[threatofrain]

> If you had any cultural awareness about international students from Asia, Chinese students who attend undergrad in America did not score well enough to get into an elite university in China.

You're offering your cultural awareness about international students, and implying that I might not have any. I suppose this prose issues from your conversational instincts.

I offer data to anchor discussion for effect sizes, and so far you're building your own pet theory from scratch, as if the discussion just began here! And you're building your own little causal story (with implied effect sizes) about why metrics collected in the US look the way they do.

I'm putting Asians into a bucket because that's how bureaucratic data collection works in the US! If available data sources do not offer reliable drill-downs into the demographics, then you are making up your own fantasy version of data.

Meanwhile you are making awful, awful accusations about whether I am supporting "model minority" arguments, and whether I'm being toxic by grouping Asians together.

[alephnan]

> You're offering your cultural awareness about international students, and implying that I might not have any. I suppose this prose issues from your conversational instincts.

Yes. When you start out with "What about Asians?" alluding to the fact that Asians as a whole fare better on the SATs. I am aware of that, what I am questioning is whether given an native-English speaking American vs anyone with English as their second language, where if they work the same amount, would achieve the same results on the SAT.

> I'm putting Asians into a bucket because that's how bureaucratic data collection works in the US! If available data sources do not offer reliable drill-downs into the demographics, then you are making up your own fantasy version of data.

We are talking about the SAT's language and cultural biases here. That is independent of whether the SAT wants to group people as Asian or Not. Then there is college application process which is a separate conversion. My question is whether a minority has to work harder to attain the same results as an native-English speaking American. Whether certain buckets as defined by bureaucratic data collection processes score better and why that is the case is not my original point

> If available data sources do not offer reliable drill-downs into the demographics, then you are making up your own fantasy version of data.

Yes, official sources do not because there are political agendas and initiatives to bucket people into races. The fact that you think I am making up fantasy data about the "model minority" MYTH is exactly why I took a tangent from my original argument

[threatofrain]

> This is not relevant to my original argument, but I pointed this out because you bucketed all Asian people together. It's toxic and ignorant, that is why I am educating you.

> Yes, official sources do not because there is a political convenience to group all Asians together.

Really, the arrogance and rudeness is outstanding here, I have to wonder whether you are talking about your own toxicity and ignorance.

Your concept of illumination is to offer pet analysis and pet causal theories, and imaginary drill-downs into the data which don't exist! You are engaging in theory-crafting as if the conversation just began here, today.

American data collection culture, including academia and government, groups Asians together. You are making your own fantasy data, and making awful accusations based on your personal fantasies of what people are doing.

I'm talking about effect sizes, and not from the basis of my own self-proclaimed international awareness.

Observe for yourself how many replies this thread can go before you offer any semblance of something that isn't your own pet analysis.

[alephnan]

> American data collection culture

And that can't be challenged?

In some dictatorships, the government can claim 95% of the election votes went to the incumbent.

The US unemployment rate published by the Bureau of Labor does not reflect the true unemployment rate.

The Three-fifths Compromise considered certain people only worth 3/5th of a person. Government defined metrics aren't a scientific / objective measure of the physical or moral world.

> pet analysis and pet causal theories, and imaginary drill-downs into the data which don't exist! ... You are making your own fantasy data

Let me know if you get a 404 error

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/chart/educational-...

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/education/these-groups-of-asian...

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2017/04/19/524571669...