
Truth About Standardized Test Scores
At the 8th grade level, girls in the US score 0.31 standard deviations higher than boys in PISA reading (513 vs. 488). By 12th grade, as measured by SAT verbal, boys have a slight 0.18 standard deviation advantage over girls (420 vs. 438). But after college, the gender gap in verbal skills as measured by GRE verbal (512 vs 484) gives males a 0.28 standard deviation advantage over females, on par with their 0.35 standard deviation advantage on SAT math.There are 5,940,000 female and 4,861,000 male students in our
undergraduate schools, and if the math skills of these girls follows the pattern
of the Howard Wainer study, then 2,678,940 girls
have math skills equivalent to boys who flunk out of math, 1,799,820 have math
skills equivalent to boys who get D's, and 1,455,300 have math skills equivalent
to boys who get C's. What's the effect of this invidious discrimination against our boys? If all of the 5,940,000 boys who had been denied admission to make room for this many girls, had instead been accepted, we would now have 10,801,000 boys in college, and at least half of them, or 5,400,500 boys who CAN solve math problems, would be in our undergraduate schools where they CAN benefit from an undergraduate education. This is 122% more than the current figure of 2,430,500 students who DO understand math.
Out of 838,235 Whites who took SAT math in 2010, none of them
scored over 800 and only 27 scored higher than 740 (an average IQ of 143)
Standard deviation, GRE quantitativeWithin race TIMSS MathWithin country, by sex

Math 
Verbal 
Difference 

Protestants 
639 
618 

Catholics 
403 
383 

236 
235 
471 
In other words, where the gap in total SAT math and verbal scores from the highest scoring state to the lowest scoring state appears to be in the range of 150 points, the only explanation for why this is so is that the gap between Catholics and Protestants in math scores is 236, and in verbal scores 235, for a total gap of a whopping 472 SAT points.
There are of course other factors besides religious teachings. For instance, there is much publicity about how the lowest scoring states also have a high percentage of students taking the test, and the highest scoring states have a fewer percentage. While this is a factor, correlation is low enough that it is at best 25% of the reason, plus it cannot always be true that only the top scoring students take the test in high scoring states, while only low scoring students take it in low scoring states.
Iowa 
Rhode Island 

%
Catholic 
11% 
45% 

%
Protestant 
89% 
55% 

Whites SAT Math 
613 
533 

Whites SAT Verbal 
592 
512 

A
= SAT Score Catholics 

B
= SAT score Protestants 

Math 

Iowa 
0.11 * A + 0.89 * B = 613 

RI 
0.45 * A + 0.55 * B = 533 

A
= (613  .89B)/.11 

0.45 * (613  .89B)/0.11 +.55B = 533 

2,507.72  3.641B + .55B = 533 

3.091B = 1,974.72 

B
= 638.9 

A
= (613  .89 * 638.9)/.11 = 403.4 

Verbal 

Iowa 
0.11 * A + 0.89 * B = 592 

RI 
0.45 * A + 0.55 * B = 512 

A
= (592  .89B)/.11 

0.45 * (592  .89B)/0.11 +.55B = 512 

2,421.8  3.641B + .55B = 512 

3.091B = 1,909.8 

B
= 617.9 

A
= (592  .89 * 617.9)/.11 = 382.8 

Math 
Verbal 
Difference 

Protestants 
639 
618 

403 
383 

236 
235 
471 
Race/Religion  SAT Math 
Protestant Whites  648 
Catholic Whites  391 
Indians  452 
Asians  615 
Blacks  401 
Hispanic  441 
Column1  Iowa  Rhode Island  New York  North Dakota 
SAT M Whites  613  516  535  610 
nonhisp Whites  91.0%  79.3%  62.0%  66.0% 
Hispanic  3.8%  11.2%  15.1%  15.1% 
Catholics  17.1%  59.2%  37.6%  22.2% 
White Catholics  13.3%  48.0%  22.5%  7.1% 
White Protestants  77.7%  31.3%  39.5%  58.9% 
Cath as pct Whites  14.6%  60.5%  36.3%  10.8% 
Prot as pct Whites  85.4%  39.5%  63.7%  89.2% 
Protestant Whites  661.3  661.3  635  635 
Catholic Whites  421.2  421.2  360  360 
Indians  449  480  
Asians  661  527  569  638 
Blacks  502  403  421  402 
Hispanic  521  404  439 
SAT I Verbal  SAT I Math  

