the extraordinary educational attainment asian-americans ... pubs/a52.pdf2/ socialforces volume65:1,...

The Extraordinary Educational Attainment ofAsian-Americans: A Search for HistoricalEvidence and Explanations*

CHARLES HIRSCHMAN, Comell UniversityMORRISON G WONG, Texas Christian University

Abstract

The very high educational attainments of Asian-Americans have roots in the pre-World War II era. Native-born Chinese- and Japanese-Americans reached educa-tional parity with majority whites in the early decades of the twentieth century. Inthis paper, we present an analysis and interpretation of the structural conditionsthat may have favored the educational progress of Asian-Americans in spite ofconsiderable societal discrimination. Changes in the occupational structure of theAsian-American population and a somewhat positive rate of occupational returnsto education appear to be plausible explanations for Asian-American educationalgains. Our interpretation is consistent with the middleman minority thesis.

Contrary to the popular image, Asian-Americans have not achievedequality in all spheres of American society. Their record of occupationaland earnings attainment is positive relative to other minorities, but is stillshort of parity with the majority population (Chiswick 1983a; Hirschmanand Wong 1984; Jiobu 1976; Kitano and Sue 1973; Kuo 1981; Nee andSanders 1985; Wong 1980b, 1982; Woodrum 1981). In the field of educa-tion, however, the record of Asian-Americans is one of consistent highachievement. In 1980, for the central college-going ages of 20 and 21, morethan 50 percent of Asian-Americans were enrolled in school compared toabout a third of whites at the same ages (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1984).For specific Asian populations, the percentages enrolled (at ages 20-21)

*This is a revised version of a paper presented at the 1983 meetings of the American Socio-logical Association. This research has been supported by a grant from the National Instituteof Child Health and Human Development (HD16309), "Asian-Americans: Immigration andAdaptation." We thank Luis M. Falcon, Keiko Yamanaka, Leslye Wood, and Suzanne M.Sauer for their excellent research assistance. Teresa Sullivan, Suzanne Model, and Victor Neeprovided helpful critiques of an earlier version of the paper. Address correspondence toCharles Hirschman, Department of Sociology, Comell University. Ithaca, NY 14853.0 1986 The University of North Carolina Press

1

2 / Social Forces Volume 65:1, September 1986

were 62 percent for Japanese, 74 percent for Chinese, 38 percent for Filipi-nos, and 55 percent for Koreans (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1983); dataon years of completed schooling show comparable gaps between Asian-Americans and the majority population (see U.S. Bureau of the Census1984). This extraordinary level of educational attainment among Asian-Americans is buttressed by a wide variety of other evidence includingreports on classroom behavior, test scores, and an overrepresentation ininstitutions of higher education (Bell 1985; Kitano 1976; Levine and Mon-tero 1973; Lyman 1974; Montero and Tsukashima 1977; Petersen 1971;Schmid and Nobbe 1965; Schwartz 1970, 1971; U.S. Commission on CivilRights 1978; Vemon 1982; Wong 1980b).

An important cause of Asian-American educational attainment hasbeen selective immigration-a product of the reform 1965 Immigration Act(Wong and Hirschman 1983). More than half of Chinese- and Filipino-Americans are foreign-bom, a category that includes a very high shareof professional workers with university level education (Hirschman andWong 1981). However, the educational attainments of native-born Asian-Americans, those fully exposed to the American educational environment,rival those of the foreign-bom. To describe and explain the high educa-tional attainments of native-born Asian-Americans are the objectives ofour present inquiry.

If the educational achievements of Asian-Americans were of recentorigin, then we could focus our inquiry on the last few decades, for whichrepresentative data are relatively abundant. However, it appears that Chi-nese and Japanese youth were making significant educational progressbefore World War II. An example of the historical depth of the Asian-American educational record is shown in Table 1. In 1910, the percentagesof Japanese and Chinese children attending school were significantly be-low (with the exception of 18-20-year-old Chinese youth) the comparableenrollment figures for white children. By 1920, the gap had been substan-tially narrowed for the younger age children and Asian-American enroll-ment rates for youth above age 16 exceeded white levels. By 1930, Asian-American children, at all ages, were more likely to be attending schoolthan their white counterparts. Given the continued radsm against Asiansduring this period, especially on the west coast (Daniels 1977; Nee andNee 1972), these educational achievements are remarkable.

The coincidence of minority status and high educational attainmentis not an unknown phenomenon. The most widely cited example is that ofJewish Americans, and the pattern may well be representative of othermiddleman minorities (Blalock 1967; Bonadch 1973; Chiswick 1983b; vanden Berghe 1981). The reasons for this anomaly, however, are much indispute (Ayal and Chiswick 1983; Brenner and Kiefer 1981). Are thereadditional resources available to some minority groups which allow for themitigation of the effects of discrimination or is there variation in opportu-

Asian-American Attainment / 3

Table 1. PERCENT WHITE, CHINESE, AND JAPANESE YOUTH ENROLLED IN SCHOOL IN THE U.S.(EXCLUDING HAWAII AND ALASKA): 1910, 1920. AND 1930

White-NWNP’’ Chinese Japanese

Age 1910 1920 1930 1910 1920 1930 1910 1920 1930

7-13 88.2 92.2 96. 77. 88.6 96.0 73.4 86.1 97.214-15 80.3 83.9 90.0 60.6 83.5 94.9 60.0 82.8 97.316-17 51. 48.7 61.0 42.9 57.9 80.7 30.4 57.9 88.818-20 19.6 17.5 24.4 23.3 31.7 44.4 11.5 25.5 51.8

Native white of native parentage.

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census (1922, Table 2; 1933a,Tables 8 and 1).

nity structure for minority group achievement? Through an analysis ofcensus data, we seek to document the trend in Asian-American educa-tional attainment and to test several hypotheses that might explain it.

Prior Research

There is a considerable body of research on Asian-Americans and theirposition in American society (for general reviews, see Lyman 1974; Peter-sen 1971). The dominant explanation of the success of Asian-Americans isthe cultural thesis. According to the cultural interpretation, successful mi-norities place a premium on ambition, persistence, and deferred gratifica-tion, and exhibit a strong desire for intergenerational social mobility (Gla-zer 1975; Rosen 1959).

Even among scholars who accept the cultural perspective, there isconsiderable disagreement on the source and content of the salient cul-tural values for Asian-Americans. According to one interpretation (Caudill1952; Caudill and DeVos 1956), there is a significant overlap between thevalue systems of traditional Japanese society and the American middleclass, both of which encourage education. However, Schwartz (1970, 1971)observes that many elements of traditional Japanese values, such as theemphasis on "collective" rather than "individual" action and respect forauthority, are not those of middle-class whites. Similar claims about tradi-tional Chinese culture-as exemplified by family unity, respect for eldersand those in authority, industry, a high value on education, and personaldiscipline-have been proposed as the primary cause of the exceptionallyhigh educational achievements of the Chinese in America (Hsu 1971; Sung1967).

Another variant of the cultural perspective argues that rather than


traditional Asian values, it is the acculturation of Asians to the Americanmiddle-class value system that accounts for their high level of achieve-ment. Kitano (1976) says that one reason for the success of Japanese-Americans is their adoption of the values, skills, attitudes, goals, and ex-pected behavior of the middle-class majority. Montero and Tsukashima(1977) found that Nisei (second-generation Japanese-Americans) whowere acculturated and identified themselves as Americans had highereducational attainment than the Nisei who remained within the tradi-tional Japanese cultural world. Connor (1975), however, found a gradualdecline in academic achievement of Japanese-Americans as they becamemore assimilated; longer residence in the United States led to more assimi-lation and less orientation toward achievement. Connor claims that thehigh academic achievement of Japanese-Americans was largely due to thedenial of opportunities to participate in sodal and other extracurricularschool activities in the pre-World War II period. In this setting, academicsuccess was one of the few paths for achievement.

