so, the 2009 PISA results are out. (see also here, and steve sailer here, here and here.)

i took a look at vol ii, “Overcoming Social Background: Equity in Learning Opportunities and Outcomes” [.pdf file], which, amongst other things, examines how immigrants in various countries did on the PISA tests.

here’s what they had to say [pgs. 77-78]:

Performance, immigrant status and country of origin

“The relative performance of students with an immigrant background cannot be attributed solely to their country of origin. Figures II.4.11 and II.4.12 show the performance of students with an immigrant background from the OECD and other countries across a number of host countries, before and after accounting for the socio-economic background of the students or the host country. These figures highlight how performance varies for students with the same country of origin across different host countries. They also show how students from different countries of origin fare within the same host country.

“Figure II.4.11 shows, for example, that students with an immigrant background from Turkey perform 69 points lower in Austria than in the Netherlands, even after accounting for their socio-economic status. In Luxembourg, students with an immigrant background from Portugal perform 65 score points below students with an immigrant background from France, after accounting for their own socio-economic status. Students with an immigrant background from Germany perform 44 score points higher in Switzerland than in Luxembourg, while students with an immigrant background from Portugal in Switzerland outperform students with a similar background in Luxembourg by 65 score points (Table II.4.5).

“The performance of students with an immigrant background from countries and regions outside the OECD are represented in Figure II.4.12. Students from China perform well above the OECD average (above 560 score points) in Australia and New Zealand. Students with an immigrant background from South Africa also perform above the OECD average in Australia and New Zealand, even after accounting for socio-economic background. Students with an immigrant background from Pakistan perform above the OECD average in the United Kingdom but well below it in Denmark, even after accounting for socio-economic background (Table II.4.5).”

so. what does this tell us, besides the fact that the writers of this report must be mentally retarded?

it tells us diddly-squat. zip. zilch. nada. it’s just a waste of paper binary code.

why?

because different peoples is different (duh!).

take their example about turks. they said: “students with an immigrant background from Turkey perform 69 points lower in Austria than in the Netherlands, even after accounting for their socio-economic status.” right there they’re assuming that everyone from turkey is the same. have they ever been to turkey? (i have to guess not.) there’s a big, BIG difference between the people in hellenized western turkey versus central turkey versus eastern turkey which is full of kurds. why — WHY — would the PISA people assume that all these people would do equally well in school ANYwhere? i betcha they don’t do equally well in school back in turkey.

and, ’cause of chain migration, turkish immigrants in different countries in europe come from different regions of turkey:

“So, one quarter of the Turkish immigrants over 18 who live in Belgium was born in Afyon Province (Western Anatolia). There is a similar concentration of Turks from notably Karaman Province (Central Anatolia) in the Netherlands. The Turks living in Sweden come primarily from Kulu (Konya Province, Central Anatolia), while 60% of Denmark’s Turkish immigrants come from the Kurdish areas of South-east Anatolia.”

i dunno what the differences are between these different “turks”, but i betcha a brewski that there are some!

and that’s not even the worst of it. look at the bit about portugese immigrants (just look at it!) — or about german immigrants: “In Luxembourg, students with an immigrant background from Portugal perform 65 score points below students with an immigrant background from France, after accounting for their own socio-economic status. Students with an immigrant background from Germany perform 44 score points higher in Switzerland than in Luxembourg, while students with an immigrant background from Portugal in Switzerland outperform students with a similar background in Luxembourg by 65 score points.”

sounds interesting, but when they say “students with an immigrant background from Portugal,” they mean ANYbody from portugal! from ethnic portugese to brazilians! *facepalm* again, “students with an immigrant background from Germany” might mean anyone from an ethnic german to an ethnic turk or kurd to an ethnic iraqi.

gibberish! that’s what it all is — gibberish! as sherlock holmes said, “how can you build on such a quicksand?”

answer: you can’t.

all of this reminds me of this hysterical story about a new yorker swpl woman who was horrified when her toddler called a black man (laurence fishburne, actually) “doggie” out in public. this woman was distraught thinking that her child was (*gasp*) a racist, when really all he was was a kid who didn’t have a word for “black man” or “african american male” or whatever (probably because he’d never been taught those words) and he was struggling for a word to express the fact that he was looking at someone who looked different than himself and his family (i.e. not white).

from the mouths of babes, eh?

what’s really sad is when you think about all the pc-thinking people around the world today (like the PISA people) performing linguistic and mental gymnastics in order to not be “racist” when even little kids can see there are differences between different peoples.

and, even worse, the absolute confusion they (including/especially journalists) are causing with their word games (eg. is this man really swedish? i bet not!).

(note: comments do not require an email.)

About these ads