2004 SAT Scores by Race and State
Based on the racial composition of Iowa, the highest scoring state with an SAT score of 1195, New York, one of the lowest scoring states at 1007, and Washington, DC, ground zero in intellectual achievement on EVERY test imaginable at 965, and the SAT scores reported by race, we should see scores of 1052, 1003, and 934 respectively. This means that Iowa’s actual score was 134 points higher than its racial composition would suggest it should be, New York’s was 4 points higher, and DC’s was 31 points higher.
In other words, if the SAT scores provided by the College Board for SAT scores by each race are correct, we would expect Iowa to score 1048 rather than 1195, we would expect New York to score 1003 rather than 1007, and we would expect DC to score 934 rather than 965.
If all else is equal except the score of Whites, then the SAT score for Whites in Iowa must be 1221 [162 points higher than the national average for Whites], the SAT score for Whites in N.Y. must be 1067 [8 points higher], and the SAT scores for Whites in DC must be 1163 [104 points higher than the national average].
And the SAT score for actual Whites in the nation must be 1221 rather than the 1059 reported by the College Board, which means they misrepresent White intellectual talent by 162 points, and that the gap between Whites and blacks is 364 points rather than 202 points.
How can it be, though, that the White Race in Iowa scores 154 points higher than the White Race in New York, 58 points higher than the White Race in DC, and 162 points higher than the score for Whites reported by the College Board? How can this be rationalized or explained?
Because Whites are a majority in Iowa, their scores must be higher than Iowa’s average of 1195. Because blacks are now only 56% of the population of DC and Whites are 38.4%, it's not completely unexpected that the average score for DC of 965 is 108 points higher than the average score for blacks of 857. It's revealing, though, that blacks in the “state” which spends more per capita for “education” than any other part of the globe [five times as much per student as Iowa], and have the absolutely highest per capita incomes for blacks anywhere in the world, and have more police protection and more different forms of police and have the world's toughest gun control and drug war laws than most dictators, would score LOWER than Mozambique. But this is what international tests like IAEP have shown.
The answer is jews.
Because jews demanded in the 1960’s that they not be counted as a separate race, we don’t know the exact population of jews in either DC or New York. Because Whites are only 91% and Asians are only 1.6% of Iowa’s population, if Whites there score 1221, then Iowa’s calculated score is exactly 1195. But in order to explain the very low score of DC where blacks are only 56.5% of the population, we must assume that at least 4.5% of the population there are jews who score closer to their brethren in Israel than to any local populations.
Viola. That fits the equation perfectly, giving DC a calculated score of exactly 965, exactly as reported by the SAT.
If that's not the case [if there are no jews who participate in SAT in DC], then the only way to explain why DC's actual score is 18 points lower than predicted is that the score of blacks in DC is only 826, which is 31 points lower than the national average for blacks. IAEP suggests that's possible.
But what about this whopping 154 point difference between Whites in Iowa and “whites” [note lower case ‘w’] in New York?
Jews themselves claim there are 6 million jews in the US and that 4.6 million are in New York. If so, this might mean that 24% of New Yorkers who are listed as Whites are actually jews who score in the range of their brethren in Israel rather than in the range of our brethren in Germany or Ireland.
In order for the calculated score for New York to match its actual score, the percentage of jews there must be 24.5%, producing a score of exactly 1007, exactly what the actual SAT score is.
So by claiming that the SAT score for Whites is only 1059, the College Board misrepresents our intellectual advantage by 162 points, and they make it appear that the gap between Whites and blacks is 202 points rather than 364 points. And it's not just Iowa which is misrepresented. South Dakota scores 1191, which is 132 points higher than the national average for Whites, Wisconsin scores 1183, 124 points higher, North Dakota scores 124 points higher, Illinois scores 123 points higher, Minnesota scores 121 points higher, Missouri scores 113 points higher, etc.
Furthermore, this also ignores that ever since SAT began, within each race, there's been a consistent 58-60 point gap between the sexes. Actually, the gap is 60 points for Whites, blacks, Mexicans, Hispanics, Asians, and Indians, and only 58 points for Puerto Ricans [a difference which is actually within the standard error].
So where public perception is that there's only a 202 point gap between Whites and blacks, the REAL gap between White men and black women is 364 points + 60 points, or 424 points, virtually the opposite ends of the spectrum.
Iowa's population included about 97,000 foreign-born (3.3%). Iowans are mostly of Western European descent. The five largest ancestry groups in Iowa are: German (35.7%), Irish (13.5%), English (9.5%), American (6.6%) and Norwegian (5.7%). The racial make up of the state is 91.0% white (non-Hispanic), 3.8% Hispanic, 2.5% black, 1.6% Asian, and 0.4% American Indian. 1% of respondents report two or more races.
SAT scores by
race in Iowa or see directly at:
SAT scores by race in Iowa or see directly at:
Racial and ancestral makeup
The major ancestry groups in New York state are African American (15.8%), Italian (14.4%), Irish (12.9%), and German (11.1%). According to a 2004 estimate, 20.4% of the population is foreign-born.
scores by race in
SAT scores by race inNew York. or see directly at:
Modified Tuesday, October 04, 2011
Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party