How can you in read that comment in good faith and come to that conclusion?
There is a commonly held belief that "Asian students do better because their parents push them really hard".
The parent comment is arguing that the "really hard" part is not necessary. They are stating that if you condition on "studied at all" (above some minimum threshold) you'll explain away most of the group variance.
They're also not even arguing against the claim that studying more is better, just that the biggest improvement is in studying at all.
The final conclusion is spelled out clearly: If you want to improve test scores across the board you don't have to "push kids really hard", rather you have to work to get all students to get over the initial hurdle of studying some minimum threshold.
Now the parent might not be correct, but it's hard to see how you're even coming across with the reading of that comment you are.
There is a commonly held belief that "Asian students do better because their parents push them really hard".
The parent comment is arguing that the "really hard" part is not necessary. They are stating that if you condition on "studied at all" (above some minimum threshold) you'll explain away most of the group variance.
They're also not even arguing against the claim that studying more is better, just that the biggest improvement is in studying at all.
The final conclusion is spelled out clearly: If you want to improve test scores across the board you don't have to "push kids really hard", rather you have to work to get all students to get over the initial hurdle of studying some minimum threshold.
Now the parent might not be correct, but it's hard to see how you're even coming across with the reading of that comment you are.