There is a downside to this though, individuality and social interaction is lacking, a lot of these kids miss out on a childhod, not sure it's worth it
I have spent a lot of time working across Asia, I think there are a lot of mistakes and generalisations here.
1) I have found the different countries very very different and even within the countries different ethnic groups, different generations, different classes, differences between males and females. To generalise completely us no different to thinking a middle class left wing white male in Sydney is exactly the same as a fascist in the poorest suburbs of Moscow.
2) the focus on education of many immigrant groups who are recent immigrants, those I have nothing, shave the hunger and have no concept of something for nothing work very hard and push their kids to do so.
In Australia there is a very high % if non Anglo/Irish achievement but there are only her factors . % of white Anglo kids is very high at the expensive private schools in Sydney and Melbourne there is an Anglo obsession with private education. Overwhelmingly the state selective schools dominate academic achievement and there is a high % of Asian kids (Chinese (Shanghai and Cantonese) HK, Korean, Indian) . These schools achieve more but for many anglo's paying 25k a year to be with the right sons of solicitors and daughters of managing directors is more important than grades)
But visit suburban Bangkok, slums of Chennai, the millionaires rows of Singapore, the bars of ropingi, do business in Bali and Saigon or try and negotiate with the Japanese compared to Mumbai businessmen and you'll find there are so many nuances here.
Most MP's are middle class white males, what is the defining factor the middle class, middle aged part, the male part or the white part?
