFromNowhere 18:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This idea of "self selection" is semantically misleading and should be retitled. If this section is referring to the phenomena of recent immigrants entering with higher levels of education otherwise colloquially referred to as the "brain drain;" the section misinterprets the causality. The 2nd paragraph seemingly brings the conversation back into an area that coincides with what is regularly taught by Asian American Studies academics. The early history sections are total assumptions and without serious citation (published works) should be removed. This history presents the idea that immigration, while small was possible, and these small numbers of smart wealthy merchant's progeny would account for the later model minority status.Dezertfx21 04:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Model Minority Myth

I've never heard of Model Minority used in a good way academically. In fact, it is usually called a myth, not a serious idea. See Gary Okihiro's Is Yellow Black or White for an example of motivations behind its use.--BlueSunRed 17:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Myth

This article seems to be an apology for this myth, not an objective, sophisticated exploration of the history of the concept, nor of those who reject the concept. I cannot believe that the "Genetic factors in racial disparities" section is even taken seriously; even the studies which claim to establish a link between "race" and "intelligence" (the criteria for establishing both are highly contested and amorphous) have serious methodological flaws, and have not been taken seriously in most academic circles. Was Rush Limbaugh the author of this article? [User:Musica -ed.]

Hi Musica. Half of this article is devoted to history and criticism. You are welcome to add more. The race and intelligence section of this article functions as a synopsis of the issues dealt with in race and intelligence as they relate to this article topic. Your statements are addressed in that article and its subarticles. (use the signature button to leave your username) --Nectarflowed ^T 04:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Although I personally agree with the overall viewpoint, this is a very biased article that reads more like an op-ed than an encyclopedia entry. The part about "and, OF COURSE, the Chinese Exclusion Act" as if your average layperson is going to know what that is especially gives it away and in no way belongs in an encyclopedia. And like other people pointed out, the near-total exclusion of other model minorities makes it even more biased. My suggestion, however, is not to rewrite it, but to re-title it "Asian-Americans and the Model Minority Myth" or "...and the Model Minority Phenomenon". That would make rewriting it ten times easier. I'm willing to bet the author was the president of their college's Asian-American club - not that that's bad or anything.

Oh yeah, and that section titled "Partly Genetic Explanation" is ridiculous. It needs to be made clear that only a few people feel that way and that their viewpoint is not taken seriously by the wider scientific community (or the sane American community for that matter). The person who wrote how J. Rushton and Hernstein/Murray or largely discredited - their discussion post on this matter should be cut and pasted there. I would do it, but then that whole section needs to be reorganized.

Perhaps the part of this article, about Asian Americans, should include some detail about the specific Asian American groups? Like, this article mentions the high academic rates, but I last read that groups such as Vietnamese Americans have below average academic (college student percentage, etc) rates. Maybe this could help explain the "myth" part - because of lack of detail and specifics when talking about Asian Americans. Peoplesunionpro 04:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Effects of affirmative action on Asian Americans

" A 2005 Princeton study showed Asians (not whites) bear nearly 80% of the cost of affirmative action in college admissions. Nearly four out of every five spots given to blacks and Hispanics in an affirmative-action regime would go to Asians in a purely merit-based system. [1]

The average cost or benefit of college affirmative action in terms of SAT points (on 1600-point scale) is as follows: [2]

• Blacks: +230
• Hispanics: +185
• Asians: −50
• Recruited Athletes: +200
• "Legacies" (children of alumni): +160"

Besides the obvious agenda pushing I'm concerned if this discussion should even be included under this subject. lots of issues | leave me a message 10:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

This point appears to be on one of the repurcussions of Asian American's high level of achievement, which seems to be germane to this article. Noting affirmative action's effects on different races doesn't itself seem to be POV pushing.--Nectar ^T 22:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The two issues do definitely have a relation. One argument for affirmative action (although far from the only one) is: "the proportion of students at the top institutions should be roughly equal to their proportion in the population". This argument would imply that groups that are overrepresented, as is the case with "model minorities", should be discriminated against in admissions, in favor of those who are underrepresented. --Delirium 06:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Dilbert comic

[Copied from User_talk:J3ff#Dilbert_comic ]

Fair use images of this sort need to be explicitly discussed in the text if they are going to be used in this way. See WP:FU. I removed it because it seems largely irrelevant to the place it was put, and the discussion of whether or not Indians were a model minority was an almost insubstantial part of the article. If someone were to write up a section on Indians as model minorities, on how this is reflected sometimes in the U.S. with certain stereotypes, and mention that the character in Dilbert is an example of this, then I could imagine it being in the article without question. --Fastfission 19:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Nigerian Americans

Excuse me, just for blacks here, but shouldn't Nigerian Americans be included in this as well? After all, they are the (read) TOP educated group (foreign born or not) in the United States http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/ancestry/table_01.txt. They have academic records comparable to Asians and Indians (I'm separating Indians because Indians aren't racially Asian). So just for the sake of kicking the "Asians are genetically hardwired to academically succeed and blacks are genetically hardwired to be on the bottom of the social barrel" theory in the balls, please?

