Thursday, January 18, 2007

The 99th Percentile of Intellectual Dishonesty

Charles Murray, in the first($) of a three-part(!) series on the relationship between IQ and education in the WSJ opinion page, says:

What IQ is necessary to give a child a reasonable chance to meet the NAEP's basic achievement score? Remarkably, it appears that no one has tried to answer that question.
He then goes on to say:

That total lack of knowledge will not, however, prevent me from making a series of wholly unsubstantiated assertions about the educational limits of persons possessing various levels of intelligence. Such as saying of a student in the 49th IQ percentile, "It is not within his power to learn to follow an exposition written beyond a limited level of complexity." Or that a student at the 20th percentile "will be able to comprehend only simple written material." Or that "To have an IQ of 100 means that a tough high-school course pushes you about as far as your academic talents will take you." Or that "it makes sense for only about 15% of the population, 25% if one stretches it, to get a college education." These statistics and facts are, mind you, complete fabrications. But that's okay! As a reader of the Wall Street Journal Opinion page, you undoubtedly have a high enough IQ to discern the larger truth.

I may have made some of that up (not the quotes). But you see my point.

Note also the class condescension here:

The spread of wealth at the top of American society has created an explosive increase in the demand for craftsmen. Finding a good lawyer or physician is easy. Finding a good carpenter, painter, electrician, plumber, glazier, mason -- the list goes on and on -- is difficult, and it is a seller's market. Journeymen craftsmen routinely make incomes in the top half of the income distribution while master craftsmen can make six figures. They have work even in a soft economy. Their jobs cannot be outsourced to India. And the craftsman's job provides wonderful intrinsic rewards that come from mastery of a challenging skill that produces tangible results. How many white-collar jobs provide nearly as much satisfaction?

Apparently, we should all appreciate the sacrifices made by Charles Murray and his ilk in the white-collar world, who have selflessly foregone the arcadian satisfactions of a blue-collar livelihood in order to enlighten us with their wisdom. And what do they get in return? An education system so hell-bent on giving everyone a chance to learn that you can't get any good help around the house. Why are those people wasting time in college when they could be downstairs fixing my sink?!

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

What exactly is your point? The part about craftsmen fits naturally into Murray's argument - but you're right, if you copy and paste it to another page without showing the ideas leading up to it, then it does look a bit stupid.