"RichAsianKid" <richasiankid@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:cbd64d8e-d5ca-4045-8f36-aea054a2eae9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Jan 20, 11:21 pm, "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> "RichAsianKid" <richasian...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>
>>
news:8d8c2e14-b4c8-41ed-9b5c-5428d8d0f2fa@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 20, 6:35 pm, "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> "RichAsianKid" <richasian...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>
>>
>>news:39c0eb2e-17fe-4cca-a67b-7320d1d14d95@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> >> > 2007 SAT Scores: http://i9.tinypic.com/6xrro5u.jpg
>>
>> >> > For now I just want to point out that Asians actually have a
>> >> > lower
>> >> > mean of 514 compared to whites of 527 in the critical reading
>> >> > part.
>> >> > HOWEVER, if
>> >> > you look at the score of 700 for critical reading, that only
>> >> > gets
>> >> > you
>> >> > 92th percentile for Asians, but 94%ile for whites. At 750, the
>> >> > level
>> >> > for admission for many higher ranked universities, that gets you
>> >> > 96
>> >> > percentile for Asians but 98%ile for whites. The corresponding
>> >> > figures
>> >> > for other ethnic groups are in fact almost all 99% for both 700
>> >> > and
>> >> > 750 (save a couple of them). That suggests to me that there is
>> >> > not
>> >> > a
>> >> > dearth of Asians with high verbal skills; however you would not
>> >> > have
>> >> > gleaned this if you just look at the mean alone. Perhaps the
>> >> > median
>> >> > is
>> >> > a better way to go. The reason for a lower mean is that there a
>> >> > very
>> >> > wide lower end tail for Asians in
>> >> > the critical reading section. My guess is that (1) these are
>> >> > FOBs
>> >> > or
>> >> > foreign students and also (2) most of these are quite simply not
>> >> > higher IQ north east Asians, but rather SE Asians like Hmong,
>> >> > Cambodians and Pacific Islanders - groups that psychometrics
>> >> > suggests
>> >> > have lesser/lower
>> >> > cognitive abilities. In fact, the SAT data reveals that standard
>> >> > deviation for Asians is
>> >> > higher than whites, suggesting underlying
>> >> > heterogeneity.
>>
>> >> > You can do the same calculations for the above in math, and for
>> >> > the
>> >> > 700 level, the figures are 99 for blacks, 81 for Asians, 99 for
>> >> > Mexicans, 94 for whites, suggesting an even greater differential
>> >> > between the groups.
>>
>> >> > Like I said before, different groups achieve differently, with
>> >> > this
>> >> > table demonstrating that at the higher end, Asians are likely
>> >> > over-
>> >> > represented on a per capita basis. Blacks are clearly way
>> >> > underpresented - one study actually shows that in 2005 at the
>> >> > 700
>> >> > level for math only 0.7 percent of all black test takers scored
>> >> > at
>> >> > the
>> >> > 700 level, while only 0.16 percent of blacks scored higher than
>> >> > the
>> >> > 750 level. That's again the 2005 version. AFAIK there are no
>> >> > major
>> >> > changes in 2005 to 2007 in the other sections except the
>> >> > addition
>> >> > of
>> >> > the writing sample. The corresponding figures for Asians in
>> >> > percentile
>> >> > form is not available (though I've not done a thorough search)
>> >> > though
>> >> > the means certainly are, but the 2007 sample indicates the
>> >> > corresponding figures are 19% and 9%.
>>
>> >> > That is, roughly how many percent of Asians and blacks score
>> >> > over
>> >> > 700
>> >> > and 750 out of 800 in math?
>>
>> >> > Black -- 0.7% over 700, 0.16 percent over 750. (2005 data)
>> >> > Asian -- 19% over 700, 9% over 750. (2007 data)
>>
>> >> > In other words, if 1000 black students and 1000 Asian students
>> >> > take
>> >> > the SAT math, only 7 blacks but 190 Asians will score at the 700
>> >> > level
>> >> > or higher. That's a 27 times difference.