In spite of the contradictory claims made about the origins and im-pact of Asian-American cultural values on educational attainment, thegeneral thesis is rarely challenged. A direct test of the hypothesis (or theseveral hypotheses) would require measurements of individual value ori-entations (preferably taken prior to the completion of schooling) alongwith other determinants of educational attainment (social class, familystructure, environmental influences) which could then be evaluated in amultivariate analysis (e.g., Featherman 1971; Stryker 1984). To our knowl-edge, the necessary data for an analysis of the cultural hypothesis forAsian-American educational attainment do not exist.

There are, however, broader theoretical perspectives on the ques-tion of ethnic stratification in general, and Asian-American educationalattainment in particular, that are more amenable to empirical investiga-tion with extant data. Several forms of the cultural hypothesis, describedabove, suggest that ethnic values in interaction with the broader socioeco-nomic environment and opportunity structure influence Asian-Americaneducational progress. An even bolder hypothesis is that ethnic organiza-tion and culture are, in large part, byproducts of the immigrant experi-ence-the reception of the host community and the nature of availableopportunities (Yancey, Ericksen, and Juliani). The introduction of socialstructural determinants does not eliminate the role of cultural influences,but places them as intervening variables in the stratification process. Val-ues can be interpreted as the mechanism by which social class, immigrant/nativity status, kinship organization, and opportunity structures influenceeducational and subsequent socioeconomic attainment. From this vantagepoint, it is possible to examine some of the potential influences on thetrend in the educational attainment of native-born Asian-Americans. Inthis paper, we consider state of birth in the U.S. (a proxy for educational


opportunities), the social class structure of the Asian-American popula-tion, and the occupational rate of return to education for Asian-Americansas potential explanations for their above average rate of educational prog-ress in the early decades of the twentieth century.

Asian-Americans: Immigration and Settlement

Although the pace of Asian immigration to the United States has in-creased dramatically since the 1965 Immigration Act, the roots of Asian

immigration extend back to the middle of the nineteenth century. As Eu-ropean immigrants began to arrive in increasingly large numbers on theeast coast, a similar process was bringing Asians to the west coast andHawaii. The reception experienced by Asian immigrants, however, wasquite different. In addition to verbal and physical attacks, Asian immi-grants faced official barriers enacted by state legislatures. Congress, andthe courts-perhaps best symbolized by their legal status as "aliens ineli-gible for citizenship" (Bonadch 1984, pp. 162-65).

The Chinese, the first Asian group to arrive in significant numbers,came during the 1850s to work in the gold mines in California and later onthe railroads. Most of the Chinese immigrants were young men seekingnew opportunities with hopes of eventually returning to China. Much ofthe white working class and small-scale independent craftsmen perceivedAsians as "slave labor" for big business (Bonadch 1984). Ethnic antago-nism soon developed and violent attacks on the Chinese population werewidespread (Nee and Nee 1972; Saxon 1971). Political pressures led tothe Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which sharply curtailed working-classmigration from China. This Act was renewed in 1892 and became a per-manent feature of United States immigration policy in 1904. However,offidals, merchants, teachers, students, travelers, and children of Chi-nese-American dtizens were still allowed to enter, although they weresubjected to considerable harassment (Lyman 1974; McKenzie 1928). TheChinese Exdusion Act was finally repealed in 1943 and Chinese immigra-tion rose to modest levels in the late 1940s and the 1950s (Nee and Nee1972). A new wave of Chinese immigration began in the 1960s with theImmigration Act of 1965, which struck down the radst national originquotas of the 1924 legislation. The new law put a premium on familyreunification and scarce occupational skills, with the result that many Chi-nese, espedally those with high educational qualifications, were allowedto enter the United States.

The Japanese were the second Asian group to immigrate in largenumbers to the United States. After the exclusion of the Chinese, Japaneseimmigrants became the new source of cheap labor on the west coast dur-ing the last years of the nineteenth century and the first decade of the


twentieth century. Ethnic antagonism developed against the Japanese as ithad against the Chinese before them (Daniels 1977). The decade of 1901-10 marked the peak of Japanese immigration. In the so-called "Gentle-men’s Agreement" of 1908, Japan limited migration to the United States tononlaborers. For the next fifteen years, Japanese immigration consistedmostly of "picture-brides" and the kin of Japanese already in the UnitedStates. The Immigration Act of 1924 barred further migration of Japaneseto the United States. The Immigration and Nationality Act (McCarran-Walter) of 1952, by permitting immigration outside the quota system forimmediate relatives of U.S. citizens and in other selected cases, allowed amoderate flow of Japanese to the United States in the mid-1950s. TheImmigration Act of 1965 did not result in as large an increase in immigra-tion from Japan as it did from other Asian countries.

The third major Asian stream to migrate to the United States, al-though much later, was from the Philippines. Filipinos initially began mi-grating to Hawaii to work on the sugar cane plantations (Sharma 1984).Migration of large numbers of Filipinos to the United States mainland didnot begin until 1923, coming directly from the Philippines or indirectlythrough Hawaii (Burma 1951). Because Filipinos were considered nation-als of the United States, they were not subject to the ban on Asian immi-gration. However, the Tydings-McDuffie Act of 1934 placed an "alien" sta-tus on Filipinos, thereby restricting Filipino immigration to fifty personsper year. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, and especially theImmigration Act of 1965, led to a significant rise in the volume of Filipinoimmigration to the United States.

Based on decennial census data. Table 2 presents the historicalrecord of Asian-American (Chinese, Filipino, Japanese) settlement in theUnited States, separately for Hawaii and the mainland, from the late 19thcentury to 1980. In addition to the number of Asian-Americans, the per-cent foreign-bom is shown for each population. The last two columns ofTable 2 show the percentages of the total Asian-American population inHawaii and on the mainland. A century ago, Chinese were the largestAsian population in the United States. From a peak in 1890, the number ofChinese-Americans declined (in absolute terms) until 1920. The very lowproportion of Chinese women in the U.S. meant a much delayed develop-ment of a sizeable second generation Chinese-American population, espe-cially on the mainland. Nee and Wong (1985) argue that traditional Chi-nese ties to the homeland discouraged the emigration of Chinese womenand the development of a settled Chinese family life in the United States.By 1910, there were more Japanese than Chinese in the U.S. (mainlandplus Hawaii). Even with the phenomenal growth of the last two decades(1960-80), the total number of Japanese-, Chinese-, and Filipino-Ameri-cans was only 2.3 million in 1980-about one percent of the total U.S.population (the total Asian and Pacific Islander population was 3.5 millionin 1980; see U.S. Bureau of the Census 1981).


Table 2. CENSUS COUNTS’ AND PERCENT FOREIGN-BORN OF JAPANESE-, CHINESE-, ANDFIUPINO-AMER1CANS IN .HAWAII AND THE U.S. MAINLAND, FROM THE LATE NINETEENTHCENTURY TO 1980 (POPULATION IN THOUSANDS)

MainlandHawaii U.S. Total U.S.

% inPop. ^F.B. Pop. %F.B. Pop. %F.B. Hawaii Mainland

Japanese

1980 240 9 476 37 716 28 34 661970 218 10 369 28 587 21 37 63I960 203 12 270 29 473 21 43 571950 185 17 142 27 326 21 56 441940 158 24 127 37 285 30 55 451930 140 35 139 51 278 43 50 501920 109 56 111 73 220 64 50 501910 80 75 72 94 152 83 53 471900 61 92 24 99 85 94 72 28(1896) 24 91 ** ** ** ** ** **1890 12 ** 2 ** 14 ** 86 14

19801970I960195019401930192019101900(1896)1890188018701860

Filipino

19801970196019501940193019201910

5652383229272422262215******

1329569615363212

2211911172847678490100******

46354155********

7563811981187875627290**1071056335

6502411136246455**

675245474859707990**9999100**

69605364********

Chinese

8124332371501061028593115**122******

78233618212399108262

634740394050647586**********

65534960********

71216212726282422**12**A*

**

17283850545881**

958884797374727778**88******

83726250464219**

*Census counts for the same year vary depending on the base ofcomplete count or sample data (see U.S. Bureau of the Census,l963c, p. xi).