Mean Scores  Standard Deviations  Mean Scores  Standard Deviations  
SAT I Test Takers Who Described Themselves as:  Males  Females  Total  Males  Females  Total  Males  Females  Total  Males  Females  Total  
American Indian or Alaskan Native  485  481  483  104  102  103  495  462  477  107  98  104  
Asian, Asian American, or Pacific Islander  497  494  496  127  127  127  575  541  558  121  118  120  
Black or African American  431  437  434  100  99  99  431  416  422  100  92  96  
Hispanic or Latino Background:  
Mexican or Mexican American  462  449  455  103  100  101  480  442  459  103  93  99  
Puerto Rican  454  450  452  107  102  104  462  431  445  105  96  101  
Latin American, South American, Central American, or Other Hispanic or Latino  472  461  465  109  108  109  489  449  466  110  101  107  
White  528  524  526  102  100  101  542  507  523  106  100  104  
Other  517  507  511  122  118  120  536  493  512  117  112  116  
No Response  485  487  486  122  124  123  506  480  494  122  119  121 
Two thirds of those who score over 600 in SAT Math are White boys and only one third are
White girls. One percent of blacks who are 12% of the population score over 600,
which means they ought to represent at most 0.12 percent of college admissions. 52%
of Asians who represent 4% of the population score over 600, so they ought to represent at
most 2% of college admissions. For every one White girl admitted to college, there
should be two White boys, but instead it's the other way around, with boys being only 41%
and girls 59%.
Each 1 point difference in IQ is equivalent to a 4 point difference in SAT math
scores. There's only one explanation for why White boys in Iowa and many other
Whiteonly or Whitemostly states consistently score 80 SAT math points higher than the
national average for "Caucasian boys": their average IQ is 128, which is 10
points higher than Asian boys, 20 points higher than "Caucasian boys", 28 points
higher than "Caucasian girls", and 53 points higher than black girls:
Race & Sex  SAT Math  Published IQ 
Asian Boys  592  118 
Iowa boys  631  128 est 
Caucasian Boys  551  108 
Asian Girls  558  110 
Nigger Boys  431  78 
Indian Boys  498  95 
Mexican Boys  476  90 
Caucasian Girls  517  100 
jew boys  458  85 
Mexican Girls  438  80 
jew girls  438  80 
Indian Girls  466  87 
Nigger Girls  421  75 
The College Board home page has this glowing news about how "SAT Math Scores for 2005 Highest on Record", which of course they know is the mantra du jour which will be repeated ad infinitum by mediots who wouldn't dare check with the College Board's own data, much less challenge such a "positive" statement about the state of US education. After all, we have a war on terror to fight, so how does accuracy in media advance THAT cause (plus isn't it racist and sexist to do so)?
Let's be racists and sexists and analyze the FACTS on the College Board's own web site which by themselves prove the headline to be a LIEwithout even correcting how they LIED with statistics on top of that. Their page "Table 2: Mean SAT Scores of CollegeBound Seniors, 1967�2005*" reports that SAT Verbal scores between 1967 and 2005 for girls dropped a whopping 40 points from 545 to 505, and for boys a whopping 27 points, from 540 to 513. They also hope that the mediots who repeat the mantra du jour don't question the following simple truths:
Between 1967 and 2005, there was no increase in math scores, even by the SAT's own biased estimates. The combined 67 point drop in verbal scores can hardly be described as "higher than ever". Had they been HONEST about it, they would have included the 69 point drop in scores from 975 in 1960 to 906 in 1975 by the old scale. Instead, by the new, or "recentered" scale, between 1967 and 1974, they report only that verbal scores dropped from 543 to 521 or 22 points and that math scores dropped from 516 to 505, or 11 points, for a total drop of only 33 points. The lion's share of the drop in scores, another 36 points, occurred BEFORE the 1967 starting point of this table.
It's precisely this knee jerk change in the statistic, the critical part of any statistical analysis, which the College Board omits from its charts, data, tables, reports, and analyses, and this is called "LYING With Statistics 101".
For "men" [read: the American couch potato who WILL believe this feminazi LIE] to understand this, let's put the stats in sports terms. This would be like reporting the three points the Forty Niners got in the last three quarters while ignoring the 12 points the Rams got and the zero points that the Forty Niners got in the first quarter.
Unless you know the first part, how would you know that the Forty Niners had already lost the game? Unless you consider WHY scores suddenly started to drop, and WHEN, how can you even begin to trace the source of the problem?
