"Should the Obama Generation Drop Out?" (New York Times)

<p>This debate on IQ has a strong parallel in the evolution debate of say, sixty years ago? I still see biologists argue that evolution is only a theory. Technically they are correct of course, but the theory is a foundation of modern biology. With psychometry, things will only get more heated now with behaviour genetics getting into the game...The final chapter will not be written for a long time, if ever.</p>

<p>In addition to the "tiger teeth", East Asians apparently have split nails on the little toes.</p>

<p>Happy New Year, everyone. I am out of here.</p>

<p>Let me preface this by stating Charles Murray is a personal hero of mine. So I think you can predict where this is going.</p>

<p>I believe IQ tests are valid and they offer predictive measure of success (as job wages are generally related to the g-loading of the tasks). The military notes a strong correlation between death rates and scores on the military intelligence test. OK let me just briefly touch on some of the points. IQ test scores or SAT scores are NOT deterministic predictors of academic achievement. Those scores are malleable somewhat and they only apply to groups AVERAGES. Individuals are not bound to these scores. </p>

<p>As far as the genetic question, cultural influences are highly exagerrated. From reading some psoters on this thread, just about anyone can become a doctor or a lawyer or even a theoretical physicit. From the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared APart (or some title like that, I don't feel like getting the link), genetics accounts for about 70% of an individual's intelligence or an IQ score, which I believe is a good indicator of intelligence (study followed identical twins who were raised in different households, twins scores had a 0.7 correlation). From the following, we see cultural differences do not define an individual's attainment: [url=<a href="http://www.eugenics.net/papers/murray.html%5DIQ"&gt;http://www.eugenics.net/papers/murray.html]IQ&lt;/a> Will Put You In Your Place<a href="start%20w/" title="A very large database...">/url</a>. Bascially, it shows a study of siblings who were raised in the same household but had significantly divergent IQ scores. The smarter siblings made an average of double the money.</p>

<p>As far as the race issue, just come on. Is race an ambigious concept? Sure. Is it difficult to define? Sure. But it undoubtedly exists. All I need is commonsense to justify it. How could different groups be in vastly different environments and not develop different traits? Traits more common amongst Europeans than Africans is a result of the respective environments each evolved in. From what I've read, races are basically very very large extended, inter-bred families. Oh and as far as IQ and race, the black-white gap has NOT closed since IQ tests started in the 1920's. Programs such as Head Start have showed no long term effects either. </p>

<p>And come on, how can anyone seriously deny the biological existence of race? So it's a coincidence that descedants of West Africans (from Canada, Jamaica, Britain, US, Nigeria,etc..) have completely dominated the 100 meter Olympic race? Since 1984, every SINGLE FINALS competitor has been of black heritage (that's over 60 and not one Asian, white, or Hispanic). How about Nobel prizes? Coincidence that Jews, who constitute about 2% of the world's population, have won about 30% of the prizes in math/science? How about 40/50 best NBA players ever are black? How about Asian students dominating population of the Ivy League colleges? How about across a given socioeconomic class, Asians score better than whites who score better than blacks on the SAT? And lo and behold, all the intellectual achievements coincide directly w/ average IQ data.</p>

<p>Finally, we need to realize that education is a big waste of time. Everyone on this thread is most likely only familair w/ above average individuals. You simply odn't eealize just how dumb the average person is. Well unless you watched Sarah Palin's interviews. The average person can not grasp the nuance of Shakespeare, derive a differential equation for a thermodynamic system, hell even write a clear essay on justy about any topic. Further, it's unecessary they do so. Really the entire education process is either an exercise of futility (for the dummies) or simply a waste, Does the saleperson need to learn trigonometry? Does the carpentar need to understand the symoblism of TJ Eckleberry in the Great Gatsby? Does the physicist need to know the history of Ancient China? Finally, the average person doesn't benefit from simply an intellectual pleasure perspective. He isn't intelligent enough to grasp the concepts in order to be intellectually fullfilled. The interesting aspects of education are simply over his head.</p>

<p>I say we do what China does. I have way more, but now I'm just rambling and that last paragraph wasn't exactly concise and transparent.</p>

<p>
[quote]
All I need is commonsense to justify it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You owe it to yourself to at least read Flynn's book before falling back on your culturally derived assumptions. </p>

<p>
[quote]
So, when do we get back on topic and off of the IQ tangent?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's an especially good question. How about it, do a lot of fully grown adults here advocate that most workplaces should have college degree requirements for entry-level hiring?</p>

<p>AFTER EDIT OF DUPLICATE POST: </p>

<p>I see the post-order bug and the duplicate post bug are still plaguing the forums. Management is aware of the issue but just hasn't fixed it yet.</p>

<p>"well we could discuss as how the " Obama" generation may well have to drop out as public university tuition is predicted to rise by double digits- but I think that is too depressing for this evening-"</p>

<p>Indeed. I had purchased the College Illinois pre-paid tuition plan for D. She went out of state, but the plan still paid out way more than I paid for it (I highly recommend it) . Even with that extra 14k, and the scholarships she got, she owes about 20k in student loans and I owe another 15k in Parent Plus loans. </p>

