SAT Averages by Race and Ethnicity, 2013

[Unkotare]

Not all races of people can be equal when it comes to intelligences [sic].

No, not all INDIVIDUALS are equal when it comes to intelligence. YOU are at the very bottom of the barrel, shit for brains.

 

[Tank]

Not all races of people can be equal when it comes to intelligences [sic].

No, not all INDIVIDUALS are equal when it comes to intelligence. YOU are at the very bottom of the barrel, shit for brains.

Maybe, but I'm smart enuff to know that as a race blacks are at the very bottom of the barrel

 

[Unkotare]

Not all races of people can be equal when it comes to intelligences [sic].

No, not all INDIVIDUALS are equal when it comes to intelligence. YOU are at the very bottom of the barrel, shit for brains.

Maybe, but I'm smart enuff to know that as a race blacks are at the very bottom of the barrel

And there again you prove my point.

 

[Tank]

You're pointless

 

[IanC]

And, as i mention in another thread, many people believe the company that administers the tests uses "affirmative action" scoring to help the blacks and this cause two things

1. Blacks get higher scores than they deserve

2. Many whites list themselves as black to get the benefit of AA scoring and this further raises black scores and lowers white scores.

The black white gap is listed as 1270- 1570 but it's prolly more like 1100- 1700.

I fail to see how the white average drops because some are claiming partial black heritage. But the black average is definitely raised by the addition of mixed race individuals declaring themselves to be 'black'.

HUH.? What's so hard to understand? A lot of white doods that got say 2100 are not listed as white.

first, the amount of individuals that are ambiguous in their selection of race is small compared to the size of the white test taking population.

second, any black admixture needed to claim black status is also likely to decrease scores proportionally.

therefore any defection of majority white genetically individuals to black status could not move the average more than a few points either way, and is likely to increase the average white score because it is taking out lower than average individuals.

the black average is already skewed by mixed race individuals who are more likely to take the SATs than full blooded blacks.

it is likely that both groups actually improve their averages by defection to the lower standard black group simply because there is such a large difference between the two groups.

 

[IanC]

It's not the same at all.

the only difference is that a kid has to be motivated to go to the library or to buy a book. a slacker would still pick up some benefit from being forced to attend a prep class just by being there.

No, that's not the only difference, and just sitting in a class and not trying to learn won't do anything at all.

you are incorrect that exposure to practise questions will not improve scores somewhat even if the student is not particularly diligent. familiarity with the process cuts down the time needed, and allows for more questions to be answered. as well, if you have actually seen some of the questions beforehand, the correct answer is easier to pick out of the distractors.

students who actively try to decypher the methodologies behind the tests will do even better than those just exposed to them, although intelligence is still the main factor in being able to answer the questions correctly.

 

[IanC]

Actually such studies make little sense since intelligence and income are highly correlated. If you come from a poor family, odds are very strong your parents are stupid and so are you.

It's a rather weak correlation though. So weak that is may actually be somewhat meaningless.

.[87][88]
The American Psychological Association's 1995 report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns stated that IQ scores accounted for (explained variance) about a quarter of the social status variance and one-sixth of the income variance. Statistical controls for parental SES eliminate about a quarter of this predictive power. Psychometric intelligence appears as only one of a great many factors that influence social outcomes.[37]
Some studies claim that IQ only accounts for (explains) a sixth of the variation in income because many studies are based on young adults, many of whom have not yet reached their peak earning capacity, or even their education. On pg 568 of The g Factor, Arthur Jensen claims that although the correlation between IQ and income averages a moderate 0.4 (one sixth or 16% of the variance), the relationship increases with age, and peaks at middle age when people have reached their maximum career potential. In the book, A Question of Intelligence, Daniel Seligman cites an IQ income correlation of 0.5 (25% of the variance).
A 2002 study[89] further examined the impact of non-IQ factors on income and concluded that an individual's location, inherited wealth, race, and schooling are more important as factors in determining income than IQ.

IQ is usually the strongest single factor in any study of social traits.

could you give the link to [89] above so that we can actually see what it says, rather than someone's arbitrary description?

edit- found it. here is the opening paragraph-

People differ markedly in their views concerning the appropriate role of
government in reducing economic inequality. Self-interest and differences
in values explain part of the conflict over redistribution. But by far the most
important fault line is that people hold different beliefs about why the rich are rich
and the poor are poor. Survey data show that people—rich and poor alike—who
think that “getting ahead and succeeding in life” depends on “hard work” or
“willingness to take risks” tend to oppose redistributive programs. Conversely, those
who think that the key to success is “money inherited from family,” “parents and the
family environment,” “connections and knowing the right people” or being white
support redistribution (Fong, 2001; Fong, Bowles and Gintis, 2002). Handing down
success strikes many people as unfair even if the stakes are small, while differences
in achieved success may be unobjectionable even with high stakes, as long as the
playing field is considered level.

the link- An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie


it's OK in its own way, but it plays to an agenda. a lot of the data is taken from a previous paper which I am not going to track down.

 

[Unkotare]

I fail to see how the white average drops because some are claiming partial black heritage. But the black average is definitely raised by the addition of mixed race individuals declaring themselves to be 'black'.