That's an interesting table. Of the selected ancestries included, Nigerians, Iranians, and Egyptians look pretty tied, with the Iranians and Egyptians exceeding the Nigerians in total percentage with a college degree or higher, though the Nigerians are .3% ahead in graduate degrees or higher. I notice three ancestries that should probably be compared are not included in their comparison (Ashkenazi, Chinese, and Japanese). Chinese and Japanese have higher mean IQ's than other asian ethnicities, so the total Asian rate of education may underestimate the rate of these groups.

To respond to your question, small groups (50,000) that are mainly in the U.S. under special circumstances, such as highly skilled employment or advanced education, seem to be not be directly relevant to this article, which looks at social groups. Sampling the top 50,000 of any social group (Nigeria has a pop of 130 million) would produce very high figures. --Nectar 01:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

But he said Nigerian Americans, not Nigerians. Asians as a whole are also poor, illiterate, etc. - what percentage of Chinese people in China can read? You'll be surprised. Also, I seem to remember reading a while back that Caribbean and African blacks, after the initial establishment phase, have average income levels not just higher than "American blacks" but than the average US income overall. It was brought up in the "slavery as a root cause of underachievement" refution (since Caribbean blacks are likewise ancestors of slaves). Adam Mathias 02:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The text above and the link refer to Nigerian Americans. Even East Asians in China are thought to have mean IQs higher than the European mean. Richard Lynn does a meta-analysis of 101 studies of East Asians' IQ in a book of his to be published this year. That's an interesting thought regarding Caribbean blacks.. that'd be interesting to get data on that.--Nectar 12:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You made a good point Adam Mathias. Now Nectar, hon, be very cautious of Richard Lynn's figures, whether they are in Asia, Europe, or Africa (especially Africa). I've glanced at his non-peer reviewed book, and judging from a pure scientific validity standpoint, it's the worst book I've ever read. His figures for European countries are massaged and manipulated, the same goes for Asia and Africa, in some instances he is actually contradicted by his own research. Example, in one study alone there were five erros, in one fucking study. The largest study on Asian Americans (cited by James R. Flynn) failed to find the fabled "Asian intellectual superiority" over whites, also, there's a page by Dienekes Pontikos called "Greek IQ" which espouses the same theory, and points out that when Processing Speed is taken into account, Asians do not exceed whites in terms of g. Look it up. Peace.

IQ scores, literacy rates (where China and Mexico tie), etc. show not much. This article is not about biological differences in intelligence. It doesn't matter how poor and destitute and illiterate and if you say so unintelligent Xians are in Xland, it matters whether they are a real or perceived (and of course we should elaborate in the article about that) so-called "model minority" in the country in which they are a minority, that is, in that country, they achieve "success" at rates above other minorities or above the average or above the majority. That is, model minority does not imply model majority. In fact, few countries have model majorities. In America, Chinese are considered above-average in education, etc. Go find an American in China and you'll see he's the cream of the crop too. Surprise surprise, people who have the wherewithall, motivation, means, and education to make it in another culture may often appear "superior". Of course, this effect lessens as the barriers lessen, meaning that Mexicans you meet in Germany will be more educated than the average German or American, but Turks you meet will be less. In the USA, Mexicans are not considered a model minority, but Turks are way above in their education levels. Because of the natural selection created by barriers to getting here. Here at university (in the USA), me and my roommate even have a rule to describe the phenomenon we see in our fellow students: the poorer (and farther) the country they're from, the richer they are. Which is why the Mexicans clean the bathrooms, and the (one or two) Bhutanese study computer engineering. Is it IQ? Unlikely, since races are not even pure in the first place. All that matters for this article is the perception. In the US, Nigerians and Senegalese may be. In France and Italy, they are boat people. A minority by definition is a minority not in the earth (aren't we all) but in some country. Adam Mathias 20:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

A meta-analysis of previously peer-reviewed research doesn't need to be peer-reviewed before publication if review occurs afterwards. It doesn't seem likely that 100 studies identifying a trend all have transcription errors in the same direction, and Dienekes doesn't make that claim. Lynn discusses some possible confounding factors in studies of cognitive ability in Asians,[3] for example, that they are known to tend to be late maturers compared to the ethnic groups in relation to which they're being tested. --Nectar 01:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The article states: "Because race is a social construction and changes over time, the stereotype of the model minority presents a racism dressed up in nice clothes." This is a debatable point, and it seems to me that this artocle should get a NPOV flag, and an editing.

