4 ms·

> European Americans actually do better than Europeans - on average. + Asian Americans to better than Asians - on average. + Latino Americans do better than Cen

> European Americans actually do better than Europeans - on average. + Asian Americans to better than Asians - on average. + Latino Americans do better than Central/South American Latinos + African Americans do better than Africans. I've always heard this explained as a sort of "selection bias". Since immigration to the US (particularly for university education) is often seen as desirable, the people who manage to pull it off tend to be above the mean. Do you feel that explanation rings false?

jomamaxx 10y ago
That could very well be true, and I'm not stating it as proof of anything, other than to claim that Europeans score 'ballpark the same' on either side of the Atlantic. I suggest your theory is probably very true for Asian Americans - the one's who came here are 'la creme do la creme'. But not for Europeans. Europeans that came here were the poorest, the least educated, criminals, fringe religious types etc.. Europe was 100x more civilized than America during early history - why would anyone with any social status leave London in 1800 - to go and live a million miles away, a very, very hard, back-breaking life? Well - those tenant farmers who could get cheap land and get out from under the thumb of their landlords etc.. But it's a good point.
JetSetWilly 10y ago
> I've always heard this explained as a sort of "selection bias". Since immigration to the US (particularly for university education) is often seen as desirable, the people who manage to pull it off tend to be above the mean. I think this is an explanation that could only be come up with by the descendants of those who have emigrated. Thinking here in Scotland, the people who emigrated were not necessarily the most able or genetically superior somehow. Often, they were simply the most desperate. People who were cleared off their farms by landowners, people who had no other options available to them but to roll the dice and go abroad to Canada or Australia or the USA. Most folk don't want to emigrate, certainly not in the 19th century. It is a last resort that you do if you are out of options. But perhaps the most capable and able have other options to take advantage of?
- ArkyBeagle 10y ago
  It's not clear that capability was that much of a factor. As the scion of Scots emigrants from the 19th Century, at least the 20h century version of my family was made up of bright capable people but hardly brilliant.
  - arethuza 10y ago
    It's pretty awful to read how people regarded the Highland Clearances, like this from the Scotsman: "Collective emigration is, therefore, the removal of a diseased and damaged part of our population. It is a relief to the rest of the population to be rid of this part." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Clearances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Clearances
    - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
      DNA has made for the possibility of a much less nasty world.
- kaitai 10y ago
  We no longer think of people whose ancestors showed up in the 19th century as immigrants, unless we're trying to make a point about indigenous peoples' rights. In 2005, 22% of immigrants to the US came in on an employment-related visa; the only larger category was family reunification. Immigration patterns "back then" are very different than they are now.
- johncolanduoni 10y ago
  I'm talking about contemporary migration mostly; although IIRC some migration waves in the 20th century were more about perceived opportunity as opposed to desperation.
blahi 10y ago
How is the selection bias relevant to the discussion? The fact remains.
- johncolanduoni 10y ago
  Because the OP was laying this at the feet of ethnicity, which I feel (at least in many cases) is far from the only possible explanation.
  - blahi 10y ago
    No, he was comparing people in the US vs. their continents of origin. He doesn't try to explain why math skills differ. He simply states that they do.

jomamaxx 10y ago

That could very well be true, and I'm not stating it as proof of anything, other than to claim that Europeans score 'ballpark the same' on either side of the Atlantic. I suggest your theory is probably very true for Asian Americans - the one's who came here are 'la creme do la creme'. But not for Europeans. Europeans that came here were the poorest, the least educated, criminals, fringe religious types etc.. Europe was 100x more civilized than America during early history - why would anyone with any social status leave London in 1800 - to go and live a million miles away, a very, very hard, back-breaking life? Well - those tenant farmers who could get cheap land and get out from under the thumb of their landlords etc.. But it's a good point.

JetSetWilly 10y ago

> I've always heard this explained as a sort of "selection bias". Since immigration to the US (particularly for university education) is often seen as desirable, the people who manage to pull it off tend to be above the mean. I think this is an explanation that could only be come up with by the descendants of those who have emigrated. Thinking here in Scotland, the people who emigrated were not necessarily the most able or genetically superior somehow. Often, they were simply the most desperate. People who were cleared off their farms by landowners, people who had no other options available to them but to roll the dice and go abroad to Canada or Australia or the USA. Most folk don't want to emigrate, certainly not in the 19th century. It is a last resort that you do if you are out of options. But perhaps the most capable and able have other options to take advantage of?

ArkyBeagle 10y ago
It's not clear that capability was that much of a factor. As the scion of Scots emigrants from the 19th Century, at least the 20h century version of my family was made up of bright capable people but hardly brilliant.
- arethuza 10y ago
  It's pretty awful to read how people regarded the Highland Clearances, like this from the Scotsman: "Collective emigration is, therefore, the removal of a diseased and damaged part of our population. It is a relief to the rest of the population to be rid of this part." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Clearances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Clearances
  - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
    DNA has made for the possibility of a much less nasty world.
kaitai 10y ago
We no longer think of people whose ancestors showed up in the 19th century as immigrants, unless we're trying to make a point about indigenous peoples' rights. In 2005, 22% of immigrants to the US came in on an employment-related visa; the only larger category was family reunification. Immigration patterns "back then" are very different than they are now.
johncolanduoni 10y ago
I'm talking about contemporary migration mostly; although IIRC some migration waves in the 20th century were more about perceived opportunity as opposed to desperation.

blahi 10y ago

How is the selection bias relevant to the discussion? The fact remains.

johncolanduoni 10y ago
Because the OP was laying this at the feet of ethnicity, which I feel (at least in many cases) is far from the only possible explanation.
- blahi 10y ago
  No, he was comparing people in the US vs. their continents of origin. He doesn't try to explain why math skills differ. He simply states that they do.