Race is non-existent

[GIGObuster]

Cherry picking even on quotes, there are other explanation in the site:

Clearly, one of the main factors in explaining the SAT racial gap is that black students almost across the board are not being adequately schooled to perform well on the SAT and similar tests. Public schools in many neighborhoods with large black populations are underfunded, inadequately staffed, and ill equipped to provide the same quality of secondary education that is offered in predominantly white suburban school districts.

Data from The College Board shows that 57 percent of white students who took the SAT were ranked in the top 20 percent of their high school classes. This compares to 37 percent of black test takers. Some 45 percent of white students who took the SAT report that their high school grade point average was in the A range. This compares to only 22 percent of black test takers. The mean high school grade point average for all white students who took the SAT was 3.37. For blacks the figures was 2.99. These figures alone explain a large portion of the racial scoring gap on the SAT.

A major reason for the SAT racial gap appears to be the fact that black students who take the SAT have not followed the same academic track as white students. It is true that 97 percent of both blacks and whites who take the SAT have studied algebra in high school. But in higher level mathematics courses such as trigonometry and calculus, whites hold a large lead. In 2005, 47 percent of white SAT test takers had taken trigonometry in high school compared to 35 percent of black test takers. Some 28 percent of white test takers had taken calculus in high school. Only 14 percent of black students had taken calculus, one half as many as whites. Thirty-two percent of white SAT test takers had taken honors courses in mathematics compared to 19 percent of black SAT test takers.

Similar discrepancies appear in the level of instruction in English, the other major component of the SAT. Some 87 percent of white test takers had completed coursework in American literature compared to 75 percent of black test takers. For whites, 67 percent had taken high school courses in composition compared to 50 percent of blacks. Some 70 percent of whites and 59 percent of blacks had completed coursework in grammar. A full 40 percent of all white test takers had completed honors courses in English compared to 29 percent of black test takers.

Also, whites are far more likely than blacks to have taken honors courses in science and social studies. Given the huge differences in course study between black and white high school students, it comes as no surprise that white SAT scores are significantly higher than black SAT scores. Whites, who are more likely to attend high-quality schools, have simply achieved a greater mastery of the subject matter than have blacks.

[Evil_Economist]

@Chief_Pedant

Actually, it seems like you entered the debate late, and didn’t read carefully.

(Did you see the SATs across SES link? You’ll notice high income blacks score at about the level of poverty-stricken whites, for example.)

Start here to correct impressions you apparently carry that these differences are due to the usual explanations of things like income or parental education. There are lots more studies, and I’ll let you dig them up. Or, if you like, present me with studies showing that the things you want to promote actually make a difference when comparing like for like situations.

I know it’s tough to let go of prejudices you’ve had that poverty, oppression and lack of family education make a difference, but when comparing groups with similar backgrounds, it turns out the gaps still exist. From the link:

*"But there is a major flaw in the thesis that income differences explain the racial gap. Consider these three observable facts from The College Board’s 2005 data on the SAT:

• Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean SAT score of 993. This is 129 points higher than the national mean for all blacks.

• Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test score that was 61 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes of between $80,000 and $100,000.

• 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."*

Yeah, you should have kept reading. You missed this, from your own cite:

"Data from The College Board shows that 57 percent of white students who took the SAT were ranked in the top 20 percent of their high school classes. This compares to 37 percent of black test takers. Some 45 percent of white students who took the SAT report that their high school grade point average was in the A range. This compares to only 22 percent of black test takers. The mean high school grade point average for all white students who took the SAT was 3.37. For blacks the figures was 2.99. These figures alone explain a large portion of the racial scoring gap on the SAT. "

So, once again, your cites don’t support your arguments.

I also love that your “SATs across SES link” goes to the website of one of the most prolific race trolls on the internet. You should stop reading his stuff.

[Chief_Pedant]

@Evil_Economist

Yeah, you should have kept reading. You missed this, from your own cite:

"Data from The College Board shows that 57 percent of white students who took the SAT were ranked in the top 20 percent of their high school classes. This compares to 37 percent of black test takers. Some 45 percent of white students who took the SAT report that their high school grade point average was in the A range. This compares to only 22 percent of black test takers. The mean high school grade point average for all white students who took the SAT was 3.37. For blacks the figures was 2.99. These figures alone explain a large portion of the racial scoring gap on the SAT. "

So, once again, your cites don’t support your arguments.

I also love that your “SATs across SES link” goes to the website of one of the most prolific race trolls on the internet. You should stop reading his stuff.

First, I realize that link is from an objectionable site. I don’t follow the site; I simply linked the first graph for the data I was looking for. It’s well published elsewhere. I’m interested in the data, not the opinions of the blogger. Feel free to post alternate data, though.

