Asian-American Educational Achievements:A Phenomenon in Search of an Explanation

Stanley Sue and Sumie OkazakiUniversity of California, Los Angeles

Considerable attention has been paid to the academic achievements of Asian Americansbecause there is convergent evidence that this population has attained high educationalmobility. In trying to explain the achievement patterns, researchers have largely limitedtheir investigations to one of two contrasting hypotheses involving (a) hereditarydifferences in intelligence between Asians and Whites and (b) Asian cultural valuesthat promote educational endeavors. Research findings have cast serious doubt over thevalidity of the genetic hypothesis. Yet, there has been a failure to find strong empiricalsupport for alternative hypothesis concerning cultural values. It is proposed, under theconcept of relative functionalism, that Asian Americans perceive, and have experi-enced, restrictions in upward mobility in careers or jobs that are unrelated to education.Consequently, education assumes importance, above and beyond what can be predictedfrom cultural values. Research and policy implications of this view are noted.

Great concern has been expressed over theeducational achievements of American studentsin general and of ethnic minority students inparticular. In 1984, Skinner wrote an articleentitled “The Shame of American Education.”Skinner’s article lamented the educational me-diocrity of American schools in terms of studentachievements, motivational levels, and learning.Spence (1985), in her American PsychologicalAssociation Presidential Address, also noted thelack of excellence in schools, especially in fos-tering the learning of math and science. Indeed,there has been growing concern that Americansare falling behind students from other countriesin educational achievements. The problems areparticularly apparent in the schooling of ethnicminority students, such as Blacks, Hispanics,and American Indians, who show lower levels

of educational attainments, grades, graduationrates, and school persistence (see CaliforniaState Department of Education, 1986).

In ethnic minority research, one of the mostremarkable phenomena has been the high edu-cational achievements demonstrated by someAsian-American groups over the last four de-cades. Although Asian Americans have beensubjected to similar prejudice and discrimina-tory practices encountered by other ethnic mi-nority groups, their educational attainmentshave been increasing. In this article we examinethe achievements and two of the major expla-nations that have been proposed for the achieve-ments of Asian Americans, involving possiblehereditary or culturally advantages. The topic,of course, is highly controversial. Genetic ex-planations for racial or ethnic group differencesin intelligence and achievements have gener-ated intense debates. Even attributing Asian-American achievements to cultural factors canresult in disputes involving cultural “superior-ity” or deficits.

From the very outset, let us make four points.First, as a group, Asian Americans do demon-strate exceptional achievement patterns. How-ever, Asian Americans represent a heteroge-neous group with marked within- and between-group variations in a number of characteristics(Barringer, Takeuchi, & Xenos, 1990; Sue &Abe, 1988). We also know that the highachievement levels must be tempered. Asian

An earlier version of this article was presented as aDivision 15 invited address at the 1989 Annual Conventionof the American Psychological Association in New Orleans,Louisiana, August 13, 1989. Preparation of this article wassupported by the National Institute of Mental Health GrantRO1 MH44331.

We gratefully acknowledge the helpful suggestions andcomments of Seymour Feshbach, David Takeuchi, and No-lan Zane.

Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-dressed to Stanley Sue, Department of Psychology, Univer-sity of California, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1563.

This article is reprinted from American Psychologist,1990, Vol. 45, No. 8, 913–920.

Asian American Journal of Psychology © 2009 American Psychological Association2009, Vol. S, No. 1, 45–55 1948-1985/09/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1948-1985.S.1.45

45

Americans show not only high educational at-tainments but relatively higher proportions ofindividuals with no education whatsoever com-pared with Whites and ethnic minority groups(Sue & Padilla, 1986). Second, although there isgrowing interest in Asian-American achieve-ments, research findings have not been able toshed much light on the factors that account forthe achievement levels. This fact is caused inpart by the lack of research on the phenomenonand by the failure to clearly devise adequate orcritical tests. Third, in the search for factors thatinfluence achievement levels, single explana-tions cannot adequately account for the ob-served performance patterns. Thus, research onheredity, culture, child-rearing practices, educa-tional experiences, and personality, amongother topics, has yielded interesting but incon-clusive results. Fourth, explanations for Asian-American achievements must incorporate whatwe call relative functionalism. Although cul-tural explanations propose that achievement is aresult of Asian cultural values that extol thevirtues of education, or of cultural practices thatmaximize skills in gaining education, the con-cept of relative functionalism also considers theproblems of achieving in noneducational typesof endeavors—those that are not a clear anddirect outcome of educational performance.Perceived limitations in mobility in these en-deavors increase the relative value or functionof education as a means of achieving success.

Achievement Levels

In recent years, a number of popular maga-zines have portrayed Asian Americans as ex-traordinary achievers: U.S. News and WorldReport (Asian Americans: Are They, 1984);Newsweek (A Formula for Success, 1984); NewYork Times (Why Asians Are Going, 1986);Chronicle of Higher Education (Asian StudentsFear, 1986); Los Angeles Times Magazine(When Being Best, 1987); Time Magazine (TheNew Whiz Kids, 1987); National EducationAssociation Today (“Whiz Kid” Image, 1988);and Asian Week (Probing Into, 1990). Theseperiodicals have pointed to the high levels ofeducational attainments shown by Asian Amer-icans and supported by empirical evidence.

