<p>He is a guest writer. Charles Murray, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author, most recently, of “Real Education: Four Simple Truths for Bringing America’s Schools Back to Reality.”
He is also the co-author of The Bell Curve, which an eximination his work at Human</a> Intelligence: The Bell Curve forms these insights:
[blockquote/]Part 3 - IQ and Race</p>
<p>Part 3 (Chapters 13 - 17) addresses issues of a national focus, turning attention to cognitive and social behavioral differences between racial and ethnic groups. The controversy surrounding these topics, and the incredibly complex nature of the comparisons being made is acknowledged by the authors from the outset; the reader is cautioned to "read carefully". The assertions and conclusions reached in this part of The Bell Curve include the following: </p>
<p>Ethnic Differences in Cognitive Ability - East Asians typically earn higher IQ scores than white Americans, especially in the verbal intelligence areas. African-Americans typically earn IQ scores one full standard deviation below those of white Americans. The IQ difference between African-Americans and whites remains at all levels of socioeconomic status (SES), and is even more pronounced at higher levels of SES. Recent narrowing of the average IQ gap between black and white Americans (about 3 IQ points) is attributed to a lessening of low black scores and not an overall improvement in black scores on average. The debate over genes versus environment influences on the race IQ gap is acknowledged.<br>
The Demography of Intelligence - Mounting evidence indicates that demographic trends are exerting downward pressure on the distribution of cognitive ability in the United States and that the pressures are strong enough to have social consequences. Birth rates among highly educated women are falling faster than those of low IQ women. The IQ of the average immigrant of today is 95, lower than the national average, but more importantly the new immigrants are less brave, less hard working, less imaginative, and less self-starting than many of the immigrant groups of the past.<br>
Social Behavior and the Prevalence of Low Cognitive Ability - For most of the worst social problems of our time, the people who have the problem are heavily concentrated in the lower portion of the cognitive ability spectrum. Solutions designed to solve or mitigate any of these problems must accommodate, even be focused towards, the low cognitive ability profile if they are to have any hope of succeeding. [/blockquote]</p>
<p>Back to the article it did make me wonder would he be inherently part of the deserving few who should get a four year education.</p>
<p>If you follow the standard bell curve, 83% of the population has an IQ at or below 115, so what does that say about who does this say about what percent of our poplution is worth eduacting?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do you think that you'd prefer to use a browser created by high-school kid that later dropped out of college or something created by a team of engineers with college degrees?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Neither. I'd prefer to use a browser made by people who are interested in the process of browser-building. Hence why I'm agnostic to who makes it and still prefer Firefox to IE or Safari, despite the impressive credentials of those who built the two non-open source browsers.</p>
<p>ZFanatic</p>
<p>
[quote]
I want to know where that journalist went to college, and ask him if he think he'd be writing for the NY Times with a community college degree...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>He's not a journalist. He's actually a PhD political scientist at AEI. You clearly, however, are missing the point: his job requires that level of training. Why, though, do we want receptionists to have BAs?</p>
<p>Or administrative assistants?</p>
<p>The point is not that we shouldn't have people with advanced degrees, but that we're putting too many on the market to begin with.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do you think that you'd prefer to use a browser created by high-school kid that later dropped out of college or something created by a team of engineers with college degrees?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not a fair comparison, is it? How long ago it seems that companies were luring computer-savvy high-schoolers with offers of high salaries... I think, however, that these high-schoolers would be highly successful in college.</p>
<p>There is a famous chef in Boston whom you may have heard about (Joanna Chang) who has a degree in economics from Harvard. But the majority of chefs probably went to cooking school (the Cambridge School of Culinary Arts seems well regarded).</p>
<p>
[quote]
My first full-time job was in a bank, where I ran proof and did customer service. My very basic high school education was completely adequate to prepare me for that job, but I think it would be hard for an 18-year-old high school graduate to be hired in such a position now
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So the job market for HS grads is bad; otherwise they'd get hired for these sorts of jobs. What does Charles Murray propose to do about this - make employers hire HS grads? 'Dropping Out' as he suggests would be job security suicide.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Let's say they are the best predictive technique available, they are mid-level at best.
[/quote]
Huh? Most large publics simply decide based on SATs+Grades.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's also worth noting that high IQ also corralates with a higher than average drop out rate. Of course, that's not the predictive quality typically brought up in these discussions.
