Re: Development Race: China and India - RichAsianKid replies

> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Here's an update on the analysis of SAT scores, which can be seen in
> the proper format at:
>
> http://christianparty.net/satrace2004.htm
>
> SAT Score for actual Whites is 162 points higher than re****ted by the
> College Board.
>
> What they re****t as a 202 point gap between blacks and Whites is
> actually a 424 point gap between White men and black women.
>
> States which are mostly Whites score 100 to 153 points higher than the
> "national average" for Whites.
>
> Whites in Iowa score 154 points higher than "whites" in New York.
>
> Based on the racial composition of Iowa, the highest scoring state
> with an SAT score of 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 its racial
> composition would suggest it should be, New York=92s was 4 points
> higher, and DC=92s was 31 points higher.
>
> In other words, if the SAT scores provided by the College Board for
> SAT scores by each race are correct, we would expect Iowa to score
> 1048 rather than 1195, we would expect New York to score 1003 rather
> than 1007, and we would expect DC to score 934 rather than 965.
>
>  Indian
>  Asian
>  black
>  Mexican
>  Puerto Rican
>  Hispanic
>  White
>  jew
>  Mamzer
>  Pre dicted
>  Actual
>  Diff
>
> SAT Score
>  971
>  1084
>  857
>  909
>  909
>  926
>  1059
>  860
>  1002
>
> Iowa
>  0.40%
>  1.60%
>  2.5%
>    3.80%
>  91%
>  0%
>  1%
>
> N.Y.
>  0.50%
>  6.90%
>  17.4%
>    16.30%
>  57%
>  0%
>  1.50%
>     100%
>
> D.C.
>  0.4%
>  3.2%
>  56.5%
>  0%
>  0%
>  8.20%
>  30.3%
>  0.%
>  1.40%
>     100%
>
> Iowa
>  3.9
>  17.3
>  21.4
>  0.0
>  0.0
>  35.2
>  960.5
>  0.0
>  10.0
>  1048
>  1195
>  -147
>
> N.Y.
>  4.9
>  74.8
>  149.1
>  0.0
>  0.0
>  150.9
>  607.9
>  0.0
>  15.0
>  1003
>  1007
>  -4
>
> D.C.
>  3.9
>  34.7
>  484.2
>  0.0
>  0.0
>  75.9
>  320.9
>  0.0
>  14.0
>  934
>  965
>  -31
>
> If all else is equal except the score of Whites, then the SAT score
> for Whites in Iowa must be 1221 [162 points higher than the national
> average for Whites], the SAT score for Whites in N.Y. must be 1067 [8
> points higher], and the SAT scores for Whites in DC must be 1163 [104
> points higher than the national average].
>
> And the SAT score for actual Whites in the nation must be 1221 rather
> than the 1059 re****ted by the College Board, which means they
> misrepresent White intellectual talent by 162 points, and that the gap
> between Whites and blacks is 364 points rather than 202 points.
>
> How can it be, though, that the White Race in Iowa scores 154 points
> higher than the White Race in New York, 58 points higher than the
> White Race in DC, and 162 points higher than the score for Whites
> re****ted by the College Board?  How can this be rationalized or
> explained?
>
> Because Whites are a majority in Iowa, their scores must be higher
> than Iowa=92s average of 1195.  Because blacks are now only 56% of the
> population of DC and Whites are 38.4%, it's not completely unexpected
> that the average score for DC of 965 is 108 points higher than the
> average score for blacks of 857.  It's revealing, though, that blacks
> in the =93state=94 which spends more per capita for =93education=94 than
a=
ny
> other part of the globe [five times as much per student as Iowa], and
> have the absolutely highest per capita incomes for blacks anywhere in
> the world, and have more police protection and more different forms of
> police and have the world's toughest gun control and drug war laws
> than most dictators, would score LOWER than Mozambique.  But this is
> what international tests like IAEP have shown.
>
> 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.
>
> If that's not the case [if there are no jews who participate in SAT in
> DC], then the only way to explain why DC's actual score is 18 points
> lower than predicted is that the score of blacks in DC is only 826,
> which is 31 points lower than the national average for blacks.  IAEP
> suggests that's possible.
>
> But what about this whopping 154 point difference between Whites in
> Iowa and =93whites=94 [note lower case =91w=92] in New York?
>
> 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 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, exactly what the actual SAT score is.
>
> So by claiming that the SAT score for Whites is only 1059, the College
> Board misrepresents our intellectual advantage by 162 points, and they
> make it appear that the gap between Whites and blacks is 202 points
> rather than 364 points.  And it's not just Iowa which is
> misrepresented.  South Dakota scores 1191, which is 132 points higher
> than the national average for Whites, Wisconsin scores 1183, 124
> points higher, North Dakota scores 124 points higher, Illinois scores
> 123 points higher, Minnesota scores 121 points higher, Missouri scores
> 113 points higher, etc.
>
> Furthermore, this also ignores that ever since SAT began, within each
> race, there's been a consistent 58-60 point gap between the ***es.
> Actually, the gap is 60 points for Whites, blacks, Mexicans,
> Hispanics, Asians, and Indians, and only 58 points for Puerto Ricans
> [a difference which is actually within the standard error].
>
> So where public perception is that there's only a 202 point gap
> between Whites and blacks, the REAL gap between White men and black
> women is 364 points + 60 points, or 424 points, virtually the opposite
> ends of the spectrum.

Is there an original link to the score of Jews? This is fascinating as
people are endlessly told that Jews score higher and are very smart
etc. I should note that Ashkenazi Jews probably score much higher than
Sephardics and Oriental Jews. And it's interesting also that Israel
does so badly on the TIMSS and PISA. And while its showing was strong
in the international math olympiad, most recently Israel consistently
scored very low (e.g. the only East Asian "country" that it can be
matched to is Hong Kong, given their similar population size).  E.g.
this is the most recent year in 2007:

    http://www.imo2007.edu.vn/statics/result/all_country.xls

Normally China is #1-- not surprising given its population size, but
note how India is very very low in spite of similar population size.
Russia has had a consistently strong showing. Also note how strong
South Korea has been over the years (given its meager population
size):

    http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/imo-scores/

But back to Hong Kong and Israel: HK is ranked 14, but Israel is
ranked 52!