As indicated in Table 1, Asians and Pacific-Islander Americans exceed in national averagefor high school and college graduates. The rate

of graduation from colleges and universities arehigher, whether men or women are consideredor whether Asians are compared solely withWhites (Bureau of Census, 1983, 1984). Otherindicators such as measures of pursuit of highereducation and persistence also reveal a stronginvolvement in education. For example, 86% ofAsian Americans versus 64% of Whites arefound in some kind of higher education pro-gram, two years after high school graduation;and for those who entered a four-year univer-sity, 86% of Asian Americans stayed the fol-lowing year, compared with 75% for Whites,71% for Blacks, and 66% for Hispanics (Peng,1988). Within the University of California sys-tem, which enrolls the largest number of Asiansin the United States, fully 26% of Asian-American high school students (not includingforeign students) in 1985 qualified for entry,whereas only 13% of non-Asian students did.Asians also had the highest proportion of stu-dents graduating within five years of entry: 63%compared with 61% for Whites, 43% forBlacks, 50% for Hispanics, and 46% for Amer-ican Indians. These figures do not include for-eign students. The high levels of educationalachievements can also be seen in reports fromthe College Board. College-bound Asian-American seniors (about 10% of them wereforeign students) receive superior high schoolgrades and consistently demonstrate higher

Table 1Schooling Completed by Sex and Race/Ethnicity forPersons 25 Years or Older, 1980

Race/ethnicity

High schoolgraduates (%)

4� years collegecompleted (%)

Men Women Men Women

White 69.6 68.1 21.3 13.3Black 50.8 51.5 8.4 8.3Hispanic 45.4 42.7 9.4 6.0AI/Alaskan 57.0 54.1 9.2 6.3Asian/PI 76.8 71.4 39.8 27.0Chinese 75.2 67.4 43.8 29.5Filipino 73.1 67.4 32.2 29.5Japanese 84.2 79.5 35.2 19.7Korean 90.0 70.6 52.4 22.0Asian Indian 88.8 71.5 68.5 35.5Vietnamese 71.3 53.6 18.2 7.9

Note. AI/Alaskan � American Indian/Alaskan Native;Asian/PI � Asian/Pacific Islander. Bureau of the Census(1983, 1984).

46 SUE AND OKAZAKI

Scholastic Aptitude Test scores on the mathe-matics (SAT–M) subscores, but lower Englishverbal (SAT–V) subscores than do White or allnon-Asian students. For example, in 1989,Asian Americans achieved average scores of409 on the SAT–V and 525 on the SAT–Mcompared with scores of 427 on the SAT–V and476 on the SAT–M for all other students. Thehigh school grade point average of Asian Amer-ican students was also higher than those of allother students, 3.25 versus 3.08 (College Board,1989). (For all students, women had slightlylower SAT scores than did men, but they hadsuperior high school grades.) Hsia (1988) notedhigh achievements not only in these scores butalso among the finalists and winners in theNational Merit Scholarship Program, Presiden-tial Scholars, and Westinghouse Science TalentSearch Program. The evidence for high educa-tional attainments is quite convergent.

Explanations for the AchievementPatterns

Is it possible to find a simple or parsimoniousexplanation for the achievement levels of AsianAmericans? For example, we know that educa-tional achievements of individuals are directlyrelated to the social class of parents (Jencks,Crouse, & Mueser, 1983). Perhaps Asian Amer-icans are “advantaged” in terms of socioeco-nomic standing and provide their children withspecial resources and opportunities. There is nostrong evidence that this can explain the racialor ethnic differences. In a report by Arbeiter(1984) on college-bound seniors, the medianparental income of Asian Americans was lowerthan that of Whites, $25,400 and $32,900, re-spectively; the educational attainments of theparents were comparable. Yet, Asian Ameri-cans were found to have higher high schoolgrades and SAT–M scores than did Whites.

Perhaps some of the educational achieve-ments can be accounted for by the inclusion offoreign students among the Asian Americans orby the inclusion of Asian immigrants who al-ready have high levels of education and subse-quently become naturalized American citizensor permanent residents. The available evidencedoes not support this possibility. Using datafrom the 1980 U.S. Census, Kan and Liu (1986)compared the percentage of native- and foreign-born individuals who had completed four years

of college. Although there was a tendency forforeign-born individuals to have higher educa-tional levels, perhaps because of immigrationpolicies favoring the educated, American-bornAsians exceeded American-born Whites in theproportion of those with four years of collegeeducation: Whites, 18%; Chinese, 42%; Japa-nese, 27%; and Koreans, 27%. Filipinos (15%)and Asian Indians (13%) born in the UnitedStates had somewhat lower percentages than didWhites.

Heredity

Is it possible that Asians are innately superiorto Whites in intelligence? Consensus exists thatthe heritability of intelligence is high (Vernon,1982). However, to fully address this question,it is necessary to demonstrate that Asian Amer-icans are higher not only in educational attain-ments but also in intelligence and cognitivefunctioning. Unfortunately, few studies havecompared these groups on intelligence mea-sures. After examining studies on IQ test per-formances, Sowell (1978) concluded that Chi-nese and Japanese Americans equal or exceedthe national average. In a review of intellectualtest results for Chinese and Japanese Ameri-cans, Vernon also argued that these two groupswere superior. However, sample sizes for thereviewed studies were small, and estimateswere based on performance rather than on ver-bal tests, inasmuch as English is not the firstlanguage for many Asian Americans—a majorlimitation in making ethnic comparisons.