[/quote]
Source. Simply put, you think that high IQ correlates with high dropout rates? Absurdly wrong.</p>
<p>I just cannot take Murray's piece seriously. </p>
<p>1) He fails to provide any studies or data that show the size of the problem he is proposing to solve, let alone why it should even be regarded as a problem. I am sure there are cases where less qualified people with college degrees get some jobs and more qualified people without degrees do not. However, is this 90% of the cases? 50%? 1%? Without the background, Murray just declares this is a problem worthy of attention (from the President no less) and starts proposing his solutions.</p>
<p>2) He appears to want the President (government) involved in solving this problem. Perhaps Murray only desires to see the President "influence" business to use tests vs degrees as requirements. If so, fine. Businesses can choose what works best for them. However if Murray's real desire is the government should require businesses to adopt testing in place of a degree, I think it appropriate he establish why the current approach is discriminatory and causes harm (which he clearly has not done).</p>
<p>3) Murray provides no case studies or references to where the solutions he proposes have been tested in the real world - either in the US or anywhere else in the world. However, Murray states it is time to change this in America because "...so many employers already sense that it has become educations Wizard of Oz..." Who exactly are these "many" employers and have any actually adopted Murray's solutions and found them better?</p>
<p>Bottom line, the sense I get from Murray's piece is that he did little to no research but is happy to share his thoughts on what he feels to be true and how to change it to something he feels will be better. The piece makes Murray look lazy as well as indifferent to the need to justify his positions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I just cannot take Murray's piece seriously. </p>
<p>1) He fails to provide any studies or data that show the size of the problem he is proposing to solve, let alone why it should even be regarded as a problem. I am sure there are cases where less qualified people with college degrees get some jobs and more qualified people without degrees do not. However, is this 90% of the cases? 50%? 1%? Without the background, Murray just declares this is a problem worthy of attention (from the President no less) and starts proposing his solutions.</p>
<p>2) He appears to want the President (government) involved in solving this problem. Perhaps Murray only desires to see the President "influence" business to use tests vs degrees as requirements. If so, fine. Businesses can choose what works best for them. However if Murray's real desire is the government should require businesses to adopt testing in place of a degree, I think it appropriate he establish why the current approach is discriminatory and causes harm (which he clearly has not done).</p>
<p>3) Murray provides no case studies or references to where the solutions he proposes have been tested in the real world - either in the US or anywhere else in the world. However, Murray states it is time to change this in America because "...so many employers already sense that it has become educations Wizard of Oz..." Who exactly are these "many" employers and have any actually adopted Murray's solutions and found them better?</p>
<p>Bottom line, the sense I get from Murray's piece is that he did little to no research but is happy to share his thoughts on what he feels to be true and how to change it to something he feels will be better. The piece makes Murray look lazy as well as indifferent to the need to justify his positions.
[/quote]
Charles Murray has written at length about needless credentialism.</p>
<p>"People with less than a ~110-115 IQ should not go to college. We are educating people who most likely will not use their knowledge ever...and it's really expensive. Much better to push people into vocational programs and get them learning actual skills which will let them provide for themselves."</p>
<p>Here, here, I (almost) completely agree. The exception is the people less than ~115 IQ with great intellectual curiosity and drive.
Also, a 115 IQ equates to an iq of ~1080: Braingle:</a> Convert SAT and GRE Test Scores to IQ</p>
<p>"People with less than a ~110-115 IQ should not go to college. We are educating people who most likely will not use their knowledge ever...and it's really expensive. Much better to push people into vocational programs and get them learning actual skills which will let them provide for themselves."</p>
<p>Here, here, I (almost) completely agree. The exception is the people less than ~115 IQ with great intellectual curiosity and drive.
Also, a 115 IQ equates to an iq of ~1080:
Braingle: Convert SAT and GRE Test Scores to IQ</p>
<p>The problem is Murray is using a assessment which has been largely discredited. S.J Gould in "The Mismeasure of Man" and other essays clearly illuminate all the longstanding flaws in the use of I.Q. tests. Old news insofar as Gould and others were writing about this issue back in the 90s. </p>
<p>And it seems that Murray and company do tend to use predictors which avoid acknowledgment of problematic social conditions. But at the same time they seemingly want to justify these same conditions as a natural state. Which is typically symptomatic of intellectuals bending reality to fit a agenda-and as such no more credible than Neo-Marxists trying to turn these same conditions into an ennoblement of victimization. </p>
<p>Either way it's a form of contempt for the lower orders...</p>
But BA's aren't required for that sort of job. If they were, then my kids wouldn't have been able to get the various jobs they had while attending school. When my son dropped out of college, he got a job he loved and was promoted very quickly -- within 6 months he was in a job where others with the same title and responsibilities generally were recent college grads. So entry level jobs are there. </p>
<p>But here's the problem: my son saw pretty quickly that his path to advancement would be limited by lack of a college degree. He could rise up to a certain level.... but at the next step up the management ladder, he would be limited by lack of college degree. And I think its hard to argue against the reality that at a certain level up the chain of management, the college education is useful. </p>
