Obviously the Asians are not out-competing the West, they are just more willing to be enslaved in industries created by others with imagination and an appetite for risk. Why else do they want visas to come and work here? Even 50 or 60 years ago, I remember my father telling me that the Chinese were very good at copying, but not inventing. That was quite a sweeping statement, but it stands to reason that if you are indoctrinated from a young age to learn by rote and conform and jump through hoops and never pursue any imaginative leisure activity or even to simply follow your individual passions or interests, you are not suddenly going to have original ideas.
In addition to all you wrote I would add that levels of nepotism and corruption amongst especially Indian immigrants are very high. It’s hard to take arguments about meritocracy seriously when it seems like Indians only ever hire other Indians and there is mass exploitation of high trust systems (Toronto food banks, minority business loan programs, etc).
For current Indian immigrants I think the best strategy would be to pull the ladder up behind them and take a couple decades to let assimilation do its work. Flooding the zone with co-ethnics like the non-us anglosphere did the last ten years will not leave you in a better position.
I’m interested that you seem to see no value in rote learning (or, more positively put, ‘learning by heart’).
I think I’m reading you correctly that you say native English elites once displayed what you see as skills not largely of the highly-skilled immigrant: a relentless work ethic, a grounding in core educational skills (spelling, vocab, Maths etc), the ability to delay gratification.
While these skills are perhaps over-valorised amongst the ‘winners’ in our rather phoney meritocracy, they have become almost non-existent in the culture at large. Our loss.
I can’t speak for the author. But I am personally of the view that yes, rote learning has a place. You need a grounding in the facts before you can engage in historical analysis; you need to memorise vocabulary if you hope to achieve fluency in a foreign language; and so on. That much I agree with. But you need to get the balance right.
Delayed gratification is also, obviously, important (how else does investment get done?) — but you shouldn’t make a fetish out of it for its own sake.
Agree completely with the thrust of the piece and (having worked many years in East Asia in professional services) this is an important, under-discussed topic. However, you are off the mark on Asian entrepreneurial culture. In countries like China and Vietnam thr level of entrepreneurialism is very high and business owners don't lack for status.
Good to hear that entrepreneurialism is still alive and well in China. I think this is mostly going off of what I and the author of the article have heard about South Korea and Japan.
During the immediate post war period there was a massive expansion of white collar and professional jobs and consequently a great deal of upward social mobility. Almost everyone born between 1935 and 1960 benefited from this and this started the myth that every generation would be better off than their parents.
Social mobility slowed from the late 70s onward, career advancement was harder to achieve and by the first decade of this century the vastly increase number of debt burdened graduates leaving education needed to have wealthy parents able to support them through the necessary Masters degrees, PhDs, and internships to have any hope of a professional middle class career. It was also necessary to be able to afford to live in London or one of the other metropolitan centers.
Skilled immigration might have exacerbated this but the underlying cause is the end of a one off change in the employment structure of the UK.
I wouldn’t wholly disagree with this — the latter half of the twentieth century was probably unique — though I still think you underestimate the effect of ‘high-skilled’ immigration and the generally poor performance of the British economy on the graduate job market.
You say if had you been a black woman that it is likely that your educational achievement alone would have been sufficient to secure you some of the opportunities which you were denied.
This may be true in some instances but I have also witnessed where the opposite is true and quite clearly a black woman has been forced out of job as she did not fit because of her race. It swings both ways, and although in some circles racism is exaggerated for ulterior motives, it also too easily downplayed or forgotten.
Obviously the Asians are not out-competing the West, they are just more willing to be enslaved in industries created by others with imagination and an appetite for risk. Why else do they want visas to come and work here? Even 50 or 60 years ago, I remember my father telling me that the Chinese were very good at copying, but not inventing. That was quite a sweeping statement, but it stands to reason that if you are indoctrinated from a young age to learn by rote and conform and jump through hoops and never pursue any imaginative leisure activity or even to simply follow your individual passions or interests, you are not suddenly going to have original ideas.
In addition to all you wrote I would add that levels of nepotism and corruption amongst especially Indian immigrants are very high. It’s hard to take arguments about meritocracy seriously when it seems like Indians only ever hire other Indians and there is mass exploitation of high trust systems (Toronto food banks, minority business loan programs, etc).
For current Indian immigrants I think the best strategy would be to pull the ladder up behind them and take a couple decades to let assimilation do its work. Flooding the zone with co-ethnics like the non-us anglosphere did the last ten years will not leave you in a better position.
Your essay was damn good. I am an indian learnt a lot. But when you are surrounded by stability seeking drones how am I supposed to be creative? 😓
I’m interested that you seem to see no value in rote learning (or, more positively put, ‘learning by heart’).
I think I’m reading you correctly that you say native English elites once displayed what you see as skills not largely of the highly-skilled immigrant: a relentless work ethic, a grounding in core educational skills (spelling, vocab, Maths etc), the ability to delay gratification.
While these skills are perhaps over-valorised amongst the ‘winners’ in our rather phoney meritocracy, they have become almost non-existent in the culture at large. Our loss.
I can’t speak for the author. But I am personally of the view that yes, rote learning has a place. You need a grounding in the facts before you can engage in historical analysis; you need to memorise vocabulary if you hope to achieve fluency in a foreign language; and so on. That much I agree with. But you need to get the balance right.
Delayed gratification is also, obviously, important (how else does investment get done?) — but you shouldn’t make a fetish out of it for its own sake.
Thanks PJ. Agree.
Agree completely with the thrust of the piece and (having worked many years in East Asia in professional services) this is an important, under-discussed topic. However, you are off the mark on Asian entrepreneurial culture. In countries like China and Vietnam thr level of entrepreneurialism is very high and business owners don't lack for status.
Good to hear that entrepreneurialism is still alive and well in China. I think this is mostly going off of what I and the author of the article have heard about South Korea and Japan.
During the immediate post war period there was a massive expansion of white collar and professional jobs and consequently a great deal of upward social mobility. Almost everyone born between 1935 and 1960 benefited from this and this started the myth that every generation would be better off than their parents.
Social mobility slowed from the late 70s onward, career advancement was harder to achieve and by the first decade of this century the vastly increase number of debt burdened graduates leaving education needed to have wealthy parents able to support them through the necessary Masters degrees, PhDs, and internships to have any hope of a professional middle class career. It was also necessary to be able to afford to live in London or one of the other metropolitan centers.
Skilled immigration might have exacerbated this but the underlying cause is the end of a one off change in the employment structure of the UK.
I wouldn’t wholly disagree with this — the latter half of the twentieth century was probably unique — though I still think you underestimate the effect of ‘high-skilled’ immigration and the generally poor performance of the British economy on the graduate job market.
Does deepseek change our evaluation of Asian societies, if at all?
You say if had you been a black woman that it is likely that your educational achievement alone would have been sufficient to secure you some of the opportunities which you were denied.
This may be true in some instances but I have also witnessed where the opposite is true and quite clearly a black woman has been forced out of job as she did not fit because of her race. It swings both ways, and although in some circles racism is exaggerated for ulterior motives, it also too easily downplayed or forgotten.