Hi all-
In the runup to the Superbowl I find a little time to write some more. There are so many basic topics and pieces of data to discuss. This time i want to discuss intelligence and societal planning.
People argue about the significance of IQ. While it may be argued, there is no question at all that 40-80% of IQ is inherited, and that it is a predictor of social and financial success.
IQ is distributed normally; that is, its distribution follows a normal curve. Everyone knows what that looks like- the infamous bell-shaped curve we all know. This curve can be described by its mean value and standard deviation.
For IQ, the average is 100, and the standard deviation 15 points. Two standard deviations in either direction is 90% of the distribution, one 67%. Thus 90% of the population has an IQ between 70 and 130, the defining points for retardation and gifted, respectively.
At one time, the IQ distribution at Harvard was very close to the general population, and our society also had mailmen with IQs of 150. No longer. Because of the availability of college loans and scholarships, there is no longer a reservoir of high IQ poor. IQ and home income status track remarkably well together.
This data is important because I don't think it is possible to make social policy based on fantasy or desire. It must be based in reality, in data. Most people are unaware of how much of our special education budget is spent on the talented and gifted, as opposed to special education for those with an IQ under 70. The answer is 97% of special education funds go to those with an IQ under 70. Further, this proportion is maintained by the 'No Child Left Behind' act, which asks our schools to improve the test scores and graduation rates of their students.
I am not an athletic man. I am strong, but no good with bats, raquets, clubs, gloves and balls. I am a failure at track and field, basketball, wrestling, and every other sport you can name except for biking. The way we spend our special education money, and the legislation we have so idealistically passed is no different than spending 97% of the athletic budget on the 5% fattest, slowest and most awkward kids in the class, rather than spending it on the football team and ladies' soccer. Further, our policy is no different than coming to the athletic department and telling the coaches that those lowest 5% have to become athletes. You could train me 6 hours a day for months, and while I would be fitter and stronger, I will never be a basketball or football player. Not possible.
Just so it is simply impossible to expect that everyone will graduate from high school, or even that 90% will. No child should be treated badly, and every child should have education that allows that child to do what they can in society. But the range of outcomes intellectually is as broad as those physically, simply because it is a physical, largely inherited characteristic we are dealing with. Imagining we can by law and pronouncement make everyone do better is silly. It is a terrible waste to not offer special educational opportunities to those who can take advantage of them.
Understanding that there is a significant correlation between poverty and low IQ is important to making appropriate policy decisions. We continue to promulgate a myth that if we give enough resources to the poor, they will become educated and productive. That is ridiculous. The few exceptions are cited as the norm, much like citing 108- year -old people as an example of how long we should live. The typical result is much different.
I emphatically do not support simply letting the poor languish and rot, without consideration for their human needs. But to expect them to do well in school if we only fund that school enough, to differentially fund schools with poor performance while ignoring the good performance of others, is folly.
It is one thing to dream of how things ought to be. It is another to govern as if that dream were real, which it is not. We do not make cages for unicorns.
In the runup to the Superbowl I find a little time to write some more. There are so many basic topics and pieces of data to discuss. This time i want to discuss intelligence and societal planning.
People argue about the significance of IQ. While it may be argued, there is no question at all that 40-80% of IQ is inherited, and that it is a predictor of social and financial success.
IQ is distributed normally; that is, its distribution follows a normal curve. Everyone knows what that looks like- the infamous bell-shaped curve we all know. This curve can be described by its mean value and standard deviation.
For IQ, the average is 100, and the standard deviation 15 points. Two standard deviations in either direction is 90% of the distribution, one 67%. Thus 90% of the population has an IQ between 70 and 130, the defining points for retardation and gifted, respectively.
At one time, the IQ distribution at Harvard was very close to the general population, and our society also had mailmen with IQs of 150. No longer. Because of the availability of college loans and scholarships, there is no longer a reservoir of high IQ poor. IQ and home income status track remarkably well together.
This data is important because I don't think it is possible to make social policy based on fantasy or desire. It must be based in reality, in data. Most people are unaware of how much of our special education budget is spent on the talented and gifted, as opposed to special education for those with an IQ under 70. The answer is 97% of special education funds go to those with an IQ under 70. Further, this proportion is maintained by the 'No Child Left Behind' act, which asks our schools to improve the test scores and graduation rates of their students.
I am not an athletic man. I am strong, but no good with bats, raquets, clubs, gloves and balls. I am a failure at track and field, basketball, wrestling, and every other sport you can name except for biking. The way we spend our special education money, and the legislation we have so idealistically passed is no different than spending 97% of the athletic budget on the 5% fattest, slowest and most awkward kids in the class, rather than spending it on the football team and ladies' soccer. Further, our policy is no different than coming to the athletic department and telling the coaches that those lowest 5% have to become athletes. You could train me 6 hours a day for months, and while I would be fitter and stronger, I will never be a basketball or football player. Not possible.
Just so it is simply impossible to expect that everyone will graduate from high school, or even that 90% will. No child should be treated badly, and every child should have education that allows that child to do what they can in society. But the range of outcomes intellectually is as broad as those physically, simply because it is a physical, largely inherited characteristic we are dealing with. Imagining we can by law and pronouncement make everyone do better is silly. It is a terrible waste to not offer special educational opportunities to those who can take advantage of them.
Understanding that there is a significant correlation between poverty and low IQ is important to making appropriate policy decisions. We continue to promulgate a myth that if we give enough resources to the poor, they will become educated and productive. That is ridiculous. The few exceptions are cited as the norm, much like citing 108- year -old people as an example of how long we should live. The typical result is much different.
I emphatically do not support simply letting the poor languish and rot, without consideration for their human needs. But to expect them to do well in school if we only fund that school enough, to differentially fund schools with poor performance while ignoring the good performance of others, is folly.
It is one thing to dream of how things ought to be. It is another to govern as if that dream were real, which it is not. We do not make cages for unicorns.
I completely agree with all you wrote in this blog. We waste so much money trying to pretend that everyone is equal and that all who pass through a system will thrive in it...and that if they don't it is "our" (society's) fault. Talk about trying to make square pegs fit through round holes....
ReplyDeleteDavid Graham