critical

not all asians end up on third base

by brenda gambol gavigan

28 contexts.org

29S U M M E R 2 0 2 1 c o n t e x t sContexts, Vol. 20, Issue 3, p. 28-33. ISSN 1536-5042. © American Sociological Association. http://contexts.sagepub.com. 10.1177/15365042211035336.

Despite the heterogeneity in academic outcomes among Asian ethnic

groups in the U.S., Asian Americans have become associated with

educational upward mobility. Illustrative of this is media coverage on

the second generation since the 1960s. For example, William Petersen’s

well-known 1966 New York Times piece painted the Nisei, or second-

generation Japanese Americans, as “model minorities” who, through

hard work and discipline, accomplished incredible educational feats

despite the racism they faced. Recent news stories on Asian Americans

have complicated the model minority narrative, seen in present-day

articles on COVID-19 related discrimination of Asians. However, more

often than not, the media continue to portray second generation

Asians as academically exceptional.

Scholars, too, generally treat Asians as a homogenous, high-

performing population. One major reason why is that “Asian

American” research has predominantly been on East Asian

Americans, i.e., Chinese, Korean, and Japanese Americans. A

theory that has gained prominence among assimilation schol-

ars—the hyper-selectivity perspective developed by sociologists

Jennifer Lee and Min Zhou—does just that: makes generaliza-

tions on Asians based on a study on one

East Asian group, i.e., Chinese Americans.

In their book, The Asian American

Achievement Paradox, Lee and Zhou

explain why second generation Asians have

surpassed the college degree attainment

rates of their first generation counterparts. They argue, draw-

ing on a baseball analogy, that second generation Asians get

to “third base’ because they did not have to “run far at all”:

Asian immigrant hyper-selectivity positions them close to third

base. Lee and Zhou illustrate that the 1965 Immigration Act, in

its preference for the highly skilled, brought in a disproportion-

ate number of college-educated, middle-class migrants from

Asia. Consequently, many Asian populations in the U.S. are,

on average, more highly educated than their compatriots back

home and the average American. The second generation has

benefited from immigrant hyper-selectivity; as many middle-class

members constitute their communities, youth are inculcated with

the belief that to be successful means getting into an elite col-

lege and becoming a doctor, lawyer, scientist, or engineer. The

second generation is likely to realize such ambitious goals, in part

because they receive support and assistance from ethnic institu-

tions in their communities. Lee and Zhou point to supplementary

programs that provide test prep and other additional academic

services as a key factor to the second generation’s success.

The achievements of second generation Asians have

produced racial advantages for this population. Teachers and

administrators assume Asians are highly motivated and the

highest achieving students, placing them in AP and honors

courses, as well as offering them information regarding college

admissions. Being racialized as academically successful, as Lee

and Zhou argue, “boosts” second generation performance, as

they come to believe that they, indeed, are what everyone in

not all asians end up on third base

by brenda gambol gavigan

Filipino immigrants, by far, have the lowest rate of earning beyond a B.A.

30 contexts.org

school believes they are: model minorities.

In Lee and Zhou’s view, hyper-selectivity should lead to

upward mobility. Yet it does not for one particularly large hyper-

selected group: Filipino Americans. As the figure above on the

left indicates, among the four largest hyper-selected Asian

groups, Chinese, Asian Indian, Korean, and Filipino Americans,

Filipinos stand out in their educational outcomes. While about 70

percent of the second generation from the three former groups

hold a college degree, only 44 percent of second generation

Filipinos do. In addition, unlike Chinese and Korean Americans,

second generation Filipino Americans are less likely to finish

college than first generation Filipinos. While second generation

Asian Indians, too, do not surpass the first generation’s edu-

cational levels, at a rate of 75 percent, the second generation

succeeds in maintaining the first generation’s incredibly high

level of education. Thus, second generation Filipinos are the least

likely among hyper-selected Asians to earn a B.A.

Why do Filipino American educational outcomes contradict

what Lee and Zhou’s theory would predict? Why doesn’t the

hyper-selectivity perspective, in its current form, account for

second generation Filipinos’ lower than expected attainment?

One major reason hyper-selectivity theory does not is that it uti-

lizes a racial lens to explain ethnic outcomes. In Lee and Zhou’s

study of Asian American mobility, they, as many scholars do, look

at specific Asian ethnic groups—i.e., an East Asian group—to

understand all Asians. My study of Filipino Americans—based

on data from the census and an ethnographic project on Filipino

families in New York City—illustrates the limitations of East

Asian American-based studies and the importance of examining

ethnic differences among Asians. In short, what Lee and Zhou

describe as “Asian” American achievement may only apply to

some Asian American groups.

