Why are Iranians successful in the USA?
When we consult the US Census Bureau (census.gov) containing statistics about the ethnicities we can find in the USA, we see that Iranians possess the highest rate of Masters and Doctorates of the country and the 4th highest rate of Bachelors. They also work as professionals and managers 35% more than the average of the country. Their average income is 38.2% higher than the average income in the US and represents the 3rd highest income.
The first thing one wants to say is that it’s just because some ethnicities have success and some not. On 25 Iranian students asked, they all advanced the cultural factor as the key to success. They think it is because of Iranians’ great motivation thanks to their history that they succeed in the Western world.
This thesis is not academic and is not a valuable theory. This sounds more like a racist theory. So, if this is not the reason, why do Iranians have success in the Western world while some others don’t?
In fact, each immigration is a pre-selection. A pre-selection of a social class in the country of origin. The social class that emigrates depends on what is the cause of its emigration.
Iranians immigrated to the USA because of a Revolution. The social class that immigrated to the USA was mostly composed of executives and academics. The Iranians who emigrated couldn’t bear the Islamist government so felt obliged to go from Iran. However, not the whole Iranian people were able to go away from Iran. The ones who did had to have the means to do it. The means I am talking about are mainly the ability to speak English, the money to be able to start a new life and the education that could make one start a new life in a foreign country: a great part of the Iranian immigrants were students who had obtained diplomas from Western Universities, so were already foreign academics. We thus see that the Iranians that emigrated towards the US were mainly people who had education and money.
(Nayereh Tohidi, searcher in the "Irangeles" project, found that in 1993, 38% of the Iranians in the USA had been in university in Iran before immigrating. This represents 342,000 Iranians of the USA at this time. So, we have to find how many Iranians had the time to have been in university in the country of origin at this time and see what rate represents 342,000.
In 1993, people who had been able to be in university in Iran had to be minimum 31 years old as the average years of immigration were between 1975 and 1985.
In 2005, these people have to be 43 years old (31+12) and the same year, the ISG affirms that 37% of the Iranians in the US fit this category. That represents approximatively 550,000 Iranians on the 1,500,000. As the Iranian population in the US in 1993 was around 900,000; it means that 550,000 Iranians on 900,000 had had the time to study in Iran. From this number, we have to subtract the number of Iranians that had the time to go in university in Iran but that didn't go simply because they went to university in the USA (and stayed there after). They represented, still according to the statistics, 51,310 Iranians. So we have in reality 498,690 Iranians that had had the time to go in university in Iran in 1993.)
Thus, on 498,690 Iranians that had the possibility to go to university in Iran, 342,000 went, which represents 69%.
This percentage is lower than the real one, as we have done as if the 550,000 Iranians that had the age for having been in university in Iran in 2005 were ALL in Iran back in 1993. And they were obviously not all in Iran at this time. So, we can say that between 70% to 90% of the Iranians that immigrated to Iran came from educated background.
Even though we've found the percentage omitting many details, the importance is that it shows that at least the majority of the Iranians came from educated background, which means the Iranians who went to the US were already an educated class in Iran.
But why does a social class that emigrates from a country to another one stays in the same social class?
This phenomena is well-known in sociology and is called the “cultural heritage”. The sociologist Pierre Bourdieu explains it well in his book “the Heirs”. He says that there is no equality of chances, that the son of someone belonging to a specific social class will, except exceptions, remain in the same social class. At this time, there were only 6% of the University students that were the children of workers. Between the time the book was written and now, there were the huge student movement of 1969 creating several big social reforms. However, when we take a look at the statistics for Switzerland, we see that today, we find 18% of the children of people belonging to the lower social classes in University against 60% being children of people belonging to the upper classes (the rest is the middle class), so it hasn’t changed much. The sociologist Michel Pinçont comments in the documentary “Voyage dans les ghettos du Gotha” that “the equality of chances in school and the society of merit are lies. The only thing that counts is the heritage, not the financial heritage but the cultural heritage”.
Indeed, according to the psychologist of the University of Lausanne Koorosh Massoudi, the son of two immigrants who belonged to the higher social classes in their country of origin and who have lost all their money by emigrating, will still have success because it is the education his parents gave him that will make him succeed.
According to the same psychologist, the first criterions for violence are 1) the sex (males tend to be more violent) 2) the age (teenagers tend to be more violent) and 3) the social class. It explains why some ethnicities are seen as "violent" in the western world, it is the lowest social class from the country of origin that immigrated to the western country and the social class is the main factor of violence for a young man.
