« The 12th Imam and Yom Kippur | Main | Half Sigma's Instinct Hierarchy »

September 27, 2012


Does this have anything to do with educational institutions simply selecting people who can reach some threshold score on a g-loaded test without the examinees studying, but without any pressure to do so. In that case, it would select more relatively laid back intelligent people (and less overachievers trying to succeed by gaming the test) and would not result in a high pressure environment.

Most people nowadays attend elite institutions because of the bottom line, not for learning.

Prestigiousness = More Money

I will refer once again to my exhaustive review of cheating:


...and surmise, as I did in my blog post, that lower IQ (yes, even in a population of extremely bright students, there is a left half of the curve), negative personality traits (e.g. psychopathy, neuroticism, impulsivity), peer influence, and perhaps even elements of autism (in the case of students) and lax enforcement (in the case of staff) contributed to the cheating culture. As for correlation with race, not sure if such is accounted for in the academic cheating literature; would be interesting to find out...

My high school competed with the Stuyvesant math team. There was a cheating scandel at my school involving one of the Asian kids.

Then again if my parents beat the shit out of me for getting a 1550/1600 on the SAT I might cheat too.

Can somebody comment, what is the % of cheating on those AP exams, which are _not_ in a school properly, but outside the school, i.e. administered by nation-wide College Board, with the help of a county School District ?

With respectful greetings to HalfSigma,
Florida resident.

This is completely off topic, but I thought this recent posting by Ran Prieur (www.ranprieur.com) would find some resonance here. I couldn't find a recent thread where the insertion would be more appropriate:

"Another reader, more realistic and much more depressing, thinks rich people are afraid of losing status. It's hard for me to even understand status. If you use status to get your way with people, it's different from paying them, different from physically threatening them, and different from being actually qualified to tell them what to do. As far as I can figure, status is a mental shortcut, the appearance of being qualified to tell people what to do, for observers who are too lazy to discern the reality. The word "prestige" comes from French and Latin words for deceit and illusion."


are there any differences in behavior from mere 1400s and 1550s? can the difference be detectable in job performance or in conversation without people explicitly mentioning their scores?

The NAACP is also planning to sue Stuyvesant for "discriminatory admission practices" (aka disparate impact) stemming from their entry test:


There was a cheating scandal at a public high school in Saratoga, California some years ago.


Saratoga is a very wealthy Silicon Valley city and Saratoga Hight School is predominantly Asian. As the story indicates about 1/3 of the students have 4.0+ grade averages and many of the Asian parents consider a 4.0 grade average from their children disappointing.

According to US News (http://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/california/districts/los-gatos-saratoga-joint-union-high/saratoga-high-school-2716), Saratoga High School is currently the 157th ranked high school in the US.


The SAT stops being an indicator of IQ at that point since it only goes up to 1600. I think the question is one of genuis. If the person is a genuis then yes. If they are not a genuis then no. I'm in the top 1% of IQ, but I can tell the difference between a genuis and a non-genuis like myself. I'm not sure the SAT is too good at predicting genuis.

Also I think there is a little noise in the SAT since studying can have some, but not too much, effect on your score.

So what do you think about the University of Austin being sued?


As a student at Columbia, our college president is naturally pretty worried about he can get all the diversity if they have to choose people based on their credentials, not their race.

The Chinese in general seem to be lacking moral integrity and compass compared to the Japanese and South Koreans. This cultural characteristic permeates all social levels by starting at the top of the Communist party. This explains their total disregard for copy right, Asia stability and blatant copy of commercial products through stealing trade secrets via hacking.

I guess ethics and morals values aren't observed in developing nations, where social Darwinism is prevalent. The world will eventually become more cutthroat and competitive, if the Chinese become the world's leading power and primary influence, since they clearly have no room for charity and "liberal" compassion in their mechanical and soulless (70% Atheism) materialistic passion for global expansion.

I.E. Chiense FDI in Africa and cosmopolitan Chinese women, they put New York white collar career feminists to shame in regards to ball busting and status seeking.

Can't blame the Chinese students from cheating, when everyone has to or they are forced into becoming a cog for the slave labor manufacturing machine that is most of China.

