2. Asian immigrants tend to learn the prestige dialect (the dialect the SAT is written in), so if their children are native English speakers, they tend to learn that dialect natively.
4. Language differences are a factor in performance but obviously not the only factor or the largest factor.
A quick glance at the first graph on this page will tell you that almost all Asian Americans are either first or second generation:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/08/key-facts-ab...
Key stats: Asian American population in 2015 is slightly more than 20 million. In 1960 it is about 1 million and only about 2.5 million in 1980.
> 2. Asian immigrants tend to learn the prestige dialect (the dialect the SAT is written in), so if their children are native English speakers, they tend to learn that dialect natively.
Is it somehow easier for Asian immigrants to learn the prestige dialect than Hispanic immigrants?
However none of that really matters because you ignored my last point.
Other factors such as family income are larger factors that native language.
>Is it somehow easier for Asian immigrants to learn the prestige dialect than Hispanic immigrants?
If it's easier is irrelevant because Asian Americans are more likely to speak the prestige dialect than Hispanics. But to answer your question, yes it is eaiser because Asians have much higher incomes, and they integrate with white communities faster--at least in part because Asian communities are smaller and more spread out.
What kind of absurd "argument" is this? If you're testing for a university in America, the expectation is that not only will the test be in English, but the vast bulk of your university courses. And Asian Americans, despite a large number coming from families of non-English speakers, still do disproportionately well. But if the local language is something you struggle with, that local university isn't for you, unless we're also going to argue that degree awarding requires lower standards.
In which case, just throw university in the dump because it's worthless.
If we're at a point where having a majority language and doing important business in that language is bordering on discrimination, this society is lost.
Or did you just decide you'd rather argue with something I didn't write?
The academic consensus is that there is.
The clearest example is that vocabulary is a large part of most standardized tests and native speakers have larger vocabularies than proficient L2 speakers.
It's almost insulting to think that dialect matters that much considering how much exposure everyone gets to the mainstream dialect.
In China they've got a standard dialect and there doesn't appear to be any advantage for those that are from the area north of Beijing where the dialect originates.
>It's almost insulting to think that dialect matters that much considering how much exposure everyone gets to the mainstream dialect.
Whether it's insulting is irrelevant to whether it's true.
>In China they've got a standard dialect and there doesn't appear to be any advantage for those that are from the area north of Beijing where the dialect originates.
I'd be interested to know what your basing this assertion on. Gaokao scores in Beijing are distorted by families who try to move there from other areas to take the test and migration in general.
Combined with with relative lack of reliable data, I'm not sure how you could confidently make this claim.
From the beginning I've not denied that dialect can have an effect, only that I believe it to overwhelmed by a sea of countless other factors that cause someone to succeed or fail at getting into college, and I haven't seen any data that shows that it is the prevailing factor and one that truly matters.
The subtext to my comments is that this a debatable point, and I interjected because others were throwing veiled insults and calls of racism at anyone who tries to discuss this, which is an unfair way to shut conversation down.
Yes it can be and is at an individual level.
If you removed 50 points from every Black student's SAT score just because they were Black, there would still be countless other factors that caused them to succeed for fail at getting into college. Their being Black wouldn't be the largest factor (family income still would be).
But across the entire population, you would see a significant drop in the number of Black students in college.
As to a link: Here's a link and a quote from the abstract of a relevant metastudy
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26090843
"The results showed a negative and moderate relationship between dialect use and overall literacy performance (M effect size = -0.33) and for dialect and reading (M effect size = -0.32). For spelling and writing, the relationship was negative and small (M effect size = -0.22). Moderator analyses revealed that socioeconomic status and grade level were not significant predictors for relations among dialect use and literacy skills."
All standardized testing should be conducted in the universal language of interpretive dance.
And again, people from families of non-native speakers do well. Generally better than people who only have family who speak the native language and dialect.
That people think it's discrimination is quite clearly silly. :)
>Not being able or willing to put in the effort to learn
This has nothing to do with putting in effort. Across a population, people who grew up speaking a dialect will perform better on a test than people who learned to speak that dialect later.
This isn't a controversial statement.
If your goal is to ensure that speakers of other dialects have equal access to top tier higher education, you will need to account for that somehow.
If you dont care about equal access to speakers of other dialects, then you don't have to do anything.