Because only small samples of Asian Amer-icans are available, investigators have examinedthe question of racial differences in intelligenceby studying overseas, or foreign, Asians. In1977, Lynn calculated the mean IQ of Japanesein Japan from standardization studies of theWechsler (1949, 1955) tests in Japan. Usingonly the performance subtests, he found that atevery age level the Japanese children outper-formed the Americans. He discounted other ex-planations such as test bias and environmentaladvantage. Lynn (1977) reasoned that becausethe tests were developed in the United States, itis unlikely that they would be biased in favor ofthe Japanese. Furthermore, at the time Japanesehad lower per capita income than did Ameri-cans. Lynn concluded that heredity plays animportant role in explaining the group differ-

47ASIAN-AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENTS

ences. The conclusion was refuted by other in-vestigators, especially Flynn (1982), who rean-alyzed Lynn’s data. He criticized Lynn for avariety of reasons, but particularly for not tak-ing into account the yearly average gains in IQthat have occurred; the American norms used tocompare with Japanese performances were es-tablished several years earlier. In addition,Flynn noted that Lynn vacillated between usingWhites and all Americans (Whites and otherethnic minority Americans) as the standard bywhich to compare Japanese performances. Bycorrecting for these factors, Flynn found littledifferences in IQ performance between Ameri-cans and Japanese. The debate between the twoinvestigators has continued (see Flynn, 1987;Lynn, 1987). It has highlighted the methodolog-ical and conceptual problems in cross-nationalstudies of intelligence and has revived the con-troversies regarding the meaning of intelli-gence, methods to estimate intelligence, andvalidity of instruments. In view of the problems,the hereditary perspective has received littleempirical support.

The most extensive work on cross-nationalcomparisons in intelligence has been conductedby Harold Stevenson and his colleagues(Stevenson & Azuma, 1983; Stevenson, Lee, &Stigler, 1986; Stevenson et al., 1985; Uttal,Lummis, & Stevenson, 1988). Stevenson et al.believe that Lynn failed to take into account thefact that the Japanese samples tended to havehigher socioeconomic standing and a higherrepresentation of urban than rural children thandid the American samples from which thenorms were constructed. Stevenson wanted touse a direct approach to comparing cognitiveabilities. First and fifth graders in Japan, Tai-wan, and United States were carefully selectedand matched on demographic variables. Cogni-tive measures—verbal and performance tests—were devised with considerable attention to taskequivalence and appropriateness for the differ-ent cultures and languages. Achievement testsfor mathematics and reading were also con-structed. Reliability for the measures was foundto be generally good. Results on the cognitivemeasures revealed a few group differences onsubtests, but no overall difference in intelli-gence. Distribution and variability of scoreswere similar for each sample. On mathematicsachievement tests, Chinese performed well,whereas Americans had relatively low scores.

Cognitive performance was a fairly good pre-dictor of mathematics achievement scores butnot of verbal scores. There were no generaldifferences in cognitive functioning betweenthe samples, and superiority of Asians in mathwas not attributable to higher levels of cognitivefunctioning among the Asian samples. Obvi-ously, group differences in complex character-istics or behaviors such as intelligence may beattributed to the interaction of innate character-istics, cultural roots, and other environmentalconditions (Greenfield & Childs, in press), butthe hypothesis that Asians are genetically supe-rior in intelligence would appear to be refutedby empirical data.

Culture

The other major explanation for the achieve-ments of Asian Americans is cultural in nature.Cultural institutions, such as schools, may af-fect learning and performance. For example, intheir extensive observations in the three societ-ies, Stevenson, Lee, and Stigler (1986) foundthat U.S. schools spent less time on academicactivities, U.S. teachers imparted less informa-tion, and there was less emphasis on homeworkin U.S. than in Chinese or Japanese schools.However, in explaining the achievements ofAsian Americans, differences in school experi-ences cannot fully account for the high achieve-ment levels of Asian Americans, especiallythose born and educated in this country.

The most popular cultural view is that Asianfamily values and socialization experiences em-phasize the need to succeed educationally.Largely on the basis of anecdotal and observa-tional evidence rather than on empirical find-ings, investigators have identified the followingvalues or practices in Asian families that maypromote educational achievements: demandsand expectations for achievement and upwardmobility, induction of guilt about parental sac-rifices and the need to fulfill obligations, respectfor education, social comparisons with otherAsian-American families in terms of educa-tional success, and obedience to elders such asteachers. From structured interviews withAsian-American students, Mordkowitz andGinsburg (1987) provided anecdotal support fora cultural interpretation involving family social-ization for high achievements. The students re-ported that their families emphasized educa-

48 SUE AND OKAZAKI

tional accomplishments, held high expectationsfor achievements, controlled the behaviors ofthe students, and considered schooling very im-portant. Such anecdotal evidence about Asianculture and socialization practices must be tem-pered. Culture is a concept that has been used toexplain all phenomena, but one that is difficultto define and to test.

