What most teachers/tutors can do is to try to help them identify general patterns and get them to understand that the most important step is to learn on the spot. But if they can’t see it, then they just can’t see it – their brain processes can’t handle the complexity or the number of variables involved.

I suspect it’s incredibly g-loaded, although I have no academic proof. It’s like IQ tests, the most difficult IQ questions (e.g. Raven’s Prog. Matrices) have patterns only the geniuses can identify – the non-geniuses might be able to understand it, but only after somebody explains it to them. Absent that somebody else (e.g. an exam setting), they’re dead meat.

I know this intimately because my country is shifting our assessment standards in this direction. The A Level Science (Physics, Chem, Bio) papers for the past few years have been historically difficult due to the type 3 questions used, but a clearer and fairer indicator of who would be likely to excel in university.

And you are exactly right about why it leaves their minds. Kids like that (of any race) don’t care about the knowledge. They care about the grade.

A test that Asians can’t crush whites on? I think it’s quite easy. When devising a subject test (eg. Chemistry), contain the following types of questions:

1. Some knowledge questions. No more than 40% of the score. Memorise, ho hum types. Easy as heck.

2. Some application/data response questions. Again, no more than 40% of the score. Requires some brainpower, but set at a level that the slightly above average student can work through.

3. Have 20% of the score based on questions that teach a concept right on the spot, and ask the candidate to solve them using the concept outlined. It’s great fun for the intellectually curious, but not so fun for the grinders, who might do well for the other question types but fall apart here when they realize they have to actually THINK. It’s the content version of the IQ test, assessing the student’s ability to identify and apply the patterns taught. In essence, the raw core of intelligence.

To avoid disadvantaging the non-grinders (eg. whites), you can make questions belonging to type 1 and 2 really damn easy, or even make it pseudo-open book (you can bring in an A5 sized card filled with whatever info you want, for example) that enables good students to be able to do well on types 1 and 2 even if they didn’t really prep hard enough.

Then toss in type 3 questions to sieve out the really brilliant who deserve to get into the elite ranks, able to think, improvise on the spot, and create new (for them) patterns of thought in a short period of time, which is where the smart but lazy students have a chance to shine. Works every time, and almost impossible to prep for, because the type 3 question content is often university level and there’s just too much content at that level to grind through. Interestingly enough, my experience tells me boys tend to do better than girls on type 3s – they are willing to take risks and are able to adapt faster in these situations.

Regarding coursework grading, I agree that using them for admissions is a mistake. All too easy to game for.

Lastly, the reason why the asian kids don’t seem to know about the facts you expect them to? They simply don’t care, because it doesn’t resonate with them at all, and even if it’s tested, the minute after the course/exam ends, it’s out of their minds.

It’s worse when those facts have cultural significance, which again is dismissed easily because they might feel it’s not their culture (just taking a blind stab at assimilation issues). But for the white, hispanic, or even black kids, the sense of identity and history they have from their families and community, even their very race, makes it stick better (conflicts with Mexico, black history etc).