The American Enterprise Institute’s W. H. Brady Scholar, Charles Murray, completes today a provocative three-part series in the WSJ’s OpinionJournal on education in America (earlier installments are here and here.
As with Murray’s many books and this earlier piece on reforming welfare, Murray presents his thoughts on education in a compelling and provocative manner, urging us to modify our thoughts and societal prejudices regarding education and intelligence. Murray’s emphasis on IQ as a standard for tailoring education puts some people off, which is unfortunate. As he concludes below, Murray’s purpose is to provoke discussion on changing attitudes and prejudices that undermine productive and sensitive reforms in our educational system:
The aim here is not to complete an argument but to begin a discussion; not to present policy prescriptions, but to plead for greater realism in our outlook on education. Accept that some children will be left behind other children because of intellectual limitations, and think about what kind of education will give them the greatest chance for a fulfilling life nonetheless. Stop telling children that they need to go to college to be successful, and take advantage of the other, often better ways in which people can develop their talents. Acknowledge the existence and importance of high intellectual ability, and think about how best to nurture the children who possess it.
Don’t miss this series. The three installments are as follows:
Intelligence in the Classroom: Half of all children are below average, and teachers can do only so much for them.
What’s Wrong With Vocational School? Too many Americans are going to college.
Aztecs vs. Greeks: Those with superior intelligence need to learn to be wise.
Three primary concerns with Murray’s thesis about the role of intelligence in shaping educational policy:
(a) Intelligence is a very poorly measured phenomenon. My wife’s friend just had her three year old take a pre-school aptitude test. The child scored 99th percentile in vocabulary but 50th percentile in solving simple puzzles. Can anyone really say what this means about the child’s intelligence, especially in relation to peers with completely different backgrounds? Should we believe that the child can never be a scientist/mathematician because of this average test score in problem-solving? Her mother is a pathologist and both maternal grandparents were doctors. I wouldn’t bet the house against the child being a straight-A science and math student all the way to college (even if there is not an innate talent for the subjects, due to other influencing factors discussed below.)
(b) Attributing outcomes such as income, career success, or even scientific achievement solely or even primarily to intelligence level ignores the role of work ethic, intuition, relationship management (so-called “human intelligence”) and pure dumb luck. Think of all the great players who were late draft picks or undrafted free agents– Tom Brady, Joe Montana, Priest Holmes– based on “measurables.” How much harder is it to accurately predict human potential in fields where the measurables are so much more imprecise? Using IQ as a proxy to predict outcomes is a very imprecise tool, which is why we should be wary of wielding it in policy debates.
(c) Most importantly, Murray ignores the fact that just as we would expect intelligence to be normally distributed, we would also expect it to be randomly distributed. That is, across any population, the kids with the top 10% of academic potential [assuming you could measure correctly] would be equally likely to appear in any income level, racial group, geography, gender, height, shape, hair color, etc. Incidentally, athletic, musical, and artistic potential should also be randomly distributed.
[Crudely paraphrasing, I understand that Murray would contend that stupid people tend to be poor and have children with other stupid, poor people, and those children, born of such stupid, poor genetic material, are themselves doomed to be poor and stupid. Therefore, intelligence is not randomly distributed but correlated with class. I don’t have time to explore all the holes in this thesis, but I disagree strongly that class is a static thing in this country. Empirically and anecdotally, there is sufficient evidence to show that smart kids are born to poor parents all the time. Perhaps mandatory aptitude testing in juvenile detention centers would reveal some interesting facts.]
Given this, in an ideal world, those rising to the college ranks and on to the heights of the “cognitive elite” should come in random measure from every part of society. So where are all of our inner-city Einsteins? This is the real crisis in education– not that 49% of students are below average, but that the bulk of the 49% who test below average are poor, typically black or brown, and from a very early age are trapped by low expectations, limited resources and role models and limited understanding of how to break the cycle of poverty. This is pure market failure, and (I believe) should be the primary focus of educational policy.
I found Dr. Murrayës series of articles about intelligence and education very thought provoking. Although his comments are persuasive, I urge your readers to pause and think carefully before acting upon any of Dr. Murrayís conclusions.
We have over time sought to govern ourselves ñ at least in the United States ñ according to principles which better reflect our aspirations for society than our more practical understanding of human behavior. Prime among the examples supporting my point is our founding principle that all men are created equal. Even the fourth graders of below average intelligence to which Dr. Murray refers intuitively know that this principle is not supportable with facts. This unrealistic expression of hope informs our approach to many social issues, especially education.
Further support for the value of impractical social ideals can be found in an examination of the debate over the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Even those who presented valid arguments against the ADA acknowledged the very noble purpose for which it was put forward. It is neither practical nor efficient for us to devote great resources to making new and existing buildings more easily accessible for the benefit of a small fraction of our population. And yet, we must all be proud that more of our fellow citizens can independently enter and work in our buildings.
If we promote the lofty ideal that we are all created equal, then it follows that we all have the ability and the right to learn. For at least the last several decades of U.S. history, advancement in economic and social status has been closely tied to obtaining a college degree. Efforts towards education are not only about social status, however. The idea that the act of learning at any level is an end in itself is a signature understanding of our best teachers. Day upon day, educators at less celebrated institutions throughout the U.S. are motivated by this understanding to keep up efforts towards engaging many students with little chance for any resulting academic success. These educators know that building up even a few students among many is a noble achievement.
A job in the trades remains an option for those of us with college degrees. Although some of the IQ-limited students Dr. Murray identifies may be better served by starting vocational training earlier, I bet most would prefer the chance to at least explore their academic potential. As several European and East-Asian countries now demonstrate, trying to determine too early whether a given student should be directed to vocational training rather than college prep tends to stunt creativity in the national economy. Here in the U.S., late bloomers are often welcome in both the laboratory and the board room.
I tend to think that many intelligent students are indeed being left behind. If the U.S. ever does reach a status in which most of our wasted efforts in education can be clearly attributed to students of low intelligence, we can then look to Dr. Murrayís observations for some guidance.
Steven Weseman
Arlington Heights, Illinois