Starting further from third base than other hyper-selected

Asian Americans

In a 2014 online Slate article, author Mitch Moxley explains

Jennifer Lee’s perspective on why Asian Americans “tend to

end up on the third base of life”: “[T]heir parents are so highly

educated, they start the race to get ahead on third base…[T]

hey have certain advantages that other groups don’t have.”

Many Asian immigrants, in fact, are highly educated but,

that does not mean their level of education is the same across

groups. This is apparent when examining post-B.A. attainment

among large hyper-selected Asian populations. Filipino immi-

grants exhibit a lower level of hyper-selectivity, a key factor

in explaining their second generation children’s educational

outcomes. As the figure above on the right shows, Filipino

immigrants, by far, have the lowest rate of earning beyond a

B.A. They are the least likely among hyper-selected Asian immi-

grants to be very highly educated, that is, to have earned more

than a B.A.—about 8 percent of Filipino immigrants, compared

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Educational attainment of Asian imigrants from hyper-selected groups, by ethnicity

Chinese Korean Asian Indian Filipino

BA only > BA

Source: ACS 5-year estimates (2012-2016)

percent

Having earned at least a bachelor’s degree served as the educational attainment outcome variable. Analysis included adults ages 25-65. Individuals who arrived in the U.S. at the age of 25 or older constituted the foreign-born groups. To qualify for each foreign-born group, respondents needed to identify mono-ethnically and have been born in the nation corresponding to that ethnicity (e.g., Filipinos born in the Philippines). The Chinese group was an exception; individuals who identified as Chinese, Taiwanese, or Chinese and Taiwanese and were born in China composed the Chinese population analyzed here.

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Educational attainment of hyper-selected Asian- American groups, by generation

Chinese Korean Asian Indian Filipino

first generation second generation

Source: ACS 5-year estimates (2012-2016)

percent

Having earned at least a bachelor’s degree served as the educational attainment outcome variable. Individuals who were born abroad an arrived in the U.S. at the age of 25 or older constituted the first generation groups. To qualify for each foreign-born group, respondents needed to identify mono- ethnically and have been born in the country corresponding to that ethnicity (e.g., Filipinos born in the Philippines). The Chinese group was an exception; individuals who identified as Chinese, Taiwanese, or Chinese and Taiwanese and were born in China composed the Chinese population analyzed here. For simplicity, second and higher generation is referred to as “second generation.”

31S U M M E R 2 0 2 1 c o n t e x t s

to almost a quarter of Korean immigrants, a third of Chinese

immigrants, and 42 percent of Asian Indian immigrants.

Filipino immigrants’ labor market incorporation reflects Fili-

pinos’ lower hyper-selectivity vis-à-vis other large Asian groups.

A census-based study conducted by sociologists Pyong Gap

Min and Sou Hyun Jang revealed that Filipino immigrants are

the least likely among all Asian immigrant groups to be in STEM

occupations, which typically pay relatively high salaries. (The

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for example, reported that in 2018

the average annual salary of a computer systems analyst was

almost $90,000.) In contrast, Filipino immigrants, women in par-

ticular, were more likely to be nurses than

other Asian immigrants. A 2017 Migration

Policy Institute report indicated that Filipi-

nos constituted the largest proportion of

foreign-born nurses—30 percent—practic-

ing nursing in the U.S., which requires, at

minimum, an associate’s degree. Nursing

is the most visible and prominent occu-

pational niche for Filipino immigrants in

the U.S. and one with a lower salary compared to that of IT

technicians and physicians. For example, the Bureau of Labor

Statistics indicated that the median salary for a nurse in 2018

was $71,000.

Another niche that reflects Filipino immigrants’ lower

hyper-selectivity is the U.S. Armed Services. In 2018, Filipinos,

along with Mexicans, made up the largest share of foreign-born

veterans, each comprising 17 percent of the foreign-born total.

Filipinos in their home society have historically joined the U.S.

Navy in large numbers since the U.S. occupation of the Philip-

pines at the turn of the 20th century. Filipino colonial subjects

in the Philippines saw enlisting as an opportunity to “move

up,” as it afforded relatively high pay and a chance to gain U.S.

citizenship. With no college requirement, joining the navy was

an easy route to upward mobility in the Philippines.

