Sunday, July 03, 2011
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
WSJ: "Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior" and My Thoughts
Just read an interesting article in the WSJ, titled "Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior." Find it here.
It's an interesting article, and worth a read. Just wanted to share some (initial) thoughts.
One point that needs to be emphasized is the role and psyche of immigrants. If you think about the average immigrant to America, in general I would contend that he/she is an above average risk taker, ambitious, adventurous and eager to make a better life by stepping out of their comfort zone. (Before anyone goes crazy, I'm talking specifically of legal immigrants, but this may apply to all immigrants.)
In fact, most middle-aged immigrants who have the opportunity to move to the US (either through work or the Green Card lottery, etc) often leave behind great and comfortable livelihoods, careers, friends and families in order to give their children a better opportunity. Most immigrants move from developing nations where opportunities aren't easily available to even the best, brightest, and hardest workers. So, moving to the US is naturally a better choice. There is also a preconceived notion that the US is categorically a better place to live, no questions asked (though this attitude is changing somewhat).
So, immigrant parents often sacrifice a lot and have this mentality that they moved here (US) to improve the lives of their children. Thus, they do everything they can to push their children to their limits and beyond, especially academically, the topic of the WSJ's article. Anecdotally, I also think a lot of such immigrants are very highly skilled in their home countries and many pursue graduate-level education here to order to re enter the American workforce. So, academics are obviously at the top of their priorities. It's the safe route and the algorithm reads: go to the best college you can, the best grad school, and you'll make the best living you can.
As for sports and extra-curricular activities, e.g. theater, it's again the mentality of probabilities and lack of knowledge of how the industries here work. In developing countries, sports don't usually pay much (though that's changing). Theater/acting does not make much of a living. And while they can all make a great living if pros (NFL, Hollywood, etc), the odds of success are very low and the risks are very high. Along similar lines, I would also bet that children of these "Chinese mothers" often study science/math/engineering in college and a very small proportion major in the liberal arts i.e. History, English, etc, because the odds of employment are higher ex-post. Whether or not these effects carry on to the future generations, specifically, the second generation (F2 and beyond, for you geneticists), would be interesting to know.
It's an interesting article, and worth a read. Just wanted to share some (initial) thoughts.
One point that needs to be emphasized is the role and psyche of immigrants. If you think about the average immigrant to America, in general I would contend that he/she is an above average risk taker, ambitious, adventurous and eager to make a better life by stepping out of their comfort zone. (Before anyone goes crazy, I'm talking specifically of legal immigrants, but this may apply to all immigrants.)
In fact, most middle-aged immigrants who have the opportunity to move to the US (either through work or the Green Card lottery, etc) often leave behind great and comfortable livelihoods, careers, friends and families in order to give their children a better opportunity. Most immigrants move from developing nations where opportunities aren't easily available to even the best, brightest, and hardest workers. So, moving to the US is naturally a better choice. There is also a preconceived notion that the US is categorically a better place to live, no questions asked (though this attitude is changing somewhat).
So, immigrant parents often sacrifice a lot and have this mentality that they moved here (US) to improve the lives of their children. Thus, they do everything they can to push their children to their limits and beyond, especially academically, the topic of the WSJ's article. Anecdotally, I also think a lot of such immigrants are very highly skilled in their home countries and many pursue graduate-level education here to order to re enter the American workforce. So, academics are obviously at the top of their priorities. It's the safe route and the algorithm reads: go to the best college you can, the best grad school, and you'll make the best living you can.
As for sports and extra-curricular activities, e.g. theater, it's again the mentality of probabilities and lack of knowledge of how the industries here work. In developing countries, sports don't usually pay much (though that's changing). Theater/acting does not make much of a living. And while they can all make a great living if pros (NFL, Hollywood, etc), the odds of success are very low and the risks are very high. Along similar lines, I would also bet that children of these "Chinese mothers" often study science/math/engineering in college and a very small proportion major in the liberal arts i.e. History, English, etc, because the odds of employment are higher ex-post. Whether or not these effects carry on to the future generations, specifically, the second generation (F2 and beyond, for you geneticists), would be interesting to know.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
A new tax code
I have an idea to increase efficiencies for the Federal government. Instead of taxing individuals with a federal income tax, each state should be responsible for a share of the federal budget, and therefore contribute to it. In essence, the states would tax their citizens, and then pay into the Feds for their budget. The burden of each state would be determined just like the electoral college, i.e. you have more power in who becomes president, you pay more. Seems fair, doesn't it?
Having the states pay into a grander system can only lead to efficiencies. First, states are more vigilant about their budgets (except California, of course, the exception to every rule). Many have requirements to keep the budgets balanced. Having the states pressure the federal government to keep some restraint on spending would probably alleviate the drunken sailor spending. Additionally, since it's Congress -- made up of state representatives -- that passes spending measures, it will maybe be more in tune with economic realities. The state governors may also be able to knock some sense into the reps to keep spending at a minimum. Moreover, you get rid of the giant waste known as the IRS and its absurd tax code that is impossible to figure out unless you have studied it for years (i.e. you're an accountant).
