It's just raw College Board data technically. I'm aware lbhe has liberal conclusions. Had I brought up a source not agreeing, you would have bitched about it being biased. I couldn't win either way. lmao
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.
This is false. On the national level across race, there is hardly any difference. On district level (the so-called “rebuttal”), the gap may be ~10%, which is hardly enough to adequately explain the poor performance. That's more than enough money for marginal productivity to approximate to zero. You do realize that other nations spend significantly less than the US, yet score high internationally despite the "disadvantage"?
https://www.heritage.org/education/report/the-myth-racial-disparities-public-school-funding
Abstract: Achievement disparities among racial and ethnic groups persist in the American education system. Asian and white students consistently perform better on standardized tests than Hispanic and black students. While many commentators blame the achievement gap on alleged disparities in school funding, this Heritage Foundation paper demonstrates that public education spending per pupil is broadly similar across racial and ethnic groups. To the extent that funding differences exist at all, they tend to slightly favor lower-performing groups, especially blacks. Since unequal funding for minority students is largely a myth, it cannot be a valid explanation for racial and ethnic differences in school achievement, and there is little evidence that increasing public spending will close the gaps.
https://www.americanprogress.org/pr...acial-disparity-in-school-funding-is-no-myth/
Miller and Epstein’s state-by-state analysis of district-level data provides fresh evidence of racial disparities in education funding. They find that racial disparities in education spending clearly exist in a host of states, including Illinois, New York, and Pennsylvania, where per pupil expenditures for black and Hispanic students hover around 90 percent of those for white students. This finding is a reflection of these states’ regressive funding tendencies, and the fact that people of color tend to be more concentrated in high-poverty districts. The flipside of this disturbing evidence comes from states such as Massachusetts and New Jersey in which high-poverty districts receive greater support from state and local sources than low-poverty districts.
The logic here is obtuse. Of course blacks who score lower on the SAT will have worse GPA and school rank. It does not prove that the schools are “bad”. Liberals refuse to acknowledge how private schools compensating staff significantly less somehow do “better”. They do “better” because the students make the school. There’s a reason why private schools have assessment tests for entry while Chicago schools score poorly constantly despite having some of the best compensated teachers in the nation.
The SAT doesn’t require any knowledge of calculus. A lot of instructors in college will get annoyed at the mathematical ability of students in Calculus I, II, III because a lot of mistakes are algebraic in nature and can’t effectively be addressed in a calculus class. And who the hell is not completing trigonometry in high school by sometime in 11th grade?
Considering the dollar spent per pupil is similar regardless of skin color, there shouldn’t be a problem with offering higher level classes to the poor districts. I’m assuming the liberals who control the expenditures don’t want to offer them because of the lower ability of students in the school (i.e. GPA would decrease; not ready) or due to purposeful mismanagement of money (if they actually believe it’ll help them be on par with white people but refuse to offer) so that certain people can ride the government gravy train without a real care about the students. It took a long time for CA college system to acknowledge and do away with remedial classes that weren’t improving students at all.
https://edsource.org/2019/as-califo...h-one-college-shows-how-it-can-be-done/606490
California’s 114 community colleges have until this fall to end remedial courses for most students.
If this is true, why are liberals enabling it?
• Black students in some urban schools are taught an Afrocentric curriculum that may serve to increase black pride and foster an awareness of black culture, but this form of education pays little attention to the subject matters that are covered on the SAT.
What is the “slow track”? Special needs only comprise about 10-13% of students. Again, if liberals feel minorities need to be challenged more, why aren’t they implementing those policies?
• School administrators and guidance counselors often believe that black students are less capable and less able to learn. They routinely track black students at an early age into vocational training or into a curriculum that is not college preparatory. Black students are rarely recommended for inclusion in gifted education, honors, or Advanced Placement programs. Once placed on the slow academic track, most black kids can never escape. By the time black students are juniors and seniors in high school, they are typically so far behind their white counterparts in the critical subject areas necessary to perform well on standardized tests that they have little hope of ever matching the scores of whites on the SAT.
Let me ask you something: are smart parents generally more likely to have children that are born smart? That’s not unlike the observation that attractive parents generally have more attractive children than those who are ugly. If you agree with these observations, then using your logic, you’re a Nazi, right?
https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8611/1/1/18/htm
The Fallacy of Equating the Hereditarian Hypothesis with Racism
We’ve only very recently started piecing together what makes a person smart in the genome. For decades intelligence research was paralyzed.
“If universities had their way, the necessary research will never be done. They fund the most mundane research projects, but never seem to have funds to test for genetic differences between races. I tell US academics I can only assume that they believe that racial IQ differences have a genetic component, and fear what they might find. They never admit that the politics of race affects their research priorities.” – James Flynn
There was over 40,000 years of isolation between racial groups. Asians have extra light-skin alleles, some ancestors became lactose tolerant, African pygmies have separate height alleles making them shorter, etc. etc.. We see it even today on much shorter time scales
https://www.economist.com/science-a...e-show-that-natural-selection-has-not-stopped
Data from half a million people show that natural selection has not stopped
It does, however, no longer seem to favour braininess
https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/neanderthal/
Everyone living outside of Africa today has a small amount of Neanderthal in them, carried as a living relic of these ancient encounters. A team of scientists comparing the full genomes of the two species concluded that most Europeans and Asians have approximately 2 percent Neanderthal DNA. Indigenous sub-Saharan Africans have none, or very little Neanderthal DNA because their ancestors did not migrate through Eurasia.
Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins discusses genetic variation across human races in his book The Ancestor's Tale.[5] In the chapter The Grasshopper's Tale, he characterizes the genetic variation between races as a very small fraction of the total human genetic variation. He goes on to disagree with Lewontin's conclusions about taxonomy, writing, "However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlate with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance."
