On May 5, 8:24=A0pm, pg <pen...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 5, 6:51 pm,israeliteknight<israelitekni...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > The US did very poorly in both math and science on the TIMSS survey in
> > 1995, scoring 492 in math [117 points lower than Singa****e] and 513 in
> > science [67 points lower than Singa****e]. =A0In the 2003 survey, we
> > scored 12 points higher in math than in 1995, and 15 points higher in
> > science, which was still 101 and 51 points respectively lower than
> > Singa****e.
>
> And in places like Indonesia and Malaysia --- they don't even dare to
> take the test. Why? Because the majority would flunk the test.
>
> > On the surface, this seems like very poor performance, but when our
> > math score is broken down by race, it's precisely the score we'd
> > expect. =A0If we assume the 13% who took the test who were blacks
scored=
> > in the range of Botswana (366), the 74% who were Whites scored in the
> > range of the Netherlands (536), the 7% who were Hispanics scored in
> > the range of Chile (387), the 4% who were Asians scored in range of
> > China (586), and the 2% who were jews scored in the range of Israel
> > (440), the aggregate score is 504, exactly the score we received on
> > TIMSS math:
>
> > math blacks Whites Hispanic Asian jews
> > =A0Botswana Nlands Chile China Israel
> > Score 366 536 387 586 440
> > US 13% 74.00% 7% 4% 2%
>
> When you talk about "Asian", you gotta be careful. Because among the
> "Asian" you got a lot of "those things" as well.
>
> It would be nice if someone can break down the "Asian" score by race,
> not by country, but by race.
It would also be nice if we had the 12th grade scores and not just the
8th grade scores, because that's where the racial differences *really*
start to appear.
But actually there are a number of the lower scoring Asian countries
now taking the tests. The Philippines as expected scored in the range
of South Africa and Chile, at 378 in TIMSS math. Indonesia scored in
the range of Iran, Jordan, and Macedonia, at 411 in TIMSS math.
Thailand took PISA and scored in the range of Mexico, Chile, and
Romania, at 417 in math. And your point about Asian races rather than
just countries is a good point, as the Chinese are essentially one
Asian race in a number of different countries like Hong Kong, Taiwan,
and of course Mainland China--all three of which now score higher than
Japan, surprisingly enough.
And all that is why Asians in Maryland score much higher than Asians
in California.
But the race that really throws our scores off [read: RECUCES our
scores, significantly] is jews, not Asians, and the following analysis
of state to state and race to race SAT scores shows why.
Based on the racial composition of Iowa, the highest scoring state at
1195, New York, one of the lowest scoring states at 1007, and
Wa****ngton, DC, ground zero in intellectual achievement on EVERY test
imaginable at 965, and the SAT scores re****ted by race, we should see
scores of 1052, 1003, and 934 respectively. This means that Iowa=92s
actual score was 134 points higher than estimated, New York=92s was 4
points higher, and DC=92s was 31 points higher:
Indian Asian black Mexican Puerto Rican Hispanic White jew Mamzer
Calculated Actual Diff
SAT Score 971 1084 857 909 909 926 1059 860 1002
Iowa 0.40% 1.60% 2.50% 3.80% 91% 0% 1% 100.00%
N.Y. 0.50% 6.90% 17.40% 16.30% 57% 0% 1.50% 100.00% 100%
D.C. 0.40% 3.20% 56.50% 0.00% 0.00% 8.20% 30.30% 0.00% 1.40% 100.00%
100%
Iowa 3.9 17.3 21.4 0.0 0.0 35.2 960.5 0.0 10.0 1048.4 1195 -146.6
N.Y. 4.9 74.8 149.1 0.0 0.0 150.9 607.9 0.0 15.0 1002.6 1007 -4.4
D.C. 3.9 34.7 484.2 0.0 0.0 75.9 320.9 0.0 14.0 933.6 965 -31.4
http://christianparty.net/satrace2004.htm
If all else is equal except the score of Whites, then Whites in Iowa
must score at 1221 [162 points higher than the national average for
Whites], Whites in N.Y. must score at 1067 [8 points higher], and
Whites in DC must score at 1163 [104 points higher than the national
average].
How can it be, though, that the White Race in Iowa scores 154 points
higher than the White Race in New York, and 58 points higher than the
White Race in DC? How can this be rationalized?
Because Whites are a majority in Iowa, their scores must be higher
than Iowa=92s average of 1195. Because blacks are a majority in DC, how
can it be explained that the average score for DC of 965 was 6 points
lower than the average score for blacks of 971? It seems improbable
that blacks in the =93state=94 which spends more per capita for
=93education=94 than any other part of the globe [five times as much per
student as Iowa] would score LOWER Than the national average for
blacks.
The answer is jews.
Because jews demanded in the 1960=92s that they not be counted as a
separate race, we don=92t know the exact population of jews in either DC
or New York. Because Whites are only 91% and Asians are only 1.6% of
Iowa=92s population, if Whites there score 1221, then Iowa=92s calculated
score is exactly 1195. But in order to explain the very low score of
DC where blacks are only 56.5% of the population, we must assume that
at least 4.5% of the population there are jews who score closer to
their brethren in Israel than to any local populations.
Viola. That fits the equation perfectly, giving DC a calculated score
of exactly 965, exactly as re****ted by the SAT.
But what about this whopping 154 point difference between Whites in
Iowa and =93whites=94 [note lower case =91w=92] in New York?
Same answer: jews.
Jews themselves claim there are 6 million jews in the US and that 4.6
million are in New York. If so, this might mean that something like
24% of New Yorkers who are listed as Whites are actually jews who
score in the range of their brethren in Israel, rather than in the
range of our brethren in Germany or Ireland.
In order for the calculated score for New York to match its actual
score, the percentage of jews there must be 24.5%, producing a score
of exactly 1007.
|