I was about to mention that and it turns out not only did you already mention it, but you put it on the bottom of the page where it's easy to find... Anyway, I agree. "Race is a social construction" is something that a lot of people don't accept, and the article has no business assuming it as fact. Ken Arromdee 20:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Any talk of IQ only works to discredit any conversation on this subject. As stated above the model minority can only be objectivly approached assuming social constructions of race thereby allowing us to focus on the socio-economic ramifications and begin to unpack the limits of this stereotype. However I would argue that this is not the job of an encyclopedia, and instead more readings should be offered instead given this aritcles disputed nature.Dezertfx21 04:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is not neutral

This article on model minority glorifies something with an underlying negative connotation. It provides many references in support of this myth as in talking about genetics and so forth, but fails to take into consideration the negative side of such a label. Therefore, the article seems to be gravely imbalanced in its neutrality.--Ryz05 06:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah despite the improvement over the appalling state of the article a year ago, there are parts that just give me a laugh and go "some nerd wrote this". I removed the, to paraphrase, "white people have a wider pool to choose from hence lower scores" for its ridiculousness. However, upon reconsideration, maybe I should keep it in for the time being. It would be a big immediate flag that there is something fishy going onHeaven's knight 19:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I worked tirelessly for months to provide the negative side of the stereotype in balance with the theories on its truthfulness. Someone has obviously gone through and deleted everything that's not glorifying of the stereotype. This is a terrible, terrible article now and I believe it should be completely scrapped and begun again. It's been manipulated to such an extent that I don't think anyone could ever make complete sense of it again without massive, massive edits. Starting from scratch would be much easier. arobotar 1:43, 20 May 2006

I don't want to scrap it. Maybe you can link to one of previous versions when it was good, and we can re-incorporate those parts? ViewFromNowhere 03:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

modelminority.com

Should this link [4] be included in the External Links section? Most of the articles on modelminority.com seem to be about irrelevant stuff, but this particular article seems to have some merit, prima facie. ViewFromNowhere 05:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It does look like it has some good references. The default stance would probably disqualify the link on the grounds that the author and site of publication don't meet notability requirements (unless it can be shown otherwise). However, looking at the article on it's own merits, I think statements such as the following disqualify it from being linked to from a reference work: "The rhetorical power of this widely accepted stereotype was not lost on the Reagan administration, which had grown uncomfortable with the societal progress minorities had made under affirmative action and sought to eliminate legal and governmental remedies for diffuse but systematic racial discrimination in the private sector."--Nectar 05:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Nectar, could you explain your comments? I don't understand how notability requirements apply here, or why POV is grounds for disqualification. Instead, one could argue that it should be included on the grounds of WP:CSB. --Wzhao553 06:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that site appears to have been referenced in some academic articles, and one article at least even refers to that article.ctrl f stereotype Looks good for inclusion.--Nectar 08:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the research. --Wzhao553 21:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Self selection

The article mentions the self selection aspect and the immigration of various Asian groups but in a quick read through, fails to discuss the issues surrounding blacks, specifically that they have mostly descended from those who were brought to the US and enslaved. While this may seem obvious to many, it's easily possible there will be people less familiar with US history who might not recognised this. Nil Einne 21:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• This section requires some major reworking. While I support a section on Culture for explaining why AsAm are the model minority, the current writing reflects none of the work done by academics on the subject and the last sentence, “Many Asian Americans will say that a not-so intelligent person who works diligently in his or her studies will surpass one who is naturally gifted…” is written in a way that borders on furthering racist stereotyping. (I felt like editing in Confucius Say…)
  • A responsible explanation of culture would break the discussion into two commonly understood theories centered on culture: Folk theories of success or Cultural models of success, AND Relative Functionalism. Both theories look at a specific phenomena within the MMM regarding AsAm educational success.
  • The limits of a cultural explanation for MMM occur when we consider the heterogeneity of AsAm. Since there is no monolithic AsAm culture, and because attempts to define “traditional Asian culture” are complicated by acculturation/enculturation factors the use of culture as a predictor of success becomes problematic. However given the frequency of this sort of explanation amongst the population for any generalized behavior of a minority group, it is important to address.

Citation: (APA style)

• Kim, E.Y. (1993). Career choice among second-generation Korean Americans: Reflections of cultural model of success.Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 24, 224-248

• Sue, S. & Okazaki, S. (1990). Asian American educational achievements: A phenomenon in search of an explanation. American Psychologist, 45, 913-920

Dezertfx21 05:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources for Asian American section

Hi! I was working on the Model Minority section of Stereotypes of Asians and came across these related articles:

• Bill Sing, "'Model Minority' Resentments Spawn Anti-Asian-American Insults and Violence," Los Angeles Times 31 February 1989, p. 12.
• Greg Toppo, "'Model' Asian student called a myth ; Middle-class status may be a better gauge of classroom success," USA Today, 10 December 2002, p. 11.
• Benjamin Pimentel, "Model minority image is a hurdle, Asian Americans feel left out of mainstream," San Francisco Chronicle, 5 August 2001, p.25.
• "What 'Model Minority' Doesn't Tell," Chicago Tribune, 3 January 1998, p.18.
• Ronald Takaki, "The Harmful Myth of Asian Superiority," The New York Times, 16 June 1990, p. 21.
• Felicia R. Lee, "'Model Minority' Label Taxes Asian Youths," New York Times, 20 March 1990, pages B1 & B4.

which I thought were very good. These are only a handful of a whole slew of articles about the innacuracies and usually damaging effects of the Model Minority myth. Hope you find them useful! --Drenched 17:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)