HUH.? What's so hard to understand? A lot of white doods that got say 2100 are not listed as white.

first, the amount of individuals that are ambiguous in their selection of race is small compared to the size of the white test taking population.

second, any black admixture needed to claim black status is also likely to decrease scores proportionally.

therefore any defection of majority white genetically individuals to black status could not move the average more than a few points either way, and is likely to increase the average white score because it is taking out lower than average individuals.

the black average is already skewed by mixed race individuals who are more likely to take the SATs than full blooded blacks.

it is likely that both groups actually improve their averages by defection to the lower standard black group simply because there is such a large difference between the two groups.

The number of multi-racial people is the fastest growing demographic in the country, so all this artificial 'race' nonsense is slowly becoming less relevant (as it should always have been).

 

[Unkotare]

the only difference is that a kid has to be motivated to go to the library or to buy a book. a slacker would still pick up some benefit from being forced to attend a prep class just by being there.

No, that's not the only difference, and just sitting in a class and not trying to learn won't do anything at all.

you are incorrect that exposure to practise questions will not improve scores somewhat even if the student is not particularly diligent. familiarity with the process cuts down the time needed, and allows for more questions to be answered. as well, if you have actually seen some of the questions beforehand, the correct answer is easier to pick out of the distractors..

That effect is seen only if the student actually participates in the class, takes the practice tests, etc. Some sullen teen just filling a chair might as well be sleeping (as such chair-fillers often do).

 

[editec]

SATs are NOT the same thing as IQ tests, folks.

SATs are measuring what you actually know and how fast you can access it.

SATs address the issue of who well educated a person is, not their intelligence potential.

 

[Unkotare]

SATs are measuring what you actually know and how fast you can access it.

.

Not so much. For the most part, the test measures how quickly and how well you can perform certain tasks.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

SATs are NOT the same thing as IQ tests, folks.

SATs are measuring what you actually know and how fast you can access it.

SATs address the issue of who well educated a person is, not their intelligence potential.

Hey stupid. The SAT is not an achievement test as you seem to think. It tests for skills not knowledge. It tests for the skills needed to do well in college.

You know nothing of the SAT and think it has questions like "Who was president when WW2 ended"? You are an idiot.

 

[Unkotare]

Hey, Shitshisspeedos, you never told us if you ever took the test, OR what advanced degrees you hold in science and engineering.

 

[High_Gravity]

ShittySpeedos doesn't even have a GED.

 

[Unkotare]

I doubt he could spell GED.

 

[Unkotare]

And, as i mention in another thread, many people believe the company that administers the tests uses "affirmative action" scoring to help the blacks and this cause two things

1. Blacks get higher scores than they deserve

2. Many whites list themselves as black to get the benefit of AA scoring and this further raises black scores and lowers white scores.

The black white gap is listed as 1270- 1570 but it's prolly more like 1100- 1700.

I fail to see how the white average drops because some are claiming partial black heritage. But the black average is definitely raised by the addition of mixed race individuals declaring themselves to be 'black'.

HUH.? What's so hard to understand? A lot of white doods that got say 2100 are not listed as white.

Everyone sitting for the SAT must show photo ID upon entering the test center. The scores are sent to universities to which the students are applying. Mortimer Whitestreet Jr. 'pretending' to be black would absolutely, without question torpedo any chance of acceptance.

This and more has all been explained to you before, you fetid, steamy lump of roadkill.

 

[katsteve2012]

Not all races of people can be equal when it comes to intelligences.

Sorry blacks

"intelligences?".......ROFLMAO!!!!! Apologize to yourself, Scooter.

 

[IanC]

SATs are NOT the same thing as IQ tests, folks.

SATs are measuring what you actually know and how fast you can access it.

SATs address the issue of who well educated a person is, not their intelligence potential.

I encourage you to go to a library and check out an example SAT exam. the math and language skills needed as a prerequisite are rudimentary, easily acquired by anyone going through school up to about grade nine. no memorized facts are needed and while having a good vocabulary is useful, the analogy questions are a thing of the past for the most part.

life itself is an ever ongoing intelligence test. smarter people find better answers to the obstacles in their life, more quickly and more consistently. character and opportunities add noise to the outcome but smart people typically have better, longer and more productive lives. and the data support it.

 

[IanC]

No, that's not the only difference, and just sitting in a class and not trying to learn won't do anything at all.

you are incorrect that exposure to practise questions will not improve scores somewhat even if the student is not particularly diligent. familiarity with the process cuts down the time needed, and allows for more questions to be answered. as well, if you have actually seen some of the questions beforehand, the correct answer is easier to pick out of the distractors..

That effect is seen only if the student actually participates in the class, takes the practice tests, etc. Some sullen teen just filling a chair might as well be sleeping (as such chair-fillers often do).

unfair as this may sound, a smart sullen chairfiller will often learn more than a dull but attentive keener. the ability to learn is innate. smart people learn faster and better, leaving them more time to learn even more stuff. that is why the gap widens with more schooling. not only that but there are threshholds for certain types of things. the armed forces consider IQ90 the cutoff for trainable soldiers. IQ100 is necessary for introductory calculus but few people with an IQ under 120 actually use calculus as a tool.

 

[Unkotare]

while having a good vocabulary is useful, .

Having a strong vocabulary is still crucial.