This recent paper (NYTimes coverage) notes that achievement gaps between 10th and 90th percentile income families are now larger than corresponding blackwhite gaps.
Click for larger figures. The shaded shapes indicate 1090 gaps, whereas unshaded figures indicate BW gaps.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive

▼
2012
(222)

▼
02
(20)
 Class, brains and income
 Test preparation and SAT scores
 Turing and wavefunction collapse
 Daily Show catches linsanity
 Beyond Race in Affirmative Action
 Linsanity on SNL
 Luke and Maddie revisited
 Intergenerational mobility: Bowles and Gintis and ...
 Solvay 1961
 Greg Clark: Are there ruling classes?
 History is impossible
 Jeremy Lin in historical perspective
 Class and Race
 UC Davis colloquium
 Wharton MBA compensation by industry
 Trouble ahead
 Paper Promises: Money, Debt and the new World Orde...
 Jeremy Lin represents
 Personnel Selection: horsepower matters
 Transparency in college admissions

▼
02
(20)
Labels
 physics (307)
 finance (254)
 genetics (238)
 globalization (231)
 brainpower (217)
 technology (149)
 economics (144)
 american society (141)
 photos (141)
 science (141)
 China (137)
 psychometrics (131)
 credit crisis (115)
 innovation (112)
 travel (112)
 higher education (102)
 psychology (102)
 human capital (101)
 universities (98)
 genomics (94)
 biology (89)
 iq (86)
 startups (82)
 credit crunch (78)
 cognitive science (73)
 careers (72)
 gilded age (71)
 genetic engineering (70)
 income inequality (68)
 elitism (67)
 evolution (64)
 ai (62)
 autobiographical (62)
 books (57)
 quantum mechanics (56)
 statistics (53)
 caltech (52)
 genius (52)
 social science (52)
 bgi (47)
 cdo (45)
 kids (45)
 mma (45)
 history of science (43)
 talks (43)
 derivatives (42)
 education (41)
 behavioral economics (36)
 bounded rationality (36)
 mathematics (36)
 mortgages (36)
 silicon valley (36)
 bubbles (35)
 sci fi (35)
 intellectual history (34)
 podcasts (34)
 MSU (33)
 geopolitics (33)
 machine learning (33)
 academia (32)
 harvard (32)
 literature (32)
 hedge funds (31)
 jiujitsu (29)
 ufc (29)
 expert prediction (28)
 political correctness (28)
 efficient markets (27)
 history (27)
 many worlds (27)
 physical training (27)
 quants (27)
 black holes (26)
 foo camp (26)
 sports (26)
 bjj (25)
 film (25)
 subprime (25)
 economic history (24)
 entrepreneurs (24)
 housing (24)
 taiwan (24)
 computing (22)
 google (22)
 obama (22)
 berkeley (21)
 feynman (21)
 movies (21)
 realpolitik (21)
 ultimate fighting (21)
 wall street (21)
 athletics (20)
 cds (20)
 affirmative action (19)
 race relations (19)
 von Neumann (19)
 goldman sachs (18)
 biotech (17)
 music (17)
 neuroscience (17)
 politics (17)
 scifoo (17)
 security (17)
 singularity (17)
 treasury bailout (17)
 university of oregon (17)
 freeman dyson (16)
 gender (16)
 meritocracy (16)
 nuclear weapons (16)
 blogging (15)
 cryptography (15)
 internet (15)
 japan (15)
 quantum field theory (15)
 algorithms (14)
 personality (14)
 autism (13)
 conferences (13)
 cosmology (13)
 oppenheimer (13)
 probability (13)
 venture capital (13)
 happiness (12)
 height (12)
 india (12)
 new yorker (12)
 smpy (12)
 aspergers (11)
 fitness (11)
 geeks (11)
 hedonic treadmill (11)
 malcolm gladwell (11)
 neanderthals (11)
 net worth (11)
 nobel prize (11)
 television (11)
 wwii (11)
 dna (10)
 government (10)
 les grandes ecoles (10)
 mutants (10)
 olympics (10)
 social networks (10)
 string theory (10)
 ability (9)
 chess (9)
 christmas (9)
 dating (9)
 entropy (9)
 eugene (9)
 flynn effect (9)
 football (9)
 nerds (9)
 blade runner (8)
 complexity (8)
 crossfit (8)
 italy (8)
 keynes (8)
 pca (8)
 pop culture (8)
 robot genius (8)
 usain bolt (8)
 Einstein (7)
 aig (7)
 alpha (7)
 art (7)
 ashkenazim (7)
 basketball (7)
 data mining (7)
 encryption (7)
 game theory (7)
 harvard society of fellows (7)
 hugh everett (7)
 james salter (7)
 manhattan (7)
 philip k. dick (7)
 qcd (7)
 real estate (7)
 research (7)
 turing test (7)
 alan turing (6)
 anthropic principle (6)
 determinism (6)
 energy (6)
 france (6)
 free will (6)
 fx (6)
 games (6)
 nassim taleb (6)
 nsa (6)
 philosophy of mind (6)
 privacy (6)
 pseudoscience (6)
 success (6)
 teaching (6)
 volatility (6)
 Fermi problems (5)
 Go (5)
