Why do blacks perform so bad on all academic standardized tests?

Question

I am wondering why black performance on SAT, LSAT, MCAT, GRE, GMAT, and any other similar standardized test is so low compared to other races. I mean, for example, the black SAT average is several HUNDRED points below the white or Asian average. Plus they say that IQ scores of blacks are average 85 in America, while white and Asian average is around 100.

So what's up with this? I have read several possibilities.
(1) Racism against blacks accounts for the entirety of the black underperformance.
(2) The culture of blacks encourages crime, laziness, victimization and anti-education.
(3) Blacks are genetically dumber.
(4) All such tests are culturally biased so that they favor non-blacks (whites and Asians specifically).

So I'm wondering, which of the above factors are relevant? Thanks.

The question is asking about why the AVERAGE black performance is lower, not individual blacks. Also, the following argument is fundamentally flawed:
"Since I know some blacks who scored well on the tests, that must be untrue."

Answer 1

>Plus they say that IQ scores of blacks are average 85 in America, while white and Asian average is around 100.

This is true. And, in addition, hundreds of cultural bias tests have been performed, and it has been determined that there is NO cultural bias in modern IQ tests. How can you tell? Well, if there are 5 questions and 100 whites take the test, and out of those who missed two, 70% missed #3 and 20% missed #5 and 10% missed #1 or 2 AND the results are the same for blacks, then there is no cultural bias even if more blacks missed two than whites. If, however, 80% of the blacks who missed two missed #1 instead, then there's a cultural bias.

This is irrefutable. It is also irrefutable that most studies indicate enrichment has virtually no impact on IQ. So this leads some ignorant and shortsighted people to proclaim that blacks are genetically inferior to whites.

They would be dead wrong, however.

There's another effect called the Flynn effect. Basically, in industrial societies, IQ has risen over time. How does this make sense with the studies that idnicate that environment has no effect? Well, it's simple. Average IQs of white Americans have risen about 30 points since 1900 or so. By the time scientists began testing the role of environment, even a "deprived" white environment witrht enriched compared to the average environment of 1900. Think of it this way. In 1900, people were several inches shorter, on average, than people today because of nutrition and sickness--the environment. But if you did a study of kids today and fed half of them a normal diet and half a super-enriched ideal diet, there really wouldn't be much of a difference in height when they grew up becuase the kids with a "normal" diet would actually have it really good compared to the kids in 1900. That would lead people to say, falsely, that something other than nutrition is causing people to be so much taller now because nutrition has almost no effect. Yes, it wouldn't really help a kid who's genetically short to go from a modern normal diet to an ideal diet, but that doesn't mean that a 1900s diet and illness level wouldn't stunt the child even more.

Okay. Now let's apply this back to intelligence. If blacks, as a whole, have an IQ of 85, that can mean that A) they are on the mental equivalent of a "normal" diet but are just genetically stunted or B) they are on the mental equivalent of a 1900s diet (or a 1940s diet) and so are affected by environment in ways that whites aren't.

There's a simple test for this. If black shildren adopted in infancy into white households show a significant rise in IQ, then at least part--and probably ALL--the racial IQ differences are environmental. The child would still experience some of the environmental effects of being black--he would have been carried in utero by a black mother who was, on average, receiving less prenatal care than a white mother, and he would still have black skin and be seen by society as black--so it isn't to be concluded that he should entirely close the IQ gap. All that's needed is a significant difference.

And guess what? There IS a significant difference! The average IQ of black children raised in white families is very close to normal.

This eliminates all of 3 and 4 and also puts some of #1 in doubt--the black kids raised by white families ARE still black and so still suffer whatever racism in the wider world that other blacks do.

This would lead some people to claim that the problem is therefore #2--that "the culture of blacks encourages crime, laziness, victimization and anti-education." And this isn't entirely untrue, but what we're looking at is the RESULTS of an underlying problem, not the underlying problem itself.

