Murray’s Morons
A conservative “scholar” wants to keep students out of college.
By Niral Shah, Dartmouth College
Wednesday February 7, 2007
Charles Murray would rather you didn’t go to college. It probably won’t prepare you for any occupation, and, odds are, you’re not smart enough to benefit from a college education anyway. You shouldn’t feel bad – you were born this way. And those lucky few who form the cognitive elite? Well, their “spread of wealth at the top of American society has created an explosive increase in the demand for craftsmen.” So drop those books and grab your hammer. You’ll be just fine, and society will be saved from its futile attempts to make you any smarter.
But Charles Murray probably isn’t worth listening to. A senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, Murray became infamous as co-author of The Bell Curve, a controversial work of pseudo-scientific racism published in 1993. The book argued that IQ is the strongest and most consistent predictor of future success, that intelligence is largely inherited, and that low-intelligence is especially prevalent among African-Americans. Trusting that mathematically-derived psychometrics were objective and above scrutiny, with journalists lacking the expertise to prove otherwise, mainstream publications treated the book relatively uncritically. Murray made the supporting evidence for this research available only after most of the outrage died down By the time The Bell Curve was thoroughlydiscredited for its logical fallacies and simple errors, the damage had been done.
Last month, in a three-part editorial series in the Wall Street Journal (1, 2, 3), Murray attempted to re-enter the intelligence and education debate. He repackages “The Bell Curve,” but with subtler racial implications. He believes that social ills are common among the poorly educated, but that the “culprit for their low educational deficit is often low intelligence,” not an ineffective or unjust education system. Murray expounds on the importance of IQ, claiming that a college education is beyond the abilities of the vast majority, and that vocational training is a sufficiently lucrative and appealing alternative.
As if to prove himself either too disingenuous or too stupid to properly use statistics, Murray opens with the shocking revelation that “half of all children are below average in intelligence.” In fact, as with any median (especially in the case of IQ tests, which are regularly population-standardized to a median of 100), half the population is always below average by definition. He argues that along the course of education, high-IQ students may continually improve, but average and lower-IQ students will hit a hard limit earlier on. According to Murray, this limit strictly correlates to IQ, which is largely determined by the inherited component of intelligence.
Consensus holds that some aspect of intelligence is inelastic, but Murray exaggerates and misinterprets the significance of this. Studies have determined that heredity accounts for between 40 and 80 percent of the variation in intelligence between individuals, and that intelligence is a small factor in the complex relationship between IQ, parental socioeconomic status, and adult income. Indeed, research suggests that low IQ scores among low-income people are due mostly to environmental factors. And as a measure of general intelligence, a given IQ level does not correspond to a specific achievement level. Abilities can differ depending on the subject matter at hand. Murray claims there is no genuine IQ-qualification for a college education, but then tosses out the number 120 anyway, which would cut off 85 percent of Americans. It doesn’t occur to him that people may study subjects according to their abilities—that an ability to handle complex mathematics does not guarantee literary prowess and vice-versa. If such a hard limit exists, how could it be definitively identified?
He offers that some public schools may be dreadful, but is otherwise convinced that education reform is not going to change the disparate achievement among students. As proof, Murray notes that in one standardized exam, 36 percent of fourth-graders scored below the “basic achievement” level in reading, and that the same percentage of students have an IQ below 95. If Murray had his way, we’d stop wasting our time on these tragically deficient fourth-graders. But these matching numbers are just an arbitrary mathematical sleight-of-hand. They don’t demonstrate a precise correlation between reading ability and intelligence, and give no indication of the efficacy of any educational interventions.
Unconcerned with the potential risks of misjudging or underestimating a student’s capacity, Murray insists that we should face the harsh realities of genetics. But this resigned mentality is itself an obstacle to education. In a seminal psychology study, students were randomly distributed into two classrooms, with one teacher being told the students were of average intelligence, the other being told they were gifted. This latter group showed significantly more progress in learning over the course of a year. If something as subtle as teacher-expectations could so drastically alter educational outcomes, what must that imply for the myriad factors of race, socio-economics, teaching methods, and resources that shape classroom environments? For Murray, genetics is the reason for bad education, crime, violence, and unemployment, and nothing is going to change.
Fundamentally, Murray misunderstands both the purpose of a college education and the American job market. He argues that college degrees, except for the few that are essentially vocational (i.e. engineering), are useful merely as “screening devices” of one’s ability to get into and stay in college. Vocational schools, he says, are a “better, faster, and more efficient way for young people to acquire credentials to provide to employers.” And the wealth of “the cognitive elite” will generate a higher demand for vocational skills, making these occupations more appealing and college less important.
But as people continually seek out better options and new opportunities, they often land in professions they could not have anticipated pursuing. The average worker changes jobs 10 times over his or her career. Students pursue a college education because it allows the development of one’s abilities and interests and provides an avenue for upward mobility. Supplementing vocational studies like accounting and finance with a liberal arts education broadens future options, and the curricula of four-year institutions reflect this fact.