>>
>> >> > Now, moving up - if 1000 black students and 1000 Asian students
>> >> > take
>> >> > the SAT math, only 1.6 blacks but 90 Asians will score at 750
>> >> > level
>> >> > or
>> >> > higher. That's 56 times (!!) difference.
>>
>> >> > Now you might think, that's amazing. Not yet. Look at the above
>> >> > figure - how many blacks are taking the SAT and how many Asians
>> >> > are
>> >> > taking the SAT? Blacks - roughly 160k, while Asians roughly
>> >> > 140k.
>> >> > Why
>> >> > is that im****tant? Asians are only ~4.2% of the US population,
>> >> > while
>> >> > blacks are roughly 12.3% of the population. If blacks take the
>> >> > SAT
>> >> > at
>> >> > the same pro****tion as Asians, you would have expected blacks to
>> >> > churn
>> >> > out 410k students taking the SAT. But no, only 160k
>> >> > are taking. Thus even amongst all test-takers they're grossly
>> >> > underrepresented -- by a factor of ~2.6.
>>
>> >> > Taking basal demographic rate into account we have this: Asians
>> >> > are
>> >> > 70
>> >> > times more likely to produce students who score higher than 700
>> >> > on
>> >> > the
>> >> > SAT math, compared to blacks, and are 145.6 times more likely to
>> >> > produce students who score higher than 750 on the SAT math --
>> >> > and a
>> >> > built-in
>> >> > factor of 2.6 is accounted for by blacks simply for whatever
>> >> > reason
>> >> > do
>> >> > not just take the SAT.
>>
>> >> > Also check outhttp://richasiankid.blogspot.com/for
some more
>> >> > stats.
>> >> > Some of the numbers do appear brutal, and many consider it too
>> >> > politically incorrect to talk about.
>>
>> >> > No wonder black education is in such crisis!! See, for instance,
>>
>> >> > http://www.jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html
>>
>> >> > An incredible quote: "Blacks from families with incomes of more
>> >> > than
>> >> > $100,000 had a
>> >> > mean SAT score that was 85 points below the mean score for
>> >> > whites
>> >> > from
>> >> > all income levels, 139 points below the mean score of whites
>> >> > from
>> >> > families at the same income level, and 10 points below the
>> >> > average
>> >> > score of white students from families whose income was less than
>> >> > $10,000."
>>
>> >> > I think the above will haunt the US for a long time to come. As
>> >> > the
>> >> > above link indicates, the gap for whites and blacks on the SAT
>> >> > has
>> >> > actually increased. For a while it has been thought that a
>> >> > credible
>> >> > ticket out of the ghetto is a good education. The results
>> >> > indicate
>> >> > that without strong affirmative action in place racial
>> >> > disparities
>> >> > will continue, and that this cannot be blamed on poverty or
>> >> > economics
>> >> > alone (see above).
>>
>> >> You missed out an explanation of cultural differences, in fact, an
>> >> account that doesn't even mention cultural differences is
>> >> incomplete.
>> >> Please revise and resubmit.
>>
>> > And at the same time, an account that does not mention underlying
>> > intelligence differences is *also* incomplete. I certainly would
>> > not
>> > dismiss culture as possibly part of the explanation, but as E.O.
>> > Wilson once famously said, genes keep culture on a leash.
>>
>> > Furthermore, Frey and Detterman wrote in "Scholastic *****sment or
>> > g?
>> > The Relation****p Between the Scholastic *****sment Test and General
>> > Cognitive Ability" in Psychological Science Volume 15 Issue 6 Page
>> > 373-378, June 2004
>>
>>
>http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.006...
>>
>> > "These studies indicate that the SAT is mainly a test of g."
>>
>> > And we know that g is heritable.