Just regarding elite institutions, a nice essay by a teacher on the efforts in education school to keep out non-progressive views.

"So to answer Alex's question, this is what I did that was wrong: I revealed that I probably didn’t view the achievement gap through the progressive lens. This ed school, like all elite ed schools, wants neither conservatives nor Voldemorts to benefit from its elite status. No ed school can publicly admit to the ideological requirements, but thanks to state credentialing rules, an ed school can withhold a credential for any reason at all. Thus, the program tried to get rid of me with laughably trivial reasons—reasons that would nonetheless ordinarily work, except I fought back. That brought their efforts to light, and left the uninitiated scratching their heads at the absurdly minor charges that the school tried to use."


i think all of this makes sense. seems like we have a system that promotes these cheaters because they are rewarded and people who play it square get left behind. we are getting exactly what the system of incentives is designed to create: dishonest self-promoters.

"are there any differences in behavior from mere 1400s and 1550s? can the difference be detectable in job performance or in conversation without people explicitly mentioning their scores?" Black Rose

1400 to 1550 on the SAT I ('95-'05) is about 10 IQ points. The source I have the most faith in suggests 10 points is enough to notice a difference in intelligence but not for it to be overwhelming, whereas 20 points makes communication difficult. I have seen approximately this score difference between me and some of my friends and believe it is a decent estimation.

East asian foreign exchange students are less likely to cheat


Students who have gone
abroad seem to show less of a tendency to engage in academic misconduct, especially when it comes to plagiarism,
compared to those without a similar study-abroad experience. Being a foreign student also does not come out as a strong
predictor of unethical academic behavior. The student’s tolerance for cheating appears to be a significant predictor of
academic misbehavior in some forms but not in others.

Chinese students are the world's most prolific cheaters. The entire society is about face and results, no one worries about how. If I had to go to school with Chinese students I would cheat every test and focus on bodybuilding, so I could rough kids up for the answers or telling teachers about my behavior.

Schools everywhere are more competitive now, especially at the top. This is because of our economy that rewards the 1% disproportionately than anything else.

CamLost: OH HELL NO! A main incentive for 13-year-old "gifted and talented" NYC students, many of whom are too poor to afford private school, to test into Stuy is the relief of staying away from teenage predators.

When I went to Stuy, we had about 2000 kids or about 500 per grade. Stuy now has about 3300 kids or about 825 per grade. I'll come back to this.

In my day, the official stats said about half of us were Asian, but it seemed like there were more. I didn't cheat, but then I was a bad lazy student by Stuyvesant standards. I was aware that a few kids cheated on tests or copied HW from each other, but it wasn't endemic nor were there organized sophisticated cheating rings like Stuy apparently has now.

Cheating is about incentives and pressure more than any ethnic cultural trait. I have in mind the massive cheating scandals that have rocked the service academies over the years that surprised the nation because the academies have very strict, highly emphasized honor codes and their student demographics skew heavily to white Christian Eagle Scouts. Why did they cheat? Same reason as the Stuy kids - incentives and pressure.

Back to this: Stuy now has 3300 kids when it had 2000 kids when I attended, which works out to an additional 325 kids admitted per year ... or 325 kids per year who used to score too low to make it into Stuy. Yet presumably the difficulty of the classes hasn't gone down. And the extra 325 kids are just as ambitious as the 500 kids who scored higher than them on the entrance exam. Which is to say, maybe more Stuy kids are cheating now than in our time because Stuy is admitting more kids who aren't smart enough to excel at Stuyvesant honestly. But they still want a 95+ GPA and admission into Ivy League schools. So, they make up for their lack of smarts by cheating.

Case in point: From what I gather from a New York magazine feature on Nayeem Ahsan, the central figure of the cheating scandal, Ahsan could only achieve an 89 GPA by studying as hard as he possibly could. For the Stuy entrance exam, he also studied as hard as he could and only scored in the low 600s and just squeeked into Stuy. So this kid has a natural ceiling of an 89 GPA if he maxes out his studying, but he's committed to a 95+ GPA, which he believes is necessary to get into Harvard. So he cheats.

