<p>Are there lots (or any) asians at top-paying business jobs in the US?</p>
<p>are there lots of asians in MBA courses?</p>
<p>The short answer is 'yes' and 'yes'. </p>
<p>The longer answer is actually quite interesting. Your second question is easiest to answer. Asians are greatly overrepresented in the top business schools. Using the broadest definition of Asians (hence, not just East Asians, but also South Asians, Iranians, Middle Eastern-ers, Armenians, and anybody else who can trace their ancestry from anyplace in the continent of Asia), Asians can easily make up 20% or more of the student population at any top-MBA program, often times more. The Asian population proportion in the top MBA programs (i.e. HBS, Stanford, Penn/Wharton, MIT/Sloan, NW/Kellogg, etc.) is not significantly different than that in the population of that school at large. I.e. - if I teleported you to the general campus at MIT and then had you look at the racial composition of the people around you, and then I teleported you to Sloan, and had you look at the people there, you would probably not be able to tell which is which. </p>
<p>The first question is more complicated. It is true that Asians, while strong in business, are not as strong in the very top levels of Western business as they are in other parts, particularly the engineering/research side. For example, relatively few Asians are CxO's of Fortune 500 companies. This is true for a number of factors, mainly language or skillset, but sometimes racism plays a role. However, this is changing. In particular, Asians will be more prominent as business executives as Western companies continue to invest in Asia, particularly in China and India.</p>
<p>wow.. thank you for such a candid response (exactly what I was looking for).</p>
<p>I am slightly worried about racism against Asians getting top jobs, but I guess this is inevitable.</p>
<p>You could always just go back to Asia to get a job. A lot of top Asian business exec's are doing just that. Or you could just start your own company.</p>
<p>I think sakky's reply is quite accurate. I think "racism" is perhaps a bit too strong in many cases (though I'm sure not all execs are innocent of prejudice). Rather, it seems likely that many hiring/promotion decisions include a "comfort factor" element that may subconsciously favor candidates who are more like the hiring execs.</p>
<p>Social issues may come into play, too - usually, high level execs must be good schmoozers in addition to being highly competent in their field. This is true both internally (where informal relationships may govern who gets promoted) and externally (where the exec may be expected to spend a significant amount of time with customers or business partners on the golf course or in other informal venues). Individuals who come to the corporation from a different national background or different social milieu may find it more difficult to succeed in this area (or may simply focus on what they perceive as the key aspects of the job).</p>
<p>Imagine how bad it would be if you were Mexican-American!</p>
<p>Not to digress, but to be perfectly fair, I should point out that while either racism or social-exclusion may play a role in hurting the chances of top Asian-American businesspeople in the US, let's be perfectly honest here. Except for perhaps just recently, Asian-American businesspeople still tended to have better opportunities in the US than they had back in Asia. That is, after all, why those Asians (or their ancestors) immigrated to the US in the first place as opposed to simply staying in Asia. Why immigrate to an entirely different country where you don't know the culture and in most cases are not fluent in the language, unless you have strong reason to believe that the opportunities are better at the place you are immigrating to? And let's face it, until perhaps just very recently, the opportunities for most enterprising businesspeople in India or mainland China were very slim. </p>
<p>About a decade ago, a study was done that estimated that the economic production of all the Chinese outside of mainland China (hence, including Taiwan, Hong Kong, the ethnic Chinese in Singapore and Southeast Asia, as well as Chinese in the US, Canada, the UK, etc.) exceeded the economic output of all the Chinese in mainland China, despite the fact that the former barely constituted 3% of the population of the latter. I'm sure that the ratio has significantly changed now as mainland China has reformed itself economically, but the fact remains that for a long time mainland China was not a good place for Chinese people to find success. That's why so many Chinese, especially the more capable ones, left China for other places, including the US. The same could be said for other Asian countries. The US did not and still does not offer perfectly equal and fair opportunities to all Asian immigrants, but it tended to offer something better than what was available back in Asia, otherwise, they wouldn't immigrate.</p>