The result of this process is economically optimal for workers and employers. Murray’s antiquated notion of “journey craftsmen” ignores that the American job market is stratifying between knowledge jobs that require critical thinking skills and service sector employment. In our post-industrial economy, education is rewarded far more than vocational skills. Americans can expect an increase in lifetime income of approximately $1 million with each successive college, graduate, and post-graduate degree. For many of them, the major deterrent to pursuing higher education is high tuition costs.
Murray ’s last point is that we stop squandering resources on this nation’s legions of dullards and re-allocate them towards the geniuses. For Murray, the struggle against inequality is futile, so we must triage our precious resources and focus on the select few, not just embracing the status quo, but seeking to exacerbate it. Presumably Murray considers himself among the 15 percent of Americans most deserving of an elite education—in his case it was a bachelor’s degree from Harvard and a Ph.D. from M.I.T . Too bad he put his education to such poor use.
--------
Comments
|
!
This guy’s ideas about the racial basis for intelligence seem fairly normal….for the 1920’s. Ironically he hits on some issues that black scholars were tackling in theorizing about how to mobilize the black underclass (also a very long time ago, during Reconstruction). His fervent support for vocational school reminds me of the ideas of Booker T. Washington, and his pimping of the Elite is reminiscent of W.E.B. DuBois’s notion of the Talented Tenth—of course DuBois regarded Washington’s ideas as totally regressive (rightly so). However, Murray’s lack of trust in higher education as a means for social mobility can’t totally be laughed off, because it is a debate just as relevant in the African American community today as it was in the days of Booker T. For example, the skits on Kanye West’s album “College Dropout” in which a clueless, penniless multi-graduate brags that once he’s squandered all his money on education, at least he’ll have his degrees to keep him warm at night. While passing off hip-hop for scholarship is admittedly a dubious endeavor, I’d argue that “George Bush doesn’t care about black people” was just as significant a cultural moment (and a more positive one) as when Booker T told black people to pick up a hammer and work for white people. I say hooray for hip-hop!
— Michael - Feb 8, 04:25 PM - #Now if we take a hammer to Murray maybe we can knock some sense into his hard haid!!!
— frank67 - Feb 8, 05:44 PM - #Murray himself, and many of his theories are noxious, but you don’t do much to dissuade me that his main conclusion is correct (even if the reasoning he supplies aren’t the best grounds for it) — too many people are going to college who would be doing better economically as skilled craftsmen. This trend is only going to accelerate as outsourcing and the global economy speed up.
Secondly, you’re dodging the point by comparing college degree graduates to the service sector, which isn’t representative of what Murray is advocating. A guy flipping your burgers and a skilled craftsman are two very different things.
Murray’s ideas about intelligence are relatively silly.
His point that we have a lot of people going to four year universities that would be better off doing something else is not a bad one, though.
Where Murray is completely wrong is that he links it to general intelligence; if someone would be better off as a skilled craftsman, it’s not because they’re not “smart enough” to make good use of college, it’s a matter of simple economics. In fact, by putting it in economic terms, Murray conjures up the pride of undergrads in such a way that it makes it far harder to get people to see when their self-interest shouldn’t lead them to a university.
— Joe - Feb 9, 12:16 AM - #Labor economists are divided over the extent to which a degree is merely a signal of general abilities or an actual indicator of learned skills. Even if its just as a signal, however, for the most part it will open up a much wider array of options for a graduate. I don’t deny there are ways to make a reasonable living as a skilled craftsman, but its sort of a rational-probability calculation when one graduates high school. Sure, outsourcing is happening, but as the economy transitions, the “skilled craftsman” area is not the sector with fastest growth, it’s not the type of training that grants wider options, and it’s not – on average – as safe of a bet for future earnings. (Not to say anything of where an individuals preferences and interests come into play).
— Niral Shah - Feb 9, 11:51 AM - #Murray isn’t completely insane when he talks about liberal arts degrees, but the realistic alternative to an English degree, or for the non-genius, is not voc school. Most public universities offer degrees that are essentially vocational – accounting, finance, teaching, agro-science, nursing…I could go on. These, maybe, are better alternatives for those who are uninterested in grad school or more academic pursuits – in fact, they are the modern equivalent of Murray’s antiquated notion of craftsmen. These are stable areas of the economy, and educations that pertain directly to occupations. But they still require, or are best served by, a four year education.
Maybe the country could use more intermediary steps – improved junior colleges, improved and expanded “occupational” 4-year degrees, technical schools (like DeVry) that reflect new areas of skill demands. But people don’t opt out of college planning on being in the small minority of craftsmen who reach an upper-middle class living (and whose earnings potential probably peaks comparatively early in their careers). Sure, you can become a great programmer without going to a university, but how likely are you to progress above entry-level at a company? Murray ignores the economics of individual decision-making, and he makes up his own notion of the American wage structure that would suit his crackpot theory.
I don’t think I’m dodging any points. Its not that too many people are going to college. Maybe in some cases, the wrong people go (uninterested upper-middle class kids who do it out of expectation), and the right people don’t (the legions of Americans who are priced-out of college or blocked earlier by failures in public education and poverty), but on the whole, individuals and the economy would benefit from expanded access to higher ed.
Murray is an easy target, why don’t you read some of Arthur Jensen’s work or peer reviewed papers concerning the distribution of IQ and then come back to this site and write a comment.