On the JBHE article. You are incorrect. The statement you quote above says kids w/ crummy grades get crummy SAT scores. Hello. The point being made is that high-income black kids get crummy SAT scores. The data supports that, and it has been repeated many times.

Let me suggest another interesting article for you. The JBHE folksdecided to put an end to the “abhorrent thesis” of The Bell Curve by putting a nail in the coffin. They had the bright idea that if they looked at blacks in a highly integrated setting where there is “a high degree of educational, economic, and social compatibility” they could “finally put an end” to the “racial theory.” They found exactly such a setting: overseas Army base schools.

I give you their conclusion verbatim: “No such luck.”

So they still weren’t able to “solve the puzzle,” as they say, and are still left with creating some other putative factors to account for the difference, even though they were convinced that this was the perfect setting to remove every variable and prove we’re all genetically equal. That is, until the data came back…

[Chief_Pedant]

@GIGObuster

Cherry picking even on quotes, there are other explanation in the site:

Which of those explanations do like best?
And which of them can be shown to have panned out?

I completely agree poor students take easier courses. However if you look at students pursuing the exact same pathway with the exact same courses–PreMed or PreLaw, for example, what do you think you will find?

Hint: the exact same pattern of outcome.

“Poor preparation because poor courses were taken antecedent to the test” does not pan out as an explanation.

[Evil_Economist]

@Chief_Pedant

First, I realize that link is from an objectionable site. I don’t follow the site; I simply linked the first graph for the data I was looking for. It’s well published elsewhere. I’m interested in the data, not the opinions of the blogger. Feel free to post alternate data, though.

On the JBHE article. You are incorrect. The statement you quote above says kids w/ crummy grades get crummy SAT scores. Hello. The point being made is that high-income black kids get crummy SAT scores. The data supports that, and it has been repeated many times.

I don’t think you understand what they’re saying.

Suppose you encouraged participation in the SATs. If so, the average score would likely go down, because the new test takers would likely be the lower academic achievers; in fact, average scores would likely go down, even if scores went up for the cohort of students who were likely test-takers in previous years.

What you are seeing here is average SAT scores for students with average GPA of 2.99 compared to average SAT scores for students with GAP of 3.47, and you’re calling that a race gap, and that’s wrong.

Put more bluntly, you have misintrepreted the data, coincidently in a manner that supports your thesis.

[orcenio]

@GIGObuster

In the case of relying on discredited researchers one has to conclude that the “eventual victory” fallacy they rely on is still one, Rushton and Lynn died last year and so the pickings of the “race realists” are fewer.

Actually it was Rushton and Jensen who croaked last year. However, Lynn (and the rest of 'um) won’t be among us for too long.

[iiandyiiii]

You say you don’t buy the 1 SD difference for IQ tests, CP. So what’s the magnitude of the test-score that you do accept, in SD?

[Chief_Pedant]

@Evil_Economist

I don’t think you understand what they’re saying.

Suppose you encouraged participation in the SATs. If so, the average score would likely go down, because the new test takers would likely be the lower academic achievers; in fact, average scores would likely go down, even if scores went up for the cohort of students who were likely test-takers in previous years.

What you are seeing here is average SAT scores for students with average GPA of 2.99 compared to average SAT scores for students with GAP of 3.47, and you’re calling that a race gap, and that’s wrong.

Put more bluntly, you have misintrepreted the data, coincidently in a manner that supports your thesis.

No. The data is the data: income differences do not explain the gap.

What you and I are both seeing is data that shows black students with high incomes underscore white (and asian) students with low incomes, and that is the only point I am making with this cite. SES is NOT an explanation for the gap.

You are on to other putative explanations, and perhaps we can discuss those, but they have nothing to do with the SES point. (They are speculative and unsupportive, by the way.) When SES crapped out as an explanation, all sorts of other reasons suddenly were advanced. This is one of the seminal points when the egalitarian community was forced to start thinking of reasons beyond their pet reasons.

As to the relative unpreparedness of black students–i.e. they take lamer courses–I agree. If you are not as competent you are not going to be taking AP courses. If you are not good at maths you are not going to be taking trig and calculus. But I find that a crappy explanation if your parents are highly educated and wealthy and you are still taking crummy courses. Why aren’t you taking rigorous courses? Maybe your parents told you to coast b/c they were already rich? C’mon. No other SIRE group needs or uses excuses like, “Well; we took lame prep courses.”

Crappy students take crappy courses, get crappy grades and crappy SAT scores. Income level for blacks does not explain any of that crappy performance for their SIRE group.