<p>The real question to me is not whether there is unfairness to Asians in the US, but rather what can Asian countries do to reform themselves to provide more opportunities for their people such that they don't feel the need to leave for the US in the first place.</p>
<p>"rather what can Asian countries do to reform themselves to provide more opportunities for their people such that they don't feel the need to leave for the US in the first place."</p>
<p>it's tough. minority chinese businessmen dominate the southeast asian markets. that causes the ethnic majority to want to immigrate elsewhere.</p>
<p>It's interesting that you would say that, kfc4u, for the history of the expatriate Chinese in Southeast Asia is an extraordinarily intricate one. It is true that minority Chinese businessmen dominate the economies of SE Asia, but you have to ask how that came to be. Is it because the Chinese that did come were already rich and merely extended their dominance into the area? Hardly. Most of the expatriate Chinese in SE Asia, especially the ones who are now highly successful, can trace their heritage back to poverty-stricken Chinese laborers that were brought into the region during the days of Western colonialism. Western colonial masters essentially treated the Chinese, as third-class citizens. They built schools that the natives could attend for free, but from which the Chinese were barred. The Chinese responded by building their own schools. Western rulers passed laws preventing the Chinese from entering numerous lines of business, but allowing natives to enter those lines. The Chinese responded by excelling in those lines of business that they were allowed to enter. All this is chronicled in exhaustive detail by Thomas Sowell.</p>
<p>thanks for the insightful history lesson sakky. i was studying globalization but i didnt realize that was the history behind it.</p>
<p>BTW, Americans of Asian descent did a lot to relieve the US deficit problem... The new Mustang model, Silicon Valley (California had $120 Billion of exports in 2000, today the entire US has $700 Billion), etc...etc... of course, so did a lot of other native Californians of all colors. </p>
<p>The future of globalization is already happening in California, which by itself is the 5th biggest country in the world, while NY is only 60% of the CA economy. Hopefully, inner America will realize that a lot of farm subsidies come as a result of the federal taxation of the global trade of California, and this will in turn relieve pressures to lean towards synergies from California outward.</p>
<p>Uh, isn't California one of the largest recipients of US farm subsidies, if not the largest, on both an absolute and a per-capita basis?</p>
<p>"On average, [farm subsidy] payments amounted to $17,172 per subsidized farm. The range was from a low of $3,401 per subsidized farm in West Virginia to a high of $90,214 per subsidized farm in California"</p>
<p>Also, doesn't the fact that California has a larger economy than New York have a lot to do with the fact that California is just a bigger state than New York, both in terms of physical size and population? If we were to carve out an area in the East Coast that is equal to the size of California, we would have an economy and population that is far far larger than California's.</p>
<p>As an aggregate whole, most of California's federal taxes go to other states. California pays 60 Billion to other states, and gets 72 cents per every federal dollar tax paid. Texas gets 98 cents on the dollar. California has a diversified economy, and has a lot of farming. But the small farming families in need of help are assed out in every state. But most of the farms in california are big corporate ones. </p>
<p>RE: Part II. Sure, we can also carve out the same size in Japan too. The point is the boundaries are already drawn. Political and economic power is very real. </p>
<p>Also, going by that argument, California should have the most foreclosures of any state. However, California as of April 2005 has 122 total foreclosures, and Texas has 9500 while NY has 1700. That tells that size is just one aspect of many aspects when you look at an economy.</p>
<p>Yeah, but first of all, political and economic power can only be utilized when it is harnessed. And the fact is, it is difficult to harness the power of California towards one thing, simply because California is not only large, but extremely different. You know and I know that SoCal and Norcal share almost nothing in common culturally or economically and often times sharply disagree politically, and neither shares much in common with the Inland Empire. On the other hand, honestly, what is the difference in all the Northeastern states? Is there really much of a difference? Basically, it's the same. I can say that because I'm from there, but really, there is hardly any difference from one Northeast state to the next. </p>