In summary, Filipino immigrants are far more likely than

Chinese, Asian Indian, and Korean immigrants to have earned

a bachelor’s degree and not gone beyond that. Their particular

type of hyper-selectivity, to put it another way, has brought in

highly educated immigrants but not the same high proportions

of very highly educated immigrants as in the other large Asian

groups.

encouraged to stay on second The Asian parents depicted in Lee and Zhou’s work expect

their children to get to third base—to complete at least graduate

school and to land a high-status job. The Filipino parents I met,

however, want their children to stay on second: to get at least

a college degree—a bachelor’s is preferred, but an associate’s is

just fine—and to become a mid-level health care professional

like themselves.

Family values involved in notions of success, I suggest, go

a long way toward explaining these different aspirations for

children. Unlike East Asians, Filipino Americans view academic

performance as separate from, and sometimes at odds with,

family expectations. Filipino parents I spoke with believed that

to be successful one must have a family, that is, marry and have

children. Albert Sabangan (a pseudonym, like other names used)

explained that success for his sons would include them “hav-

ing their own families.” Having children, in particular, was an

important goal that Filipino parents had for their children. Priscilla

Cagalawan, a nurse, felt strongly about this, believing that to

decide to not have children is a “selfish choice.”

Filipino immigrant parents’ frame of success also involved

keeping family together. Thus, a central goal that Filipino par-

ents had for their children was not just having families of their

own but also maintaining family relations by spending ample

quality time with their spouses and children. Daily rituals such

as hanging out with siblings after school and eating dinner

with the family were important ways parents and their children

maintained emotional ties with one another, as well as physical

closeness. Children were expected to sacrifice certain extracur-

ricular activities, like skipping basketball practice, to attend family

gatherings and to choose a college close to home even if this

A 2017 Migration Policy Institute report indicated that Filipinos constituted the largest proportion of foreign-born nurses—30 percent—practicing nursing in the U.S., which requires, at minimum, an associate’s degree.

Keeping your family together is one form of success. If you can’t keep them together, it’s a failure. There is a stigma. Family togetherness is important. If one limb is gone, you’re not whole.

B o n g b o n g M

ar co

s

32 contexts.org

meant opting out of attending a more prestigious university

further away.

Filipino immigrants encouraged their children to go into

occupations in Filipino niches to accomplish these family goals.

Nursing, especially, was seen by parents as the ideal occupation

to pursue. Given its decent salary, good health care benefits,

retirement pensions, and flexible work hours, becoming a nurse

meant that their children would later be able to provide stability

and security for their future families, as well as carve out the

time needed to maintain family ties. The medical profession that

East Asian parents desire for their children—a physician—is an

unattractive one for Filipino parents. In their view, it requires too

many years of schooling that would most likely require a delay

in having children and long work hours that would take time

away from the family.

Some Filipino parents considered the military as another

good option for their children. Joining the military meant their

children’s college would be paid for and a variety of career

opportunities would open up for them. One parent, Lydia

Santos, a nurse whose husband and grandfathers— from both

sides—are U.S. Navy veterans, encouraged both her daughter

and son to join the military. She told her children, “You can go

into research. You can teach. You can be a clinical instructor.”

In fact, second generation Filipino Americans are more likely

to have served in the military than the second generation in

any other Asian American group as well as native whites. My

analysis of the Add Health survey found that second generation

Filipino Americans reported the highest rate of participation in

the military—8.4 percent—compared to 4 percent of second

generation non-Filipino Asians and 7 percent of native whites.

Why are the family goals I have described so important to

Filipino parents? The emphasis on family togetherness in par-

ticular has to do with the interaction between Filipinos’ religious

beliefs and the global context in which so many Filipino families

operate today. Filipinos are largely Catholic, and their religion

strongly encourages and supports beliefs in marriage, having

children, and keeping the family together (as opposed to separa-

tion through divorce, for example). However, keeping the family

together has become increasingly difficult for Filipinos in the

Philippines due to its labor export economy. The Philippine gov-

ernment promotes and supports the outmigration of its citizens.

Overseas workers are a large basis of the Filipino economy, as

workers send remittances back home to their families. As millions

of Filipinos, primarily women, have left the Philippines to work

in places like Saudi Arabia and the United States, families are

separated, fragmenting both emotional and physical ties among

parents, children, and spouses. So, while Filipinos value family

reproduction—having children—and fam-

ily togetherness, the need to work abroad

and the mass outmigration of Filipinos

make it increasingly difficult to accom-

plish these goals. The common context of

the Filipino transnational family has made

having a family and keeping it together

even more important for Filipino migrants.

Priscilla, mentioned earlier, put it this way: “Keeping your family

together is one form of success. If you can’t keep them together,

it’s a failure. There is a stigma. Family togetherness is important.

If one limb is gone, you’re not whole.”

expected to stay on second base In my study, I found that Filipino students are often not

identified as Asian and consequently not as a model minority.