The underlying problem is that blacks, as a whole, feel alienated froma society they see as white. Blacks habitually place things in racial terms that 99% of white pwople wouldn't see that way. There have been many persecuted white minorities--Eastern Europeans, Jews, Irish, Catholics--who were, in various parts of the US, discrimnated against, given only menial work, and denied access to the shops and restaurants of the majority. Signs were habitually posted in some cities that read "No Dogs or Irish." And yes, it is possible to tell whose Irish or Czech or Pole or Italian by their last names. However, over time, the different groups began to see themselves as "American" and to lose their sense of alienation and to integrate themselves into society. Black segregation was legal for longer, and the racism wasn't necessarily more widespread but was more vicious, and as a result, black society developed a worldview in which everything was either black or white. This viewpoint is itself inherently racist, and so even in the absence of external racism, it causes racial friction and a racial reading of situations and events. I once had a professor who believed that A) she wasn't promoted to tenure because she was black and B) the other professors hated her because she was black when the reality was obvious: she had no PhD, so she wasn't even eligible for tenure, and she was racist, hateful, and obnoxious, so no one wanted to be around her. Her racist reading of the world was causing her to misinterpret her situation. The cause of that reading is CERTAINLY rooted in a history of racism experienced by the culture she identified with as well as some personal racism she directly experienced, but a huge part of her problem was her reading itself.

Racist readings of society, when one is in the majority group, leads to persecution, even violence, and discrimination. But racist readings of society, when one is in the minority group, result in personal disassociation from the society's values, disassociation from what the society defines as success, antisocial behaviors (like crime and voluntary unemployment), and an overall feeling of being victimized and that the world is out to get them and therefore owes them something.

To counter racist readings of minority groups, there are two crucial factors: first, the racist reading should be made as counterfactual as possible--that is, the group should not have a present REASON to take such a reading, whatever the past was, and second, in-group members must counter and defeat the racist reading. While progress is still being made in the first area (and yes, it's still needed), in the second, there is a problem, because the in-group view is currently "if I feel alientaed, it's because I AM alienated--by somebody else!" This MUST, MUST, MUST be countered by a sense of self-efficacy and empowerment *from within* the group if they are ever to escape the legacy of the days when the group truly was externally suppressed. More money for black causes and schools won't help--Washington, DC, schools are the best funded and poorest performing in the nation. More scholarships won't help--the very poor already get great scholarships. What WILL help is a feeling of opportunity and potential to replace resentful helplessness. The aftermath of Katrina is a perfect example of how the black man is now the one to keep the black man down more than anyone else, and no one can keep him from oppressing himself except...himself.

Oh, and as a note? East Asians are typically recent immigrants and come from upper, educated classes, which are, on average, more intelligent than the average of the population, accounting for the differences there. :-)

Answer 2

i heard about a study that was done on this. the blacks only did poorly when they were told ahead of time that they'd be taking a standardized test. similarly, asians would do better when they were told this. when nothing was mentioned about what sort of test it was, they all did equally. --- so,,, you didn't list "placebo effect" up there, but i guess that would fall under number 1.

i think it's fairly safe to rule out number 3. for one, all races are very closely related, like, with a common ancestor of 150,000 years ago at the most, but it's certainly still possible. genetic variation is a real thing. --- i don't think standardized tests or IQ tests are any reflection of genetics though. over the last hundred years or so, IQ has gone up a lot. clearly then, what IQ tests measure is cultural and not genetic.

Answer 3

Ethnic Differences in Cognitive Ability - East Asians typically earn higher IQ scores than white Americans, especially in the verbal intelligence areas. African-Americans typically earn IQ scores one full standard deviation below those of white Americans. The IQ difference between African-Americans and whites remains at all levels of socioeconomic status (SES), and is even more pronounced at higher levels of SES. Recent narrowing of the average IQ gap between black and white Americans (about 3 IQ points) is attributed to a lessening of low black scores and not an overall improvement in black scores on average. The debate over genes versus environment influences on the race IQ gap is acknowledged.

Answer 4

ACT, SAT and different standardized exams are in accordance with some caucasion male interior the early 1900's (WWI era). to make certain that blacks to continually score on the right they might could think of like some caucasion male interior the early 1900's or a caucasion individual especially. regrettably standardize exams basically tutor one undertaking...the indivdual is acquainted with the thank you to take a attempt and picture alike/programmed with a definite thought technique as meant with the help of thoses who arranged the exams. Low scores point out persons have not conformed to the everyday way of questioning. So congrats to everybody that have been given extreme scores on standardized questioning which illustrates you have mastered/grasped/been knowledgeable for this reason. that's why corp u . s . continually say "think of outdoors the field!" you're thoughts is in a field/programmed.