 academia sinica (5)
 bayes (5)
 bobby fischer (5)
 climate change (5)
 econtalk (5)
 environmentalism (5)
 luck (5)
 noam chomsky (5)
 poker (5)
 prostitution (5)
 renaissance technologies (5)
 software development (5)
 tail risk (5)
 war (5)
 warren buffet (5)
 100m (4)
 Iran (4)
 Poincare (4)
 borges (4)
 cambridge uk (4)
 charles darwin (4)
 class (4)
 creativity (4)
 fake alpha (4)
 feminism (4)
 global warming (4)
 godel (4)
 hormones (4)
 humor (4)
 inequality (4)
 intellectual property (4)
 iraq war (4)
 kerviel (4)
 markets (4)
 microsoft (4)
 mixed martial arts (4)
 monsters (4)
 nonlinearity (4)
 paris (4)
 patents (4)
 perimeter institute (4)
 russia (4)
 soros (4)
 trento (4)
 vietnam war (4)
 200m (3)
 babies (3)
 bill gates (3)
 brain drain (3)
 censorship (3)
 charlie munger (3)
 chet baker (3)
 cold war (3)
 correlation (3)
 democracy (3)
 demographics (3)
 ecosystems (3)
 equity risk premium (3)
 facebook (3)
 fannie (3)
 fst (3)
 information theory (3)
 intellectual ventures (3)
 jim simons (3)
 judo (3)
 kasparov (3)
 lee kwan yew (3)
 lewontin fallacy (3)
 lhc (3)
 michael lewis (3)
 moore's law (3)
 nathan myhrvold (3)
 neal stephenson (3)
 new york times (3)
 path integrals (3)
 quantum computers (3)
 rationality (3)
 risk preference (3)
 sad but true (3)
 search (3)
 sec (3)
 sivs (3)
 society generale (3)
 solar energy (3)
 alibaba (2)
 assortative mating (2)
 bear stearns (2)
 bruce springsteen (2)
 charles babbage (2)
 cheng ting hsu (2)
 cloning (2)
 david mamet (2)
 digital books (2)
 donald mackenzie (2)
 eliot spitzer (2)
 empire (2)
 exchange rates (2)
 freddie (2)
 gaussian copula (2)
 industrial revolution (2)
 james watson (2)
 language (2)
 ltcm (2)
 magic (2)
 mating (2)
 mba (2)
 mccain (2)
 monkeys (2)
 national character (2)
 nicholas metropolis (2)
 no holds barred (2)
 offices (2)
 oligarchs (2)
 olympiads (2)
 palin (2)
 population structure (2)
 prisoner's dilemma (2)
 skidelsky (2)
 socgen (2)
 sprints (2)
 thailand (2)
 variance (2)
 abx (1)
 anathem (1)
 andrew lo (1)
 antikythera mechanism (1)
 athens (1)
 atlas shrugged (1)
 ayn rand (1)
 bay area (1)
 beats (1)
 book search (1)
 bunnie huang (1)
 car dealers (1)
 carlos slim (1)
 catastrophe bonds (1)
 cdos (1)
 ces 2008 (1)
 chance (1)
 children (1)
 cochranharpending (1)
 cpi (1)
 david x. li (1)
 dick cavett (1)
 dolomites (1)
 drugs (1)
 eharmony (1)
 epidemics (1)
 escorts (1)
 faces (1)
 fads (1)
 favorite posts (1)
 fiber optic cable (1)
 francis crick (1)
 gary brecher (1)
 gizmos (1)
 greece (1)
 greenspan (1)
 heinlein (1)
 hypocrisy (1)
 igon value (1)
 iit (1)
 inflation (1)
 information asymmetry (1)
 iphone (1)
 jack kerouac (1)
 jaynes (1)
 jfk (1)
 john dolan (1)
 john kerry (1)
 john paulson (1)
 john searle (1)
 john tierney (1)
 jonathan littell (1)
 las vegas (1)
 lawyers (1)
 lehman auction (1)
 les bienveillantes (1)
 lowell wood (1)
 lse (1)
 mcgeorge bundy (1)
 mexico (1)
 michael jackson (1)
 mickey rourke (1)
 migration (1)
 mit (1)
 money:tech (1)
 myron scholes (1)
 netwon institute (1)
 networks (1)
 newton institute (1)
 nfl (1)
 oliver stone (1)
 phil gramm (1)
 philanthropy (1)
 philip greenspun (1)
 portfolio theory (1)
 power laws (1)
 randomness (1)
 recession (1)
 sales (1)
 simulation (1)
 singapore (1)
 skype (1)
 standard deviation (1)
 star wars (1)
 starship troopers (1)
 students today (1)
 supercomputers (1)
 systemic risk (1)
 teleportation (1)
 tierney lab blog (1)
 tomonaga (1)
 twitter (1)
 tyler cowen (1)
 ussr (1)
 venice (1)
 violence (1)
 virtual meetings (1)
 virtual reality (1)
 war nerd (1)
 wealth effect (1)
14 comments:
The graphs with the actual data points on them aren't as persuasive as the nice stylized fitted curves in the NYT article. For instance, National Longitudinal Studies of Youth in 1979 and 1997, which would seem like the most apples to apples comparisons, don't show a rising correlation of parental income and achievement. . Then again, NLSY79 was already a mile above the curve, and NLSY97 merely reproduced the same size effect, with other studies catching up with it. Since "The Bell Curve" was based on NLSY79, this doesn't sound like a new trend to people who read The Bell Curve with care  Herrnstein and Murray predicted it a long time ago.
