Arnold Kling article on how socioeconomic elites maintains its status quo. More interesting is this comment below:
The issue is more then Asians despite having numbers, high IQ, and a powerful country of a billion plus that owns our government debt aren’t really “owners”. They are servants of the elite, dutifully making the hardest functions in our society work for UMC wages that barely pay the rent on the coasts, while others get rich and make the laws the govern society. At 40% they would be independent enough to challenge for leadership.
That’s why the 20% cap is everywhere, especially in the Northeast. It’s there at private elementary schools. It’s there in trying to shut down Asian magnet schools. It’s there in the bamboo ceiling. Enough to do the hard work, but not enough to lead!
Some say this is Asian personalities. That might be true in the sense that Asian traits aren’t what make you rich and powerful in society as structured today. However, we ought to ask if the people currently being made rich and powerful have traits that are good for the rest of us! Maybe a few more pragmatic, polite, conscientious, STEM and reality oriented Asians in elite leadership might be better for Americans. Getting power and using it for the countries best interests take different skill sets. Harvard only seems concerned with the former.
Marginal Thoughts 