Please stuff Charles Murray in a public school locker

Posted by , Jan 18, 2007 11:52AM

Does anyone see the irony in Chuck's argument...he is living proof that intelligence-deficient people can succeed with a modicum of knowledge!

Posted by Thataway Cafe, Jan 18, 2007 11:58AM

Charles Murray is right. Most people are pretty dumb. And thanks to our suicidal immigration policy (where we are importing the dregs of the Third World), multiculturalism, and a dumbed-down educational establishment, the IQ level of Americans is dropping precipitously. It's not a way for the US to remain competitive...

When I started my career at JPMorgan Chase following my MBA, I was invited along with several other new analysts to meet with senior management and some management consultants to discuss education. As young, newly-minted MBAs, we were asked our opinion of the US education system.

When it was my turn, I said, in brief, that there were too many colleges and universities in the US. I argued that people have different skills and talents and not everyone should be expected to go to college. I said in fact most kids should probably attend techincal or vocational institutions, more in keeping with their IQ, their potential abilities, and the needs of the US economy.

Needless to say, it was the only original argument in the room. The other analysts essentially made the tired old argument that all we need to do is spend more money on education.

It's the genes, stupid!

Posted by , Jan 18, 2007 1:17PM

I usually don't respond to such inanity but I felt compelled...

If you start setting the bar lower for society, they will most undoubtedly fall even shorter! Granted not everyone needs to learn linear algebra in college but everyone should have the opportunity to develop their mind and gain the tools to survive in the cutthroat (bullshit) "American Dream" story. Fewer opportunities and fewer colleges only negatively affects the lower classes, which despite what you might think is not entirely made up of sub 90 IQs. That would only further exacerbate the social gaps in this country. Learning a vocation after high school (you at least think people should go to high school right???) limits your ability to adapt or change when inevitably that job disappears, becomes mechanized...etc. Just look at cash traders!

Vocational training is not a bad thing but there is a time and a place for it. There is plenty of time to focus one's education, but taking the emphasis off higher education all together is the wrong choice! An education teaches you how to think beyond what you know, which is important if you are a plumber or if you are one of those people that are too unqualified or unintelligent to get a good job after college so you are forced to get an MBA and work at JPM.

Saying that people born with a low IQ shouldn't push themselves beyond what they are perhaps capable of is a sure way for this country to go to shit...and don't confuse little education with a low IQ!!! Just because the "dregs of the third world" as you say might not be able to debate the validity of Eudemonism, it does not mean that "it's in the genes"!!!

Posted by Thataway Cafe, Jan 18, 2007 1:53PM

It's not about setting the bar lower. It's about using different bars. Equality is a myth. Assuming people are the same, or are capable of being the same given equal backgrounds, treatment, opportunities, whatever, is a foolish mistake. Our country will suffer for it.

The glut of colleges and universities is a waste of resources and primarily serves the selfish interests of the higher education establishment. It cheapens the value of a university education. Not only that, but it gives dim kids, and the lower classes, false hopes. These are precisely the kids who should attend vocational schools.

When jobs disappear or become mechanized, the solution isn't to fall back on what you learned in English Lit. 101, but to re-train. That's what vocational schools are all about. Training vs. education. We don't need, nor can we achieve, a nation where every kid is an erudite liberal arts grad, finance whiz kid, or cutting edge scientist.

Incidentally, what I would like to see is such vocational schools work more closely with industry (or vice versa), partly in order for these schools to be up-to-date on the latest skills and programs needed by US firms.

Part of the problem, of course, is that US high schools, devoted as they are to egalitarianism and multiculturalism, do a very poor job of weeding out students to begin with. The result being, colleges are forced to do the job high schools used to do.

If people born with a low IQ are indeed capable of pushing themselves (if they are 'late bloomers'), they will rise within their environment.

Importing enormous numbers of Third World peasants in the belief that all we need to do is grind them through public schools and a public university, is a disaster that will have repercussions far more serious than what we are discussing here.

Posted by , Jan 18, 2007 2:37PM

Once again, you are confusing your arguments...unless you actually think being a "third world peasant" means you are genetically incapable of learning. Let's just stick to the IQ and education argument...

I know not all people are the same and I will be the first to admit that the majority of society has delusions of adequacy, but an education helps everyone achieve more. Taking some one out of school and teaching them nothing more than a vocation is limiting their capabilities more than nature already has. Everyone should have the opportunity to gain a higher education (if they want, I am not arguing for mandatory college or anything) and that is not for the "selfish interests of higher education establishments", but for each person to develop their respective talents (IQ is not the only skill in America). While it can be argued that some one with a lower IQ will probably achieve less, who's to say that his or her kids will have the same IQ. To treat an entire class as a manual labor employment center is simply wrong.

I agree that there shouldn't be a stigma against vocational schools and that for many they are a valid option, but I cannot agree that universities are a "waste of resources." Also, the idea that you can simply "re-train" if your job disappears is a fantasy...if you have nothing to fall back on when your job disappears you will be facing some extremely tough outcomes.

