The author is clueless about the research in this area. I was formerly the co-founder of a social mobility think-tank so I'm pretty familiar with the work that'

The author is clueless about the research in this area. I was formerly the co-founder of a social mobility think-tank so I'm pretty familiar with the work that's been done in this area. The author's statement "In almost all European countries, immigrants from third world countries score lower than native born kids." is just false. A quick look at the British data will tell you that students from Chinese or Indian ethnic backgrounds do considerably better than "White British": http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm081014/text/81014w0030.htm#081014100004585 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/c... This is broadly true in most European countries. If you look at for example children of Pakistani immigrants, they do much better in some countries such as Canada than they do in the UK. Cross-country studies pretty much all agree the difference is down to parental background. If the parents have middle-class backgrounds than their children are much more likely to perform better than average (regardless of country of origin). Essentially by cutting out non-whites he's just disproportionately cutting out the poor and lower-class children which is pushing the scores. It's nothing to do with race. Note particularly how he's treating the ethnicities which are primarily middle-class as "white" (e.g. jews).