Digging further into your link on [4] we find the following: > To acquire such evidence, Joshua Aronson and I (following a procedure developed with Steven Spen

Digging further into your link on [4] we find the following: > To acquire such evidence, Joshua Aronson and I (following a procedure developed with Steven Spencer) designed an experiment to test whether the stereotype threat that black students might experience when taking a difficult standardized test could depress their performance on the test to a statistically reliable degree. In this experiment we asked black and white Stanford students into our laboratory and gave them, one at a time, a thirty-minute verbal test made up of items from the advanced Graduate Record Examination in literature. Most of these students were sophomores, which meant that the test was particularly hard for them—precisely the feature, we reasoned, that would make this simple testing situation different for our black participants than for our white participants. Right, so the test was in literature and administered verbally. Gee, I wonder why these researchers hoping to find a causal link would want to choose such an easily gamed format for the test? Why do you think they didn't choose a paper-based multiple choice math test? As for your response to my other post, your attempt to label the questioning of a possible link between race and intellect as "eugenics" is laughable. The person with the burden of proof in a given situation is the person making the claim. The claim being made in the original article is that US schools are falling behind. HilbertSpace pointed out that simply partitioning that data according to race paints a very different picture. If you want to make a claim about what this data means, then you're the one with the burden of proof.