If only 15% of the population is really suited for college (as Chuck proposed and you seem to agree), than that means we are going to have 85% (yeah I did that math in my head) of the population with very few transferable skills and little to no creativity. That is not a way for a society to advance or to prosper.

Posted by anonymous, Jan 18, 2007 3:32PM

My plumber makes $115/hour. He is his own boss. He primarily works within a few miles of his house. He took vocational classes in high school and afterwards, and it's served him well. My guess is that he's smart enough to struggle through college, but he's quite lucky that he didn't make that mistake. With the baggage of a college degree, he's probably see himself as above manual labor. He'd probably be doing something unfulfilling like working in a call center or insurance processing center for $15-25/hour -- that is, if his job hadn't moved to Bangalore yet. Vocational training has given him good steady employment, a solid paycheck, and freedom from outsourcing. That beats what many of us college grads have!

Posted by Thataway Cafe, Jan 18, 2007 3:32PM

I think being a Third World peasant from a low IQ country who is imported to America does not benefit the US.

You're confusing education with training. Yes, education benfits some people. But training benefits more. Remember: most people are pretty dumb, to put it bluntly (but accurately).

You're assuming that everyone has limitless capabilities. In the real world, most do not. In which case vocational training makes the most sense.

Everyone should NOT have the opportunity to experience higher education. That's the whole point. There are those (the majority?) for whom it would be a big mistake in terms of money and time wasted, not to mention the costs to society and the economy. I'm referring to low-IQ and lower class individuals, as well as high-IQ people who simply opt out.

Looking back, only 15% of the population has ever really been suited for college. Nothing much has changed there. So why are you so worried? Man (including Americans) was not created equal. Acquiring transferable skills and fostering creativity have never depended on higher education. This is an anecdote, I know, but I know several highly-skilled, highly-creative business professionals who never went to college, but do extremely well for themselves. Some of them (gulp!) even work on Wall Street.

Posted by Bulging Bracket, Jan 18, 2007 4:26PM

High School used to be a real education, rather than simply a baby sitting service. Now everyone passes, even if they can't read or write.

Nearly every job doesn't need a college degree, but rather the mind that can do the work at a good college. Engineering, Medicine, and Science are useful degrees, everything else is a total waste. The Ivies are almost all useless, since nearly everyone gets a useless BA with hardly any logic or math.

What is really useful in business is a 1500 range SAT (old style), work ethic, and the ability to perform without sleep. College is a waste of everyone's time unless you are taking a hard science en route to a Phd or Engineering with the goal of working in a licensed field. The English system with direct entry to Law and Medicine from HS is far superior.

Posted by Steven Henderson, Jan 18, 2007 4:43PM

Your comments about Ayn Rand "Chucky ventures into Ayn Rand-ville and starts musing about how dumb kids should be satisfied with manual labor" shows that you don't really understand Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. Ayn Rand never held that one's moral status is dependent upon one's intelligence. Someone that isn't as intelligent as another can be equally moral if they live there life selfishly. I would refer the writer and the readers to Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged for further clarification.

Posted by Steven Henderson, Jan 18, 2007 4:47PM

i'm a loser.

Posted by , Jan 18, 2007 5:07PM

Lower case anonymous: I am not arguing against vocational schools. They are important and it obviously worked for your plumber. I just think (and it is true I don't have anything concrete to back myself up) that it is a riskier choice and to take funding away from public schools and universities, and thereby limiting access to them, you are taking the option for a different path out of the hands of society.

TC: I am not confusing education with training nor am I assuming everyone has limitless capabilities...but I do believe most people have capabilities and I think it is beneficial to society to not only allow people the opportunity to cultivate them but also to promote it. And I too know a lot of (gulp!) wall street employees with little to no formal education, but they got their jobs 10 years ago and a lot of them are stuck in areas that are rapidly becoming commoditized and will soon be SOL.

BB: Well maybe if the school system had more money, then High School wouldn't be a "baby sitting service" which is the whole point! I agree that every job doesn't need a college degree but there is a lot more that goes into the mind than class work. I got a "total waste" of a degree from a "useless" Ivy League school and I definitely came out a more mature, more intelligent person. Now I am trading derivatives and I know I would not be doing as good of a job if I only knew what I learned in High School.

Really what I am worried about is that self-important people with all the opportunities in the world are going to use the excuse of "50% of all people are below average intelligence" to take money out of the school systems and send this country into a tailspin.

Posted by Thataway Cafe, Jan 18, 2007 5:38PM

Anon., you're right, people do have capabilities. The capablities of some people extend no further than the kitchen or mail route, while others' encompass science and engineering. Again, people are different. EQUALITY IS A MYTH.

We spend far too money on education anyway. There are schools being built in my county, to pay for which my taxes will go up, purely to educate the children of Third world immigrants and illegals. It's unncessary. These people and their kids are superfluous. So taking money out of the school system would be a brilliant idea. I'd rather save my money for my own children, rather than wasting it on the kids of foreigners.

Posted by , Jan 18, 2007 6:07PM

TC: I can't figure out whether you are (best case) xenophobic or (more likely) just plain racist. I have never said everyone has equal intelligence or equal capabilities, but giving every one equal opportunities is one of the founding ideals of this country.