A cultural interpretation proposes that social-ization patterns and institutional practiceswithin a culture can aid, be irrelevant to, orhinder educational pursuits. Hard work, respectfor education, and the motivation to becomeeducated, among other traits, foster academicsuccess. In the cultural model, the research taskis to identify relevant cultural values and prac-tices and correlate them with educational attain-ments. Three implications are generated by themodel, as shown in Table 2. First, cultural fac-tors (e.g., child-rearing practices, and socializa-tion experiences characteristic of the culturalgroup) should correlate strongly with achieve-ment levels. Second, with increased accultura-tion to mainstream American values (and ex-tinction of Asian cultural values), achievementlevels should diminish. Third, to improve edu-cational attainments for all groups, Americansshould selectively adopt certain Asian culturalvalues. Certainly, the American business com-munity has explored alternative corporate prac-tices, often modeling after the Japanese, whoare perceived as being successful economic andbusiness entrepreneurs.

Despite much anecdotal speculation, few rig-orous studies have tested the cultural thesis, andavailable research provides little support. In ex-amining possible cultural factors in achieve-ments, Dornbusch and colleagues (Dornbusch,Prescott, & Ritter, 1987; Dornbusch, Ritter,Leiderman, Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987; Ritter &Dornbusch, 1989) have recently reported ontheir ongoing investigations of thousands ofhigh school students in California, includingone of the largest population of Asian Ameri-cans ever surveyed. The project investigated therelation between family variables and academicachievement for various ethnic minority groups.Several interesting findings that have relevancefor our discussion emerged from the rich datacollected. First, Asian-American students ex-hibited the highest grade point average amongall groups, including Blacks, Latinos, Whites,and others. Second, on the basis of the re-sponses to the questionnaires, students from theethnic groups were compared on the type offamily in which they had been reared: Parentalcommunication patterns that foster unquestion-ing obedience to parents (authoritarian style),freedom for the child to choose what to do withminimal parental involvement (permissive), andexpectations for mature behavior and encour-agement of open two-way communications be-tween parents and children (authoritative).Asian-American students came from familieshigh on authoritarian and permissive and low onauthoritative characteristics, the opposite of

Table 2Contrasting the Cultural and Relative Functionalism Perspectives

Culture Relative functionalism

Assumptions and predictionsCultural values can aid, be irrelevant to, or hinder educational

pursuits. Asian-American values foster educationalachievements. Asian cultural values are directly related toeducational achievements. With increased acculturation,educational achievements decline.

Asian-Americans experience and receive limitedmobility in noneducational areas of success.The greater the limitations in noneducationalareas, the more salient education becomes asa means for mobility.

Research tasks

Identify relevant cultural values and correlate witheducational achievement over time.

Examine perceptions of mobility innoneducational areas; correlate perceptionswith educational pursuits and priorities.

Societal implications

Inculcate in others those Asian American values that facilitateeducational achievements.

In addition to cultural values, the status andsituation of Asians in American society mustbe studied.

Note. The relative functionalism perspective does not disagree with the assumptions, tasks, and implications of the culturalthesis. It simply adds another dimension to explain the achievements of Asian Americans.

49ASIAN-AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENTS

White students. Their parents also had the low-est level of parental involvement among thegroups studied. Third, for all groups and irre-spective of social class, authoritarianism andpermissiveness were inversely related, whereasparental involvement was directly related to ac-ademic achievements. (Parenting style, how-ever, was a weaker predictor of grades for Asianthan for Whites.) Thus, the very characteristicsassociated with the Asian-American group pre-dicted low academic achievements for allgroups; yet, Asian-American students hadhigher levels of academic achievements. Theresults suggest that although parenting stylesmay account for within-group achievement lev-els for Asian Americans, they fail to explainbetween-group differences (i.e., between AsianAmericans and the other groups). The findingsdo not support the cultural hypothesis that AsianAmericans differ from other groups in achieve-ments because of differences in upbringing. Al-though ethnic differences in parenting styles doexist, they fail to account for the observed eth-nic differences in achievements.

Other variables examined by the investiga-tors did not reveal group differences. Asian-American responses were not significantly dif-ferent from the other groups on reasons cited forworking hard, parental pressures for achieve-ment, need for making parents proud, not em-barrassing family, and sacrifices made by thefamily for educational pursuits, variables thathave often been used and supported by anec-dotal examples to explain Asian achievements.Only on one response was there a significantgroup difference: Asian Americans were morelikely to believe that success in life has to dowith the things studied in school. This beliefwas directly related to high school grades. Theinability to find variables that could explain thesuccess of Asian-American students led the in-vestigators to conclude that “Something associ-ated with being Asian is having a positive im-pact on school performance independent of thefamily process variables that may work so wellin predicting performance among Whites” (Rit-ter & Dornbusch, 1989, p. 7).

The findings, of course, do not invalidate acultural explanation. Perhaps other family orsocialization variables are important, singly orin combination, and more studies should beconducted. However, the difficulty in findingcultural factors that strongly correlate with

Asian-American achievements and that canserve as an explanation for differential achieve-ment patterns is troublesome for such a widelyheld thesis. It is not that “culture” is unimpor-tant. If one excludes genetic factors as a signif-icant determinant of the higher levels ofachievement attained by Asian Americans, thensome features of the culture are likely to play animportant role. Because not all cultural differ-ences will be germane, the challenge is to de-termine those features that are relevant to edu-cational achievement for that culture. The evi-dence suggests that proximal values such as theimportance of study and working hard, ratherthan distal values and behaviors such as social-ization practices, may be important predictorsof achievement. Moreover, cultural values donot operate in a vacuum. By focusing on Asiancultural as well as hereditary explanations, im-portant contextual factors in the larger societyare ignored. We propose that cultural values areweakly related to achievement, inasmuch ascultural values are often too global, or distal toachievements. A better model would posit thatcultural values or socialization patterns affect amediator (a more proximal variable such aseffort or motivation), which is likely to show astronger correlation with achievements. Themediator is also influenced by other variables,besides culture, such as opportunities for ad-vancement in other areas of life.