The above also ignores something that may be even more important and significant than what they DID report, which is that the College Board's OWN data shows the gender gap at the graduate school level between AMERICAN Asian men and AMERICAN black women LEAPFROGGED 33 points, from a "mere" 234 to a whopping 267 between 1997 and 2002. Even in this day and age of the internet, less than 7% of Americans know this, mainly because they failed to even put out a press release and mediots just can't be bothered to do such SIMPLE research on the College Board's OWN web site:
This "gender gap" between the sexes of EVERY race is
not insignificant. Even before the above mentioned increase, it was
bigger for some races than the gap in PISA math scores between Mexico and
the U.S. (which represents a four fold difference in per capita income), or
Israel and Belgium. It's bigger than the gap in TIMSS math scores
between the US and Lebanon.
An even bigger problem that the SAT scores and the agency conducting these tests either ignore or don't even know was revealed by TIMSS, a very objective, scientific, comprehensive study of more than half a million students in 46 countries around the world, 16 of whose 12th graders participated in TIMSS Physics. The boys in 9 of those countries scored higher than the 8th grade physics score, while our boys scored 56 points LOWER. The girls in 3 of those countries scored higher, but our girls scored 104 points LOWER, an inexplicable phenomenon which resulted in an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE increase in the already significant "gender gap", from 5 points to 51 points.
How can it be explained, and how can our "news" media continued to IGNORE, that where Swiss 8th graders scored 46 points higher than ours in math, their 12th grade boys scored 102 points higher than our boys and 133 points higher than our girls, something pure SAT scores simply cannot reveal. What SAT is testing at the 12th grade level is a severely dumbed down, handicapped population of students who don't have a clue where they stand in the "global economy", and clearly will never have an opportunity to compete in it.To keep this problem hidden from view, our "educators", mediots, bureaucrats, and politicians compare 8th grade scores which GREATLY understates the problem: the last four years of a student's education is the most important part, and 8th grade scores completely miss that part. Furthermore, the following graphs exclude 12th graders from Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore whose 8th graders scored more than 100 points higher than ours, and we really have NO data about their progress from 8th to 12th grade. Considering how many of the countries who DID participate experienced such a HUGE increase, the odds are very good that their increase was dramatically higher.
Based ONLY on a correlation of TIMSS physics scores with Professor Lynn's "IQ of Nations" adjusted to correlate them more closely, the "gender gap" in IQ for all American races is 9 points, with boys having an average IQ of 87 and girls 78.
The only way to explain the 154 SAT point gap between Whites in Iowa and "whites" in New York is that New York counts a lot of people who are not WHITES as "white", like jews who are the eternal ENEMIES of Whites, "white" Hispanics who score only a few points higher than "Hispanics" like Mexicans and Puerto Ricans, and blacks who report themselves as "white" on many of these standardized tests:
Race & Sex  TIMSS Math  Cranial Capacity cc's  ACT Math 
GRE Quanti tative  NAEP Math 
Asian Boys  640  1,472  24.4  638  289 
Caucasian Boys  588  1,416  22.4  586  286 
Asian Girls  580  1,358  22.2  572  279 
Caucasian Girls  528  1,308  20.0  514  276 
Mexican Boys  519  1,365  19.4  517  255 
Indian Boys  500  1,317  19.0  525  268 
jew boys  478  1,369  18.3  450  245 
Mexican Girls  459  1,261  18.4  451  245 
jew girls  458  1,269  17.5  448  243 
Indian Girls  440  1,217  18.0  462  258 
Nigger Boys  247  1,319  17.4  446  247 
Nigger Girls  187  1,217  16.4  404  237 
Between 1991 and 1995, the percentage of graduating seniors taking the American College Testing (ACT) program increased 5 percentage points, while the percentage taking the SAT remained the same. While scores on the ACT remained about the same over this time period, scores on the SAT rose 14 points.
From 1960 to 1980 SAT scores decreased 85 points, from 975 to 890, an "inexplicable" event which some have attributed to the banning of school prayer by the Supreme Court in July 1963. In addition, the National Association of Scholars reports in "Academic Questions" that a person taking the SAT in 1990 would have scored 2335 points higher than he scored on the 1960 test. Between 1980 and 1995, the scores increased 20 points, for a net decrease of 88100 points. Was this 20 point increase real? This is hard to determine for certain because of changes in the questions on the test, and recentering of the test scores. Was there an improvement in academic performance? A disclaimer by NCES that SAT scores increased 14 points during the same timeframe that ACT scores remained flat suggests that at least 14 of this 20 point increase was not due to improved academic performance after 1991:The actual state of US education in 1995 was 102114 SAT points lower than it was in 1960, the equivalent of 5157 TIMSS points, and 2023 NAEP points.
SAT  Boys 
Girls 