In conclusion, we see that stereotypes concerning ancestral groups can’t be justified because they’re made according to what people of the host country see of the part of the ancestral group which is in their country. That means they see almost only one social class of the ancestral group so it is wrong to judge the whole ancestral group, whether it is positive or negative. People who are racist because people of an origin are violent in their country are unconsciously classist.
The first thing one wants to say is that it’s just because some ethnicities have success and some not. On 25 Iranian students asked, they all advanced the cultural factor as the key to success. They think it is because of Iranians’ great motivation thanks to their history that they succeed in the Western world.
This thesis is not academic and is not a valuable theory. This sounds more like a racist theory. So, if this is not the reason, why do Iranians have success in the Western world while some others don’t?
In fact, each immigration is a pre-selection. A pre-selection of a social class in the country of origin. The social class that emigrates depends on what is the cause of its emigration.
Iranians immigrated to the USA because of a Revolution. The social class that immigrated to the USA was mostly composed of executives and academics. The Iranians who emigrated couldn’t bear the Islamist government so felt obliged to go from Iran. However, not the whole Iranian people were able to go away from Iran. The ones who did had to have the means to do it. The means I am talking about are mainly the ability to speak English, the money to be able to start a new life and the education that could make one start a new life in a foreign country: a great part of the Iranian immigrants were students who had obtained diplomas from Western Universities, so were already foreign academics. We thus see that the Iranians that emigrated towards the US were mainly people who had education and money.
(Nayereh Tohidi, searcher in the "Irangeles" project, found that in 1993, 38% of the Iranians in the USA had been in university in Iran before immigrating. This represents 342,000 Iranians of the USA at this time. So, we have to find how many Iranians had the time to have been in university in the country of origin at this time and see what rate represents 342,000.
In 1993, people who had been able to be in university in Iran had to be minimum 31 years old as the average years of immigration were between 1975 and 1985.
In 2005, these people have to be 43 years old (31+12) and the same year, the ISG affirms that 37% of the Iranians in the US fit this category. That represents approximatively 550,000 Iranians on the 1,500,000. As the Iranian population in the US in 1993 was around 900,000; it means that 550,000 Iranians on 900,000 had had the time to study in Iran. From this number, we have to subtract the number of Iranians that had the time to go in university in Iran but that didn't go simply because they went to university in the USA (and stayed there after). They represented, still according to the statistics, 51,310 Iranians. So we have in reality 498,690 Iranians that had had the time to go in university in Iran in 1993.)
Thus, on 498,690 Iranians that had the possibility to go to university in Iran, 342,000 went, which represents 69%.
This percentage is lower than the real one, as we have done as if the 550,000 Iranians that had the age for having been in university in Iran in 2005 were ALL in Iran back in 1993. And they were obviously not all in Iran at this time. So, we can say that between 70% to 90% of the Iranians that immigrated to Iran came from educated background.
Even though we've found the percentage omitting many details, the importance is that it shows that at least the majority of the Iranians came from educated background, which means the Iranians who went to the US were already an educated class in Iran.
But why does a social class that emigrates from a country to another one stays in the same social class?
This phenomena is well-known in sociology and is called the “cultural heritage”. The sociologist Pierre Bourdieu explains it well in his book “the Heirs”. He says that there is no equality of chances, that the son of someone belonging to a specific social class will, except exceptions, remain in the same social class. At this time, there were only 6% of the University students that were the children of workers. Between the time the book was written and now, there were the huge student movement of 1969 creating several big social reforms. However, when we take a look at the statistics for Switzerland, we see that today, we find 18% of the children of people belonging to the lower social classes in University against 60% being children of people belonging to the upper classes (the rest is the middle class), so it hasn’t changed much. The sociologist Michel Pinçont comments in the documentary “Voyage dans les ghettos du Gotha” that “the equality of chances in school and the society of merit are lies. The only thing that counts is the heritage, not the financial heritage but the cultural heritage”.
Indeed, according to the psychologist of the University of Lausanne Koorosh Massoudi, the son of two immigrants who belonged to the higher social classes in their country of origin and who have lost all their money by emigrating, will still have success because it is the education his parents gave him that will make him succeed.
According to the same psychologist, the first criterions for violence are 1) the sex (males tend to be more violent) 2) the age (teenagers tend to be more violent) and 3) the social class. It explains why some ethnicities are seen as "violent" in the western world, it is the lowest social class from the country of origin that immigrated to the western country and the social class is the main factor of violence for a young man.
In conclusion, we see that stereotypes concerning ancestral groups can’t be justified because they’re made according to what people of the host country see of the part of the ancestral group which is in their country. That means they see almost only one social class of the ancestral group so it is wrong to judge the whole ancestral group, whether it is positive or negative. People who are racist because people of an origin are violent in their country are unconsciously classist.
Comment