[Chief_Pedant]

@iiandyiiii

You say you don’t buy the 1 SD difference for IQ tests, CP. So what’s the magnitude of the test-score that you do accept, in SD?

I didn’t say I didn’t accept them. I said I don’t follow them, and the markedly low black scores for IQ that you cite surprise me (and don’t pass a sniff test for me) because they put adult blacks at an average IQ of marginally mentally challenged. I’m a little surprised you accept them, but I guess if you want to argue Flynn’s point, you sort of have to. Do you really think the black population in 1972 was mentally challenged, on average? Now? Even if they have a good environmental excuse to be that limited in mental capacity? Speak for your own black friends. Mine would be insulted.

I’m sure there are standard deviation numbers for SAT scores, but I guess I don’t really care. My position is that the academic test scores are real, reproducible, consistent for the patterns among SIRE groups, and that the residual average gap is explained by genetic disparities.

I don’t care so much about standard deviations and the like. How would you quantify the difference between the NBA and some lamer league? And does such a quantification really matter?

[Evil_Economist]

NM

[Evil_Economist]

@Chief_Pedant

No. The data is the data: income differences do not explain the gap.

What you and I are both seeing is data that shows black students with high incomes underscore white (and asian) students with low incomes, and that is the only point I am making with this cite. SES is NOT an explanation for the gap.

You are on to other putative explanations, and perhaps we can discuss those, but they have nothing to do with the SES point. (They are speculative and unsupportive, by the way.) When SES crapped out as an explanation, all sorts of other reasons suddenly were advanced. This is one of the seminal points when the egalitarian community was forced to start thinking of reasons beyond their pet reasons.

As to the relative unpreparedness of black students–i.e. they take lamer courses–I agree. If you are not as competent you are not going to be taking AP courses. If you are not good at maths you are not going to be taking trig and calculus. But I find that a crappy explanation if your parents are highly educated and wealthy and you are still taking crummy courses. Why aren’t you taking rigorous courses? Maybe your parents told you to coast b/c they were already rich? C’mon. No other SIRE group needs or uses excuses like, “Well; we took lame prep courses.”

Crappy students take crappy courses, get crappy grades and crappy SAT scores. Income level for blacks does not explain any of that crappy performance for their SIRE group.

Sorry, you can’t do this. I am not “on to other putative explanations,” I am quoting the cite you posted. You can’t take a cite, quote only the first half that agrees with your preconceived bias, and then ignore the second half because it doesn’t agree with your biases.

If I can look at a study, that you cited, and tell you which parts of that study you will agree with, and which parts you will disagree with, regardless of the support for those arguments given in the cite, then you are not doing science; you are cherry-picking whatever you think supports your point. That’s not science, that’s just a waste of everyone’s time. Why even give cites at all?

[IceQube]

@Chief_Pedant

As far as academic test scores, most of these are posted for any given standard academic test. Here are a few.
LSAT: Here, P 23

In evaluating these results, the reader should bear in mind that the test takers who contributed to the various regional, gender, and racial/ethnic statistics were self-selected. That is, these test takers chose to take the LSAT themselves; they were not randomly chosen to be assessed. Also, test takers voluntarily self-reported their gender and race/ethnicity. That is, individuals chose whether or not to respond to these classification questions and decided how they would respond (especially with regard to race/ethnicity). As a result, differences in LSAT performance across regional, gender, or racial/ethnic subgroups cannot be attributed to those subgroups in general, but merely to representatives of those subgroups who chose to take the LSAT and identified themselves as belonging to those subgroups.

Emphasis mine.

:smack:

:dubious:

[iiandyiiii]

@Chief_Pedant

I don’t care so much about standard deviations and the like. How would you quantify the difference between the NBA and some lamer league? And does such a quantification really matter?

So you say you know what causes the gap, but you don’t even want to talk about the actual size of the gap? Pretty weak, dude.

[iiandyiiii]

@Chief_Pedant

I didn’t say I didn’t accept them. I said I don’t follow them, and the markedly low black scores for IQ that you cite surprise me (and don’t pass a sniff test for me) because they put adult blacks at an average IQ of marginally mentally challenged.

Pretty much everything that you’ve cited that discusses any test score numbers puts the size of the gap around 1 SD. Did you even read your own cites? And then Flynn shows that the gap has actually shrunk, from more than 1 SD to around 1 SD, and suddenly you don’t want to talk about the numbers. Wow.

[GIGObuster]

@Chief_Pedant

Which of those explanations do like best?
And which of them can be shown to have panned out?

I completely agree poor students take easier courses. However if you look at students pursuing the exact same pathway with the exact same courses–PreMed or PreLaw, for example, what do you think you will find?