White 
Verbal 
454 
441 
White 
Math 
513 
466 
Black 
Verbal 
358 
345 
Black 
Math 
401 
354 
Mexican 
Verbal 
386 
373 
Mexican 
Math 
448 
401 
PuertoRic 
Verbal 
367 
354 
PuertoRic 
Math 
424 
377 
Hispanic 
Verbal 
394 
381 
Hispanic 
Math 
456 
409 
Asian 
Verbal 
412 
399 
Asian 
Math 
545 
498 
Indian 
Verbal 
400 
387 
Indian 
Math 
456 
409 
Educators almost uniformly insist that this 102114 point decrease in SAT scores is due to an increase in the percent of students taking the test, which implies that a decrease in the median quality of the students taking the test is the root problem. But, at the least, between 1972 and 1980, this was definitely not the case. The number of test takers declined from 1,023,000 to 992,000, while scores decreased 36 points, and as the number of both 18 year olds and high school graduates increased. If this had been a factor, then the larger number of students graduating combined with a smaller number taking the SAT should have caused an *increase*, rather than a 36 point decrease, in scores. In addition, the percent of the US population which took the SAT during that time decreased from 0.5% to 0.41%.
The percent of test takers who are minorities increased from zero in 1973 to thirty one percent in 1995. Minorities' median SAT score is 833, which is 113 points lower than the 946 SAT score for whites in 1995. If all test takers in 1995 were whites, average SAT scores would have been 36 points higher, or 946 rather than 910.
International comparisons can be made between education factors like classroom size, education spending, teachers' sex, and school prayer by correlating these standardized test scores as follows:
South Carolina 
California 
US 
North Dakota 
HiLow 