Figures not available.

Source: McKenzIe (1928, p. 183); Schmitt (1968, Tables 17, 26,27); U.S. Bureau of the Census (l943b. Table 4; 1953, Tables28-30; 1963a, Table 44; l963c. Table 3; 1973b, Tables 3, 18,33; 1981, Table 1; I983a, Table 161; 1983b, Table 94).


For the Japanese and Filipino populations. Table 2 shows the centralrole of Hawaii as the site of early immigration to the U.S. The movementof Chinese to the mainland began earlier and was always more substantialthan their flow to Hawaii. During the first half of the twentieth century,only a quarter of all Chinese-Americans resided in Hawaii compared tohalf of Japanese- and Filipino-Americans. In recent decades, with renewedAsian immigration, the relativeshare of Asians on the mainland has in-creased even more. By 1980, two-thirds of Japanese-Americans, over 80percent of Filipino-Americans, and 95 percent of Chinese-Americans livedon the mainland.

Because of the decline of immigration to Hawaii, the Asians in theislands, especially the Chinese and Japanese, are almost completely na-tive-born. By 1980, about 90 percent of the Japanese, 80 percent of theChinese, and one-half of the Filipinos in Hawaii were native-born. Thetransition to an American-bom majority is also evident for the Japanesepopulation on the mainland, where the proportion native-born has beenover two-thirds for several decades. The early immigration of Japanesewomen allowed for the relatively rapid development of a second genera-tion and even third generation Japanese-American population. The lessbalanced sex ratios of the Chinese and Filipino immigrant populations didnot permit large second generation populations until recent decades. Thesharp rise of Chinese and Filipino immigration that began in the late 1960sbrought dramatic growth of these populations and reversed the increasein the proportion native-born.

Immigration and the Development of a "Middleman Minority"Community

The historical features of Asian immigration have had a marked imprinton subsequent patterns of stratification of the Asian-American population.Some of these features are common to all immigrant communities, butothers are unique to Asian-Americans. An example of the former is theselectivity (on positive characteristics) of international migrants-a stan-dard explanation for the relatively rapid sodoeconomic gains of immi-grants (Chiswick 1979; U.S. Department of Labor 1979). In addition, theoften harsh experience of long-distance migration (and the breaking ofpast ties) seems to create an intense commitment to achievement in thenew setting. This drive, coupled with the difficulties of finding employ-ment (due to discrimination, language, and slow labor market adjust-ment), leads many immigrants into the small business or self-employedsector (Light 1984). But Asian-Americans, as a "middleman minority,"have retained many of these features of an immigrant community.

In her classic "middleman minority" hypothesis, Bonadch (1973)


argues that the conditions of immigrant status (of being a sojourner com-munity) can persist, even after generations of local residence, through theformation of an ethnic economy (also see Fortes 1981; van den Berghe1981). The ethnic economy counters the hostility of the host society bycreating economic opportunities in family and other kin-based economicenterprises. Drawing on strong family ties and cultural traditions, such as"rotating credit associations" (Light 1972), middleman minorities reinforceethnic solidarity and a sojourner outlook that inspires an intense commit-ment to work and economic accumulation.

How does the ethnic economy of middleman minorities lead to higheducational aspirations for the children of immigrants? One feature of theethnic economy is the sponsorship of opportunities for the next genera-tion. This sponsorship helps to reinforce ethnic solidarity and to justifythe sacrifice that is necessary to maintain low cost economic enterprises. Afrequent element of sponsorship is likely to be investment in the educa-tion of children.

Another important feature of Asian immigration was the educa-tional selectivity of different streams of immigrants. While the educationalcomposition of recent Asian immigrants has been extraordinary (Chen1977; North 1974; Pemia 1976), this was not always the case. Most of theearly Asian immigrants to the United States, like their counterparts fromEurope, arrived with only minimal educational qualifications. The impor-tant exception was early Japanese immigrants. Data from the 1960 Censusshow that Japanese immigrants, above age 65 in 1960, had a median eightyears of schooling-comparable to the figure for the white population ofthe same age (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1963a, 1963c). This finding iscorroborated by earlier studies which report a very selective pattern ofJapanese immigration to the United States, particularly to the mainland(Ichihashi 1932; Kitano 1976; Petersen 1971; Strong [1934] 1970). This pat-tern parallels that of another successful minority group-Jewish immi-grants in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Steinberg1981). Immigrants with modest social class advantages (relative to otherimmigrants) may be better positioned to take advantage of available op-portunities, including the sponsorship of schooling for their children.

Finally, the impact of restrictive immigration policies on Asian-American settlement and adaption needs to be considered. For Chinese,the open door policy ended early with the infamous Chinese ExclusionAct of 1882. After the immigration bar, Chinese immigration continued,but at much reduced levels. (Moreover, the exodus of return migrantsmeant that the absolute number of Chinese in the U.S. declined for sev-eral decades.) To get around the legal restrictions against Chinese immi-gration, a Chinese arrival had to fit rather narrow admission criteria or bea kin of a U.S. citizen. It seems reasonable to assume that these restric-tions made the stream of immigration more selective. With the barrier tothe immigration of Japanese laborers in the wake of the "Gentleman’s


Agreement" there probably was a similar structural tendency for selectiv-

ity of Japanese migrants to the U.S.Ironically, the radst character of U.S. immigration policy toward

Asia, prior to 1965, may have strengthened the resources of the Asiancommunities in the U.S. for educational and economic advancement. Thedoor, while not completely dosed, limited the inflow of immigrants to amodest number of newcomers with above-average levels of education,often superior to that of the native white population in the United States.This certainly minimized pressures on the resident Asian communities toabsorb and support a large number of new immigrants during the firsthalf of the twentieth century. Moreover, the selective character of the im-

migrant stream strengthened the Asian-American community in a waythat probably led to higher educational expectations for their children.

The Trend in Asian-American Educational Attainment

Our first task is to chart the historical trend in educational attainment ofnative-born Asian-Americans relative to the majority population. Censusdata, our primary source, are limited in several respects. First, the stan-dard census question on the number of school years completed was notasked until the 1940 Census. Moreover, the tabulations for Asian-Ameri-cans in the published census reports were extremely limited until recentyears.

However, it is possible to use fairly recent census data to study thehistorical trend in educational attainment. Because individuals rarely con-tinue their formal schooling after reaching adulthood, it is possible to tracehistorical change across successive birth cohorts by examining the trendfrom the oldest to the youngest age group (of adults). Longitudinal infer-ences from cross-sectional data assume that the current population, ar-rayed by age, reflects the experiences of successive cohorts at earlierpoints in time. Differential mortality, as well as selective emigration, couldreduce the representativeness of older age groups, although we think theimpact is likely to be minor. With this caveat, we rely on 1960 and 1970Census data.

To begin our inquiry, we examine the historical trend in educa-tional attainment of Asian-Americans using 1960 published census re-

ports. While based on only a 25 percent sample of the census population,these figures rest on a much firmer base than the estimates from the micro

(public use sample) data. In particular, the estimates for the oldest agegroups, (which rest on quite small samples in the micro data) are not

problematic with data from the published tables.Table 3 shows the median years of completed schooling for whites

and native-born Chinese, Filipinos, and Japanese by birth cohort and sex.