<p>The point is, if you want to just talk about political boundaries, sure, they are drawn. They are quirks of history, stemming from the fact that the Eastern states comprise the original Colonies. But if you want to talk about cultural boundaries, then you have to agree that there is basically one big "super-state" in the Northeast. Maybe not on a map, but in terms of how people think culturally. It's just a quirky accident that SoCal and NorCal people are in the same state because for the way they think and operate, they exist for all practical purposes in two entirely separate states. </p>
<p>Speaking of foreclosures, wasn't California itself basically "foreclosed" just a few years ago - in the sense that the state government had effectively gone bankrupt? And what's California's state bond ratings compared to Texas's? So yes, I agree with you that there are many aspects you have to look at when you look at an economy.</p>
<p>Sakky. With the election of Villairogosa in Los Angeles, things will change. </p>
<p>He will stand up to Schwartzenegger, and provide real juevos to the bay area that has difficulty standing up to the Terminator. </p>
<p>Villairogosa is endorsed by John Kerry and Magic Johnson. LA County is the largest county in the US with 11 million. The next several years in LA will be very very interesting. I have no idea about state bond ratings, but state regulations and laws still matter. With the stem cell research going on in SF, state regulations, propositions make for a unique business environment, one that transcends the "common culture" of the northeast.</p>
<p>an asian buddy of mine was explaining something to me that i found interesting. I just want to find out how true his comments were.</p>
<p>he mentioned that many times asians (and by asians i believe he meant east asians) don't achieve positions of leadership in large companies and end up just as number crunchers, etc. because it's an inherent part of the east asian culture to be a follower and not a leader. To be someone that does everything well but doesn't stand out and lead...I found this very interesting and I just want to know how true this is. I am not too familiar with east asian cultures.</p>
<p>^ Thats not really true. Natural leaders like Bruce Lee, Norman Mineta, Robert Matsui, Mayasoshi Son, Gary Locke (Governor of Washington), etc... have shown that what he said is not necessarily true. </p>
<p>Mayasoshi Son, a Berkeley graduate... was at one time the second richest man in the world worth $76 Billion, he is the founder of Softbank. I am sure that the partners at Softbank Venture Capital in Silicon Valley would disagree with your friend.</p>
<p>bern700,</p>
<p>i don't think it's an inherent part of asian culture to be the follower, but at the same time, i do think that leadership is not as valued as say, individual performance for asian cultures. asians are also taught to be respectful of elders and aren't raised in an environment that cultivates assertiveness. this is all of course a generalization, and for the most part true. West Sidee mentions some examples, but they are the minority. in general, asians still prefer to go into engineering or medicine rather than law and sometimes business, although that is changing, particularly for the business sector as asia increases in importance.</p>
<p>kfc4u: you hit the nail on the head. asian culture is very much based on respect and the notion of being seen and not heard. Disagreement among elders, or making your opinoins known (in contrary to theirs even under a friendly debate/ discussion) is seen as highly disrespectful and rude. The culture stifles most of the asians I have seen here in nyc and does not help dispel common stereotypes. It's also not that asians prefer to go into engineering or medicine, its that the parents push for these kind of careers. Most asians are prestige whores and most immigrant asians believe only in the harvard educated doctor as the key measure of success for their son or daughter. I know i've made a lot of generalizations, but I see and interact and deal with other asians on an everyday basis and most of these stereotypes unfortunately seem to hold true :/</p>
<p>"It's also not that asians prefer to go into engineering or medicine, its that the parents push for these kind of careers."</p>
<p>i find that true (for myself at least). there's no doubt that my strength and my interest is in the social sciences, and perhaps even in a respected field like law. as good as that is, my dad still drops hints about how i can be an engineer and my mom still drops hints about how i can be a doctor. </p>
<p>i also want to comment that asian cultures value "saving face" as in maintaining a respected image, and thus parents do not emphasize independence nor support risk-taking (two characteristics of successful businessmen) when children are young.</p>