NAEP 
261 
263 
271 
284 
27 
8th Grade TIMSS 
485 
500 
500 
550 
65 
SAT Math 
437 
484 
476 
567 
130 
One NAEP point = 6 SAT Math points and 2.4 TIMSS points 

One TIMSS point = 2 SAT Math points and 1/4th NAEP point 

One SAT point = 1/2 TIMSS point and 1/5th NAEP point 
When the eighth grade TIMSS Math scores are correlated to the average number of students per classroom for the various countries for which all of the data is available, it is seen that adding one additional student to a classroom increases TIMSS scores by four points. Thus it is likely that the decrease in the average number of students in US schools from 29 in 1960 to 24 in 1996 caused a decrease in math skills which is equivalent to 20 TIMSS points, or 10 SAT Math point..
A similar analysis of the relationship of education spending to eighth grade TIMSS Math scores shows that a one percent increase in the percent of GDP a country spends for education reduces scores by forty TIMSS points. Thus it is likely that the increase from 4.8% to 7.6% of US GDP spent for education in the last four decades caused a decrease in math skills which is equivalent to a 112 TIMSS point decrease, or 56 SAT Math points.
The percent of test takers who are girls increased from 49.5% to 52.5% which decreased the median SAT Math score by 2 points.
Similarly, each 1% increase in the percent of teachers who are men in the countries whose eighth graders participated in TIMSS increases their score by five points. Thus it is likely that the decrease in the US in the last 4 decades of the percent of teachers who are men from 31.3% to 25.6% caused a decrease in math skills which is equivalent to 28.5 TIMSS points, or 14 SAT Math Points.
This means that the actual state of US education after taking into account the increase in minorities taking the SAT test was 6678 SAT points lower in 1995 than in 1960:
Predicted Decrease in SAT Scores  Number of Points 
Increase In Minorities  36 Points 
Decrease In Students Per Class  20 Points 
Increase In Education Costs  56 Points 
Decrease In Men Teachers  14 Points 
Increase In Percent of Girls Taking SAT Test  2 Points 

128 
Actual Decrease in SAT Scores  
19601980  85 points 
Changes in Test Before 1990  2335 points 
Recentering of Test After 1990  14 points 
Less Increase Since 1980  20 points 