>>
>> > Last, the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study indicates to us that
>> > blacks who are adopted to white families at a very early age
>> > continue
>> > to do poorly be it IQ, GPA, School Rank, or School Aptitude.
>>
>> Do you think it matters from which socio-economic strata they were
>> adopted from and the fact that they were still black? Did they score
>> better than the siblings they left behind? The possibility of
>> confounding is big and the ability to apply good controls is small.
>
> The adopted black IQ at the end of the study (at age 17) was 89,
> compared to the adopted white IQ of 106, a difference of 17 points,
> consistent with the current black-white difference in an unselected
> population. It is evidence that the IQ gap between whites and blacks
> does not appear to close in spite of being adopted to an 'enriched
> environment' -- in this case upper middle class white parental
> households with an average IQ of 115.
>
> Now, I will not argue that there *may* be differences in social
> environment (as opposed to family environment) between whites and
> blacks and it is possible that they may be treated differently. But if
> that's the case, one would also have to entertain the hypothesis that
> the current prevailing environment is so biased against blacks, i.e.
> a.k.a. racist, that it creates a 15 point IQ difference (in this case,
> 17 points) between these two groups. Is America such an incorrigibly
> racist society? (And as a separate question: if so, how can Americans
> even - ever - begin to atone for their sin?)
>
> Moreover, if you recall the SAT numbers, are we suggesting that black
> households that make more than $100,000 will nonetheless be (1) unable
> to overcome social disadvantages imposed on them; and/or (2) be unable
> to provide a culturally rich environment ***compared to white
> households which net less than $10,000.*** ???....a 10-fold income
> difference.
>
>
>>
>> > Interestingly, mixed race children do intermediately well between
>> > blacks and whites. This is counterintuitive and is something that a
>> > culture-only explanation will have some problems explaining,
>>
>> Culture only.....who mentioned that? Oh, you did; I'm vying for equal
>> billing.
>>
>> for (1)
>>
>
> I think we will agree that we probably will see an interplay of
> factors - biology, cultural, environmental - at explaining the white-
> black gap. The debate is about the pro****tion each contributes and
> this will be fine-tuned. In Steve Pinker's bestseller The Blank Slate
> in the chapter "Culture Vultures" he dismisses the idea that "culture
> is a set of roles or symbols that mysteriously descend upon passive
> individuals." Rather, "culture can be seen instead as a part of the
> human phenotype, the distinctive design that allows us to survive,
> prosper, and perpetuate our lineage.....Culture is a pool of
> technological and social innovations that people ac***ulate to help
> them live their lives, not a collection of arbitrary roles and symbols
> that happen to befall them....History and culture, then, can be
> grounded in psychology, which can be grounded in computation,
> neuroscience, genetics, and evolution."
>
> I dug that one up just for these newsgroups.... The blank slate tabula
> rasa view is rapidly suc***bing to advances in genetics advances. In
> fact, 2007 is the "year of human genetic variation" - not
> similarities. We are way more different than we think. And I think the
> standard social science model will need to be revamped - or at least
> tweaked in some major way with this 'onslaught' of exciting scientific
> knowledge!
>
> One more point. If culture is really everything (OK, I know you're not
> saying that) then I submit that African culture is pathological, it is
> a curse. Not black American, but African. You can't blame genes, but
> you can certainly blame what's volitional if you assume culture is.
> Why is it that blacks do not change their culture in spite of the
> overwhelming indicting evidence? Don't they have the collective
> foresight etc etc. The effects are apparent: why do blacks fail in
> Canada where the legacy of slavery does not exist? Why do blacks fail
> in Britain where they've only recently voluntarily migrated to? Why do
> blacks fail even more miserably in Africa as reflected in TIMSS scores
> compared to S Korea?
>
> Here: http://i14.tinypic.com/6czbfxl.jpg
>
> That's 2,3,4 and 5 standard deviations below the mean. (As aside,
> MENSA chooses 2 SDs above the mean, mental retardation is 2 SDs below
> the mean.)