Asian-American Attainment /11

Table 3. MEDIAN YEARS OF COMPLETED SCHOOLING AND NET DIFFERENCE INDEXES OF WHITESAND NATIVE-BORN ASIAN-AMERICANS BY BIRTH COHORT <AGE IN 1960) AND SEX IN THE U.S.: 1960

BirthCohort

1935-19391925-19341915-192’!1895-1914Pre-1895

1935-19391925-19341915-19241895-1914Pre-1895

Median

White

12.412.312.49.38.2

12. It12.312.210.18.5

Years of

Chinese

13.413.312.59.04.2

12.912.712.49.83.8

Completed

Native-Bor

FHipIno

12.312.110.27.26.0

12.412.19.28.77.7

Schooling

n

Japanese

Men

12.912.712.410.98.3Women

12.912.512.38.56.1

Net DiEducatBetwee

Chinese

-0.29-0.30-0.190.080.36

-0.31-0.28-0.130.050.45

fferenceional Ineqn Whites a

Filipino

0.060.100.240.390.23

0.040.100.350.200.14

ndexlualltyind

Japanese

-0.28-0.23-0.14-0.06-0.01

-0.34-0.24-0.040.150.32

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census (1963a, Table 173; 1963c, Tables 21-23,29-31).

An indicator of the inequality of two distributions, the Net Difference(ND) index, is shown in the last three columns of Table 3. For each agecohort, the distribution of whites by years of completed schooling is com-pared to the educational distribution for the Chinese, Filipino, and Japa-nese populations.

The ND index is based on each group’s distribution in all locationsalong the educational continuum (Lieberson 1975). Assuming all possiblepairings of individuals in the two populations, an index of .50 means thatthe educational attainment of whites will exceed the Asian level 50 percentmore often than the educational attainment of the Asians will exceed thelevel of whites. If all white scores exceed all Asian scores, the index is+1.0. Conversely, if all Asian scores exceed all white scores, the ND is-1.0. The value of zero means that the number of pairs in which whitesexceed Asians is equal to the number of pairs in which Asians exceedwhites.

In the oldest cohort (bom before 1895), native-born Japanese menhad educational levels comparable to those of white men-both groupshad median values of a bit more than 8 years of schooling and the NDindex is close to zero. Filipino and especially Chinese male educationallevels were considerably below white levels for the oldest age group. Inthe next cohort (1895-1914), those who entered school in the first twodecades of the century, Chinese and Japanese men made sharp advances,both absolutely and relative to whites. Japanese men pulled ahead with amedian educational level 1.6 years above the comparable white figure. For


this cohort, the median educational level for Chinese men more than dou-bled that of the oldest cohort, and they pulled almost equal with whites.While Filipino men registered absolute educational progress, the ND in-dex shows they fell farther behind whites.

In later cohorts, Chinese and Japanese men advanced beyond theeducational levels of whites. This is much more evident in the ND indexthan in the comparison of median education attainment figures. The rea-son is that native-born Chinese and Japanese men with very low educa-tional levels had virtually disappeared. The trend for Filipino men wassomewhat different. After falling behind white gains in the 1895-1914 co-hort, they began to narrow the gap in successive cohorts. They registeredsignificant absolute and relative gains in the 1915-24 and 1925-34 cohorts.Filipino men were beginning to approach educational equality with whitemen in the cohorts that entered school in the 1940s.

The educational experience of native-born Asian-American womenlargely parallels that of men. Japanese women in the oldest cohort did nothave quite the exceptional level of education that Japanese men had. Infact, it was Filipino women in the pre-1895 cohort whose educational at-tainments were closest to the white level (less than one year’s difference).The next cohort (1895-1914) saw all Asian female groups make absoluteeducational gains, although Filipino women fell relatively behind. Japa-nese women closed the gap considerably, and Chinese women made suchremarkable progress that they approached educational equality with whitewomen. Then, in later cohorts (as among males), Japanese and Chinesewomen were more educated than white women. For Filipino women, asfor Filipino men, the educational advance was temporarily stalled, butwith the 1925-34 cohort, Filipino women began to approach educationalequality with white women.

The educational gains of native-born Asian-Americans early in thetwentieth century might be explained by a variety of factors. The mostobvious factor is that Asians were located in environments where educa-tional opportunities were exceptionally favorable. The educational attain-ments of whites were a product of a national average of rural and urbanplaces from all regions of the country. However, Asian-Americans wereconcentrated in California and Hawaii, where schools and educational op-portunities may have been more accessible. To test this hypothesis, weturn to an analysis based on the micro data, which afford greater flexibilityof analysis than do the published census tabulations.

State of Birth and Educational Attainment

Based on public use sample data from the 1970 Census of Population,Table 4 presents mean years of schooling, sub-divided into two compo-


nents-graded schooling (0 to 12) and college (0 to 6)-for the native-bornof the three major Asian populations and whites (excluding white Hispan-ics) by birth cohort and state of birth. In this table, we shift from medians tomeans as the measure of central tendency. Although educational means aremore likely to be affected by outliers in the distributions, they are gener-ally quite close to medians. Given that access to graded schooling (pri-mary and secondary) and tertiary schooling (college and university) maydiffer, we examine both as elements of the educational stratification sys-tem. Another indicator of educational attainment, the percent attendingcollege (those with 13 or more years of schooling) is also presented inTable 4. State of birth, assumed to represent the environment of subse-quent schooling, is our proxy for the degree of educational opportunities.Asian-Americans are concentrated in California and Hawaii, states whereaccess to schooling may have been more favorable than in other regions ofthe United States. There are too few whites in Hawaii (in the public usesample) to provide reliable estimates for this analysis.

The trend in educational attainment of whites reflects the expan-sion of education in America during the twentieth century. The oldestcohort (bom before 1905) received an average of between 9 and 10 years ofschooling. Average education was slightly higher in California than else-where, although the level of college attendance was slightly lower in Cali-fornia. Average educational attainment increased steadily across succes-sive cohorts, reaching above 13 years of schooling in California and onlyslightly less elsewhere for the youngest cohort (bom in 1935-44 andwhose schooling was centered in the 1950s). The components of educa-tional growth were a trend towards almost universal completion of gradedschooling and an increasing proportion attending college. Almost half ofthe youngest cohort of white men who were bom in California attendedcollege, but somewhat less than one-third of those from other states did.

The patterns of educational attainment for Japanese and Chinesedo not fit the expectation for disadvantaged minorities. Native-born Japa-nese had comparable or higher educational attainments than whites for allthe cohorts represented in this table. For the older cohorts, it seems thatthis Japanese parity with whites reflects roughly similar levels of gradedand college schooling. Japanese from California did better than Japaneseelsewhere (similarly to the differential for whites). It was the youngertwo Japanese cohorts, especially the youngest (born from 1935-44), whoseeducational attainments began to advance significantly above the whitelevel. The slight Japanese edge in the 1925-34 cohort was due primarily tohigher levels of secondary school completion. But the 1935-44 cohort ofJapanese sharply increased their educational attainment through a dra-matic jump in college attendance-e.g., 31 percentage points in California(from 44 to 75 percent). The increases in Hawaii and in other states weresomewhat less, but still outstripped the educational gains of whites.


Table 4. MEAN YEARS OF SCHOOLING (GRADED AND COLLEGE)’ AND PERCENTATTENDING COLLEGEOF WHITES AND NATIVE-BORN ASIAN-AMERICANS BY BIRTH COHORTAND STATE OF BIRTH IN THEU.S.: 1970

White5"1935^441925-341915-241905-14Before 1905Japanese1935-441925-341915-241905-14Before 1905Chinese1935-441925-341915-241905-14Before 1905Filipino1935-441925-341915-241905-14Before 1905

25 or less.