Of course, the opponents of this idea will rush out saying it's unconstitutional blah blah blah. Change the Constitution in order to "create a *more* perfect Union."
Thoughts?
Having the states pay into a grander system can only lead to efficiencies. First, states are more vigilant about their budgets (except California, of course, the exception to every rule). Many have requirements to keep the budgets balanced. Having the states pressure the federal government to keep some restraint on spending would probably alleviate the drunken sailor spending. Additionally, since it's Congress -- made up of state representatives -- that passes spending measures, it will maybe be more in tune with economic realities. The state governors may also be able to knock some sense into the reps to keep spending at a minimum. Moreover, you get rid of the giant waste known as the IRS and its absurd tax code that is impossible to figure out unless you have studied it for years (i.e. you're an accountant).
Of course, the opponents of this idea will rush out saying it's unconstitutional blah blah blah. Change the Constitution in order to "create a *more* perfect Union."
Thoughts?
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Piano and Cello, Song for Sienna by Brian Crain
Recently found this song. I think it's a strikingly pretty tune.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Does Facebook Formalize your Life?
Recently, I have found that Facebook authenticates or formalizes something about you (or "makes it official"). Whether it's changing a relationship status, or adding education or work, putting something in there makes an automatic announcement to the world. I recently updated my profile and found it to be a rather serious matter to go in there and change things up. Quite nerve wrecking actually. It's like not only changing your biography, but doing so in a public manner and in real-time. Quite incredible that filling in a virtual, intangible blank that exists in some computer in the ether has that effect. Do you find a similar "Facebook-makes-it-official" effect?
Friday, December 10, 2010
Uh, Who is the President?
So, apparently Mr. Obama (the current president, I think) invited Mr. Clinton (President, 1992-2000, I think) to The White House. While Mr. Clinton spoke, Mr. Obama excused himself and left the press room, whereupon Mr. Clinton spoke in front of The White House podium, even taking questions from reporters. Um, has Mr. Obama's administration lost its mind? Did they not watch The West Wing? So, who is in charge? Clinton? Obama? Both? What? Who? Yep, confuzzled.
Are you?!
Thursday, December 09, 2010
Gifts and Responsibilities
"Wealth is an advantage, but it also is frankly a responsibility." --Nicolas Berggruen
WSJ reports that Zuckerberg, Facebook's co-founder, has pledged to give away the majority of his wealth to "The Giving Pledge," which is "an effort organized by software mogul Bill Gates and investor Warren Buffett to persuade the world's rich to boost their giving (WSJ)."
The list of the current 16 billionaires is interesting. More interesting, perhaps, are their accompanying letters and motivations, which basically boil down to the Berggruen's quotation above: being wealthy is nice, but it comes with responsibility. Yours truly certainly believes so (though he will not be contacted by Buffett and Co. for obvious reasons) and commends these 16 individuals. In particular, I single out Larry Ellison of Oracle, whom I have always viewed as a snob, both because of his aggressive business practices and his sailing hobby. Good for you, Mr. Ellison.
Surprisingly, several household billionaires names haven't come around yet: Steve Jobs (Apple), The Waltons (Wal-Mart), Sergey Brin / Larry Page (Google), Steve Balmer (quite surprising given Gates' position in the deal), Michael Dell (Dell, though maybe he's trying to figure out how to use his money to save his company from impending doom), Paul Allen (Jobs' old friend). Let's get this clear though: just because one is not on the list, does not mean that they don't do their part. Though it would be a nice cohesive gesture.
Bottom line: Bravo Billionaires. But, keep the cold calls going.
What do you think: Is it mostly your billion or should society be allowed to share in its fruits?
WSJ reports that Zuckerberg, Facebook's co-founder, has pledged to give away the majority of his wealth to "The Giving Pledge," which is "an effort organized by software mogul Bill Gates and investor Warren Buffett to persuade the world's rich to boost their giving (WSJ)."
The list of the current 16 billionaires is interesting. More interesting, perhaps, are their accompanying letters and motivations, which basically boil down to the Berggruen's quotation above: being wealthy is nice, but it comes with responsibility. Yours truly certainly believes so (though he will not be contacted by Buffett and Co. for obvious reasons) and commends these 16 individuals. In particular, I single out Larry Ellison of Oracle, whom I have always viewed as a snob, both because of his aggressive business practices and his sailing hobby. Good for you, Mr. Ellison.
Surprisingly, several household billionaires names haven't come around yet: Steve Jobs (Apple), The Waltons (Wal-Mart), Sergey Brin / Larry Page (Google), Steve Balmer (quite surprising given Gates' position in the deal), Michael Dell (Dell, though maybe he's trying to figure out how to use his money to save his company from impending doom), Paul Allen (Jobs' old friend). Let's get this clear though: just because one is not on the list, does not mean that they don't do their part. Though it would be a nice cohesive gesture.
Bottom line: Bravo Billionaires. But, keep the cold calls going.
What do you think: Is it mostly your billion or should society be allowed to share in its fruits?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)