102114 points 
American 13 year olds scored second from last in the International Assessment of Education Progress taken in 1991, ahead of only Jordan. The crosslink studies between the National Assessment of Education Progress and the IAEP show that the District of Columbia ranks behind Jordan, that California ranks lower than the US average, and that the highest scoring state, North Dakota, ranks between the US average and Taiwan.
North Dakota scored 107 SAT Math points higher than California and 100 points higher than the national average. Had it not been for this 6778 point decrease in SAT scores, the US would have been 22 to 33 points lower than North Dakota on the above graph.
The distribution of scores between California and North Dakota, whose average SAT Math scores are different by 107 points, would look like the following with a standard deviation of 70 points. In other words, there might be only a small overlap between the high end of California's students and the low end of North Dakota's, which may be the case between the various countries participating in TIMSS.
This study shows a similar relationship of American 8th grade math scores to the rest of the world. California and Louisiana were below the US average, which was one of the lowest scoring countries in the study. North Dakota ranked ahead of the US average, about midway between us and the highest scoring countries. Had US education quality not decreased the equivalent of 2023 NAEP points since 1960 we would have ranked ahead of France and Israel and slightly behind Hungary and Switzerland. Because the majority of the nonpublic schools are religious schools which teach religion, ethics, morals, spirituality, and Christianity (just as the public schools in most of those countries which rank so far ahead of us do, and just as our schools did prior to the banning of school prayer) this is approximately where most of them rank today:
Between 1965 and 1996 scores on the verbal section of the GRE decreased 57 points, while the scores in some subjects http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/digest97/d97t311.html like education and chemistry increased. Education majors scored consistently 150 to 200 points lower than chemistry majors until 1994 when education majors' scores suddenly jumped 31 points. As there was no national program to improve the quality of education majors or teachers which would have been responsible for this jump, it's likely that this is due to a change in the test itself.
The US Department of Education makes a big issue of the reported 12 point "increase" in the SAT Math scores of blacks and Whites between 1986 and 1997. The problem is that other test scores like ACT show that test scores during that time remained flat or even decreased. The scoring of the SAT clearly changed, which means that the SAT is no longer valid in comparing data prior to this change to data after the change. It is intentionally misleading. They also ignore that "multiculturalism" in education caused an increase in interracial marriages, and that the offspring of blacks and Whites are still characterized as "black" even though their test scores fall between the average for blacks and the average for Whites. The upper two percentile of college bound black women score in the same range as the median scores of college bound White men. It's more significant that this race mixing did not cause black scores to increase.
To deny that SAT scores are down, thus denying that education quality in the US is abysmal, is to insist that US education quality has always been in last place in the world. There is no question that the US had a reasonable education system before the Supreme Court banned school prayer in 1963. The only question is whether or not this reduction in SAT scores is representative of an actual decrease in IQs. Only those countries which banned or deemphasized school prayer have experienced such severe problems in education as the US has. Nobody can claim to have benefited from the resulting decrease in education quality and incomes and personal savings, and the increase in crime and prisons and illegitimacy and divorce, which resulted from this single heinous act.
We agree with Charles A Fuller!  
Correlating standardized test scores with incomes and college grades.  
Download the spreadsheet with references from population18to24.xls  
and sat.xls  
SAT Graphs  
For 1960 SAT scores, see http://fathersmanifesto.net/bennett.htm  
For 1995 SAT scores, http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/ce/c9622a01.html  
SAT Scores 19661999 
800  150.00000  
790  148.00000  
780  147.13953  
770  145.78641  
760  144.43329  
750  143.08017  
740  141.72705  
730  140.37393  
720  139.02081  
710  137.66769  
700  137.00000  
690  134.96144  
680  133.60832  
670  132.25520  
660  130.90208  
650  129.54896  
640  128.19584  
630  126.84272  
620  125.48960  Protestant 
610  124.13647  
600  122.78335  
590  121.67854  Iowa 
580  120.35515  
570  119.03176  
560  117.70837  
550  116.38498  
540  115.06158  
530  113.73819  
520  112.41480  
510  111.09141  Rhode Island 
500  109.76802  White 
490  108.44463  Asian 
480  107.12123  
470  105.79784  
460  104.47445  White Hispanic 
450  103.15106  Indian 
440  101.82767  
430  100.50427  Mexican 
420  99.18088  
410  97.85749  Puerto Rican 
400  96.53410  
390  95.21071  Black 
380  93.88732  Catholic 
370  92.56392  
360  91.24053  
350  89.91714  
340  88.59375  
330  87.27036  
320  85.94697  
310  84.62357  
300  83.30018  
290  81.97679  
280  80.65340  
270  79.33001  
260  78.00662  
250  76.68322  
240  75.35983  
230  74.03644  
220  72.71305  
210  71.38966  Jewish 
200  70.06627  
190  68.74287  
180  67.41948  
170  66.09609  
160  64.77270  
150  63.44931  
140  62.12591  
130  60.80252 
At UC Berkeley, where it's called "comprehensive review," the system [read: inviduous sytemic discrimination] is under attack. A study last month commissioned by UC Board of Regents Chairman John Moores and reported by the Los Angeles Times found that in 2002 Berkeley admitted 375 students with SAT scores between 600 and 1000, and rejected about 3,200 students with SAT scores above 1400.
Data subsequently released by the University of California show that UC Berkeley and UCLA in the past two years collectively have rejected more than 10,000 applicants who scored above 1400 (out of a possible 1600) on the SAT. That's nearly half the applicants in that category who applied to Berkeley, and nearly a third of those who applied to UCLA.
Critics of the policies have pointed to a report by John Moore, a member of the University of California System Board of Regents. Moore's report suggests UCBerkeley only accepted about 56 percent of applicants with SAT scores higher than 1400.
A PUBLIC STATEMENT TO STATE PUBLIC ENEMY JOHN MOORES
Not a single unqualified nigger, latrino, chicano, Hispanic, or other mud has a *right* to attend public universities at taxpayers' expense. Our public universities receive tax dollars for the express purpose of educating the educable, not social engineering to make the uneducable "feel good" about themselves