<p>So my son went back to school, then applied for and got a better job - based on his experience far more than his degree -- and was hired for a position that did not require a college degree. Worked 6 months, now has been promoted within the same organization to a position that may or may not require a degree (I'm just not sure). But I know for sure that the next step up the line requires that degree. </p>
<p>So when you tell a youngster that the degree is not necessary, you are pushing the short term goal over the long term benefit. </p>
<p>It doesn't surprise me that the article was written by a co-author the notoriously racist work, "The Bell Curve" -- this is exactly the advice that will tend to preserve the status quo. Upper class families with college educated parents are going to continue to send their kids to college and, in many cases, on to professional school. But the college degree is the path to upward mobility for people on the bottom-- it is going to make a huge impact in the lifestyle for the first generation college student, because it will open the doors that didn't exist for the parents. </p>
<p>The problem is that the older the person gets, the harder it is to get back into school to pick up a degree. My son turned down an offer for a high paying job (by his standards at the time) to return to college -- he realized that if he continued to accept work while deferring his education, he'd never get that degree. If the goal is job #1, maybe the degree doesn't matter. But to tell a youngster that the degree isn't highly desirable is to set him up to run into a wall at around age 30 - the point in time when "experience" stops being a substitute for a degree.</p>
<p>Increase standards for high schools so employees don't need a bachelor's degree to prove they have higher-level thinking skills. Why don't we raise the threshold of knowledge and higher-level thinking skills to ensure an adequately-performing population (lessening the need of higher academia to fulfill the void). </p>
<p>And the author's marginalizing comments that some students just don't have the capability to learn is probably the sentiment that has led us to our lackluster standards as is. It's one thing to say a bachelor's isn't needed for most BA-requiring jobs, but quite another to say that students failed by their secondary schooling are themselves incapable of higher learning.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It doesn't surprise me that the article was written by a co-author the notoriously racist work, "The Bell Curve" -- this is exactly the advice that will tend to preserve the status quo. Upper class families with college educated parents are going to continue to send their kids to college and, in many cases, on to professional school. But the college degree is the path to upward mobility for people on the bottom-- it is going to make a huge impact in the lifestyle for the first generation college student, because it will open the doors that didn't exist for the parents.
[/quote]
I really wish Murray would re-release the book with out any mention of race at all just so people would stop their idiotic mumblings of how IQ is unimportant. IQ is incredibly predictive within homogenous populations! We need to value it and we need policies that understand that. We are spending ridiculous sums of money on things which are not very efficient. Educating ~105 IQ people an additional four years on unneeded skills is absurdly wasteful. I'd rather spend the money on any number of better policies (universal healthcare, aid to malnourished people, infrastructure, advanced scientific research).</p>
<p>I think we are trying to answer two completely distinct questions:
1. Is IQ predictive of scholastic ability? If so, is IQ malleable in response to certain environmental factors?
2. How does society most efficiently allocate its limited resources in trying to cultivate human capital?</p>
<p>I personally believe (on the basis of my very crude understanding of neuroscience) that the human mind is highly "plastic." Through both behavioral and cognitive learning we can establish new neural pathways in our brains. Visual-spatial ability is particularly malleable; many people can practice puzzles for a short period of time and increase their visual-spatial scores by more than 1 standard deviation. </p>
<p>However, I do not believe that simply increasing the number of Americans with a college degree should be an end in and of itself. Spending time and money on a degree that does not improve the nation's stock of human capital is a gross missallocation of resources from a macroeconomic stand point. There may be personal, experiential benefits to obtaining a degree, but this does not necessarily translate into higher productivity. </p>
<p>Right now, the degree requirement for most non-technical jobs is used as a form of signaling. I would argue that is unnecessary to spend four years in school to transmit the appropriate signal. In fact, the glut of B.A.'s has eroded the value of signal to employers, all while the cost of obtaining the signal has increased.</p>
<p>Jakor, I think you're right (#109). In the old days, good hires could be obtained from the HS grad pool; nowadays, they assume that those who don't go on to college are iffy.</p>
<p>Murray is saying what my very conservative friend says about the CC students he teaches - they are not college material. One solution is to make it painfully clear to HS students that they need to get off their butts in HS or they won't succeed in college. I'm simply not hearing this message at my kid's HS, where most kids take 'college prep' (not) and plenty are coasting.</p>
<p>"This is a disturbing necessity insofar as I have a terminal degree in my field, but cannot in good conscience recommend others do as I did." - I love the expression "terminal degree"!</p>
<p>A lot of you are missing the point of Murray's article. You can scoff at people and say stuff like "I'd like to see a community college grad do the job of a mechanical engineer", but the fact of the matter is, not everyone is like you. Not everyone considers success to be "doing the job of a mechanical engineer". A lot of people who aren't that academic just want a job that pays well, that interests them, and that provides a comfortable situation to raise a family.</p>
<p>Where it gets sticky is whether or not college is what prepares you for those jobs. This board is preposterously biased, but it's a self-selection bias. If this were a car mechanics' forum, you'd get a lot of different responses.</p>
<p>Murray's point is that it doesn't matter where you learned it, just that you know it now. Whether or not college is the best way for most people to learn it is the question at hand. Engineering is irrelevant. IQ is irrelevant. Donut Shops are irrelevant.</p>