Relative Functionalism

The academic achievements of Asian Amer-icans cannot be solely attributed to Asian cul-tural values. Rather, as for other ethnic minoritygroups, their behavioral patterns, includingachievements, are a product of cultural values(i.e., ethnicity) and status in society (minoritygroup standing). Using the notion of relativefunctionalism, we believe that the educationalattainments of Asian Americans are highly in-fluenced by the opportunities present for up-ward mobility, not only in educational endeav-ors but also in noneducational areas. Nonedu-cational areas include career activities such asleadership, entertainment, sports, politics, andso forth, in which education does not directlylead to the position. To the extent that mobilityis limited in noneducational avenues, educationbecomes increasingly salient as a means of mo-bility. That is, education is increasingly func-

50 SUE AND OKAZAKI

tional as a means for mobility when other ave-nues are blocked. Several propositions are ap-parent. First, similar to the cultural explanation,relative functionalism assumes that there is inany particular group a drive for upward mobilityand that cultural values and practices can affecteducational attainments. Second, when oppor-tunities for upward mobility are limited or areperceived to be limited in other areas, educa-tional achievements should increase. This isparticularly true with groups that are culturallyoriented toward education and have experi-enced academic success. Third, trying to changeAmerican educational values and practices inthe direction of Asian values may result in onlysmall increments in educational attainments, in-asmuch as mainstream Americans have otheravenues of mobility.

Table 2 contrasts the assumptions made bythe cultural and relative functionalism perspec-tives. In the cultural interpretation, investigatorstraditionally assume that some ethnic groupshave cultural values that match or fit the societyin which they live. For example, in the classicbook Assimilation in American Life, MiltonGordon (1964) argued that the extraordinaryachievements of Jews in this country can pri-marily be explained by cultural, middle-classvalues such as thrift, sobriety, ambition, andability to delay immediate gratification for long-range goals. Sue and Kitano (1973) have alsofound that many social scientists attribute theeducational success of Chinese and JapaneseAmericans to cultural values that promote up-ward mobility in this country—values that em-phasize hard work, family cohesion, patience,and thrift. However, many Asian values such asemphasis on the collective rather than on theindividual, hierarchical role structures ratherthan egalitarian relationships, and respect forauthority are not fully consistent with White,middle-class values (Hirschman & Wong,1986). Another problem with the cultural expla-nation is that cultural values are not necessarilypredictive of educational attainments. As notedby Ogbu and Matute-Bianchi (1986), the Chi-nese in China, presently and in the past, havenot shown relatively high rates of educationalattainments and literacy. This has led investiga-tors to question why children of Chinese peas-ants do so well in American schools in contrastto their peers in China. Indeed, in mainlandChina, where intellectuals are under increased

scrutiny, receive inadequate salaries, and findother jobs more financially rewarding, we see adecline in the proportion of students applyingfor admission into graduate programs in thatcountry.

As argued by Steinberg (1981), cultural val-ues interact with conditions in any particularsociety. In the case of Jews, he noted that

In terms of their European background, Jews wereespecially well equipped to take advantage of the op-portunities they found in America. Had Jews immi-grated to an industrial society without industrial skills,as did most other immigrants, their rich cultural heri-tage would have counted for little. Indeed, a parallelsituation exists today in Israel, where Jews immigrat-ing from underdeveloped countries in North Africatypically lack the occupational and educational advan-tages of the earlier settlers, and despite the fact that allshare the same basic religion, the recent immigrantsfind themselves concentrated at the bottom of Israelisociety. Thus, in large measure Jewish success inAmerica was a matter of historical timing. That is tosay, there was a fortuitous match between the experi-ence and skills of Jewish immigrants, on the one hand,and the manpower needs and opportunity structures, onthe other. It is this remarkable convergence of factorsthat resulted in an unusual record of success. (p. 103)

In the case of Chinese and Japanese Americans,Suzuki (1977) has also taken issue with a cul-tural interpretation of their success. Althoughacknowledging that respect for education is acultural value among these two groups, he alsoadvanced the proposition that Asian Americanscame to pursue education because of their statusas a minority group. Many labor unions dis-criminated against Asians, refusing them unionmembership during the 1940s. In addition, tech-nological advancements and an expandingeconomy after World War II required educatedprofessionals and white collar employees. Thus,one development limited occupational opportu-nities for manual laborers and the other placed apremium on professional–technical skills re-quiring advanced education. In such a situation,mobility through education took increased sig-nificance, above and beyond the contributionsof Asian cultural values. Using a similar argu-ment, Connor (1975) attributed the high educa-tional attainments of Japanese Americans to thedenial of opportunities to participate in socialand other extracurricular school activities in thepre-World War II period, This also set the stagefor emphasizing educational achievements.