Hint: the exact same pattern of outcome.

“Poor preparation because poor courses were taken antecedent to the test” does not pan out as an explanation.

This is just once again ignoring that the experts continue to report that there is no evidence of genes that are driving the differences among races.

The issue is very complex and it is very likely that more than one factor is influencing the results. Genetics in intelligence differences among races are not as important as you imagine, and as the most serious researchers quoted reported, a moot point.

[Chief_Pedant]

@IceQube

Emphasis mine.

:smack:

:dubious:

What is the point you are trying to make?
Do you have any data at all suggesting the SIRE group of “black” does not underachieve on the LSAT, or do you just like how those emoticons look?

[Chief_Pedant]

@Evil_Economist

Sorry, you can’t do this. I am not “on to other putative explanations,” I am quoting the cite you posted. You can’t take a cite, quote only the first half that agrees with your preconceived bias, and then ignore the second half because it doesn’t agree with your biases.

If I can look at a study, that you cited, and tell you which parts of that study you will agree with, and which parts you will disagree with, regardless of the support for those arguments given in the cite, then you are not doing science; you are cherry-picking whatever you think supports your point. That’s not science, that’s just a waste of everyone’s time. Why even give cites at all?

But which point do you think you are making?

JBHE wrote an article using data showing that income disparity is NOT an explanation for SAT score differences. That’s the point I made.

In the article, JBHE came up with some other comments. So I’m asking you: of their other putative explanations, which one resonates for you? I gather it’s the one which says the white students who took the SAT had higher grades. But I agree. Of course they did. They are better students. That’s the whole point of the general theme here: whites and asians outperform blacks scholastically.

That doesn’t mean income disparity is an explanation for SAT score differentials. It’s not. It means white students who take the SAT have better GPAs than black students who take the SATs. I agree with that. They also have better SATs. Duh.

I guess I’m trying to figure out what magic explanation you find so powerful here. If we were comparing all crappy students, then sure, maybe you have a point. But if we are comparing SIRE groups and your big point is that blacks with crummy SATs have crummy grades also, I’m a little underwhelmed about just who has missed the point.

[Chief_Pedant]

@GIGObuster

This is just once again ignoring that the experts continue to report that there is no evidence of genes that are driving the differences among races.

The issue is very complex and it is very likely that more than one factor is influencing the results. Genetics in intelligence differences among races are not as important as you imagine, and as the most serious researchers quoted reported, a moot point.

OK. Which expert says there is no evidence of genes that are driving the difference among races.

PLEASE. A frigging cite, with a frigging study, if possible. Not some editorial.

Do. You. Have. Such. A. Cite.?

I would like to review what you consider to be such an obvious truth. I maintain that in the fields of population genetics, evolution and intelligence, that kind of statement is hard (not necessarily impossible, I guess) to find.

As I said above, you will find a lot of hedging; a lot of reassuring about how race is not strictly constructed biologically; a lot of reassurance about how we are all sort of mutts, and so on.

But I am just asking for you to find a cite that says there is no evidence of genes that are driving the differences among populations, so I can see who is saying that and put it in context.

[Chief_Pedant]

@iiandyiiii

So you say you know what causes the gap, but you don’t even want to talk about the actual size of the gap? Pretty weak, dude.

But I gave you some cites about the actual gap, with real numbers.

For the MCATs: Mean black applicant total score was 22. 29 for whites and asians.

This would be scores at the end of equivalent college preparation for that top tier of students who make it all the way to applying for med school.
In what sense is this not the “actual size” of the gap?

I can tell you as a medical school admission committee member that this is a substantial gap, and that a white or asian applicant with a total score of 22 would not be considered for admission. Mean white matriculant score is about 32. 26.3 for blacks.

For SATs, the score gap is in the JBHE article I cited earlier for the year 2005. 864 combined for blacks; 1068 for whites. 993 for whites with incomes under 10K/year; this is 129 points higher than the mean score for all blacks, and 61 points higher than the mean score for blacks with incomes over 80K/year. JBHE states this is because blacks are not adequately “schooled,” but I gave you a cite earlier (and Frank Sweet agrees) that “schools” are not an explanation. Within any school, blacks as a group will underperform whites and asians.

Does that help quantify them for you?

I asked you a question earlier, by the way. Do you agree with Flynn that the average IQ of adult blacks in 1972 was 79, and is now 85?

[brazil84]

@Chief_Pedant

What is the point you are trying to make?
Do you have any data at all suggesting the SIRE group of “black” does not underachieve on the LSAT, or do you just like how those emoticons look?

I doubt that if pressed, he would be even mildly skeptical that there is a racial test gap.