Answer 5

First of all it depends on where you are obtaining you possibilities. There are many factors to consider, such as demographic area where blacks are the majority. If the area is predominately black then there are more chances of showing low scores. Again, I believe demographics depending on racism existence is more prevalent in some areas than others. I do not know of any research that has shown blacks are genetically inferior to any particular race. This remark stems from racism since many blacks have invented a lot of the things we use and come in contact with on a daily basis. You might do some research on that as I can't locate the fact paper I had on this topic. And as far as comparing whites to Asians, well..... whites are far inferior in being educated. Research that. So with just this bit of insight and what you've said.. I think you might be racist? or are you on here with that question trying to ruffle someones feathers (so to speak)? Where did you get these possibilities? I would really like to know.

Answer 6

i dont think they are "gnetically dumber" but not to offend anyone but some of them are a bit lazy and it all happens to be how you are raised and the priorities of your parents, also some black people are underprivileged meaning they have to live in a low community as well as going to a poor school and when the time comes to take the test they are not prepared and since their parents did not really care about the scores they did not prepare on their own time, this is just some inferencing and does not apply to everyone

Answer 7

I think maybe it is a combination of all the above! not helped by certain Rappers going on about guns , gangs, drugs, etc which gives certain people a negative image of black youth culture, not too different to most people thinking bikers of the hells angel type are all thick / stupid which is no way true as our local m/c club have their own lawyer amongst their members and a couple of doctors of medicine + many other highly well educated people in various walks of life but because they ride bikes and have beards they all must be dangerous outcasts that eat live cats etc got a bit off track there but I am not aware of any of your stats quoted above so I can only say what I feel on this subject

Answer 8

I believe a combination of 1, 2, and 4 are to blame.

I went to one of the top ranked public high schools in the US. There were some very intelligent african-american students there, which in my opinion discounts reason #3.

Answer 9

The ghetto becomes an economic sinkhole because it is stigmatized and poor neighborhoods are avoided by businesses and patrons looking to do business -- therefore it loses money, the schools lose money, and the children in those schools have less of an opportunity to learn than the already-wealthy neighborhoods. It's a cycle that has nothing to do with racial ability, but everything to do with racist stereotypes that keep people with genuine potential from succeeding. It can happen with any racial group, but blacks stick out the most only because they have been oppressed for so long, it's just taking the poorer neighborhoods longer to come out of the cycle they've been in.

Answer 10

sigh

AVERAGE.

That means you take all of the scores, add them up, and divide by the number of people you're talking about.

It does NOT mean that "all blacks score lower than people of other races."

The explanation (which you don't really list) is: although there's great variability within every group of people, poverty accounts for a lot of low scores, and in this country blacks are disproportionately poor for historical (largely racist) reasons.

There are a lot of black people who are MUCH smarter than the majority of whites (or people in general, for that matter).

In every measure there is, there is much greater variation within each group than there is between groups.

Averages wash all of this out and give a very misleading impression. If you look at the distributions of scores for all races, there are people near the top in all races.

Answer 11

All 4 are nonsense. As a nation, we are totally controlled by the feminists, and anyone who disagrees with their lies is destroyed if possible, and if that is not possible (such as retirees, heh, heh) they are instantly discredited.

The truth is children raised by their mommies with no daddy are failures in every way, including academic.

In the 80's, there were a number of studies on this. For just one example, boys raised with no dad around are 7 (seven) times more likely to go to jail. almost every parameter of life shows the same results.

thanks to the political party which gets most black votes, while stating their belief that those blacks are helpless and stupid and can't survive without special help at every point, and thus paid black girls to have babies with no dads around, around 85% of all black babies are born out of wedlock.

That is the real reason so many blacks test so poorly.

Yet, we are willing to force blacks to continue to fail just to make a bunch of vicious man-haters happy. The official feminist catechism says women can do just as good, probably better, raising kids without a man around.

When I see a single mom with kids, I think if them as little convicts.

Note that white kids from single moms do just as poorly.