>That's true for a lot of people. Structural disadvantages are huge. But at the same time, it's not true for large classes of deeply impoverished people. As the

>That's true for a lot of people. Structural disadvantages are huge. But at the same time, it's not true for large classes of deeply impoverished people. As the author of TFA pointed out, [east] Asian immigrants are, by some metrics, the poorest group of people in the New York area--and definitely severely economically disadvantaged no matter what measurement you use. And yet the academic performance of those groups--even in that area--continues to surpass many others. Given how endemic poverty is among those demographics, I don't think "it's not the poor kids doing super well in school" holds up; the intersection must be large, and something must be materially different about the practices of those folks in order to combat what, elsewhere in the country/world, would be the multiple-generation-damning sentence of poverty. This could be explained through quite a few different avenues. For example, Asian-Americans tend to be lumped together despite how many different cultures actually make up that group. There's also the greater paradox you bring up in that they both compose a group grappling with deep poverty and a group that has seen academic success. It's hard to say therefore that the two are necessarily correlated because we should see academic success tied with decreasing rates of poverty. While it has dropped slightly over the past few years they still remain deep in poverty and have been for decades. >That's anecdotal. In general, this is a dangerously politicized area. To argue that families do not, as a rule, pull themselves out of poverty flies in the face of many areas in which they do so in very significant numbers (like the one discussed in the article). However, to argue that therefore all impoverished families can and/or should do this is to echo the most callous and ignorant positions of modern American conservatism. Saying it's politicized would be objectively and statistically incorrect. Socioeconomic mobility in America is incredibly low. People do not, on average, pull themselves out of poverty at any significant rate in America [1]. I believe it would be fair to state as a rule if you are born in poverty, the chances of you rising up the rungs are not very high. People escape out of poverty due to a lucky alignment of circumstances that give them the opportunities that other people are more easily afforded access to. The way to therefore improve people's QoL is to ensure that people have these opportunities by improving healthcare, reducing burdens on poor families and ensuring that people have equal opportunity regardless of race or gender. >When you say "On average those exposed to this style tend to do worse", do you mean worse compared to remaining in poverty? If so, citation needed. Please read the article before you request citations. The author directly cites a study which states that tiger parenting has the opposite result on average [2]. For the rest of your points, these specific groups tend to have successful people that are propped up as a result of the model minority stereotype. That would be almost exactly survivorship bias because we only see the successful people, not those that tried and failed or are still part of the huge group still living in deep poverty. [1] https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2006/04/26/1917/understanding-mobility-in-america/ https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2006/04... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3641860/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3641860/