It is strange to pretend that there is no cultural bias and then given an example that is usually explained because Asians seem to culturally value more education than white British.
How will you explain that Asians outperform white British otherwise, knowing that the idea that Asians and white British are genetically different enough to explain this has been scientifically debunked, or that adopted Asians don't show the same pattern as not adopted Asians?
(and, yes, of course SAT is highly predictive of college performance, isn't that the point: people who get better training get better college performance while not being "smarter", just "better trained")
I’m talking about the supposed cultural bias of the test itself, not cultural differences among test takers. A culturally biased test is one that requires familiarity with a particular culture, generally that of the people who wrote the test. If Asians do better on a test developed by British people, that suggests that the test itself is not culturally biased.
Your argument would have been more convincing if the Asians were getting the same as British people.
But as soon as the Asians do better, it means that the whole comparison is meaningless. It means that Asians and British scores differently. Maybe Asians normally should score 14 and British score 10, but they score 12 because the test is culturally biased.
(sure, we expect that a small difference in "normal situation" should be relatively small, but the samples are defined as biased, so you cannot really rely on them unless making unproven assumptions)
There is no reason to expect that the test results would be the same across all demographic groups, and in fact, everything we know about psychometry (i.e. the science of mental testing) suggests that we should expect exactly opposite. See e.g. "Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns", which described the consensus position of the American Psychological Association as of 1995:
> The cause of [test achievement] differential is not known; it is apparently not due to any simple form of bias in the content or administration of the tests
themselves.
Not sure what is your point, the "test achievement" mentioned in the document refers to totally different "test" that the ones we were talking about.
Also, on just pure logic, I don't think the document shows what you think it shows. The document you provide (which is 30 years old, so with just this one, we should not assume it reflects today's consensus) explains that the difference is not understood, and that there is no _obvious_ answer, neither from biology, from group culture or from bias in the tests. In other words: the difference is due to something _not obvious_, for example (but not limited to, of course, it's just an example), _not obvious_ form of bias.
In the U.S., research shows the SAT is highly predictive of college performance: https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/education-week-educatio... (summarizing research).