Less than

C<

Total

13.312.912.611.49.8*

14.313.212.611.510.3*

14.313.613.612.4*5.7*

12.012.4******

10.

iliforni

Graded

11.811.411.210.99.6*

11.911.811.610.79.6*

12.011.711.610.8*5.3*

10.911.4****ft*

la

College

1.51.51.4.5.2*

2.41.41.0.87*

2.31.82.01.6*.4*

1.1.9

****k*

St.

Total

**********

13.712.510.89.26.8

13.912.712.110.78.0

11.811.2ftft

****

ate of

Hawaii

Graded

*ft

********

11.911.610.38.76.8

11.811.710.910.17.4

11.010.-

*!

**

ilrth

College

**********

1.81.0.5.50

2.01.01.2.6.6

.8

.4******

Total

12.211.611.410.49.3

13.012.611.99.99.6

12.912.010.89.78.0

11.011.29.8*8.67.0

[Isewhel

G raded

11.310.710.69.88.9

11.411.411.19.59.1

11.110.810.28.87.7

10.410.29.5*8.36.8

e

College

1.0.9.8.6.5

1.71.2.7.3.5

1.81.21.2.9.3

.6

.93*.2.2

traded schooling ranges from 0 to 12 years, college from to 6 years.All persons with 12 or more years of schooling are coded 12 for gradedschooling; all with 12 or less years of schooling are coded 0 on the col-lege variable.

Whites of non-Hispanic origin.

Source: Public Use Sample of the 1970 Population Census.

The educational achievements of native-born Chinese-Americansare no less impressive, but the trajectory of historical change was some-what different. For the oldest cohort of native-born Chinese, average edu-cational levels were far below the white level, especially in California. Inthe next cohort (1905-14) whose schooling was centered in the 1920s, na-tive-born Chinese registered sharp increases in their educational attain-ments (most strongly in California, but also in Hawaii and elsewhere) andreached parity with whites. An important component of the educational


Table 4. (continued)

Percent Attendin9 College

California Hawaii Elsewhere

51 ** 3247 ** 2635 ** 2322 ** 1910* ** 15

75 52 4844 30 3433 15 2325 12 1320 0 18

69 54 4749 27 3752 30 1635* 18 2313* 12 8

36 29 2243* 17 28** ** 20*ft* ** I]** ** 9

progress of native-born Chinese was above-averge levels of college atten-dance (primarily in California). In successive cohorts, native-born Chinesemaintained educational parity with whites; Chinese held a modest edge inCalifornia. Finally, in the youngest cohort, native-born Chinese jumpedfar ahead of their white counterparts-primarily through higher levels ofcollege attendance (a pattern comparable to the shift in college attendanceamong native-born Japanese).

The analysis of the trend of educational attainment of native-born


Filipinos rests on a much weaker empirical base. The number of cases inmost cells is quite small and any interpretation of trends must be consid-ered tentative. There has been a steady increase in native-born Filipinoeducational attainment with the most important shift occurring from the1915-24 to 1925-34 birth cohort in Hawaii, where average education rose

by almost two and a half years. Schooling continued to increase for theyoungest cohort of native-born Filipinos in Hawaii, but there appears tohave been a leveling off of educational gains (a small decline) for Filipinosin the rest of the U.S. Since this observation rests on a very small sample,further investigation is necessary to confirm this trend. Overall, there ap-pears to have been a trend towards a narrowing of the white-Filipinoeducational gap, but parity had still not been achieved.

It appears that the societal discrimination of the first half of thetwentieth century, although extensive, did not diminish the ability ofJapanese- and Chinese-American families to support the education oftheir American-bom children at levels comparable to or above that of themajority population. The cohort of American-born Chinese educated be-fore World War I experienced an educational disadvantage, but this disap-peared in the next cohort. Japanese and Chinese bom in California didbest of all, but those in other parts of the country also achieved educa-tional levels equal to or above whites’. It appears that an explanation forAsian-American educational success cannot be specified in terms of favor-able geographical settings alone.

Changes in the Class Structure of Asian-Americans

Changes in the social class composition of Asian-Americans might be an-other possible explanation for the rapid gains in Asian-American educa-tional levels in the early decades of the twentieth century. The educationalaspirations of children and their subsequent educational attainments are

profoundly shaped by their sodoeconomic origins, especially parental sta-tus (Duncan 1967; Hauser and Featherman 1976; Sewell and Hauser 1975).Families in the lower rungs of the social hierarchy are less able than mid-dle-class families to provide the economic resources and sodal incentivesto further the schooling of their children. To assess the changing sodoeco-nomic structure of Asian-American families (the parents of the generationof native-born Asian-Americans schooled in the pre-World War II era), wechart the trend in the occupational structure of Chinese and Japanese men(relative to total employed men) from the population censuses of 1900,1920, and 1930.

There are several conceptual and data limitations of our test of thishypothesis. Most basically, we cannot link data on family sodoeconomic


position and children’s education, but can only see if there are paralleltrends. Moreover, published data only allow for a look at the trend inoccupational patterns of the adult population (by sex) as a whole, notseparately for parents of school age children. We examine the occupationsof men (realizing that this is only one dimension of family status) as acrude proxy of the social class structure of the Asian-American popula-tion. Changes in the occupational classification scheme for the 1940 Cen-sus caused us to limit our inquiry to the 1900, 1920, and 1930 censuses.(The published occupational tabulations of the 1910 Census combined theChinese and Japanese populations.) Guided by earlier work on the match-ing of occupational categories from 1900 to 1930 (U.S. Census 1943b, table11), we have compiled the occupational distributions of Asian-Americansin comparable categories. Table 5 shows the occupational distributions ofChinese- and Japanese-Americans in the top panel, and the ratio of theAsian to total workers (expressed as ratios of percentage distributions) inthe lower panel.

In 1900, almost seven out of ten Chinese were in agriculture or indomestic and personal services. The stereotypical occupation of laundryworkers employed a quarter of all Chinese men at the turn of the century.Chinese were underrepresented in almost all other occupations (see theratios of less than 1 in the first column of the lower panel of Table 5),especially in higher status positions of public service, professional service,and clerical employment. Over the next three decades, the percentages ofChinese in agriculture (mostly farm laborers), mining, and manufacturingdeclined sharply, while there were corresponding increases in trade (from10 to 17 percent) and especially in domestic and personal services (from 41to 61 percent). Within this last category, the percentage of laundry workersremained at 25 percent, while the percentages of Chinese working as ser-vants and waiters increased to 21 and 10 percent, respectively.

Although the Japanese began with a much higher proportion inagriculture (two-thirds worked in agriculture in 1900, mostly as farm labor-ers), there are some common trends in the Japanese and Chinese occu-pational structures: decline in agriculture and increases in trade and indomestic and personal services. Even though a third of Japanese menremained as farm laborers in 1930, this was only half the 1900 figure.

It is difficult to argue that these changes in the occupational distri-butions represent an upgrading in the social class structure of Asian-Americans. The proportions in higher status positions remained minimaland most Asians continued to work in low paid and low status occupa-tions in 1930. Nonetheless, the changes in occupational structures mighthave created a more favorable environment for educational sponsorship ofthe next generation. Much of the growth of employment in trade, ser-vices, and even agriculture was tied to the entrepreneurial ethnic economy


Table 5. OCCUPATIONAL DISTRIBUTION OP MALE CHINESE- AND JAPANESE-AMERICAN GAINFULWORKERS IN THE U.S. (EXCLUDING HAWAII AND ALASKA): 1900, 1920, AND 1930

Percentage Distribution

Chinese Japanese

Occupation6 1900 1920 1930 1900 1920 1930

Agriculture, forestry,fishingFarm laborers

Extraction of mineralsManufacturing &mechanical industriesTransportation Scommunication

TradePublic serviceProfessional serviceDomestic 6 personalservice

LaundryServantsWaiters

Clerical

Total gainful workers

27214

13

310

412513

1180

2160

58281862

66 45 4762 26 31

2

12

21702

612521102

134

2029

2

51403

2029

2

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

The 1920 and 1930 occupational classifications are compara-ble at the major category level (except that communicationoccupations are not included with transportation in the 1920classification) The 1900 classification, however, requiredconsiderable adjustment to estimate comparable 1900 occupa-tional data. All adjustments are based on Alba Edwards’ matchof 1900 and 1930 Census occupational classifications (U.S.Bureau of the Census I943b, Table II). When it was necessaryto spl it categories to fit the 1930 classification, propor-tional estimation, based on total male workers, as given byEdwards, was used.

(Bonadch and Modell 1980; Light 1972). Within the small business sector,education is likely to be seen as a means for success in a competitiveenvironment. Unlike jobs in the manual sector or in traditional agricul-ture, family businesses often inspire high expectations for the future;these objectives may well be transmitted into high educational aspirationsfor the next generation.


Table 5. (continued)

Ratio to Total Male Workers1’Chinese Japanese

1900 1920 1930 1900 1920 1930

0.5 0.4 0.3 1.5 1.5 1.81. 0.7 0.6 3.3 2.2 3.1.2 0.1 .0 0.3 0.7 0.6

0.5 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.2

0.4 0.2 0.2 1.6 1.0 0.50.9 1.5 1.3 0.3 0.8 1.10.5 0.2 0.1 0.7 0. 0.10.3 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.8

11.2 16.5 13.2 2.1 5.6 4.2103. 150.3 87.6 0.9 10.1 6.011.5 48.3 46.9 5.4 24.4 19.9

18.6 22.7 3.7 2.30.3 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.3

Ratio of the percentage distribution of Chinese- and Japan-ese-American workers to the percentage distributions of totalmale workers. A ratio of greater than represents an over-representation (proportional) of Chinese- and Japanese-Amer-ican workers in that category.

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census(1904, Table 3; 1923,Table 5; 1933b, Tables 12, 13; 1943b, Tables 9, 11) 12, 13

Occupational Returns to Education

Another possible explanation for the high levels of educational achieve-ment among Asian-Americans might be the rate of economic returns toschooling. A common observation in the race relations literature is that thelower economic gains associated with minority education provided weaker


incentives for continued schooling (Blau and Duncan 1967). This hypothe-sis suggests that the economic value of education influences the degree ofsupport for schooling by the family and other social institutions. If educa-tion "matters," then parents and students will be motivated to invest in"human capital" as a channel for sodal mobility. Lieberson (1980, pp. 354-59) finds a more positive "feedback" of occupation on education for for-eign-bom whites than for blacks in 1940. He concludes that these patterns"affected educational incentives for the next generation of blacks in a radi-cally different way than for the next generation of SCE (South, Central,and Eastern European) whites."

Table 6 presents a modest test of the "feedback" hypothesis, that is,that education offered some measure of occupational returns for the gen-erations of Asian-Americans prior to World War II. From 1940 Censusdata, we compare the actual occupational distributions of native-born Chi-nese- and Japanese-Americans with their expected occupational distribu-tions based on the assumption that education is translated into occupationin the same manner as for the total employed male population, and for thetotal nonwhite employed male population. The question is whether theChinese and Japanese occupational "rate of return" to education is posi-tive (similar to the expected distribution based on the total population) orrelatively weak (similar to the expected distribution based on the non-white population). There are a host of methodological problems in thesestatistical "experiments" (the crudeness of the occupational categories, thedifferences in the age boundaries of the populations by education andoccupation, and the lack of controls for other influences) that cautionagainst the interpretation of small differences.

The actual occupational distribution of native-born Chinese maleworkers in 1940 (note the major changes in occupational classificationused in the 1940 Census from the classification of earlier censuses) wasquite different from that expected for Chinese if the "rules of the game"(the education-occupational tradeoff system) for all men (total employedmales) or nonwhite men (total nonwhite employed males) were applied.The Chinese were not able to turn their educational resources into somepositive occupations (crafts) and were crowded into some unfavorable oc-

cupations (other service workers). On the other hand, Chinese seem tohave done relatively well in getting into the MOP (Managers, Officials,and Proprietors) and clerical/sales occupations and in avoiding the rela-tively unrewarding occupations of farmers, farm laborers, and nonfarmlaborers. Comparison with the nonwhite population (about 90 percentblack) shows that education was a more valuable resource for the occupa-tional attainment of native-born Chinese.

Native-born Japanese men (who had a more favorable educationalcomposition than did native-born Chinese men in 1940) do not appear tohave done so well in translating their educational resources into occupa-


Table 6. ACTUAL AND EXPECTED OCCUPATIONAL DISTRIBUTIONS OF NATIVE-BORN CHINESE- ANDJAPANESE-AMERICAN MEN IN THE U.S. (EXCLUDING HAWAII AND ALASKA): 1940

Occupation

ProfessionalFarmersManagers, officials

proprietorsClerical/salesCraftsmenOperati vesDomestic serviceOther serviceFarm laborers-wageFarm laborers-unpaidNonfann laborersNot reported

Total0Ns

C

Actual1142

21122196

31202

100%

11,039

;hinese

Expec

Total

319

881317

683

12

100%

12,915

ted3

Non-white

420

235123

1413519

100%

12,915

J,

Actual1’314

715293418149

100%

15,241

apanese

Expec

Total

910

1219141606427

100%

7,460

.ted3

Non-white

108

386144

2363

15

100%

7,460

Expected occupational distributions of native-born Chinese and Jap-anese men, age 25 and above in 1940, based on their educational dist-ributions and the outflow educational-occupational matrices of totalemployed men and total nonwhite employed men in 1940.Actual occupational distributions of native-born Chinese and Japan-ese men, age 14 and above in 1940.columns do not always sum to totals because of rounding error.

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census (1943c, Table 3; 1943d, Tables 6,8).

tions in 1940. If native-born Japanese men could have gotten the occupa-tional rates of returns of the total population, they (Japanese) would havehad much higher representation in professional, MOP, and craft occupa-tions. While native-born Japanese men did not get pushed to the lowerranks of blue-collar employment (operatives, nonfann laborers) as didnonwhites as a whole, Japanese men did experience a serious problem intheir overrepresentation as farm laborers (four times as high as for thetotal population with equivalent education).

In spite of this mixed picture, it seems that there was some positivefeedback from occupation to education for Asian-Americans in 1940. Thisdoes not mean an absence of discrimination. The historical record is dear(Bonadch and Modell 1980; Cheng and Bonadch 1984; Daniels 1977; Ichi-


hashi 1932) that both formal and informal barriers restricted the economicopportunities of Asian-Americans on the west coast for much of the firsthalf of the twentieth century. But through various channels, perhaps themost important being the ethnic economy, Japanese and Chinese menappear to have been able to realize some economic returns to their educa-tion. Perhaps most importantly, they were able to avoid being thrust intothe lower ranks of manual labor. These patterns may have provided criti-cal reinforcement to the Asian-American cultural emphasis on educationas a way to get ahead.

Discussion and Conclusions

The contemporary pattern of Asian-American education success has rootsthat extend back to the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Thehistorical record, however, is not simply a straightforward march fromuneducated immigrants to a third or fourth generation with postgraduatedegrees. Nor can an explanation that begins and ends with the high edu-cational ambitions of Asian-Americans suffice as an interpretation. Both ofthese elements contain more than a grain of truth, but a closer examina-tion of the evidence reveals a more complex picture.

For as far back as we can look with available census data, native-born Japanese-Americans have not been at an educational disadvantage(although enrollment data from 1910 for all Japanese children do propor-tionately show fewer attending school than among whites). In cohortsbom prior to World War I, native-born Japanese-Americans maintainededucational parity with whites. Subsequent generations of Japanese-Americans have had educational attainments exceeding comparable whitelevels. For native-born Chinese-Americans, there was an educational dis-advantage for the oldest cohort. But this seems to have disappeared forthe cohorts bom in the U.S. in the first two decades of the century. Then,as for Japanese-Americans, the educational levels of successive genera-tions of Chinese-Americans rose sharply. The picture for native-born Fili-pino-Americans is more uneven. Starting off above Chinese-Americans,but below both whites and Japanese-Americans, native-born Filipinos lostground educationally (in a relative sense), but have started to narrow thegap among younger generations. How can these trends be explained? Thefirst element of our interpretation is the character of Asian immigration tothe United States and the conditions of early settlement.

Several factors appear to have been common to Asian-Americaneducational advancement, particularly for Japanese and Chinese. First, theclosing of the door to further Asian immigration certainly lessened thepressures on the local ethnic community to absorb and support additionalkinsmen. This may have allowed marginal resources to be invested in the


education of children, rather than in supporting a growing ethnic enclave.In the middle decades of the twentieth century, the Japanese-Americanpopulation grew very slowly and the Chinese-American population expe-rienced an absolute decline in numbers for many years. Moreover, restric-tive immigration policies meant that only highly selected Asians wereallowed to enter the United States-immigrants who very often had edu-cational qualifications superior to those of the native white population.One might expect parental education to serve as the minimal expectationfor the next generation.

An important factor behind the educational progress of the secondgeneration of Asian-Americans in the early decades of the century was theeconomic progress of their parents. Asian workers were unable to pene-trate the higher echelons of the occupational ranks nor were they allowedto participate in the relatively well-paid skilled craft occupations of in-dustrial work. Left to their own resources, Asians developed an ethniceconomy that created an increasing number of jobs in trade and services.We suggest that this development was a major factor behind the educa-tional gains of Asian-American children in the decades prior to WorldWar II. Bonadch and Modell (1980, p. 152) suggest that educational ambi-tion for second-generation Japanese-Americans grew out of the ethniceconomy-that by providing their children with higher education, Japa-nese-American parents hoped to secure a means for their children to enterthe ranks of the "independent professions, the pinnacle of the petit bour-geois world, or to take over the family business or farm and run it moreefficiently." However, higher education of the Nisei had the uninten-tional consequence of being used as a stepping-stone to leave the ethniceconomy. Instead of strengthening it, higher education often provided anavenue of escape.

Another factor is that Japanese and Chinese educational attainmentseems to have "paid off" in occupational advancement even though Japa-nese and Chinese experienced considerable occupational discrimination.Education was a channel for the sodal mobility of Asians, partly becausethey were frozen out of some sectors of the economy and were forced tocreate their own occupational niches in the ethnic economy.

As Asian-Americans have encountered a moderate amount of eco-nomic success in the postwar era, their educational attainments have shotup to record levels, with college graduation becoming the median level ofattainment. While Asian-Americans bom in California have been the mostsuccessful, the sharp rise in educational levels is evident in Hawaii andelsewhere. Since the ethnic economy and residential segregation appear tohave lessened in recent years, it becomes more difficult to apply our ear-lier interpretation to the contemporary situation. One possible structuralinterpretation is that the high educational levels of the post-World War IIgeneration of Asian-Americans are rooted in a subculture of professional-

24 / Sodal Forces Volume 65:1, September 1986

ism as well as ethnicity. A disproportionate share of Asian-Americansare employed in professional and technical occupations (Hirschman andWong 1981). Parents whose own careers are based on their educationalcredentials are likely to encourage and support the continued schooling oftheir children. Given this context, the very high levels of Asian-Americaneducation may well continue even though other aspects of Asian-Ameri-can culture are losing their distinctiveness.

References

Ayal, Hiezer B., and Barry R. Chiswick. 1983. "The Economics of the Diaspora Revisited."Economic Development and Cultural Change 31:861-76.

Bell, David A. 1985. "The Triumph of Asian-Americans." The New Republic (July 15 and22):24-31.

Blalock, Herbert. 1967. Toward a Theory of Minority Group Relations. Wiley.Blau, Peter M., and Otis Dudley Duncan. 1967. The American Occupational Structure. Wiley.Bonadch, Edna. 1973. "A Theory of Middleman Minorities." American Sociological Review

38:583-94.1984. "Asian Labor in the Development of California and Hawaii." In Labor Immigra-

tion Under Capitalism: Asian Workers in the United States Before World War II, edited by LudeCheng and Edna Bonadch. University of California Press.

Bonadch, Edna, and John Modell. 1980. The Economic Basis of Ethnic Solidarity: Small Businessin the Japanese American Community. University of California Press.

Brenner, Reuven, and Nicholas Kiefer. 1981. "The Economics of the Diaspora: Discriminationand Occupational Structure." Economic Development and Cultural Change 29:517-34.

Burma, John H. 1951. "Background on the Current Situation of Filipino-Americans." SocialForces 30:42-48.

Caudill, William. 1952. "Japanese-American Personality and Acculturation." Genetic Psy-chology Monographs 45, Part 1:3-101.

Caudill, William, and George DeVos. 1956. "Achievement, Culture and Personality: the Caseof the Japanese Americans." American Anthropologist 58:1102-26.

Chen, Anita Beltran. 1977. "Selectivity in Philippine Migration." In Development and Underde-velopment in Southeast Asia, edited by Gordon P. Means. Canadian Sodety for AsianStudies.

Cheng, Lude, and Edna Bonadch. 1984. Labor Immigration Under Capitalism: Asian Workers inthe United States Before World War II. University of California Press.

Chiswick, Barry R. 1979. "The Economic Progress of Immigrants: Some Apparently Univer-

sal Patterns." In Contemporary Economic Problems, edited by William Fellner. American

Enterprise Institute.1983a. "An Analysis of the Earnings and Employment of Asian Men." Journal of Labor

Economics 1:197-214.1983b. "The Earnings and Human Capital of American Jews." Journal of Human Re-

sources 18:313-36.Connor, John W. 1975. "Changing Trends in Japanese American Academic Achievement."

The Journal of Ethnic Studies 2:95-98.Daniels, Roger. 1977. The Politics of Prejudice. Atheneum.Duncan, Beverly. 1967. "Education and Sodal Background." American Journal of Sociology

72:363-72.Featherman, David. 1971. "The Sodo-Economic Achievements of White Religio-Ethnic Sub-

groups: Sodal and Psychological Explanations." American Sociological Review 36:207-22.Glazer, Nathan. 1975. Affirmative Discrimination. Basic Books.


Hauser, Robert M., and David L. Feathennan. 1976. "Equality of Schooling: Trends andProspects." Sociology of Education 49:99-120.

Hirschman, Charles, and Morrison G. Wong. 1981. "Trends in Sodoeconomic Achievement

Among Immigrant and Native-Bom Asian-Americans, 1960-1976." Sociological Quarterly22:495-513.

1984. "Sodoeconomic Gains of Asian-Americans, Blacks, and Hispanics: 1960-1976."American Journal of Sociology 90:584-607.

Hsu, Frands. 1971. The Challenge of the American Dream: The Chinese in the United Slates.Wadsworth.

Ichihashi, Yamato. 1932. Japanese in the United States. Stanford University Press.]iobu, Robert M. 1976. "Earnings Differentials Between Whites and Ethnic Minorities: The

Cases of Asian Americans, Blacks, and Chicanes." Sociology and Social Research 61:24-38.Kitano, Harry. 1976. Japanese Americans: The Evolution of a Subculture. Prentice-Hall.Kitano, Harry, and Stanley Sue. 1973. "The Model Minorities." The Journal of Social Issues

29:1-9.Kuo, Wen H. 1981. "Colonized Status of Asian Americans." Ethnic Groups 3:227-51.Levine, Gene N., and Darrell M. Montero. 1973. "Sodoeconomic Mobility Among Three

Generations of Japanese Americans." Journal of Social Issues 29:33-48.Lieberson, Stanley. 1975. "Rank-Sum Comparisons Between Groups." In Sociological Method-

ology 1976, edited by David R. Heise. Jossey-Bass.1980. A Piece of the Pie: Black and White Immigrants Since 1880. University of California

Press.Light, Ivan. 1972. Ethnic Enterprise in America. University of California Press.

1984. Immigrant and Ethnic Enterprise in North America. Ethnic and Racial Studies7:195-216.

Lyman, Stanford M. 1974. Chinese Americans. Random House.McKenzie, R. D. 1928. Oriental Exclusion. University of Chicago Press.Montero, Darrel, and Ronald Tsukashima. 1977. "Assimilation and Educational Achievement:

The Case of the Second-Generation Japanese American." Sociological Quarterly 18:490-503.

Nee, Victor, and Brett deBary Nee. 1972. Longtime Califom’: A Documentary Study of an Ameri-can Chinatown. Pantheon.

Nee, Victor, and Jimy Sanders. 1985. "The Road to Parity: Determinants of the Sodoeco-nomic Attainments of Asian Americans." Ethnic and Racial Studies 8:75-93.

Nee, Victor, and Herbert Y. Wong. 1985. "Asian American Sodoeconomic Achievement: TheStrength of the Family Bond." Sociological Perspectives 28:281-306.

North, David. 1974. Immigrants and the American Labor Market. Manpower Research Mono-graph No. 31. Department of Labor.

Pemia, Emesto M. 1976. "The Question of the Brain Drain from the Philippines." Interna-tional Migration Review 10:63-72.

Fetersen, William. 1971. Japanese Americans: Oppression and Success. Random House.Fortes, Alejandro. 1981. "Modes of Structural Incorporation and Present Theories of Labor

Migration." In Global Trends in Migration: Theory and Research on International PopulationMovements, edited by Mary M. Kritz, Charles B. Keely and Silvano M. Tomasi. Centerfor Migration Studies.

Rosen, Bernard. 1959. "Race, Ethnidty, and the Achievement Syndrome." American Sociologi-cal Review 24:47-70.

Saxon, Alexander. 1971. The Indispensable Enemy: Labor and the Anti-Chinese Movement in Cali-

fornia. University of California Press.Schmid, Calvin F., and Charles E. Nobbe. 1965. "Sodoeconomic Differentials Among Non-

White Races." American Sociological Review 30:909-22.Schmitt, Robert C. 1968. Demographic Statistics of Hawaii, 1778-1965. University of Hawaii

Press.


Schwartz, Audrey James. 1970. Traditional Values and Contemporary Achievement of JapaneseAmerican Pupils. California Center for the Study of Evaluation.

1971. "The Culturally Advantaged: A Study of Japanese American Pupils." Sociologyand Social Research 55:341-51.

Sewell, William H., and Robert M. Hauser. 1975. Education, Occupation, and Earnings: Achieve-ment in the Early Career. Academic Press.

Sharma, Miriam. 1984. "The Philippines: A Case of Migration to Hawaii, 1906 to 1946." InLabor Immigration Under Capitalism: Asian Workers in the United States Before World War II,edited by Lude Cheng and Edna Bonacich. University of California Press.

Steinberg, Stephen. 1981. The Ethnic Myth: Race, Ethnicity, and Class in America. Beacon.Strong, Edward K. (1934) 1970. The Second Generation Japanese Problem. New Arno Press.Stryker, Robin. 1984. "Religio-Ethnic Effects on Attainment in the Early Career." American

Sociological Review 46:212-31.Sung, Betty Lee. 1967. Mountain of Gold: The Story of the Chinese in America. Macmillan.U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1904. Special Reports: Occupations at the Twelfth Census. GPO.

1922. Fourteenth Census of the United States Taken in the Year 1920. Volume II. Popuation.1920. General Report and Analytical Tables. GPO.

1923. Fourteenth Census of the United States Taken in the Year 1920. Volume IV. Population,1920. Occupations. GPO.

1933a. Fifteenth Census of the United States: 1930. Population. Volume II. General Report.Statistics by Subjects. GPO.

1933b. Fifteenth Census of the United States: 1930 Population. Volume V. General Report onOccupations. GPO.

1943a. Sixteenth Census of the United States: 1940. Population. Second Series. Characteris-tics of the Population. U.S. Summary. GPO.

1943b. Sixteenth Census of the United States: 1940. Population. Comparative OccupationStatistics for the United States. 1870 to 1940. GPO.

1943c. Sixteenth Census of the United Stales: 1940. Population. The Labor Force: Occupa-tional Characteristics. GPO.

1943d. Sixteenth Census of the United States: 1940. Population. Characteristics of the Non-white Population by Race. GPO.

1953. U.S. Census of the Population: 1950. Volume IV. Special Reports. Part 3, Chapter B.Nonwhite Population by Race. GPO.

1963a. U.S. Census of the Population: 1960. Characteristics of the Population. Part I. U.S.Summary. GPO.

1963b. U.S. Census of the Population: 1960. Subject Reports PC(2)-5B: Educational Attain-ment. GPO.

1963c. U.S. Census of the Population: 1960. Subject Reports. Nonwhite Population by Race.GPO.

1973a. U.S. Census of the Population: 1970. Characteristics of the Population: Volume 1, PartI. U.S. Summary, Section 2. GPO.

1973b. U.S. Census of the Population: 1970. Subject Reports PC(2)-1G: Japanese, Chinese,

Filipinos. GPO.1975. Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970, Bicentennial Edition,

Part 1. GPO.1981. U.S. Census of the Population: 1980. Supplementary Report PC80-S1-3: Race of the

Population by States. GPO.1982. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1982-83. GPO.1983a. 2980 Census of the Population. Volume I. Characteristics of the Population. Chapter

C. General Social and Economic Characteristics. U.S. Summary. PC8&-1-C1. GPO.1983b. U.S. Census of the Population: 1980. Characteristics of the Population. General Social

and Economic Characteristics. Hawaii. PC80-1-C13. GPO.


1984. 1980 Census of the Population. Volume I. Characteristics of the Population. Chapter D.Detailed Population Characteristics. Part 1. U.S. Summary. PC80-1-D1-A. GPO.

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. 1978. Social Indicators of Equality for Minorities and Women.Commission on Civil Rights.

U.S. Department of Labor. 1979. Seven Years Later: The Experiences of the 1970 Cohort of Immi-grants in the United Stales. Department of Labor.

van den Berghe, Pierre L. 1981. The Ethnic Phenomenon. Elsevier.Vemon, Philip E. 1982. The Abilities and Achievement of Orientals in North America. Academic

Press.Wong, Morrison G. 1980a. "Changes in Sodoeconomic Status of the Chinese Males in the

United States from 1960 to 1970." International Migration Review 14:511-24.1980b. "Model Students?: Teachers’ Perceptions and Expectations of Their Asian and

White Students." Sociology of Education 53:236-46.1982. "The Cost of Being Chinese, Japanese, and Filipino in the United States: 1960,

1970, and 1976." Pacific Sociological Review 25:59-78.Wong, Morrison G., and Charles Hirschman. 1983. "The New Asian Immigrants." In Culture,

Ethnicity, and Identity: Current Issues in Research, edited by William C. McCready. Aca-demic Press.

Woodrum, Eric. 1981. "An Assessment of Japanese American Assimilation, Pluralism andSubordination." American Journal of Sociology 87:157-69.

’Vancey, William L., Eugene P Ericksen, and Richard N. Juliani. 1976. "Emergent Ethnicity: AReview and Reformulation." American Sociological Review 41:391-403.

the extraordinary educational attainment asian-americans ... pubs/a52.pdf2/ socialforces volume65:1,...

Documents