In sum, Stuy admitting more kids means admitting dumber kids who can't keep up with Stuy's rigor like the smart kids. But they're smart enough to cheat and they want Harvard, too. Result: endemic cheating that didn't happen at the old Stuy.

I remember an instance during my brief stint in grad school where I suspected an chinese student of cheating during a test. He was sitting a couple of rows in front of me, maybe 2/3 back overall. The proctor (another professor I believe) had her head in a book or some work at the front. It seemed kindof blatant, in the view of a few others, and I just thought I must really be misreading the situation. Saying something would've been awkward at best. I should've but didn't. I was pretty annoyed at the proctor for not keeping a better eye on the class. The professor "lost" my test and had me come in for a retest. I always wondered if he thought that I'd been cheating, maybe the cheating was widespread.


I am surprised that you did not notice that on the day that the NAACP files complaints with the Justice Department concerning the lack of blacks and Hispanics at Stuyvesant that the NY Times decide to have an article about cheating on tests that occurred months ago.

The NY Times is obviously pushing to end exam admission private high schools in NYC. Of course, since most of the staff and all of the children of the NY Times Staff attend private schools, it is easy to see what the staff would support the destruction of good public high schools.

Disgusting. Mass expulsions are called for, if you ask me. This sort of cultivation of radically unethical behavior among our elite cannot be tolerated. Particularly sickening (from the article) was the instance of a teacher letting a student slide merely because she had been accepted into an Ivy League college. Actions have consequences, and those consequences must be faced. This is a lesson everyone needs to learn, particularly those who will constitute the elite class.

Also, we have the fact that many of these students will go on to elite colleges and from there into the financial sector. And we wonder why we're in such a bad economic way?

" Actions have consequences, and those consequences must be faced. This is a lesson everyone needs to learn, particularly those who will constitute the elite class."

Actually, the whole point of cheating is to maximize one's chances to get into the elite class. BTW, many HBDers, such as Steve Sailer and Half Sigma, that being elite means not facing consequences, but evading them with one's resources; for instance, SWPLs can use their economic resources to live away from the NAMs and proles, while white proles are vulnerable to acquiring dysfunctional NAM values.

The NAACP lawsuit is a direct attack on Asians. It shocks and disgusts me that Asian legal and community orgs have endorsed the lawsuit.

"SWPLs can use their economic resources to live away from the NAMs and proles, while white proles are vulnerable to acquiring dysfunctional NAM values."

Asians view the exam schools this way. The kids know their families don't have the money to get them away from NAMs and proles. They just have their brains. They work so hard at getting into the exam schools because they're lifelines to save them from HS dominated by NAM and prole thugs. During the 1st stage of puberty in 7th and 8th grade, Asian kids can foresee the horror of life in HS if they're stuck with NAMs and proles.

Asian parents rely on the exam schools as an affordable and attainable way to keep their kids safe, away from NAM influences, and of course, as a gateway to upward mobility.

This lawsuit is a real threat because Asians are on their own. They're against black envy and 'civil rights' robbers tools. Asians won't be able to count on white protection. Whites are no longer as invested in the exam schools as they were in the 70s because they're now Asian dominated. How many Jews are still loyal to the exam schools? Some alumni may make a token protest, but in the end, whites won't mind too much if an important source of Asian upward mobility is eliminated.

The NYC Asian community needs to rally politically and legally ASAP to protect the exam schools. I doubt it's going to happen. Not when Asian advocacy groups are kissing up to the NAM groups and working against the interests of Asians.

"This lawsuit is a real threat because Asians are on their own. They're against black envy and 'civil rights' robbers tools. Asians won't be able to count on white protection. Whites are no longer as invested in the exam schools as they were in the 70s because they're now Asian dominated".

Multicultural America doesn't see any value in Asians. They are hard working and intelligent, yes, but are unable to forge any significant trends like Whites. In the political arena, they don't serve any purpose to politicians because of their small insigificant numbers, and for the most part, they are aren't disadvantaged like the NAMs.