>
> And I chose Korea for a very simple reason. It was neck 'n' neck with
> African countries in the 60s, after being occupied by Japanese forces
> and subsequently fought a civil war. At the time its future looked
> grim. Jared Diamond recently commented that economists back then
> thought Korea would be forever doomed to poverty, while countries like
> Ghana or the Philippines would be destined to economic stardom. The
> results have been completely opposite.
>
>>
>>
>> > mixed race children are often seen by society as black, not
>> > half-and-
>> > half; (2) if anything mixed race children will face even more of an
>> > identity crisis as they're often sources of jeer in schools. In
>> > fact
>> > mixed-race children suffer even more than their monoracial
>> > counterparts: http://i15.tinypic.com/716vjuo.jpg
>>
>> > Achievement findings are found here:
>>
>> > http://i14.tinypic.com/6kpn2hj.jpg
>>
>> > Reference: Udry JR, Li RM, Hendrickson-Smith J: Health and behavior
>> > risks of adolescents with mixed-race identity. Am J Public Health
>> > 2003, 93:1865-1870.
>>
>> > Total sample size: 83,135 + 18,924, based on the National
>> > Longitudinal
>> > Study of Adolescent Health from grades 7 through 12 during
>> > 1994-1995.
>>
>> > Sample size is HUGE.
>>
>> > Below listed are percentages of children reaching 75th percentile
>> > GPA
>> > Scores - (you would expect 25% to do so)
>>
>> > "Pure"
>>
>> > White - 32.27 Black - 15.45 American Indian - 14.97 Asian
>> > 43.16
>>
>> > "Mixed" race
>>
>> > White/black 24.19
>> > White/American Indian 27.10
>> > White/Asian 37.58
>> > Black/American Indian 18.79
>> > Black/Asian 18.57
>> > Asian/American Indian 21.82
>>
>> Do you think those mixed race children were subject to any cultural
>> differences from their monoracial counterparts. Is identity crisis
>> synonymous with low educational achievement?
>>
>> What do you expect of the least motivated when competing in a race
>> organized and marshaled by those who place a much higher value on the
>> outcome?
>>
>> Phil H
>
> And what do you expect of the least able? Or is that essentially
> taboo? I think people should be encouraged to do the best they can.
>
> But at the same time it may not be realistic - perhaps even cruel - to
> dish out false hope by expecting people to achieve the same.
>
> As to your questions - 'is identity crisis synonymous with low
> educational achievement' - shouldn't we then expect blacks to over-
> achieve, to 'compensate' & to 'strive' in our society? I've never
> heard that formalized into a theory, not a plausible one anyway, but
> certainly it can be inferred thru casual banter along the veins of
> "Jews have been driven into excelling and achievement because of
> historic persecution". I wonder why blacks do not do the same or
> follow this model. Oh I get it, it's their cultural deficit!!
>
> As for the im****tance of outcome, does outcome matter? Can you
> imagine, oh, say, a German (or Brazilian) soccer coach saying, look,
> your participation in our team counts way more than how many goals
> you're going to score? It may well be the case that the least
> motivated ones are also precisely those not cut out for the game in a
> knowledge-based post-industrial high-tech economy.
>
> And you can easily argue that that's why we love them even more - they
> boost your percentile. (Ouch!) ;)
Nice response. Yes I've heard all the arguments but I'm not convinced.
The Korean story is interesting but we are really talking about
differences in education.. If the Koreans had superior genes on the one
hand, why did they previously test so low. On the other hand,
environmental influences appear to have affected so-called intelligence
scores.
Here's the bottom line. When science can predict an IQ from a DNA sample
within a statically significant margin, I'll shut my cakehole. BTW, we
already have differentiated instruction (read lower expectations) in our
schools. It works just as well for low achieving whites as it does for
all other low achievers. I'm not against that.
Phil H
|
