NY Tmes Op-Ed Columnist: How We Are Ruining America

I would dispute that. What I do believe is that the majority of low income children lack the money and/or the interest in going to college. It’s not because they’re inherently stupid. Genetics no doubt has some role in intelligence, but for most people it’s something that can easily be overcome with a little extra studying.

100 years ago Jews were shown to be intellectually inferior. 50 years ago Asians were shown to be intellectually inferior. Was there some kind of genetic mutation in the human brain that suddenly made them smart and successful?

I think that Brooks’s “news flash” is just stating the perennially obvious, that families with means want peace & quiet in a safe neighborhood, enjoy some of the finer things in life, and try to enable a good future for their children.

…and for this, according to Brooks, they should be guilt ridden and ashamed of themselves.

I am not guilt ridden and ashamed but I am grateful everyday that we have our health and educations while acknowledging that kids growing up in poverty often face multiple hurdles to success. I married one of them.

We choose to pay it forward because my husband was helped by people who cared that a bright boy from the barrio might fall through the cracks. We know the difference it can make.

I think there is some truth to that, but it’s not the whole picture, and it depends on how you define success. I’ve hired for top law firms for years. That level of success is very elusive because there are so few slots and the hiring criteria are so specific. The people who hold those jobs come from a very narrow range of colleges/law schools, and the people who are admitted to those schools come from a relatively narrow range of background and experience. But when they obtain those jobs and move up their professional ladders, they and their kids live very different lives than most of us, and see success as moving up from a very high starting point, which doesn’t leave a ton of room for growth.

That said, there are plenty of ways to be successful that don’t include those schools and jobs. Getting a college education from any school with a job in your field lined up (even if the starting salary isn’t $180,000), and then working hard, getting married, having kids, buying a house, saving for retirement, are very valid measures of success in my view.

In my literacy work with mostly immigrants, their definition of success is different, as well. For many of the people I’ve worked with, getting a GED for the parents and an actual high school diploma in order to be able to attend community college is a huge victory. One of the families I worked with has a daughter who earned her associate’s degree last month at 22. This would be looked down on by many on CC, but this young lady immigrated to the US as a teenager, has parents who are not literate, and lives in a marginal neighborhood. But with that AA, she has a job (not making a ton of money, but stable) WITH full benefits and is going to start back at night in January to get her bachelor’s degree from a CUNY. I believe she will get it. She will probably never make $180,000 per year, but I think she will bring herself into the middle class, get married and have kids after getting her degree, and her kids will reach much higher. David Brooks would probably break out into hives if he ever had to deal with someone like this, but frankly, I can’t imagine wanting to actually spend time with him or be like him.

Ever wonder why he doesn’t submit his work for peer review? What is he afraid of?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/05/26/theres-something-about-charles-murray/

^^ Murray is a best-selling author. Why would any best-selling author bother publishing in a peer reviewed journal? If people was to review his work, they can buy the book.

Simba9 you sound like a sincere person so I don’t want my post to be misinterpreted because posts on threads can sound harsh even if it’s not intended. While your heart is in the right place the facts do not support your statements. I did not say these children were stupid but rather that they can’t do college algebra or the other basics of college courses no matter how much they study. The same can be said about comparing city bus drivers with airline pilots. No matter how much you try to train them they have very different appitudes and lack what it takes to fly a complex jet. Would you want such people as your airline pilot or surgeon. The students at the top 30-50 colleges are vastly different in intellectual capability than the typical student at a community college. There is a small amount of overlap and many exceptions but there is a huge difference between students with math SAT of 750 versus 400-500.

It seems to me the reason some people are more successful that others is because of the decisions that their parents and they made. Some of that, as @SAY says , is correlated with intelligence. Those upper middle class families come from stable, 2 parent households, live in areas with good schools, make wise financial decisions like investing for their retirement and their kids education. Those behaviors are largely learned from their parents. Most Asians cultures excel at those behaviors and within a generation or become very successful. Conversely, other cultures are exceptionally bad at making good decisions. It’s the behavior. Members of the group rise and fall depending on the soundness of their decisions. That is one of the reasons I hate identity politics because it discounts the individual.

You don’t need a college education to acquire skills and knowledge. Youtube, Kahn, MIT online offer all of that to you already. Selective colleges are exceptionally good at picking people with high potential, and imparting that same knowledge in a formalized setting. A degree is just an outside validation that you are capable of handling some task and that you can make good decisions.

The problem arises when urban elites assume that they understand the realities of what other people face. Their ‘solutions’ are designed for urban environments, which always seem to require lots of rules, regulation, and government intervention. Most don’t work well either (e.g. schools) either. When things don’t work well or people don’t like paying for them, those people leave and bring their bad ideas with them, and try to transform their new environment into the old dysfunctional one. That even applies to eastern California and upstate NY. It’s even worse when they invade a state, like what happened to Colorado. Eventually it becomes the same mess that they left.