Posted by jean valjean, Jan 18, 2007 9:03PM

"Third World peasants"? are you freakin royalty? you fuckin retard. jpm you work for is worse than a used car dealership...re immi policies you should know the gov saves 20k permits each year for masters degree n above. guess what? they fill about 7k of those. maybe iq's>100 dont want to share the same air with your highness....

Posted by softwareNerd, Jan 18, 2007 9:22PM

Murray's argument boils down to: with the current state of education, only a certain percentage of people will actually learn something of value. Therefore, the rest should give up on education.

He ought to know that the current state of education is not a metaphysical fact of reality that we must simply accept. There is enough proof to show that even slight improvements can be extremely effective.

In a world moving further away from manual labor and closer to knowledge based wealth-creation, Murray's advice is exactly the opposite of what we need.

(As for Hahn's Ayn Rand reference, he obviously does not understand what Miss Rand said.)

Posted by Impressed, Jan 18, 2007 11:50PM

Thataway - listen dipshit - have you read the constitution? Equality is a myth? Arguments like that and you call yourself educated? I think you're probably in the wrong country. I hope you save up enough for your kids' rehab. from the coke habit they will develop at boarding school.

Posted by Thataway Cafe, Jan 19, 2007 11:36AM

Impressed -- You truly are the mother of all fuckwits. Listen, you motherfucker, just because a piece of paper has some writing on it, DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE !

Posted by Thataway Cafe, Jan 19, 2007 11:43AM

"In a world moving further away from manual labor and closer to knowledge based wealth-creation..."

Really? Is that what is happening to the world? Is that why manufacturing in Asia is booming? Is that why the US is importing MILLIONS of third world immigrants to wash dishes, work construction sites, and mow lawns?

The value of a university education is vastly overrated, as the overwhelming majority of people today and in the future will be employed in tasks requiring little more than a high school education.

You sound just like Andy Kessler.

Posted by softwareNerd, Jan 19, 2007 3:52PM

Thataway Cafe - Asia and other immigrants are not proof of a world turning toward more manual labor. Just the opposite. A Chinese factory worker works in an environment where the ratio of capital to labor is higher thann it was when he worked on his farm a decade ago. As the Chinese, Mexicans and Indians grow rich, each of them will continue to work with an increasing amount of capital, until their economies too grow to the highly service-oriented ones of the west.

A service oriented economy does not imply that the economy produces less agricultural output than a naufacturing economy, nor less agricultural output than an agricultural economy. Quite the contrary. The US, for instance, is huge in agriculture, none of the so-called agricultural economies of the world come close. However, the US is so good at agriculture, that relatively few people turn out all that produce.

The same with manufacture. As economies get richer via a constant increase in wealth and capital, manufacturing becomes more and more automated, and requires ever less people to produce ever more output.

In a steady state, where countries other than the US are also rich and modern, it's entirely possible that the proportion of manufacturing jobs in the US will be closer to world-wide numbers. Still, that does not change the argument in any way.

As for college not being necessary, well that's completely different. I'll grant that many degrees in many colleges are a waste of time. That too does not change the basic fact of knowledge being a primary driver of wealth-creation.

Posted by Same Anonymous from yesterday, Jan 19, 2007 4:52PM

I just didn't have the energy today. I am really happy though that I was not the only one in support of education. I was starting to think yesterday that I was alone.

Posted by Thataway Cafe, Jan 19, 2007 4:55PM

Well, you're assuming all jobs requiring manual labor are in factory-related jobs. Not so. There will always be a demand for people not only to make things, but also to clean things, to maintain things, to cook things, etc.. It's not going away. The US itself is proof. As the US (and other developed countries) has moved towards a service economy, it is still importing MILLIONS of immigrants as unskilled manual laborers (and not just in factories). The same story is plain to see in Europe as well.

But all of this serves to bolster my previous point, that the overwhelming majority of people today and in the future will be working in jobs requiring little more than a high school education. I mean, you don't need a university degree to work in retail sales, flip hamburgers, interpret x-rays, or work in a call centre.

Posted by slinkybender, Jan 19, 2007 7:04PM

If they can't afford an Ivy League education, what good are they anyway?

Posted by James Madison, Jan 22, 2007 1:26AM

I like how the title of this posting reveals its stupidity: let's beat up Charles Murray 'cause he's different! Nice job-- if you can't win by argument, win by stuffing him into a locker.

Posted by Anonymous, Jan 22, 2007 8:56AM

Yes, brilliant interpretation of the title - you are clearly in the top 15% Murray was talking about in his extremely cogent, non-fringe argument that we should immediately put into practice. Please proceed to your "ruling class" position in life. I kind of liked the title, and I'm sure it would have had a slight normalizing effect on Murray.

Posted by jolly good show, what, Jan 22, 2007 11:59AM

"Anonymous" - You sound as if you have a pretty big chip on your shoulder. You're obviously not happy with your lot in life. But, tough shit. Go cry us a fucking river. Stop bringing down standards with your whining. It's angry, low-IQ, cry-baby plebs like you who need to be stuffed into lockers.