Much has been said recently about the “dumbing down” of the SAT, which presumably was done in part to attempt to close the ever persistent racial gap between the low end (blacks & mestizos) and the high end (whites and North Asians).
The Cathedral asserts that all racial differences in such tests are a result of economics or culture, but this explanation seems very unlikely. As recently noted by Steve Sailer, on the 2008 SAT poor whites outperformed rich blacks. More specifically, whites from family incomes of $20 – $40K outperformed blacks from family incomes of more than $200K. Why are such privileged blacks scoring so low on the SAT? The obvious answer, noted by many others, is genetics and the fact that these affluent blacks probably have their incomes as a result of affirmative action.
And speaking of affirmative action, it might very well be that the poor whites outperforming rich blacks on the SAT are the most discriminated against group in college admissions. As discovered by Thomas Espenshade and Alexandria Radford in their landmark study:
“When lower-class whites are matched with lower-class blacks and other non-whites the degree of the non-white advantage becomes astronomical: lower-class Asian applicants are seven times as likely to be accepted to the competitive private institutions as similarly qualified whites, lower-class Hispanic applicants eight times as likely, and lower-class blacks ten times as likely. These are enormous differences and reflect the fact that lower-class whites were rarely accepted to the private institutions Espenshade and Radford surveyed. Their diversity-enhancement value was obviously rated very low.”
But don’t expect the Cathedral to speak up for these poor, non-diversity-enhancement whites anytime soon.