Meh, cheating at stuyvesant is nothing new. I attended the school in the mid-1990s and the cheating was rampant but it was so much worse at Cornell. In the end, I really doubt that cheating actually helps anyone get ahead. In the end, having a charismatic personalty, having family connections, coming from a wealthy background will always trump the ability to perform well on exams.

I was lucky enough to come from a family of doctors who paid for my tuition and gifted me with a private practice when I finished medical school. I wasn't the hardest working kid at Stuyvesant. I wasted most of my time trying to make it as a artist/writer because I was misled by pop culture (a la sex and the city) to believe I can live like an investment banker by writing a sex column. Luckily, I came to my senses in my mid-twenties. Now, I own a plastic surgery practice and I'm wealthy enough that I never have to worry about money.

I'm not one of the smarter asians. I only got into Stuyvesant by the skin of my teeth. The day I got my acceptance letter, I remember, the residency director of Cornell Med School Surgery (who is a friend of my family) called me and told me that by getting into stuyvesant my future was set. I could be a doctor if I wanted to because anything is possible for a stuyvesant student.

Lol. I thought everyone got a call like that. A couple of years ago a asian guy down the block who sells fried chicken told me that his son was graduating from stuyvesant and didn't know what career to pick. I immediately said "He can be a plastic surgeon! The money is great! The hours are great too!"

Then the father said "But isn't medical school expensive?" And I was like "Oh....I never thought of that....."

Sometimes, I wonder if it's really Stuyvesant that was the reason behind my success or if it was because my family was wealthy and well-connected enough that even if I had completely flunked the stuyvesant exam I would be in the same place that I am now. I dated a guy (half jewish) in med school whose father was the copyright lawyer for Disney. He later got into Dermatology but he went everywhere telling people that he achieved everything in life because he got into Stuyvesant (not because his pops owned half of the beachfront property in the Hamptons).

Anyway, for what it's worth, I'm a wealthy doctor now who went to a number of Ivy League schools and published many papers. I passed the Stuyvesant exam by only two points. In college I dated a Asian boy who got a ridiculously high score on the Stuyvesant exam. I think he was in the top 99th percentile or something. Now, he's working a dead end job in the tech department for some no-name company earning 30,000 a year.

@ Siggy

I just streamed the pilot for "Elementary" that co-stars Lucy Liu. When I looked her up on Wikipedia it says she's 43 and went to Stuyvesant. Did you know her?

I had done pretty well on the exam when I took it in the early 2000s; I scored around a 720 I think, mostly due to intense preparation the summer before the exam. I had done well at Stuy, 96+, and ended up at a top Ivy from there. The environment for the most part was very collaborative--I copied plenty of assignments and allowed others to copy my work. There was a mutual understanding of "scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours" that made my HS experience cooperative, and in a way much more friendly, than my higher education years.

I'm surprised that the offending student decided to cheat on a Regents exam--you really only need a pulse to pass, and maybe a few brain cells to rub together to get a 90+. I think the kid should change his name--this is going to haunt well into his 20s and even 30s for any competitive industry. Also, sad to hear that Teitel retired. Such an interesting man.


A family of doctors in New York City, even plastic surgeons, isn't wealthy in my book. They didn't have $100 million to transmit to you. They had a practice which could only stay in the family if you managed to complete not only medical school but a plastic surgery residency. And you have to work for that gift to bear fruit. You are neither wealthy nor elite. You are financially comfortable upper middle class.

One other point, K. Plastic surgery enjoys much better hours and financial returns than most other specialities because there aren't many emergencies and there is the potential for non-insurance cosmetic business. In most other branches of medicine, the hours are unpleasant if not nightmarish, and the money is just ok given the amount of work required as well as the length and cost of training. I come from a medical family and know more than a few bitter, unhappy physicians.

"The NAACP lawsuit is a direct attack on Asians. It shocks and disgusts me that Asian legal and community orgs have endorsed the lawsuit."

Organized Asian advocacy groups tend to be much more liberal than most individual Asians.

East Asians cheat whether they are immigrants or not. East Asians don't care how they get good scores as long as they get them. East Asians are very status oriented.

The comments to this entry are closed.