For relative functionalism to be a viable ex-planation, at least three issues must be ad-

51ASIAN-AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENTS

dressed. First, relative functionalism and thecultural thesis would predict decreasing educa-tional achievements with acculturation of AsianAmericans. However, each differs in the factorsthat account for decrements in performance.One proposes that increased opportunities formobility make education a less preferred avenuefor mobility, whereas the other assumes that aloss of cultural values is responsible for de-creased achievement levels. Is there evidencethat opportunities for mobility influenceachievements? Second, relative functionalismassumes that limitations in mobility in nonedu-cational endeavors influences educational lev-els. Is it possible that educational values andattainments affect interest or performance innoneducational means of mobility? Third, isthere evidence that Asian Americans perceiveor experience limitations on non-educationalavenues for mobility?

Unfortunately, critical tests comparing thecultural and relative functionalism models havenot been conducted. Dornbusch et al. (1987)and Ritter and Dornbusch (1989) have foundthat Asian-American achievement levels tend tobe inversely related to the number of genera-tions in the United States, apparently supportinga cultural interpretation (i.e., decreased mainte-nance of Asian cultural values results in loweracademic grades). With increased acculturation,it has been assumed that Asian values of hardwork, discipline, and respect for education haveeroded. However, an inverse relation betweenacculturation to American values and academicachievements is not incompatible with relativefunctionalism. Increased acculturation also re-sults in more avenues for mobility. For exam-ple, Sue and Zane (1985) found that recentChinese immigrants were significantly morelikely than were acculturated Chinese to agreewith the statement that their choices of aca-demic majors were influenced by their Englishskills. These students had low English profi-ciency, averaging in the 18th percentile on theverbal portion of the Scholastic Aptitude Test.They confined their selection of majors to fieldsrequiring quantitative skills (e.g., mathematicsand computer sciences) rather those requiringmore sophisticated English proficiency (e.g., so-cial sciences and humanities). Increased Englishproficiency is likely to be related to knowledgeof American society and ways of getting ahead,which may ultimately decrease the relative

value of education as a means of mobility. Inaddition, it is highly likely that the recent im-migrants perceive career limitations and, there-fore, avoid those fields such as the social sci-ences and humanities, in which English facilityand interpersonal skills specific to Americansociety are needed. Mathematics and sciencesare more likely to emphasize technical compe-tence. Here we have an example of directingeducational pursuits because of perceived limi-tations in certain career areas.

With respect to the other questions involvingcause– effect (Do educational achievementslimit interest or pursuit of noneducational en-deavors, or do limitations in these endeavorsinfluence educational pursuits?) and perceptionsof limitations in noneducational avenues, nostudies have directly examined the issues. Ob-viously, if Asian Americans perform well ineducation and consequently assume profes-sional and technical positions, they may bemore motivated to continue this pattern of mo-bility. They may even deemphasize activities insuch areas as sports, the entertainment industry,and political positions because they have beensuccessful in securing education-based careers.However, there is evidence from varioussources that many Asian Americans perceivelimitations in their career choices or upwardmobility because of English language skills orsocial discrimination (Sue, Sue, Zane, & Wong,1985). In a survey of Asian-American studentsat the University of California, Berkeley, Ong(1976) found that respondents cited as reasonsfor obtaining an education (a) ability to makemoney, increasing the chances for a better job,and (b) the difficulty in finding other avenuesfor advancement because of discrimination.Hirschman and Wong (1986) have argued that“Education was a channel for the social mobil-ity of Asians, partly because they were frozenout of some sectors of the economy” (p. 23).Hearings sponsored by the U.S. Commission onCivil Rights (1980) resulted in testimonies thatdocumented restrictions in occupational mobil-ity, especially for those without much education(Pian, 1980; Wang, 1980). The point is thateducation is perceived as a viable means formobility, in view of limitations for success inother areas. Thus Asian Americans expendgreat efforts in attaining an education becausethey have been successful and also becausewithout a strong educational background, their

52 SUE AND OKAZAKI

mobility is limited. Research strategies that fo-cus on the relation between cultural values andeducation provide an incomplete picture.

If Asian Americans encounter and perceiverestrictions in noneducational areas of mobility,as do other ethnic minority groups such asBlacks and Latinos, why do these other ethnicgroups fail to adopt education as a means ofmobility? Addressing this question—and thatposes a real challenge—is beyond the scope ofthis article. It is worth noting that ethnic minor-ity groups have different cultural backgroundsand different historical and contemporary expe-riences in the United States. Precisely becauseof the importance of the interaction betweenculture and minority group status, we maintainthat cultural interpretations of the success ofAsian Americans are inadequate.

More specifically, Ogbu and Matute-Bianchi(1986) have proposed that individuals developfolk theories of success (e.g., “If I get a goodeducation, I will succeed in getting a good joband maintain a high standard of living” or“Even if I get a good education, people willdiscriminate against me”). Factors such as cul-tural values, discrimination, past success, be-liefs in self-efficacy, availability of successfulrole models, and so on, influence the folk the-ories. Mickelson (1990) has found that althoughBlacks hold favorable abstract attitudes con-cerning the value of education, they are lesslikely than Whites to believe in the value ofeducation in their own lives. As mentioned pre-viously, Ritter and Dornbusch (1987) found thatAsian Americans tended to believe that successin life has to do with the things studied inschool. The folk theory for Asian Americansmay be, “If I study hard, I can succeed, andeducation is the best way to succeed.”

