5 ms·

> However, these less well performing groups still perform better in US system than matched groups outside the US If you pick random data points you can suppor

> However, these less well performing groups still perform better in US system than matched groups outside the US If you pick random data points you can support with them any theory. Comparing white Americans (a random group of people defined by a subjective criteria, rather than by anything scientific) to a whole European country is random. Now, speaking of the choice of subgroups. If you select best performing subgroups to see which country can support the best talent, why are you not looking at the results of international olympiads? IOI - China, Russia, then USA. IPhO - China dominates the list of winners. IMO - USA has some wins, but China won more.

xyzzyz 2y ago
> Comparing white Americans (a random group of people defined by a subjective criteria, rather than by anything scientific) to a whole European country is random. “White Americans” is very much not a “random group defined by subjective criteria”. Self-identification as white is extremely highly correlated with objective, measurable metrics like percent of European ancestry, and this also makes US whites directly comparable to population of European countries, which as it happens still are overwhelmingly comprised by people of European ancestry. I am not selecting best performing group for the sake of comparison, I’m just comparing various natural and obvious population clusters that have been understood and distinguished by everyone completely unrelatedly to the discussion of educational outcomes. The category of white Americans has not been invented to show how great US education is. I am totally interested in comparing educational outcomes of white Americans with other major ethnic or ancestral populations in other countries, it’s just white Americans come out ahead almost every single time.
- ivan_gammel 2y ago
  Self-identification on the basis of race is not objective. Races do not exist, it is a scientific fact. There are many other more reasonable ways to cluster American population. Ancestral angle is important, but only from cultural proximity perspective if you talk about people who are 5-10th generation Americans. Black Americans that are descendants of slaves may have higher proximity to Europe than to Africa, so they should be included in the group that you compare to Europe and anyway that comparison must be based on some theory, otherwise it’s just cherry-picking for building a convenient narrative.
  - callingbull 2y ago
    > Races do not exist, it is a scientific fact. Races do not exist in the same sense that the periodic table does not exist. Both are constructs over reality, and they are both informative (i.e. science).
    - ivan_gammel 2y ago
      Periodic table uses objective criteria for categorization. American race classification is rooted in debunked theories and mostly meaningless today. One can say at least that there exists black subculture, black dialect of English etc among descendants of slaves. How much of that is related to 1st and 2nd generation immigrants from Africa, which have much stronger cultural links to their motherland, speak different languages and may even have different faith? Asian bucket is absolutely non-sensical — there’s either cultural proximity to America or to native Asian cultures, which are very different, so the people are very different. It is very hard to understand why Indians and Chinese should classify themselves the same way. This classification is imposed on them. How is this nonsense informative? It’s just some racist legacy. In Europe we do not have that system and we don’t miss it.
      - callingbull 2y ago
        Races are also based on objective criteria: physical characteristics, which convey information about ancestry and genetics. I don't know why you're talking about "culture"?
        ivan_gammel 2y ago
        You cannot be serious. It is very well established by science that biological races do not exist. They remain in the mostly American conversation as sociocultural constructs. Maybe you at least read Wikipedia to educate yourself?
        callingbull 2y ago
        [flagged]

xyzzyz 2y ago

> Comparing white Americans (a random group of people defined by a subjective criteria, rather than by anything scientific) to a whole European country is random. “White Americans” is very much not a “random group defined by subjective criteria”. Self-identification as white is extremely highly correlated with objective, measurable metrics like percent of European ancestry, and this also makes US whites directly comparable to population of European countries, which as it happens still are overwhelmingly comprised by people of European ancestry. I am not selecting best performing group for the sake of comparison, I’m just comparing various natural and obvious population clusters that have been understood and distinguished by everyone completely unrelatedly to the discussion of educational outcomes. The category of white Americans has not been invented to show how great US education is. I am totally interested in comparing educational outcomes of white Americans with other major ethnic or ancestral populations in other countries, it’s just white Americans come out ahead almost every single time.

ivan_gammel 2y ago
Self-identification on the basis of race is not objective. Races do not exist, it is a scientific fact. There are many other more reasonable ways to cluster American population. Ancestral angle is important, but only from cultural proximity perspective if you talk about people who are 5-10th generation Americans. Black Americans that are descendants of slaves may have higher proximity to Europe than to Africa, so they should be included in the group that you compare to Europe and anyway that comparison must be based on some theory, otherwise it’s just cherry-picking for building a convenient narrative.
- callingbull 2y ago
  > Races do not exist, it is a scientific fact. Races do not exist in the same sense that the periodic table does not exist. Both are constructs over reality, and they are both informative (i.e. science).
  - ivan_gammel 2y ago
    Periodic table uses objective criteria for categorization. American race classification is rooted in debunked theories and mostly meaningless today. One can say at least that there exists black subculture, black dialect of English etc among descendants of slaves. How much of that is related to 1st and 2nd generation immigrants from Africa, which have much stronger cultural links to their motherland, speak different languages and may even have different faith? Asian bucket is absolutely non-sensical — there’s either cultural proximity to America or to native Asian cultures, which are very different, so the people are very different. It is very hard to understand why Indians and Chinese should classify themselves the same way. This classification is imposed on them. How is this nonsense informative? It’s just some racist legacy. In Europe we do not have that system and we don’t miss it.
    - callingbull 2y ago
      Races are also based on objective criteria: physical characteristics, which convey information about ancestry and genetics. I don't know why you're talking about "culture"?
      - ivan_gammel 2y ago
        You cannot be serious. It is very well established by science that biological races do not exist. They remain in the mostly American conversation as sociocultural constructs. Maybe you at least read Wikipedia to educate yourself?
        callingbull 2y ago
        [flagged]