Wow...lots of assertions, very few real implications.
1) The Noble Prize argument lacks foundation. First, there are so few Noble Prize winners that it's hard to get a representative sample to make broad assertions. Second, there are cultural differences that would influence the value of innovation placed in a society. If you read cultural psychology (Kitayama, Marcus, or Nisbett), you'll realize that social factors and what's encouraged in various cultures are different. The argument is ignorant at best, racist at worst.
2) Asians are not all bookworms. If they were, they wouldn't be getting into medical school in the first place. Extracurriculars, clinical experience, and leadership positions aren't generally given to anti-social kids. You earn it. Also, it's pretty difficult for bookworms to survive an hour-long interview without giving it away.
3) Some arguments are making it sound like Asians were raised rich and well-off. Please watch these generalizations. I'm Chinese and lived for 8 years in poverty. My family was also too proud to ask for welfare and struggled daily with language barriers. If I get into medical school this year, it wasn't because I've always gotten everything I asked for because daddy's a rich physicist.
The bottom line is this: Every cultural/racial group has its outliers or subgroups that reflect poorly on the whole.
If you want to call Asians bookworms based on the small sample you've seen, I can just as easily call whites "guys with Confederate Flags on old pickup trucks." Accurate? Not even close, so let's watch the conclusions we draw from not seeing the whole picture.