There’s a similar situation with PISA scores: American students of all races are the highest or second highest scorers of that race. The average American PISA score is mediocre, though, because the US’s racial balance is not, say, Shanghai’s or Finland’s racial balance.
America has less Europeans than Finland does, and less Asians than Shanghai does, and more Hispanics and Africans than either. Asian Americans and European Americans score better on the PISA than Hispanic Americans or African Americans. I’m using the word “balance” to mean “distribution,” not some measure of race relations.
They are for the metric of median wages.
There’s a similar situation with PISA scores: American students of all races are the highest or second highest scorers of that race. The average American PISA score is mediocre, though, because the US’s racial balance is not, say, Shanghai’s or Finland’s racial balance.
I’m curious by what steps of reasoning do you pick out the hypothesis of “racial balance” rather than, say, “income inequality”?
It’s not at all clear to me how “income inequality” is a theory that predicts the datapoints I’m discussing here.
It’s not at all clear how “racial balance” is, either. That’s why I asked the above, with a link to the relevant Sequences post.
America has less Europeans than Finland does, and less Asians than Shanghai does, and more Hispanics and Africans than either. Asian Americans and European Americans score better on the PISA than Hispanic Americans or African Americans. I’m using the word “balance” to mean “distribution,” not some measure of race relations.