August 28, 2009
Nature / Nurture
Who knew Professor Mankiw was a Bell Jar Guy? And a Pigou Club President, probably a birther and a flat-earther as well. Okay, I am teasing about all but the Pigou Club.
But he surprises me today with The Least Surprising Correlation of all Time. To save you a click it is SAT scores vs. Parents' Income.
Mankiw accuses them of omitted variable bias (emphasis his): ignoring that the SAT outperfomers got genes from folks who were smart enough to earn a high income (cf Nicholas Mankiw, I suppose). While I do not disagree, he closes with a throwaway line that adopted children would not fit the curve.
I had the occasion to teach some young people web programming last weekend, and I have been thinking a lot about this. Those students have very bright parents, for sure, but they have also had the benefit of a local private school that stresses academics. I know two other young people who "blow me away" with intelligence and academic acumen, and they have both had private schooling for what I suspect to be a good part of their careers. (Of course, the parents I know happen to be braniacs.)
I expressed concern that the execrable quality of public education is setting up for a two-tiered society where the privately educated will so far exceed the norm that we will have a new aristocracy. I know some very bright kids who have come out of public education but I don't see that they are able to compete on this level.
Thinking out load here. I reserve the right to delete this post if I come to regret it. I have not done that in six years, but I might...
Philosophy
Posted by John Kranz at August 28, 2009 2:22 PM
You can't throw it away - it's already archived!
For what it's worth, this is right down the line of The Refugee's thinking as well. First, a technology-driven society such as ours runs a serious risk of becoming two-tier. Effective education is critical to avoiding a technological aristocracy.
For what are likely political reasons, SAT score studies always try to correlate scores to race. I don't think I've ever seen one correlated to IQ which would seem to be the obvious factor. If we observe relatively-lower IQ whites/Asians getting higher SAT scores and relatively-high IQ blacks/Latinos registering lower SAT scores, then we'd be able to suspect bias factors or education factors.
Mankiw attributes the correlation between income and SAT scores to good genes. This could be true in some cases (or maybe even many cases), but I would suspect that it is relates more to valuing education. There is a direct correlation between education and income. Thus, high earners are more likely to value educution, encourage their kids in school, spend time on homework with them, get tutors, private schools or whatever it takes. Low income families may not have the time, inclination or ability, in the main, to do these things. I say in the main, because we've all heard of the father who delivered papers in the morning, mail in the afternoon and milk at night to send his kids to school, or the mom who worked two jobs but found time to enforce homework rules and read with her kids.
With respect to private schools, there is ample evidence that they consistently outperform public schools. Maybe that's because they start with dedicated, motivated families. However, they really make the most difference for the relatively average kid. A bright, motivated kid will be successful no matter what. Yes, a private school may optimize his/her ability, but these types can't be stopped. On the other hand, dull, unmotivated kids aren't college material no matter what you do. Private schools help average kids to achieve above average results and therefore open up additional opportunities. But because private schools are out of reach for 99% of poor families, the 1% beinglucky enough to get a scholarship, average-IQ poor kids will never have the opportunities that average-IQ rich kids do. The only solution is publicly funded private education, otherwise known as vouchers. Unfortunately, the teacher's union solution is to take opportunity away from rich kids rather than give it to poor kids.
You can't throw it away - it's already archived!
For what it's worth, this is right down the line of The Refugee's thinking as well. First, a technology-driven society such as ours runs a serious risk of becoming two-tier. Effective education is critical to avoiding a technological aristocracy.
For what are likely political reasons, SAT score studies always try to correlate scores to race. I don't think I've ever seen one correlated to IQ which would seem to be the obvious factor. If we observe relatively-lower IQ whites/Asians getting higher SAT scores and relatively-high IQ blacks/Latinos registering lower SAT scores, then we'd be able to suspect bias factors or education factors.
Mankiw attributes the correlation between income and SAT scores to good genes. This could be true in some cases (or maybe even many cases), but I would suspect that it is relates more to valuing education. There is a direct correlation between education and income. Thus, high earners are more likely to value educution, encourage their kids in school, spend time on homework with them, get tutors, private schools or whatever it takes. Low income families may not have the time, inclination or ability, in the main, to do these things. I say in the main, because we've all heard of the father who delivered papers in the morning, mail in the afternoon and milk at night to send his kids to school, or the mom who worked two jobs but found time to enforce homework rules and read with her kids.
With respect to private schools, there is ample evidence that they consistently outperform public schools. Maybe that's because they start with dedicated, motivated families. However, they really make the most difference for the relatively average kid. A bright, motivated kid will be successful no matter what. Yes, a private school may optimize his/her ability, but these types can't be stopped. On the other hand, dull, unmotivated kids aren't college material no matter what you do. Private schools help average kids to achieve above average results and therefore open up additional opportunities. But because private schools are out of reach for 99% of poor families, the 1% beinglucky enough to get a scholarship, average-IQ poor kids will never have the opportunities that average-IQ rich kids do. The only solution is publicly funded private education, otherwise known as vouchers. Unfortunately, the teacher's union solution is to take opportunity away from rich kids rather than give it to poor kids.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at August 28, 2009 5:28 PMI'd never erase a post with a thoughtful comment attached.
I was just thinking that my lefty friends always worried about "the digital divide" that bifurcates society by access to technology. Well they used to before the free market gave us cheap laptops. But there is a recurring theme that poor people will be relegated to a subclass because of X.
Yet they all support the NEA/AFT (most are members now that I think about it). And that is the one problem in America that lower income parents cannot avoid: a monopoly government schools education.
Surely you're right about engaged parents and motivated kids -- but what an incredible differential. And one that is openly tolerated by those who scan the landscape for minute instances.
Posted by: jk at August 28, 2009 5:50 PMI am going to second BR’s opinion, even from my “lefty” perspective, although I have never been a supporter of NEA/AFT. The key here is parents who care. It doesn’t matter how much money they have or the genetic IQ the children possess, or even the school they attend. In fact, I would say that those three things work primarily to support (or replace) the direct involvement of parents. Replace in that the wealthy do have the luxury of simply paying someone else to care, via top-notch boarding schools if they so choose to have their children educated well without their involvement. On the other hand, there are just as many stories of low income students attending poor schools who excel due to attentive and caring parent(s). I have several good friends with children adopted from less than stellar situations such as the birth mother’s drug use. Their children attend public school and excel. The difference is parents who care to be involved with their children’s education. Private schools do indeed outperform public schools, but so do public charter schools. What they have in common is parents who care.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at August 30, 2009 11:39 AMI would really like to see a poll of teachers listing the factors they think would improve education. I believe even the staunchest union teacher would list motivated students with active parent support of education and discipline as the top factor. I would bet that it would beat out family income or school infrastructure or equipment by a sound margin.
Posted by: s at August 30, 2009 11:48 AM | What do you think? [4]