In summary, metaanalysis is hard.
Scores on measures of scholastic achievement are more susceptible to cultural influences (family environment) than scores on IQ tests proper. This was seen in the Minnesota Transracial adoption study.
I find this all very plausible  except that they seem to show too great a closing of the racial gap from what I've seen. The second graph above, for example, implies a B/W racial gap of < .7. But that's not what I've found looking at NAEP results. The gap has been shrinking, but very modestly. Similarly, the SAT Math gaps continue to fall around 1 s.d.
I would think that the big news from this article would be the dramatically shrinking racial gap  but I haven't seen any other evidence of this. The appendix doesn't help clarify things very much.
Anyone else find this surprising or have any insights on they're findings on the dramatically shrinking racial gap?
It seems clear to me that many more white, upper class Americans are interested in elite higher ed, and are willing to do what it takes to prepare their kids for the admissions battle, than 20 or 30 years ago.
On a good note:
"Amid concerns about the lagging math and science performance of American children, American adults are actually scoring higher than they did 20 years ago on a widely used index of civic scientific literacy, according to a University of Michigan researcher"
ref: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110216110857.htm
According to rushton and Jensen, the b/w gap in the U.S. has not decreased at all within the last 50 years. They even suspect that true b/w gap in the U.S. might actually be 1.5 SD instead of the 1 SD gap traditionally reported because the most disadvantaged blacks in the innercity and rural south get excluded from the national norms.
I don't think the US ever ranked high in terms of its per capita science graduation rates.
Steve  this is achievement of the children based on parents' income, right?
Have you posted anything up comparing achievement of children to achievement of parents with income as the third variable?
The question being, obviously, "is this just IQ aligning more with income over time?"
Parents contribute both genes and money to their kids ...
" to a first approximation, there is a natural competitor pool that grew together with the Asian population"
Reminds me of a joke I saw on 9gag recently:
http://x.9gag.com/gag/2392931
And:
http://9gag.com/gag/1213641
It's becoming a meme.
Jensen found big declines in WB gap with ending of Jim Crow. Since then ...
I don't think Jensen believes there were any decline in the WB gap with the ending of Jim Crow. On page 331 of "The g Factor" he writes:
"If the Flynn Effect is caused by environmental factors, it is most remarkable that a steady rise in the population's average test scores over a period of fifty or sixty years has had no effect on the mean IQ difference between blacks and whites, which has remained at about 1 SD since World War I. This era has been one of steadily diminishing disparities between blacks and whites in educational, social, and economic opportunities,. Yet the general upward secular trend in the overall population level of mental test scores has not changed the standardized difference between the mean test scores of blacks and whites."
Of course "The g Factor" was written back in 1998. Since then Jensen and Rushton found fresh evidence to also show no narrowing from 1954 to as recently as 2008:
In order to reexamine the Black–White differences over the
last 54 years, we calculate mean Black IQs from the formula
IQ=MA/CA×100, with the White mean set at 100. From the
1954 Georgia study (Osborne, 1967, p. 385), the mean IQ for
Black 8th graders (14yearolds) was 86 (12/14×100), and in
1965, 81 (11.3/14×100). From the 1966 Coleman Report, the
mean IQ for Black 12yearolds was 87 (10.4/12×100); for 15
yearolds, 84 (12.6/15×100); and for 18yearolds, 82 (14.7/
18×100). Fromthe 1975 NAEP tests, the mean IQ for Black 13
yearolds was 70 (9/13×100), and for 17yearolds, 71 (12/
17×100); from the 2008 NAEP tests, for Black 13yearolds, 85
(11/13×100); and for 17yearolds, 77 (13/17×100). These
results indicate no Black gain in either mean IQ or in educational
achievement for over 50 years.
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/2010%20Editorial%20for%20Intelligence.pdf
This is childhood performance, which tends to be less heritable (more subject to environmental influence) than adult ability. Obviously genes play a role here as well  it would be nice to see a 90/10 analysis of the parents :)
Grrrr ... because, of course, what I want to see is a study of how much "parental money alone" helps in descendants' life outcomes. Factoring the problem of "unequal at birth" into "unequal due to genes" and "unequal due to inherited resources" will tell us a lot about the nature of societal struggles to come ... The current view of SCOTUS, as voiced by Sandra Day O'Connor, copes only with the latter ... no plan yet for the former ...
SOME of the gap is/was environmental. But not all, as we have seen.
Post a Comment