<p>None of us middle class people, even those who saved, could have anticipated a college degree would cost more than $100k. That's more than my first house cost.</p>

<p>And before you all get on me that she could have gone to community college, and then an in state school, I get that. I'm just saying that 15 years ago when I invested in the College Illinois plan, I had no idea that the cost of college would go up so much. With the University of Illinois costing about 20k a year in state, that is still a ridiculous amount.</p>

<p>My younger d has a friend who is going to Northwestern at 50k a year. She won a few private scholarships, but that's it. Her loans will be outrageous, and she is a journalism major. No chance she can pay off those loans on the salary she can expect.</p>

<p>Something is going to have to change on the cost of college, or there will be many qualified young people, expecially middle class young people, who will struggle to get a degree. It will have nothing to do with how prepared they are to succeed.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Something is going to have to change on the cost of college, or there will be many qualified young people, expecially middle class young people, who will struggle to get a degree. It will have nothing to do with how prepared they are to succeed.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, this has been a problem for a long time, which is why I though the suggestion in the article linked from the thread-opening post made a lot of sense, no matter who suggested it.</p>

<p>University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill: Instate Tuition = $5397
State University of New York at Binghamton: Instate Tuition = $6072
University of California - Davis: Instate Tuition = $8635
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: Instate Tuition = $12240</p>

<p>Why such national discrepancy?</p>

<p>As I'm sure earlier posts must've pointed out (I don't have time to read through 13 pages of posts) Charles Murray is the right wing kook who wrote the discredited and debunked book "The Bell Curve." He's a political scientist trying to play geneticist. This latest article is simply more of the same. His sneaky thesis: preserve elite institutions and educational opportunity for the children of the privileged, which would create a permanent ruling class of the "right people." A system like that would eventually evolve into a caste system that would make India blush. The biracial son of an 18 year old single mom on welfare in Honolulu would then have no chance to demonstrate his own brilliance and usurp the rightful place of people simply born of parents in Charles Murray's social class. </p>

<p>If Charles Murray's name is on it, burn it. He's a racist a-hole.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The biracial son of an 18 year old single mom on welfare in Honolulu would then have no chance to demonstrate his own brilliance

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Proof for this assertion? Murray in the cited article is talking about hiring screens for entry-level jobs in private industry, and isn't talking about college entrance requirements at all.</p>

<p>"do a lot of fully grown adults here advocate that most workplaces should have college degree requirements for entry-level hiring?"
Unfortunately "most workplaces" is way too broad a parameter to use. Entry level jobs into different fields require different skill sets and knowledge. An entry level nursing job requires a different type and "degree" of acquired knowledge than an entry level job at a Starbuck's or Kinkos or a CSAA office.</p>

<p>menloparkmom,</p>

<p>True, but I think what tokenadult was getting at was the fact that probably the vast majority of "entry level" positions are on the "not nursing" end of the spectrum. The problem with "too much" college is that you create a perverse set of incentives for employers and for employees.</p>

<p>Yep, there are a lot of jobs that don't require anywhere near the skill level of a registered nurse that still require a four-year degree for entry. Heck, I can remember the days when most R.N.s had a three-year hospital diploma program for training--no college degree required.</p>

<p>Do you think someone with an IQ of 100 could get a B in a University level course?</p>

<p>I thought an IQ of 100 was dead normal (100% of expected for chronological age). Given that, a motivated, hard-working person should be able to get a "B" in some university level courses. Even with the same IQ, not all people have talents in the same areas or equally in all subjects.</p>

<p>In Illinois, the amount the state gives to the state universities has dropped significantly. For the Universities of Illinois (Chicago, Springfield, and Urbana-Champaign), the state provides less than 25% of the budget. Also, tuition is guaranteed for four years after you start.</p>

<p>"well we could discuss as how the " Obama" generation may well have to drop out as public university tuition is predicted to rise by double digits- but I think that is too depressing for this evening-" </p>

<p>EmeraldKity4 That just hit on the defining dilemma for incoming and current college students. (for the preceding generation already caught in that mire-that's too depressing for this evening) </p>

<p>And it's interesting how many of our politicos consistently avoid addressing the issue beyond kowtowing to a demonstrably failed higher education funding system. You'd almost think they have other interests than educating our nation at heart. </p>

<p>But the Obama generation is going to have it forced into their consciousness. As will the rest of us. For example the first meeting at my institution for the next semester is about this states financial crises, and what is coming. And no doubt the first impulse will be to raise tuition... Granted our enrollment is currently stable and not expected to rise or decline drastically..but it's unreasonable, immoral, and impractical to expect students and families to take on much more of an already excessive educational burden. Even if that burden takes the form of the temporarily delayed Sisyphus situation of loans from the edudebt industry.</p>

<p>And in that regard, it's perhaps inevitable that the NYT's writer who initiated this discussion advocated limiting access to college rather than limiting the excessive costs and outright profiteering which has undermined both the mission and moral credibility of academe. The first is easy to advocate, advocating the second could entail substantial changes to an entrenched system and so would demand real moral courage. But as yet academe has found no voice on this issue able to meet that challenge. Perhaps when we do get such a person and voice, academe might restore its promise and cease to be little more than promissory note.</p>