In U.S. society, being Asian tends to be synonymous with East

Overseas workers are a large basis of the Filipino economy, as workers send remittances back home to their families.

Filipinos get no special treatment that could pull them in the opposite direction, towards second base and not third.

IL O

A si

a- Pa

ci fi c

33S U M M E R 2 0 2 1 c o n t e x t s

Asian. Filipinos contradict the common image of Asians, both

phenotypically and culturally. One major difference from East

Asians is their darker skin color. Also, Filipinos are culturally dif-

ferent from East Asians due in large part to their Catholic religion

and Spanish and U.S. colonial histories. In a study conducted by

Anthony Ocampo, Spanish surnames and Filipino immigrants’

fluency in English were cited by Filipino college students as major

distinctions between themselves and East Asians.

Filipinos’ phenotypical and cultural differences from East

Asians play out in their ethnic and racial experiences in school.

When Filipinos are identified as Filipinos in school, they are

seen by their peers as being less intelligent, less ambitious, and

less motivated than their East Asian counterparts. For example,

Cesar Enriquez recalled that when he was in high school, Fili-

pinos were considered only “kind of smart” by his classmates

compared to Korean students. The belief that Filipinos were

not as smart as East Asians came out in a story shared with me

by Jennifer Castillo, a student at one of New York City’s elite

public high schools. After getting exams back in their honors

math class, Jennifer and her classmate discussed their scores.

Jennifer explained, “I got a 70 and she got a 80. My classmate

was complaining so I tried to comfort her by saying that I got

an even worse grade. She said to me, ‘You don’t have to worry

about that because you’re Filipino.’”

When peers could not ethnically identify Filipinos as Fili-

pinos, they often identified them as Latino. Filipinos’ darker

skin color and Spanish surnames were two things that led to

this misidentification. As Joan Calderon noted, “Filipinos and

Latinos basically look the same since we’re pretty much old

Spanish blood.” Another student, Janelle Lopez, indicated a

time when someone thought she was Dominican because she

was “really tan.”

Not being readily identified as Asian suggests that Filipinos

are not getting the advantages of being seen as model minori-

ties, including the psychological boost of being seen as smart

and high achieving that East Asians get. In addition, none of the

Filipino students I met said that they were treated by teachers

as a model minority. This may be the case because outsiders

often mistake Filipinos as Latinos. Being misidentified as Latino

by teachers may mean that teachers are not offering Filipino

students the extra information about college or funneling them

into AP and honors classes as they are doing with East Asian

students. Thus, while East Asians receive tangible resources and

a psychological push in school to reach their goal of getting to

third base, Filipinos get no special treatment that could pull them

in the opposite direction, towards second base and not third.

conclusion In the end, the analysis of why Filipino Americans are less

likely than those in other large hyper-selected Asian groups to

get to third base sheds light on the factors that shape Filipino

Americans’ trajectories. It also demonstrates the need to avoid

treating Asians as a homogenous group and to be sensitive to

the heterogeneity of Asian American experiences. All too often,

scholars overlook the disparities and the diversity among Asians

and, as a result, reproduce the idea of a homogenized Asian

racial group when, in fact, there are significant socioeconomic,

historical, racial, and cultural differences among Asians.

In sum, the case of Filipinos has lessons not only for under-

standing trajectories of Filipino Americans themselves but also

our understanding of the broader Asian American experience

and U.S. ethnic and racial stratification today.

Note: ACS data used in the above analyses can be accessed

at ipums.org.

recommended reading Anthony Christian Ocampo. 2016. The Latinos of Asia: How Fili- pino Americans break the rules of race.

Dina C. Miramba. 2008. “Immigrant families and the college experience: Perspectives of Filipina Americans.” Journal of College Student Development 49(4): 336-350.

Jennifer Lee and Min Zhou. 2015. The Asian American Achievement Paradox.

Jie Zong and Jeanne Batalova. 2019. “Immigrant Veterans in the U.S. Armed Forces.” Migration Policy Institute.

Pyong Gap Min and Sou Hyun Jang. 2015. “The concentration of Asian Americans in STEM and health-care occupations: an intergenerational comparison.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 38(6): 841-859.

Robert Teranishi. 2002. “Asian Pacific Americans and Critical Race Theory: An Examination of School Racial Climate.” Equity and Excellence in Education 35(2): 144-154.

Brenda Gambol Gavigan is an Assistant Professor in the Sociology Department

at The University of Texas at Dallas. She studies Asian ethnic stratification in the

U.S. through an examination of race, ethnicity, and mobility of second generation

Asian groups.