Just because something is popular with laypersons doesn’t necessarily mean it is good.

One good illustration of this is how the “History Channel” has effectively become a show focused more on Aliens, supernatural phenomena, and conspiracy theories rather than actual history because they likely felt they would be more popular and gain higher ratings by effectively becoming the televised version of “The National Enquirer” or some other sensationalistic supermarket tabloid of its ilk.

Academic peer review is meant to sift through that noise to determine if the arguments and underlying evidence can hold up to serious scrutiny from fellow academic peers who have put in some effort to become experts in the same/similar fields as the one submitting the work to be reviewed is/aspires(grad students) to be a part of.

I find this comparison to be ironic considering not too long ago…especially during WWII and before, one didn’t need a college degree or even a high degree of education in many countries to serve as military pilots.

For instance, the USAAF was able to recruit a large cadre of good to excellent pilots despite LOWERING their entrance requirements to 2 years of college initially and later, doing away with requiring any college whatsoever until the end of the war. They also had an aviation cadet program(eliminated in the early-mid '60s when the USAF decided they wanted all their officers/pilots to be college graduates) where one can become a pilot and gain an officer’s commission by successfully completing an intensive one-year training regimen without necessarily having to go to college though college students/graduates were preferred. The last was how the #3 ranking USAF Korean War Ace was able to start his career as a fighter pilot.

The vast majority of top fighter aces in the Imperial Japanese forces(All Navy incidentally) were enlisted pilots for most of their fighter pilot careers. Only one of the top aces, Lt. JG Junichi Sasai was a graduate of the Imperial Japanese Naval academy.

In contrast, the #4 ace with far more kills, Saburo Sakai started his career as an enlisted sailor after effectively flunking out of high school at 16. He spent a few years as a turret gunner on a battleship before being selected for the highly competitive and cutthroat enlisted pilot training program. He only became a commissioned officer by being promoted from the enlisted ranks more than a decade after enlisting and after he has already established himself as one of the top Japanese aces.

The #2 ace Hiroyoshi Nishizawa ended his education at late elementary/early junior high school and had been working as a textile worker before noticing a poster encouraging young boys/men like him to try out for the highly competitive and cutthroat enlisted Naval flight trainee program and the rest was history.

In the RAF…especially US volunteers during WWII, some of the volunteers included folks like a NYC taxi driver who later recounted fighting with Luftwaffe ME-109s was no different than weaving in and out of chaotic NYC traffic as a cabbie.

Incidentally, even nowadays, one can become an RAF fighter pilot/commissioned officer(2 - 3 A-Levels) without having attended college though that’s far less common now than it was a few decades back.

And by most accounts, being a military pilot, especially a fighter pilot is far more demanding and complex than being an airline pilot.

Not completely on point, but we are UMC and I love both froofy sandwich places and the writings of David Foster Wallace. I thought his Kenyon commencement address was brilliant.

A large percentage of the population thinks any inequality in outcomes is due to institutional or cultural differences alone, and they vocally insist that it is the government’s duty to level the outcomes through taxes and policy. The natural end result of this belief is communism where everyone, with the exception of the rulers, has an equally bad outcome.

Very true - he’s making lots of money. The only reason for academic journal peer review is if he’d like to be taken seriously by the experts in the fields he writes about. He’s not been presented as a best selling author by @SAY though, but rather as an "exceptional scholar whose work has been proven correct ".

That’s just not true.

It is controversial and it is not true.

Charles Murray is someone who appeals to the alt right and makes a lot of money doing it

Asian Americans have been filtered by immigration that brings in those with bachelor’s degrees (at least from India and China) in far greater proportion than in the US or their origin countries. So both nature and nurture (whichever you say is more important ) is in their kids’ favor. But it is a mistake to see it as inherent in their race or ethnicity.

There is no significant scientific controversy about Murray’s work as it relates to intelligence. The studies about the significant heritability of intelligence are beyond dispute and not challenged by anyone working in the field. This is only contraversial to people unfamiliar with the literature.

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674055469

What policies do you advise making, based on this observation?

So it appears.

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/18/paul_krugman_demolishes_charles_murrays_stunning_racist_dishonesty/

Paul Krugman is a Nobel prize winner who has taught at MIT and Princeton. Are you familiar with Paul Krugman?

@OHMomof2 -

Murray’s projections as to changes in US society have proven to be correct. From a Chicago Tribune book review in 1994:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1994-10-13/news/9410130055_1_herrnstein-and-murray-intelligence-cognitive-elite

That is pretty much what has happened in the generation since the book was published, and those issues are the same ones that were so prominent in the last election. If you go back to his 1984 book Loosing Ground, you will find that his projections as to societal changes were also correct.