Attila… You confuse traits of the individual with traits of the society. IQ is an individual trait. Economic and personal freedom are social traits. High IQ persons living in a society that is repressive and stifles innovation are denied the opportunity to use that intellect. It is like seeds falling on parched, rocky ground. After living in the Middle East for a couple years I was impressed at just how brilliant Indians were. I would remark to myself “Good thing they live in a socialist system that suppressed individual achievement, otherwise they would dominate the world, economically, and, perhaps, otherwise.”
Whites had the good fortune of being just smart enough to recognize the advantages of personal freedom and individual liberties that allowed them to use their “lesser IQ” to a much greater advantage.

There are other factors, but I attribute black lack of education to lack of will. If black students are at the same school as whites, are in the same classes and teacher yet perform poorly compared to his/her classmates the underlying problem is lack of will. I taught at a public high school in northern California for ten years. I had Asian, white, Hispanic and black students. Except for one academically exceptional student from Nigeria blacks were always the weakest performers. Same school, class, teacher. It is not lack of educational opportunity. Yes there plenty of lousy schools and lousy teachers, but the white and Asian students will be in the circumstances but will still do better.

Let’s be honest for a moment. “Diversity” has nothing to do with being diverse. “Diversity” means “non-white”.
Up until a year ago I taught at a public school that prided itself on being “diverse”. The school, and surrounding neighborhood, was dominated by Asians, mostly ethnic Chinese, then Vietnamese, a few Philippinos, a few Indians, a small handful of blacks and Hispanics and a few whites. The ethnic Chinese dominated. A few years earlier, someone had left a copy of an old yearbook for school in the teachers’ lounge. I thumbed through the book and noticed the “ethnic” makeup of the, supposedly, non-diverse student body. There were Italians, Germans, Scotch-Irish, English, Poles, French, Dutch, Swedes, etc., etc. A few blacks and a few Hispanics. “But” you would claim “they were all white and European” Yes, but today they are all yellow and Asian. How is one more diverse than the other unless you define “diversity” as meaning non-white?
BTW, I loved teaching at that school. Lot’s of very bright students who never create discipline problems. But I would not want to teach at a “diverse” school in Baltimore or Los Angeles. Just saying.

Interesting, but totally worthless article. It reports on peoples’ opinions not real world facts. And largely the opinions of uninformed people. The actual market value of a degree is very different than what people think the value of a degree is.
Moreover, the actual value if a degree depends largely on the major and the school attended. Getting a degree in Gender Studies, Art History, or Critical Race Theory is not of much interest to a prospective employer.
Also, people have been brainwashed to think a college degree is necessary. Would a young person be better off going to a trade school and getting a job that pays well OR getting an expensive, worthless college degree and then end up as a cab driver or bartender.

The author’s conclusions are not only bogus they are dishonest. Note how he changes units of measurement … Asian admissions to Harvard remained between 16% and 19% while their share of the general population doubled. That is just stupid and dishonest. If the Asian share of the general population went from 1% to 2% (i.e. doubled) then where is the disadvantage if 16-19% of Harvard admissions is of Asians? All Asians, and that includes people from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Cambodia, etc., etc. make up less than 6% of the general population. Chinese make up a little more than 1%. In California Asians make up about 12% of the population, yet at UCLA they are 48% of the students admitted; at Berkeley the number is around 40%. Disadvantaged?
What is the author’s point? That at Harvard Asian admissions should have doubled so they comprise 32-38% of students? That wouldn’t leave much room for Latinos and blacks.
In addition, who says that those individuals that create the increase in the general population of Asians are equal in intellectual and academic quality as those Asians that preceded them? An Asian from Singapore or Hong Kong may be better equipped to succeed academically than an Asian from Pakistan or Bangladesh.