— Daniel W. - Feb 9, 09:51 PM - #If Murray is an easy target, then maybe here’s an easier one: Define intelligence.
And there’s the problem. ALL people who believe that IQ is a genuine indicator of something called “intelligence” merely define intelligence as a number that IQ tests spit out.
I am more interested in some sort of consensus on how we can define intelligence. When we come to that conclusion, then we might be able to create tests that actually measure it. This isn’t simply some oversight on the part of Murray and others: it is a glaring manifestation of racism that, at some times in our history, was rationalized by second-rate science.
— Andrew Garib - Feb 10, 03:14 PM - #Joe is correct – Murray’s basic point should be separated from his idiocy regarding intelligence and IQ tests. However, the two are tightly related in Murray’s own mind, since he believes inherent intelligence is perhaps the ultimate predictor in success in the job market.
But we know that this is simply not true. The best predictor of success in the job market is one’s level of education. Isn’t it ironic that Murray should be suggesting we cut off so many from the best chance they have at climbing the social and economic ladder? What a bizarre conclusion, Mr. Murray.
— Andrew Garib - Feb 10, 03:22 PM - #intelligence is more than a number, and it is easily augmented with various activities and lessons and such for life that can make someone smarter. for example, those involved in the fine arts are generally better performers on the SAT and have better interpersonal skills. Some people are nerdy computer dorks with a way high IQ, but they could easily be edged out of a job by the 130 IQ man who puts on a great smile and works really hard to get the big picture of everything he does.
— matt steele - Feb 13, 03:54 PM - #Stop embarrassing Dartmouth.
— SamTheEagle - Feb 13, 08:05 PM - #Please forgive the comments of an obsessive researcher. Just one minor point – while I agree with the overall thrust of your argument, I think you may be in error regarding the assertion that it is “disingenous” or “stupid” to assert that “half of all children are below average in intelligence” – if Murray is using the term “average” the way it is normally understood. If he is indeed defining it as it is typically understood – as the MEAN, not the median, level of intelligence – then he would be correct in asserting that it is possible for half, or more than half, for that matter, to be “below average” in intelligence. This is so, of course, because very high IQs – although there may not be many of them – have a tendency to affect the calculations of averages, biasing the mean (average) upward. “Average” in this context, is the numerical mean of IQs. Thus, half the population is not necessarily above or below that figure. The median, or midpoint yes – but not the mean, or average.
This, of course, does not obviate your criticism of Murray’s use of statistics, for while your specific point may not be accurate, the overall assertion that Murray plays fast and loose with data, is. There are a number of excellent books and articles that expose how Murray distorts data in order to arrive at pre-determined conclusions, in both The Bell Curve, and his previous book on the social policies of the 60s and 70s, Losing Ground. Both are riddled with errors of analysis and interpretation, not the least of which we teach to students in introductory research classes – the confusion of correlation with causality. In short, there are many grounds on which to criticize Murray for disingenuous use of data – but his assertions about the half of schoolchildren being below average in intelligence are not likely among them.
— Zak - Feb 13, 09:50 PM - #I think there is some sense to his idea about college and attendance. Not EVERYone should be compelled to go to college. There are plenty of people who struggle very hard in highschool to keep up, people that may barely graduate highschool even with genuine effort. These people should have other avenues promoted that enables them to be successful and happy. The idea that Not EVERYONE is college material should not be controversial, and becoming equipped enough for certain fields often has NOTHING to do with environment. RAW ability and aptitude is Not a myth, get over it. Assuming that EVERYONE has the same raw ability and aptitude in certain areas hurts them far more than it helps.
— John - Feb 27, 05:36 PM - #I am twenty year high school teacher. I read all three of Murray’s articles. He confirms what I and most of my peers believe, and have been saying for years.
All the people that argue this point or that point are missing THE point. People are not all the same. Some are smart, some are average, and some are just plain dumb. Yet we continue to teach them all the same. My school district preaches that all students should go to college, and THAT is how schools are failing students, by not giving choices that are commensurate with the student’s abilities… We have eliminated wood shop classes and auto shop classes in favor of essay writing classes. Most of our students are never going to write an essay as an adult, but they sure will own a car…
— Marcy - Mar 5, 12:15 PM - #I went to a highschool where they offered vocational training. I was a college girl myself and did well in college.
The person who I’ve had the most respect for in my life was an electrician who was better read and much more intellegent then most of the moron’s I have to work with.
I’ve read excerpts from Murray’s book and I think its very slanted. But I wholehartedly agree that some people need to go to tradeschools to be electricians and welders or work in heavy construction. I think there are way too many people who are pushed to go to college who don’t need to be there.
— E - Mar 21, 04:51 PM - #Murray is correct in every detail.
— MensaRefugee - Apr 26, 06:26 AM - #Be honest with yourselves for a change and see that his acceptance of simple truths and facing them head on gives more dignity to everybody (including the lower I.Q types) than your silly posturings.
If your student with a lower iq and you have will and drive you can do anything iq is just a number. Some prople arent good at taking tests.
— JUlie - Dec 29, 07:35 PM - #