<p>
[quote]
His sneaky thesis: preserve elite institutions and educational opportunity for the children of the privileged, which would create a permanent ruling class of the "right people."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
usurp the rightful place of people simply born of parents in Charles Murray's social class.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You've got to be kidding with ludicrous statements like these. Have you read a word that Murray has written? He advocates nothing of the sort. He advocates, like almost al libertarians, a meritocratic system whereby any qualified individual can attain success. In his opinion, IQ tests are a viable standard of delineating between intelelctually able and unable individuals. As far as Murray's countenance for an ol' boy network and to buttress his own social class, that's ludicrous and inaccurate. Murray himself got into Harvard after a youth spent in a working class Iowa town. Yea that sounds real similair to attending a New England prep academy. Murray is the perfect depiction of the system he supports: one based on merit and social ascension for intelligent persons, no matter what background they're from. Oh yea and such an elitist too, right? Spending six years in Thailand for the Peace Coprs then marrying a one-handed Thai girl.</p>

<p>If you had read the Bell Curve and other writings, you'll note he believes the "elite class" is a reflection of intelligent individuals by and large socializing with only other intelligent individuals. This subconscious desire to relate to those with similair itnellectual capabilities is creating a stratified society, with higher IQ people dominating higher wage jobs. Of course, he also notes, as he is a prominent example, the social mobility of either intelligent individuals born to poor parents or dumb individuals born to wealthy parents (see: IQ will put you in your place by Charles Murray).</p>

<p>
[quote]
If Charles Murray's name is on it, burn it. He's a racist a-hole.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But you're too busy dismissing every non-politically correct notion he supports. Why don't you try to get Larry Summers, who had the audacity to contend men and women might be different biologically, blackballed from everywhere.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>What part of this do you disagree with? Supposing it had been said by Barack Obama, or Ralph Nader, or whoever you most admire, would you respectfully disagree with your favorite writer about this statement, or would you agree with it?</p>

<p>"His sneaky thesis: preserve elite institutions and educational opportunity for the children of the privileged, which would create a permanent ruling class of the "right people."</p>

<p>"He advocates, like almost al libertarians, a meritocratic system whereby any qualified individual can attain success. In his opinion, IQ tests are a viable standard of delineating between intelelctually able and unable individuals." </p>

<p>Perhaps in a subtle manner, or even one which is not fully intentional restriction of educational opportunity is exactly the effect of agendas such as Murray's. Whether or not someone arises from a difficult background there is the obvious tendency to adopt and integrate the attitudes of the elite class. And at times those doing so are either quite aware of this intention or barely aware of this effect. From his writings it appears Murray may be more influenced by the former than the latter. </p>

<p>But, to advocate limitations on entering higher education for those who are capable premised on arbitrary or questionable standards or by artificial constraints which are premised on economic manipulations is disturbing. And it is disturbing for more than the trivial reason whether one goes to Elite U or Podunk U. </p>

<p>In our secular society, and in a society in which preliminary education has lost many of it's functions, older models can no longer support the burden of transmitting vital aspects of our cultural heritage. As such academe has largely taken up this mantle. And as a result academe can be easily and adversely affected by such agendas as Murray's. At the core is the problem that if an educated elite arises which is premised upon faulty rationales which deliberately limit access to higher learning; the common people have been denied the ability to comprehend or to amend the ideas which define their own society. And that is a dangerous step for a open society such as ours. Because at that point, the trivial excesses of the media become the effective definition for the greater mass of people and the ideas upon which our culture is truly founded will inevitably lose their force.
And if certain libertarian beliefs can justify such trends, than those interpretations are little more than the old controlling elitism dressed in a new frock. </p>

<p>The dangers of such a development have been increasing due to adverse trends in higher education, including the artificially high costs of tuition. After all, much of the impetus behind such a article as Murray's is given by the ever escalating costs of education. Some have tried to stop this socially dangerous malady, including the late Senator Pell. Pell was a man who did come from a very privileged origin but he knew the dangers inherent when a society, especially one such as ours, denies access to higher education to those who desire to attain it. As such the Pell grant program was a social miracle although Pell himself never fully comprehended what it meant to the people which it served. </p>

<p>The problem is that due to special interests who profit massively from co-opting and replacing egalitarian programs such as those that Pell and others established-we are once again at the social point wherein higher education will serve little more function than being a marker of status for a limited group, rather than the imperative agent of transmitting our cultures heritage and great ideas to as many who may wish to comprehend them. </p>

<p>As such, tactics such as Murray's despite whatever shiny veneer can be placed upon them are part of a ill starred future and certainly not reasonable solutions to a substantial social problem.</p>

<p>Allow me to repeat myself: </p>

<p>


</p>

<p>What part of this do you disagree with? Supposing it had been said by Barack Obama, or Ralph Nader, or whoever you most admire, would you respectfully disagree with your favorite writer about this statement, or would you agree with it?</p>