Conclusions

In trying to explain the educational success ofAsian Americans, the tendency has been tocompare and contrast genetic and cultural ex-planations. Because the evidence does not sup-port a genetic interpretation, many have simplyassumed that Asian cultural values, beliefs, andpractices are responsible for their academicachievements. In contrast, we have suggestedthat the effects of culture have been confoundedwith the consequences of our society. Althoughculture is certainly an important factor in

achievements, education has been functional forupward mobility, especially when participationin other arenas, such as sports, entertainment,and politics, has been difficult. One could arguethat educational success, increased numbers ofeducated Asian role models, and limitations inmobility in other areas contribute to perfor-mance, above and beyond that which can bepredicted from Asian cultural values.

Several implications can be drawn from ouranalysis. First, studies that examine the relationbetween cultural values and achievements mayyield low correlations, inasmuch as achieve-ment patterns are influenced by many factors.These factors may influence mediators ofachievement such as motivation and effort. Sec-ond, attention should be paid to individual dif-ferences within the Asian populations. Al-though cross-national studies may provide sig-nificant insights for studies of Asian Americans,it should be recognized that the social context ofoverseas Asian and Asian Americans differsquite dramatically, particularly in majority–minority group status and in societal values andpractices. Differences among Asian Americansare also important to consider. For example, Sueand Abe (1988) examined predictors of educa-tional performance among thousands of Asian-American and White students. Regression equa-tions significantly differed not only betweenAsian Americans and Whites but between someof the different Asian groups (Chinese, Japa-nese, Koreans, Filipinos, and East Indians/Pakistanis). Dornbusch et al. (1987) have alsofound important differences in school accultur-ation and achievement patterns among variousAsian-American groups. Third, in predictingeducational achievements, investigations intoperceptions, expectancies, and beliefs over op-portunities for other areas of mobility may beimportant. Perhaps the greatest problem in theresearch is the failure to study the phenomenonof mobility in general, because educational at-tainments may be strongly influenced by theseother avenues for mobility. Finally, some haveobjected to the notion that Asian Americans area “minority” group, precisely because they havebecome well educated. From our perspective,Asian Americans are indeed a minority groupand their achievements can be fully understoodonly if attention is paid to their experiences insociety.

53ASIAN-AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENTS

References

Arbeiter, S. (1984). Profiles, college-bound seniors,1984. New York: College Entrance ExaminationBoard.

Asian Americans: Are they making the grade? (1984,April 2). U.S. News and World Report, pp. 41–47.

Asian students fear top colleges use quota systems.(1986, November 19). Chronicle of Higher Edu-cation, pp. 1, 34–36.

Barringer, H. R., Takeuchi, D. T., & Xenos, P. C.(1990). Education, occupational prestige and in-come of Asian Americans: Evidence from the1980 Census. Sociology of Education, 63, 27–43.

Bureau of the Census. (1983). Asian and PacificIslander population by state: 1980 Census of pop-ulation (Supplementary report PC80–1-C). Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.

Bureau of the Census. (1984). Detailed populationcharacteristics: 1980 Census of population(PC80–1-D1-A). Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-ment of Commerce.

California State Department of Education. (Ed.).(1986). Beyond language: Social and cultural fac-tors in schooling language minority students. LosAngeles: California State Department of Educa-tion, Evaluation, Dissemination, and AssessmentCenter.

College Board. (1989). College-bound seniors: 1989SAT profile. New York: College Entrance Exami-nation Board.

Connor, J. W. (1975). Changing trends in JapaneseAmerican academic achievement. Journal of Eth-nic Studies, 2, 95–98.

Dornbusch, S. M., Prescott, B. L., & Ritter, P. L.(1987, April). The relation of high school aca-demic performance and student effort to languageuse and recency of migration among Asian- andPacific-Americans. Paper presented at the meetingof the American Educational Research Associa-tion, Washington, DC.

Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, P. H.,Roberts, D. F., & Fraleigh, M. J. (1987). Therelation of parenting style to adolescent schoolperformance. Child Development, 55, 1244–1257.

Flynn, J. R. (1982). Lynn, the Japanese, and environ-mentalism. Bulletin of the British PsychologicalSociety, 35, 409–413.

Flynn, J. R. (1987). The rise and fall of Japanese IQ.Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 40,459–464.

A formula for success. (1984, April 23). Newsweek,pp. 77–78.

Gordon, M. (1964). Assimilation in American life.New York: Oxford University Press.

Greenfield, P., & Childs, C. P. (in press). Develop-mental continuity in bio-cultural context. In R.

Cohen & A. Siegel (Eds.), Context and develop-ment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hirschman, C., & Wong, M. G. (1986). The extraor-dinary educational attainment of Asian Americans:A search for historical evidence and explanations.Social Forces, 65, 1–27.

Hsia, J. (1988). Limits on affirmative action: AsianAmerican access to higher education. EducationalPolicy, 2, 117–136.

Jencks, C., Crouse, J., & Mueser, P. (1983). TheWisconsin model of status attainment: A nationalreplication with improved measures of ability andaspirations. Sociology of Education, 56, 3–19.

Kan, S. H., & Liu, W. T. (1986). The educationalstatus of Asian Americans: An update from the1980 Census. P/AAMHRC Research Review, 5(3/4), 21–24.

Lynn, R. (1977). The intelligence of the Japanese.Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 30,69–72.

Lynn, R. (1987). Japan: Land of the rising IQ. Areply to Flynn. Bulletin of the British Psychologi-cal Society, 40, 464–468.

Mickelson, R. A. (1990). The attitude–achievementparadox among Black adolescents. Sociology ofEducation, 63, 44–61.

Mordkowitz, E. R., & Ginsberg, H. P. (1987). Earlyacademic socialization of successful Asian-American college students. Quarterly Newsletterof the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cogni-tion, 9, 85–91.

The new whiz kids. (1987, August 31). Time Maga-zine, pp. 42–51.

Ogbu, J. U., & Matute-Bianchi, M. E. (1986). Un-derstanding sociocultural factors: Knowledge,identity, and school adjustment. In California StateDepartment of Education (Ed.), Beyond language:Social and cultural factors in schooling languageminority students (pp. 73–142). Los Angeles: Cal-ifornia State Department of Education, Evaluation,Dissemination, and Assessment Center.

Ong, C. (1976). The educational attainment of theChinese in America. Unpublished manuscript,University of California, Berkeley, Department ofAnthropology.

Peng, S. (1988, April). Attainment status of AsianAmericans in higher education. Paper presented atthe National Association for Asian and PacificAmerican Education (NAAPE) Conference, Den-ver, CO.

Pian, C. (1980). Identification of issues. In U.S. Com-mission on Civil Rights (Ed.), Civil rights issuersof Asian and Pacific Americans: Myths and reali-ties (pp. 7–20). Washington, DC: U.S. Govern-ment Printing Office.

Probing into the success of Asian American students.(1990, January 26). Asian Week, p. 7.

54 SUE AND OKAZAKI

Ritter, P. L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1989, March).Ethnic variation in family influences on academicachievement. Paper presented at the American Ed-ucational Research Association Meeting, SanFrancisco.

Skinner, B. F. (1984). The shame of American edu-cation. American Psychologist, 39, 947–955.

Sowell, T. (1978). (Ed.). Essay and data on Americanethnic groups. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Spence, J. T. (1985). Achievement American style:The rewards and costs of individualism. AmericanPsychologist, 40, 1285–1295.

Steinberg, A. (1981). The ethnic myth: Race, ethnic-ity, and class in America. Boston: Beacon Press.

Stevenson, H. W., & Azuma, H. (1983). IQ in Japanand the United States: Methodological problems inLynn’s analysis. Nature, 306, 291–292.

Stevenson, H. W., Lee, S., & Stigler, J. W. (1986).Mathematics achievement of Chinese, Japanese,and American children. Science, 231, 693–699.

Stevenson, H. W., Stigler, J. W., Lee, S., Lucker,G. W., Kitamura, S., & Hsu, C. (1985). Cognitiveperformance and academic achievement of Japa-nese, Chinese, and American children. Child De-velopment, 56, 718–734.

Sue, S., & Abe, J. (1988). Predictors of academicachievement among Asian American and Whitestudents (Report No. 88-11). New York: CollegeEntrance Examination Board.

Sue, S., & Kitano, H. H. L. (1973). Stereotypes as ameasure of success. Journal of Social Issues, 29,83–98.

Sue, S., & Padilla, A. (1986). Ethnic minority issuesin the United States: Challenges for the educa-tional system. In California State Department ofEducation (Ed.), Beyond language: Social and cul-tural factors in schooling language minority stu-dents (pp. 34–72). Los Angeles: California StateDepartment of Education, Evaluation, Dissemina-tion, and Assessment Center.

Sue, S., Sue, D. W., Zane, N., & Wong, H. A. (1985).Where are the Asian-American leaders and topexecutives? P/AAMHRC Review, 4, 13–15.

Sue, S., & Zane, N. (1985). Academic achievementand socioemotional adjustment among Chineseuniversity students. Journal of Counseling Psy-chology, 32, 570–579.

Suzuki, R. H. (1977). Education and the socializationof Asian Americans: A revisionist analysis of the“model minority” thesis. Amerasia Journal, 4, 23–52.

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. (Ed.). (1980).Civil rights issues of Asian and Pacific Americans:Myths and realities. Washington, DC: U.S. Gov-ernment Printing Office.

Uttal, D. H., Lummis, M., & Stevenson, H. W.(1988). Low and high mathematics achievement inJapanese, Chinese, and American elementary-school children. Developmental Psychology, 24,335–342.

Vernon, P. E. (1982). The abilities and achievementsof Orientals in North America. New York: Aca-demic Press.

Wang, L. C. (1980). Federal exclusionary policy. InU.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Ed.), Civilrights issues of Asian and Pacific Americans:Myths and realities (pp. 21–24). Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office.

Wechsler, D. (1949). Wechsler Intelligence Scale forChildren. New York: Psychological Corporation.

Wechsler, D. (1955). Manual, Wechsler Adult Intel-ligence Scale. New York: Psychological Corpora-tion.

When being best isn’t good enough. (1987, July 19).Los Angeles Times Magazine, pp. 22–28.

“Whiz kid” image masks problems of Asian Ameri-cans. (1988, March). National Education Associa-tion Today, pp. 14–15.

Why Asians are going to the head of the class. (1986,August 3). New York Times, pp. 18–32.

55ASIAN-AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENTS