Our society spent many decades showing a strong correlation between higher education and earning potential. Then the gov allowed anyone to borrow money to attend college. Easy money and the belief that it would yield high paying careers made college very expensive. Now the average debt level of graduates is hobbling them for their financial future. Higher education is going to change. It still conducted the same way it's been for hundreds of years. This industry is ripe for change.
Radnally And college should change. Why should elementary algebra or calculus be taught in a huge class room. Make a standardized course and put it on line. Have the student show up with photo ID to take the test. Try to take these courses, standardize them , put them on line and let people take them at a decreased cost.
+ the partying,frats, sports and wasting time instead of really wanting to learn + going for degrees that aren't in demand or have a low pay (literature vs engineering)
The strong correlation in higher education and earning potential used to be as simple as... The more intelligent you are, the more likely you are to go to college, and therefore those going to college would make more, but it was primarily because they were more intelligent to begin with. Now, that is still true to a degree, but now, college grads make more money largely because people without college degrees can no longer as easily get jobs that really don't require a college degree, because there is such an over saturation of college graduates that employers can afford to be selective and look for college grads for relatively simple jobs such as a bartender or secretary. Long story short, college should really only be attended by a small minority of high school graduates, and only the most academically rigorous and intellectually stimulating fields should be studied. Everything else can be best learned on the job.
I have worked in schools for 26 years. He is 100% true. We treat every kid as if they are above average overachievers if only the teachers would do a better job. It not true, kids should be put in classes by ability groups, and all students should have IQ tests to index learning expectations against. There's nothing wrong with being below average, its just a measure and it doesn't go away if we ignore it. There needs to be a huge push on vocational trainings in schools.
The public school system is treated like a funnel into the mind of students and that its the fault of the school and teachers when a student performs poorly
@@timothykeith1367 We actually know that 80% of our success or failure is based on the kid. His ability to learn and his willingness to learn. We know when we have a kid in class with a 60 IQ he cannot learn 5th grade math. We know, we just don't say it to the public.
No IQ tests are a limited flawed measure of general intellectual ability....it measures certain abstract patterns that isn't inclusive of of all the other numerous aspects of intelligence and offers a relative figure rather than absolute measure. As scientists have said it's pretty tricky to define intellignce so we should get rid of que tests as a measure of intellect and instead found a better measurement of intelligence.
There was a time when getting a degree was extremely hard. It was a true struggle and achievement to get the degree. I went through engineering and it was very difficult. They thought nothing of failing 50% of the class. Today you can get a BA degree by just warming a chair. Those degrees cost a lot of student loan debt but are not worth the paper they are printed on.
It's an interesting moment in education Tech is obviously part of every industry now, but it's just now hitting higher education ecosystem. Tech realized that they have all this new specialized work... but since it's new and specialized, they couldn't hire people with a degree in what they need. So what do they look for? Well... a computer science degree ain't bad... but computers change so much so fast. If you've got a degree from 10 years ago, you might as well be a 13 year old who kinda likes computers. Your degree does not in any way indicate that your knowledge is up-to-date. So what we see in tech now... obviously the college route is still there... but plenty of employers prefer you get certifications from a 3rd party that say you know your stuff. So why get the degree? Well... the guys who go the certificate route enter the work force 3 years earlier and get 3 years work experience with zero student debt. I'd say... it's going by the wayside. Well this is being noticed by anyone hiring STEM. Or rather... anyone hiring *TE* The S**M is a different situation alltogether. Why is it so different? That would be because the UNIVERSITIES control those industries. If you want to major in science or mathematics, your employment is going to be in the very same University ecosystem. You might do 2 years as slave labor... I mean grad students. Almost all scientific research is done through the University... ESPECIALLY the big clients. And IF you decide to work outside that ecosystem, good for you... now you have to somehow compete with that ecosystem and their slave labor. They have way more graduates than jobs, so you've got 100 people chasing every job... supply up, demand down, salary down. Anything in science and Math simply isn't monetizable outside of University, and the University KNOWS IT... and the University pushes out those degrees like crazy helping secure their industrial supremacy. But what about Engineering? Well... Tech is very alive and changing. Science and math are... well... you could use a 100 year old textbook and not be THAT far behind. Engineering is kind of in-between. Physics hasn't changed, but materials have. Blueprints are out, software is in. But there's one thing that all 4 letters in STEM have in common. It's very easy to test one's knowledge and certify their competence. And that's what 3rd parties are doing for tech... but is Engineering next? Maybe. Engineers are very no-nonsense people, and I guarantee... if there were 3rd party testing options to get engineering certificates, Engineers would use them... and employers would honor them. That's the main difference between S**M and *TE*. The *TE* can find jobs in the private sector outside of the university slave-trade. I think Engineering will eventually move to a certificate system, and I think that will KILL the University business model.
A degree does not indicate intelligence. To graduate from high school and/or get a degree from a college, requires that students memorized useless information; then regurgitate it on some "standardized" test. "You don't need a slip of paper from some degree mill to tell you that you are educated".--Joseph Farrell. I majored in Accounting in college. What I learned that was of real value, I could have learned in 3 months, instead of wasting 4 years of my life.
100% correct. How ironic that so call "college educated" persons do not know the difference between education and training. The majority of college degrees are not "education", they are "training". Training is undertaken in the hopes of gaining a specific skill. Generally this skill will make you more employable. Some training can be for manual skills, such as; plumbing or carpentry. Other training can be more mental, such as; accounting, marketing and computer science. Education is undertaken in the hopes of furthering your individual knowledge and developing your intellect. While a highly educated person is often more employable, education is not about getting a job.
I studied Human Services. And I decided not to go on after finishing my associates. Most of the classes were repetitive. It appeared that they were just presenting the same information over and over with a different presenter. I love psychology and studying the mind and how groups of people or individuals tick, but I learn more from my own curiosity than I ever did in college. The most useful classes that I took were the core classes like math, English, and a few of my psychology classes. The sad thing is, my company wont promote me without that bachelors degree, so I may have to go back anyway. It is quite the conundrum. I just wish I would have went to college for a more concrete degree in science or math. But, live and learn.
Gruffy: Accounting degrees turn mediocrities into dutiful drudges. There are clever accountants, who help wealthy individuals and large firms reduce their income tax liabilities. The uni where I taught business for 20 years recently introduced a 2 year master's. Applicants need only have a BA in something. That 2 year masters is intended to to enable the holder to pass the CPA exam.
He is completely on the mark. My college has "open admissions" which means anyone can go. As a result half (or more)of my classmates had no business being in college. Many of them could not write or read. Because the school had no honors classes we were all stuck in the same classes. While it was nice to have class work done by midsemester I didn't learn much. I spoke out against my college about doing this and I was banned for life.
1 factor that I total agree is that certain subjects matters are far more difficult and demand a great deal of mastery and hard work. For instance, a bachelors in physical chemistry not only requires a great deal of mathematics(partial differential equations & beyond), physics, labratory skills, but a good understanding of organic, inorganic, biochemistry, & analytical chemistry.This is the norm for all physical sciences. Then again this is the reason why there is a decline in such degrees.
Very true and it's doing nothing but hurting all of us. Back when my parents were in their 20's only some kids attended school because most jobs just required a high school diploma.
First one needs to distinguish the difference between education and training. The majority of college degrees are not "education", they are "training". Training is undertaken in the hopes of gaining a specific skill. Generally this skill will make you more employable. Some training can be for manual skills, such as; plumbing or carpentry. Other training can be more mental, such as; accounting, marketing and computer science. Education is undertaken in the hopes of furthering your individual knowledge and developing your intellect. While a highly educated person is often more employable, education is not about getting a job.
But it seems like we do it backwards. We want to treat the esoteric, the education/philosophy of it all, before we're masters of anything real. You probably need 4 years of rigorous training so you can do something, and let advanced degrees give you the "education" side of those things. Theory before practice is not for most.
I am not sure that your terminology is accepted everywhere but I agree a distinction like that ought to be made. To have an educated population will benefit the every society. To know something about everything will make you more robust in the face of life in general. To know something about medicine, biology, chemistry and so on is a benefit even if you are not going to work as a physician. To know something about the political system and different ideologies will make you more capable of having a sane opinion on who to vote for so on and so forth. The value of education regardless of your resume in a job application is undercommunicated in discussions like these. It is not all about getting a well paid job. It is about enlightenment as well. Maybe a more sharp distiction between the two terms should be made so that the career expectations are lowered to realistic standards among students.
In fact, his PhD in Poli Sci included heavy course work in quantitative methods. Being an economics major, 70% of the skills I bring to my work place are quantitative. As far as I am concerned, Dr. Murray might as well be an economist.
I agree with this, I have a BS in Comp Sci and almost to a master's but other than the piece of paper I don't feel well equipped for what the industry is actually asking for. Not sure if that makes the industry in the wrong for not wanting to train anyone, or schools fraudulent for promising and promoting that their programs will get you hired into well paying industries, but it doesn't work, and just puts a person in debt. Buying into the system produced only regret for me and many others who have shared similar experiences. But what is the alternative? How do you break into the job market then? Its a troubling problem, with real consequences and steep costs. America really has a huge problem here, and should abandoned funding college its not helping people really get work, and is putting a ton of students into massive debt that they only took on because they were desperate to succeed, but haven't obtained the high paying careers that they were promised with which to pay back those debts. To the proposition in the video that the issue is meeting the intellectual demands of college: That isn't the issue, I am carrying a 4.0 in my masters, and graduated with a 3.6 GPA on my bachelor's. The issue I see more often is that increasingly what is being taught in the colleges isn't what is needed and in demand in the industry, so it renders the education irrelevant to employers.
Can't believe none of the posts have mentioned how this video is sped up about 1.1x normal speed. You can tell by Murray's slightly up-pitched voice, but he is also speaking much faster than he's usual drawl.
That the Bachelors Degree has less value now than 50 years ago is a matter of supply v. demand, I'm guessing. The more of something that there is, the less value it holds in the market.
Frankincensed Having not said otherwise I am not inclined to respond to the notion that I had said this was uncomplicated. The more there is of anything the less value it will hold in the market, yes?
HIgher education is corrupt beyond compare. Not as bad as for-profit, but no major improvement. It's all about butts in the seats and retention. For example, a prof at SC State has a econ class working at about a 55 average. Yeah, they're all flunking. That can't happen. He needs his job and the president needs to keep getting that $70 million / yr from the state to pay all that faculty, staff, and maint. So he curves the grades, gets the retention and some students even get A's and B's. He even gets an award for being a "great teacher." Any questions? And that is higher education, my friend. Even Derek Bok, former pres of Harvard realises that colleges are REALLY missing the mark across the board.
I'm not sure if I agree with this. Education raises the intellectual capacity of the nation and arguably the level of ideas and ingenuity that they bring onto the marketplace in ways that are dificult to quantify. I do agree that the system of BAs may be rigid, but saying that the solution is less people taking them seems arbitrary to me.
The unpopularity of an issue does not say anything about whether it is right or wrong. As long as the schools were built with private money and run independently, me and my libertarian friends will indeed support them. Smaller schools in smaller districts tend to have better outcomes than larger ones in larger districts. To the extent that new schools decrease average school size in your county, and run themselves independently, I agree that this will improve educ. outcomes.
Murray obtained a B.A. in history from Harvard in 1965 and a Ph.D. in political science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1974.[3] Where would Murray be without his degrees? Walmart greeter. You also go to college to network and get to know people who will help you get a job. 80% of the jobs are found through networking. Next time you get sick go to a home schooler or a streets smart quack to get well.
He says that middle and lower class kids don't have time or money for a BA. I was middle class, and I got a BA without any debt. It is government that decides who can go to college by setting policies like education funding.
My understanding is that these IQ studies compensate for culture or national residence. You are right that until about 40 years ago, blacks were horribly discriminated against in education and many other areas. My understanding about these studies is that they compensate for socio-economic class, as well as education, so that these effects are controlled for. But as you say, the differences in the averages are slight. I'm opposed to racism. People should be judged as individuals.
I'd dispute Dr. Murray's contention that everyone needs "post-secondary education" if only because the acquisition of those learning skills required to gain the knowledge and abilities necessary for most Americans to enjoy lives of real value (social, economic, and personal) can and should be completed by the time they finish their adolescent years. What's preventing this from happening? The educationist Mafia. Read the late Richard Mitchell's "The Graves of Academe" (1981) for more on this.
Dr. Murray is perfectly reasonable. The bottom line is that High School encourages students to do one thing after High School: Go to college. I do not regret having gone to College, but I do regret going to College because I had believed it was the only way to make a successful career. I wished that my High School Counselor and teachers had suggested alternatives for me and other students. My friends and my sister do agree on this: we were not mature enough to make such an important choice.
Youth need coaching and aptitude tests to help guide them into a career choice. At 18 most of us aren't mature enough to know what kind of work that we would be good at and enjoy. Some lucky millionaires randomly fell into an opportunity in which they were able to thrive, but unfortunately that doesn't happen often. Charles Munger as a youth worked in Warren Buffett's grandfather's grocery story and where is he today? He is a billionaire Vice Chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, he would have been successful regardless, but not as successful as he became. We shouldn't count on luck and chance in career selection, but that is largely how we do it.
It seems to me that freesk8 and Murray aren't trying to deny the importance of education. A high school education is obviously important, the quality of which does need improvement. However, not all paths in life require bachelor's degree to be successful. A secondary education fit to the needs of the individual would be more beneficial than a blanket statement like "A bachelor's degree is required to be successful". I believe that is the point both are trying to make (and I agree).
Money and jobs are not the only reasons kids go to college. There is also the consumption side, i.e., just the desire to learn, In addition colleges provide an important social environment for connections and growth. These last one is important in rich countries where kids cannot just go and start helping their parents on the farm, or join some predetermined caste..
Murray and his coauthor and collabotors are not mistaken about the average IQ of nations but somehow everyone is missing the very obvious conclusions 1. All humans are born with a physiological brain capability/capacity for developing IQ 2. IQ is induced or instilled into individuals in the first 5 years of life The obvious explanation for IQ spread in siblings; for high IQ’s occurring in populations with low IQ average; for decreasing average IQ’s in some western races IF ONE DOESN’T TRIGGER A CHILD’s THINKING AND REASONING MECHANISMS CONTINUALLY AND DILIGENTLY IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS OF LIFE THESE ABILITIES WILL NEVER DEVELOP TAKE CARE OF YOUR CHILDREN AND SPEND TIME WITH THEM STIMULATING THEIR MINDS!!!!!
@@jackmythos299 Sounds like you are coping and can't to terms with reality, no white person is having a " mutual " relationship with Jews or any other race living in our nation, the White race is going extinct because of your so called " mutualism " GTFO
The net effect of school choice is that schools must improve in order to attract students. They must contain their costs in order to attract parents willing to spend their money there. I would give a needs-based voucher only to the poor, equivalent to the average private school tuition. This would improve education for the poor, and allow the best among them more chance to rise within the economic strata. Government school monopolies tend to keep the poor down.
"Half of the kids have below average ability". That is only true if your distribution is symmetric (for example, gaussian). Which is _not_ obvious at all. Especially since there is no scientific measure of 'ability'.
@PANDAjoe2x @PANDAjoe2x Yes and exactly what percentage of students with B.A.s in history and P.H.Ds in Political Philosophy are anywhere near as successful as Murray?
College is a BUSINESS and when you put a price tag on something that is a necessity for human survival in the modern world among other things we suffer. Capitalism cares not for the people but for the top 2% that rule everything. I had to drop out of college two quarters ago because of the large amount of debt that I was amassing and the realization that I could learn everything on my own. I also realized that I would have to give up my dreams of becoming a director if i stayed in debt school
We might need something like remote home school for adults with professional mentors - without the debt burden. I never understood why remote classroom college was as costly as it is, seems like it should be much less costly to provide education in that remote model, but many of these remote colleges are pretty spendy.
The problem is multifaceted. One idea is that freshman aren't advised properly in selecting the right degree path for themselves. Secondly - to piggyback off of my first claim - universities provide such a narrow scope of material in a student's degree path. Case in point, in any degree path, there ought to be plenty of philosophy; which there isn't. Tax courses, contemporary history courses, macro/micro economics, epistemology, sociology courses should all be required material (amongst others) before saying that an undergraduate has truly received an "education." The bachelors ought to be a more roughly cut stone, where a wider breadth of knowledge has been studied with the strict intention to make the student more worldly as opposed to sending out a 23 year old who only knows accounting but won't last at your firm because they never had a chance to see that it wasn't what they wanted to do in the first place. Another problem I find in the system of higher education in the United States is that we push the continuous classroom model so that students never get time off to explore the world/themselves. There's so little time for introspection after high-school. Most if not all students will have already chosen their degree path for University whilst IN high school. And then they're spat into the machine again once THIRTEEN years of their lives have just been successfully spent climbing out of K-12. A year off, or some kind of "Preliminary Study" as an introduction to adulthood/commitment to a University needs to be proposed. All this and more. 🍻
If you go to college please pick a major that's worth going into debt. I once read in the newspaper of a young lady having trouble finding a job with her new degree...in women's studies. As Dr Murray stated, perhaps she wasn't really smart enough to go to college.
Notice that it is only SLIGHTLY greater in that case. a question and a statement for you. (1) Do the studies that you are talking about which compare the IQ of Asians and Caucasians compare the IQ of Caucasian subjects in more than one country and (2) The fact remains that there are EXTREME social issues entangled in the matter in a Black/ white comparison. As I have said, the system had literally functioned to keep Blacks uneducated for centuries, these are test results 40 years later.
Honor classes are also a joke. I am an honor student at my local community college. At the beginning of my economics' course, the professor blabbered about how the material would "challenge" us and "change our outlook on life." Of course the material did neither; consequently, I found myself day-dreaming during his blathering lectures. I guess it challenged us to endure boredom to lengths never endured before. Also, his unwarranted detours into global warming made me want to slap him. Teach econ
On the iq test he refers to they could only test 140 countries. The rest of the countries they made up results. Japan scored higer on the verbal portion of the iq test not the visual spatial version. Because they don't look the part( quiet and submissive) they said that the results showed the opposite of what the test said. The chinese and the irish scored low on these iq despite being genetically close to england and japanese. This bc the test results had nothing to do with genes instead it had to do with bias. They changed the results of the chinese and irish. to be more similar to the japanese. The submissive nature culture of the japanese does not come from genes it comes from religion. Buddhism. The chinese japanese and most asians countries have a submissive non confrontational nature. They overlooked this. A lot of asians countries are more bc of communism( thailand)
@TheMedievalMan - You're going after this dork with a machete when the appropriate tool is a butterknife. Might even be one of those plastic disposable butterknives from the grab-it bin at Wendy's.
My question is, what about learning the piano, or a foreign language, or a poem? What do you mean "we have known this", and who cares what Johnson said?
Well, the Progressives, especially those whose livelihoods are either directly or indirectly connected to the university, would say that a university education is a collective good, that stands to raise the quality of our society. However, what is missing in this broad stroke assertion, is the fact that college is not so much a place to gain wisdom and experience, but more so, a place to spend a lot of money and time preparing for absolutely nothing.
The man claims that the working class underachieve simply and only because they commit more crime, sleep around more, and are more lazy then the middle class. I could list the faults with that argument, but I'd be typing all night. If you know of any of his papers or books that actually state anything reliable and valid I'd be genuinely interested to know :) By the way, I agree with your post about degrees, the most intellegent people I know have recieced little formal education.
The only thing this speech indicates is that college courses need to be shorter and more relevant to the employment market. The only reason noone wants people to "learn on the job" is because shallow thinkers like the CATO Institute told employers it's not worth the money to do so. Well here's the consequence: People think that essential job skills and experience can come from college education, and that's just... so many different kinds of wrong. A.G.
The thing wrong with his ideology is that the thing which is wrong with education for the past 25-30 years starting from post elementary school is that courses that teach analytical and problem solving skills in addition to teaching how to organize your thoughts into coherent ways into making solutions have been dropped. Subjects like basic studies of philosophy or classic literature. Things that foster discussion on how we should or shouldn't view the world and to challenge the social mores if they obscure the truth and ask us to find the truth ourselves instead of having it dictated to us. These things were important because they taught us how we can teach ourselves. These kind of subjects were also the ones that liberal arts curriculum would stress on which they no longer do. School has become focused on teaching how to find a certain career and then learning how to do that job. Usually a pretty fairly basic job. Someone who has been taught how to order his/her thoughts into analyzing a problem or problems then ascertain solutions for those problems is much more apt to applying that under any circumstance. We can see example of how this is lacking in today's education with the explosion of young people on college campuses who give more importance to what they "feel" than to what is verifiable truth and fact. Then when confronted with undeniable facts their only counter is insults and hurling expletives. College was supposed to be a way to expose yourself to knowledge and view points so you could enrich yourself to being informed so that you could be capable in making rational decisions or opinions on different ways of thinking with the clearest view possible on what it may be. The only way to do that is when you analyze things from all sides taking into account the pros and cons then basing a conclusion. If only one side is looked at how can the truth be ascertained? How can we claim that view is correct if its never challenged? This is where our colleges and universities stand and the fact that the agenda driven professors that teach at them endorse this is not only shameful but it's dangerous as we are starting to see with these movements to suppress free speech on college campuses. Movements that are often times either initiated or backed by the professors of the college who oppose those who wish to speak with a different view. This is beyond disgraceful. We need to get back to having an education that teaches our children to think an not just to do.
I teach calculus, not spelling. And give me a break. People usually criticise spelling mistakes if they have no substantive arguments. School spending is not correlated with outcomes. Choice would help the poor by improving inner city school quality. Murray's point is that gifted students are more likely to bring social benefits. He is right about this, too, but none of this constitutes eugenics. Your slander remains just that. Look up Godwin's Law, dude. You brought up Hitler.
English universities have some bizarre ideas about all this...downright "un American". Here are a few of them 1At 16 and wishing eventually to read for a BA in English...in order to get a "place" even.you need to have passed the national exams in English called GCSE..general certificates of Education. A kid will have taken about 7 such exams in a variety f subjecte. Then you begin your Advanced Level course and for the next 2 years (16 to 18) you study only 3 subjects...one if which will of course be English..plus 2 others. At the end, at 18, you take these great scary "A" level exams then you apply to the university of your choice. You really need at least a "B" in your English A level to have much of a hope pf being offered place to "Read" English..... 2At uni they of course expect you arrive already knowing a hell of a lot of English.And a hell of a lot about the processes of scholarship. On the basic English BA course you do 3 years of just English...lots and lots..nothing else..no compulsory gender studies, or "electives.,Just EnglishThe level is pretty formidable and you have to struggle, no question Compare this with a US college where you can "Major" in English doing a fraction of that amount of work. Almost a fraud...as Charles Murray is suggesting.
Don't...go....thinking that armed forces training is good or that civilian employers are interested in armed forces experience. There are some niches in which a narrow band of veterans are in demand.
A problem not addressed is that 18 is not a great age to go to college. Lets face it. All we can do when we are 18 is think about sex. What if our govt gave great educational scholarships to people who were thirty years old and had kept their nose clean? They are much more likely to thrive in academics. So you get a whole crop of well-trained thirty five year olds every year. Thumbs up if you agree.
I think many youth already know at age 12 what career they should pursue, but they probably had mentoring or examples to follow, but some youth know what they would be good at doing (and also enjoy doing it). I've heard people say that they will let their kids choose their own religion etc, you can be sure that those families don't provide any credible mentoring in career choices.
This. We as a culture put way too much value on intelligence at the expense of other abilities. This unhealthy fixation is what poisons so many debates on social issues.
I don't think that is what he is arguing. It might be useful to have a less narrow view of education. You can obtain an education without it being in pursuit of the paper called a BA, which indicates little about what you actually know in many cases. Murray believes that each individual student should be allowed to shape his education around his/her intellectual abilities. No BA does not mean no education and no rise in intellectual capacity.
The average is merely an abstraction and does not justify treating any individual differently. To do otherwise would be racism. But we need to study the averages as Murray has done, in order to solve social problems. What causes the average score differences? If we don't study them and acknowledge them, we will never make progress on this important problem. Some social conservatives misunderstood Murray as justifying their racism, but that is not what you get from a careful reading.
What is the justification for studying averages and coming to definitive conclusions about race, if the averages you study occur within a society that has strategically operated to severely handicap a particular ethnic group intellectually for it's entire three century stay within that country save about 40 years? The fact that he would not immediately suspect social causes as playing the real role until such time as VERY rigorous evidence to the contrary was provided makes me suspect racism.
My Boss has a BA and doesn't know jack shit about the inner workings of the company. No one can go to him for any help. He refers employees under him to others. We have workers who didn't go to college knowing more about the business than he does.And he's a terrible people person... He's getting on the job training just like everyone he hires. The majority of the time he's sitting at a computer,drinking coffee. He earns better than $100,000 per!
What you have cited above does not say anything about eugenics. Murray points out that black students don't tend to perform as well as whites, and whites on average don't perform as well as Asians. But he never attempts to determine whether nature or nurture is the cause. Is it racist to take some measurements and report what you find? If so, then many social scientists are racists. But racism is not science. Racism is judging an individual based on skin color instead of character.
"intellegence has something to do with your genetic makeup." Actually, the latest scientific research suggests that intelligence is about 70 percent genetic.
Yeah and the other 30% is environment of the baby, while in the womb or being underfed or physically harmed If you think school makes you intelligent, you are coping
The Bell Curve did not make the argument you are making here. It is a statistical fact, as the book argues, that there are group IQ differences that have significant impact on social policy when keeping socioeconomic status and other variables constant. At the individual level, IQ loses its value significantly. And ones race does not inherently imply IQ level x. Thousands of years of evolution produced certain group differences. Its not "lifting oneself up," its acknowledged fact.
Both Wilbur and Orville Wright (and their sister) were able to write well and neatly though they were not highly educated. I don't think that our education system teaches people well at all. While we can learn a great deal, we often don't. While we can read well, often we merely watch TV.
@deltapunk21 The young don't vote, so you really can't blame left wing educational institutions for left-wing leaders. Also, the fact that professors are liberal now, or were 30 years ago, doesn't really explain why they should continue to be liberal forever. With so many people getting degrees now, it seems unlikely that people with a BA are more than 60% liberal, so why would all of the professors be liberals?
The only way to fix this is by establishing firm baselines for proficiency and achievement. I think it is really funny to have a goal of getting all the kids testing and performing “above average”! Think about it.
The bulk of property taxes is consumed by the local public schools, the raising property taxes make it more difficult for young people to be able to afford a home. Less costly public schools would benefit society - not so expensive buildings, sports facilities and extras beyond the classroom fundamentals, its all very costly today. Pay the teachers more, hire fewer administrators.
How many of those degrees were in the hard subjects(not poetry and english)? How many blacks choose the easy professors at Harvard(not the upper level physics teachers)? Also we give blacks affirmitive action. What about the massive grants that we give to dead beat poor people?
Via state socialism and dictatorship? Not worth it, my friend. It is a fundamental principle of fairness that dictates that the role of government must be to be equal and fair in the defense of our individual rights. That means the rights of the stupid are equal to those of the smart. We are all to be treated equally by the law, even if there are gross disparities in private society. Government may not take from one class in order to give to another, especially not to the smarter.
@@Ankinos I'm a teacher, not a researcher, but have been fed some literature on this strategy. Of course, everyone's IQ -- as an aggregate -- seems to increase each generation due to massive group factors.
John Stewart ah, the IQ increases across a population over generations. I thought you were attempting to suggest there were techniques to increase an individual’s IQ. The phenomenon you’re alluding to is known as the ‘Flynn Effect’.
John Stewart I’ve completed some reading on the literature associated with programs such as ‘Head Start’. If you’re curious, here’s a very simple summation of the findings: • Analysis @ 3 yrs of age = Very promising • Analysis @ 5 yrs of age = Stagnation of progress • Analysis @ 18 yrs of age = Absolutley no influence There’s was an approximately 1.0 (marginally less than) correlation with IQ at age 6 and age 18. Another study suggested there was no influence on academic performance amongst ‘Head Start children’ versus ‘regular children’ upon reaching 6th grade. If you’ve come across any literature suggesting the contrary, I’m quite interested to read more!
I just got my MBA and half of the other students couldn't spell correctly. Even our group discussions felt like talking with high school students.
Our society spent many decades showing a strong correlation between higher education and earning potential. Then the gov allowed anyone to borrow money to attend college. Easy money and the belief that it would yield high paying careers made college very expensive. Now the average debt level of graduates is hobbling them for their financial future. Higher education is going to change. It still conducted the same way it's been for hundreds of years. This industry is ripe for change.
Radnally And college should change. Why should elementary algebra or calculus be taught in a huge class room. Make a standardized course and put it on line. Have the student show up with photo ID to take the test. Try to take these courses, standardize them , put them on line and let people take them at a decreased cost.
Amen brother!
+ the partying,frats, sports and wasting time instead of really wanting to learn + going for degrees that aren't in demand or have a low pay (literature vs engineering)
The strong correlation in higher education and earning potential used to be as simple as... The more intelligent you are, the more likely you are to go to college, and therefore those going to college would make more, but it was primarily because they were more intelligent to begin with.
Now, that is still true to a degree, but now, college grads make more money largely because people without college degrees can no longer as easily get jobs that really don't require a college degree, because there is such an over saturation of college graduates that employers can afford to be selective and look for college grads for relatively simple jobs such as a bartender or secretary. Long story short, college should really only be attended by a small minority of high school graduates, and only the most academically rigorous and intellectually stimulating fields should be studied. Everything else can be best learned on the job.
I have worked in schools for 26 years. He is 100% true. We treat every kid as if they are above average overachievers if only the teachers would do a better job. It not true, kids should be put in classes by ability groups, and all students should have IQ tests to index learning expectations against. There's nothing wrong with being below average, its just a measure and it doesn't go away if we ignore it. There needs to be a huge push on vocational trainings in schools.
The public school system is treated like a funnel into the mind of students and that its the fault of the school and teachers when a student performs poorly
@@timothykeith1367 We actually know that 80% of our success or failure is based on the kid. His ability to learn and his willingness to learn. We know when we have a kid in class with a 60 IQ he cannot learn 5th grade math. We know, we just don't say it to the public.
No IQ tests are a limited flawed measure of general intellectual ability....it measures certain abstract patterns that isn't inclusive of of all the other numerous aspects of intelligence and offers a relative figure rather than absolute measure. As scientists have said it's pretty tricky to define intellignce so we should get rid of que tests as a measure of intellect and instead found a better measurement of intelligence.
There was a time when getting a degree was extremely hard. It was a true struggle and achievement to get the degree. I went through engineering and it was very difficult. They thought nothing of failing 50% of the class.
Today you can get a BA degree by just warming a chair. Those degrees cost a lot of student loan debt but are not worth the paper they are printed on.
Because it's about the loan, not about the education
It's an interesting moment in education
Tech is obviously part of every industry now, but it's just now hitting higher education ecosystem.
Tech realized that they have all this new specialized work... but since it's new and specialized, they couldn't hire people with a degree in what they need. So what do they look for? Well... a computer science degree ain't bad... but computers change so much so fast. If you've got a degree from 10 years ago, you might as well be a 13 year old who kinda likes computers. Your degree does not in any way indicate that your knowledge is up-to-date.
So what we see in tech now... obviously the college route is still there... but plenty of employers prefer you get certifications from a 3rd party that say you know your stuff. So why get the degree? Well... the guys who go the certificate route enter the work force 3 years earlier and get 3 years work experience with zero student debt. I'd say... it's going by the wayside.
Well this is being noticed by anyone hiring STEM. Or rather... anyone hiring *TE*
The S**M is a different situation alltogether.
Why is it so different? That would be because the UNIVERSITIES control those industries.
If you want to major in science or mathematics, your employment is going to be in the very same University ecosystem. You might do 2 years as slave labor... I mean grad students. Almost all scientific research is done through the University... ESPECIALLY the big clients. And IF you decide to work outside that ecosystem, good for you... now you have to somehow compete with that ecosystem and their slave labor. They have way more graduates than jobs, so you've got 100 people chasing every job... supply up, demand down, salary down. Anything in science and Math simply isn't monetizable outside of University, and the University KNOWS IT... and the University pushes out those degrees like crazy helping secure their industrial supremacy.
But what about Engineering?
Well... Tech is very alive and changing. Science and math are... well... you could use a 100 year old textbook and not be THAT far behind.
Engineering is kind of in-between. Physics hasn't changed, but materials have. Blueprints are out, software is in.
But there's one thing that all 4 letters in STEM have in common.
It's very easy to test one's knowledge and certify their competence. And that's what 3rd parties are doing for tech... but is Engineering next? Maybe.
Engineers are very no-nonsense people, and I guarantee... if there were 3rd party testing options to get engineering certificates, Engineers would use them... and employers would honor them.
That's the main difference between S**M and *TE*. The *TE* can find jobs in the private sector outside of the university slave-trade.
I think Engineering will eventually move to a certificate system, and I think that will KILL the University business model.
Where can I find this full talk?
A degree does not indicate intelligence. To graduate from high school and/or get a degree from a college, requires that students memorized useless information; then regurgitate it on some "standardized" test. "You don't need a slip of paper from some degree mill to tell you that you are educated".--Joseph Farrell. I majored in Accounting in college. What I learned that was of real value, I could have learned in 3 months, instead of wasting 4 years of my life.
100% correct. How ironic that so call "college educated" persons do not know the difference between education and training. The majority of college degrees are not "education", they are "training".
Training is undertaken in the hopes of gaining a specific skill. Generally this skill will make you more employable. Some training can be for manual skills, such as; plumbing or carpentry. Other training can be more mental, such as; accounting, marketing and computer science.
Education is undertaken in the hopes of furthering your individual knowledge and developing your intellect. While a highly educated person is often more employable, education is not about getting a job.
I studied Human Services. And I decided not to go on after finishing my associates. Most of the classes were repetitive. It appeared that they were just presenting the same information over and over with a different presenter. I love psychology and studying the mind and how groups of people or individuals tick, but I learn more from my own curiosity than I ever did in college. The most useful classes that I took were the core classes like math, English, and a few of my psychology classes. The sad thing is, my company wont promote me without that bachelors degree, so I may have to go back anyway. It is quite the conundrum. I just wish I would have went to college for a more concrete degree in science or math. But, live and learn.
Gruffy: Accounting degrees turn mediocrities into dutiful drudges. There are clever accountants, who help wealthy individuals and large firms reduce their income tax liabilities. The uni where I taught business for 20 years recently introduced a 2 year master's. Applicants need only have a BA in something. That 2 year masters is intended to to enable the holder to pass the CPA exam.
Try to get a phD in physics or math. Not everyone can do it.
He is completely on the mark. My college has "open admissions" which means anyone can go. As a result half (or more)of my classmates had no business being in college. Many of them could not write or read. Because the school had no honors classes we were all stuck in the same classes. While it was nice to have class work done by midsemester I didn't learn much.
I spoke out against my college about doing this and I was banned for life.
WHAT THE
1 factor that I total agree is that certain subjects matters are far more difficult and demand a great deal of mastery and hard work. For instance, a bachelors in physical chemistry not only requires a great deal of mathematics(partial differential equations & beyond), physics, labratory skills, but a good understanding of organic, inorganic, biochemistry, & analytical chemistry.This is the norm for all physical sciences. Then again this is the reason why there is a decline in such degrees.
He's fucking spot on!
Many college athletes are at the level of 4th grade. That is their limit. They should be taught to be excellent 4th grade readers, but they are not.
If they’re at the 4th grade level they should never be allowed in an institution of higher learning no matter how gifted of an athlete they are.
Black people
Very true and it's doing nothing but hurting all of us. Back when my parents were in their 20's only some kids attended school because most jobs just required a high school diploma.
He has a point that IQ is like athletic ability, you need a certain amount of it for certain professions
Charles Murray's voice sounds kind of like Microsoft Sam.
First one needs to distinguish the difference between education and training. The majority of college degrees are not "education", they are "training".
Training is undertaken in the hopes of gaining a specific skill. Generally this skill will make you more employable. Some training can be for manual skills, such as; plumbing or carpentry. Other training can be more mental, such as; accounting, marketing and computer science.
Education is undertaken in the hopes of furthering your individual knowledge and developing your intellect. While a highly educated person is often more employable, education is not about getting a job.
But it seems like we do it backwards. We want to treat the esoteric, the education/philosophy of it all, before we're masters of anything real. You probably need 4 years of rigorous training so you can do something, and let advanced degrees give you the "education" side of those things. Theory before practice is not for most.
but no one cares to pay for the poor's education or mentor /advise these 18yos..
I am not sure that your terminology is accepted everywhere but I agree a distinction like that ought to be made. To have an educated population will benefit the every society. To know something about everything will make you more robust in the face of life in general. To know something about medicine, biology, chemistry and so on is a benefit even if you are not going to work as a physician. To know something about the political system and different ideologies will make you more capable of having a sane opinion on who to vote for so on and so forth. The value of education regardless of your resume in a job application is undercommunicated in discussions like these. It is not all about getting a well paid job. It is about enlightenment as well. Maybe a more sharp distiction between the two terms should be made so that the career expectations are lowered to realistic standards among students.
I am a huge fan of Charles. This was 2009. Now, in 2020 Charles never talks about our smart kids anymore.
In fact, his PhD in Poli Sci included heavy course work in quantitative methods. Being an economics major, 70% of the skills I bring to my work place are quantitative. As far as I am concerned, Dr. Murray might as well be an economist.
I agree with this, I have a BS in Comp Sci and almost to a master's but other than the piece of paper I don't feel well equipped for what the industry is actually asking for. Not sure if that makes the industry in the wrong for not wanting to train anyone, or schools fraudulent for promising and promoting that their programs will get you hired into well paying industries, but it doesn't work, and just puts a person in debt. Buying into the system produced only regret for me and many others who have shared similar experiences. But what is the alternative? How do you break into the job market then? Its a troubling problem, with real consequences and steep costs. America really has a huge problem here, and should abandoned funding college its not helping people really get work, and is putting a ton of students into massive debt that they only took on because they were desperate to succeed, but haven't obtained the high paying careers that they were promised with which to pay back those debts.
To the proposition in the video that the issue is meeting the intellectual demands of college: That isn't the issue, I am carrying a 4.0 in my masters, and graduated with a 3.6 GPA on my bachelor's. The issue I see more often is that increasingly what is being taught in the colleges isn't what is needed and in demand in the industry, so it renders the education irrelevant to employers.
Can't believe none of the posts have mentioned how this video is sped up about 1.1x normal speed. You can tell by Murray's slightly up-pitched voice, but he is also speaking much faster than he's usual drawl.
That the Bachelors Degree has less value now than 50 years ago is a matter of supply v. demand, I'm guessing. The more of something that there is, the less value it holds in the market.
+Richard Davis Yes, there is a term for this: degree inflation.
+Richard Davis Much more complicated than that.
Frankincensed
Having not said otherwise I am not inclined to respond to the notion that I had said this was uncomplicated. The more there is of anything the less value it will hold in the market, yes?
4 year degrees as a percentage of the adult population were in the mid 20s in the 1980s and I don't think it's changed much since then.
HIgher education is corrupt beyond compare. Not as bad as for-profit, but no major improvement. It's all about butts in the seats and retention. For example, a prof at SC State has a econ class working at about a 55 average. Yeah, they're all flunking. That can't happen. He needs his job and the president needs to keep getting that $70 million / yr from the state to pay all that faculty, staff, and maint. So he curves the grades, gets the retention and some students even get A's and B's. He even gets an award for being a "great teacher." Any questions? And that is higher education, my friend. Even Derek Bok, former pres of Harvard realises that colleges are REALLY missing the mark across the board.
I'm not sure if I agree with this. Education raises the intellectual capacity of the nation and arguably the level of ideas and ingenuity that they bring onto the marketplace in ways that are dificult to quantify. I do agree that the system of BAs may be rigid, but saying that the solution is less people taking them seems arbitrary to me.
"Education raises the intellectual capacity of the nation and arguably the level of ideas and ingenuity" -- there is no evidence of this.
He might be a eugenicist, but his thoughts on education are reasonable
What's wrong with eugenicists? Would you prefer everyone be shorter, uglier, dumber, and browner?
@@chadliterutherford9198 Hi racist pig.
The unpopularity of an issue does not say anything about whether it is right or wrong.
As long as the schools were built with private money and run independently, me and my libertarian friends will indeed support them.
Smaller schools in smaller districts tend to have better outcomes than larger ones in larger districts. To the extent that new schools decrease average school size in your county, and run themselves independently, I agree that this will improve educ. outcomes.
I opened a few textbooks I had on a random page and indeed they were quite complex
Murray obtained a B.A. in history from Harvard in 1965 and a Ph.D. in political science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1974.[3]
Where would Murray be without his degrees? Walmart greeter.
You also go to college to network and get to know people who will help you get a job. 80% of the jobs are found through networking.
Next time you get sick go to a home schooler or a streets smart quack to get well.
Murray did not say that a bachelors degree has no merit. Know yourself and what you might be good at before investing in specific training.
Employers should have an entrance examination for their company. Wonscore or Wonderlic? Plus one that is industry specific.
He says that middle and lower class kids don't have time or money for a BA. I was middle class, and I got a BA without any debt. It is government that decides who can go to college by setting policies like education funding.
Dead on, as usual.
My understanding is that these IQ studies compensate for culture or national residence.
You are right that until about 40 years ago, blacks were horribly discriminated against in education and many other areas.
My understanding about these studies is that they compensate for socio-economic class, as well as education, so that these effects are controlled for.
But as you say, the differences in the averages are slight.
I'm opposed to racism. People should be judged as individuals.
I'd dispute Dr. Murray's contention that everyone needs "post-secondary education" if only because the acquisition of those learning skills required to gain the knowledge and abilities necessary for most Americans to enjoy lives of real value (social, economic, and personal) can and should be completed by the time they finish their adolescent years.
What's preventing this from happening? The educationist Mafia. Read the late Richard Mitchell's "The Graves of Academe" (1981) for more on this.
Wait. The Underground Grammarian.. ?
Do you know anyone without a BA who knows who Cato is?
Republican institute.
I think he means Cato the Roman.
The inclusion of Blacks who simply had the money to move to suburbia hardly introduces a sufficient control for an experiment of this nature.
First of all let me just say I agree
BUT second of all I want to KNOW what is the alternative??????????????????????
Dr. Murray is perfectly reasonable. The bottom line is that High School encourages students to do one thing after High School: Go to college. I do not regret having gone to College, but I do regret going to College because I had believed it was the only way to make a successful career. I wished that my High School Counselor and teachers had suggested alternatives for me and other students. My friends and my sister do agree on this: we were not mature enough to make such an important choice.
Youth need coaching and aptitude tests to help guide them into a career choice. At 18 most of us aren't mature enough to know what kind of work that we would be good at and enjoy. Some lucky millionaires randomly fell into an opportunity in which they were able to thrive, but unfortunately that doesn't happen often. Charles Munger as a youth worked in Warren Buffett's grandfather's grocery story and where is he today? He is a billionaire Vice Chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, he would have been successful regardless, but not as successful as he became. We shouldn't count on luck and chance in career selection, but that is largely how we do it.
It seems to me that freesk8 and Murray aren't trying to deny the importance of education. A high school education is obviously important, the quality of which does need improvement. However, not all paths in life require bachelor's degree to be successful.
A secondary education fit to the needs of the individual would be more beneficial than a blanket statement like "A bachelor's degree is required to be successful". I believe that is the point both are trying to make (and I agree).
Undergraduate education has little to do with learning a lucrative skill. It's all about meeting chicks!
Money and jobs are not the only reasons kids go to college. There is also the consumption side, i.e., just the desire to learn, In addition colleges provide an important social environment for connections and growth. These last one is important in rich countries where kids cannot just go and start helping their parents on the farm, or join some predetermined caste..
I learn a lot by watching online videos
@TheMedievalMan - You, my friend, have an entirely too goddam vivid way with words.
Accurate as all hell, too.
Nothing about '"necklacing" yet?
Pay attention. I did not say Africa. I said the black parts. Egypt is not black, mostly.
Murray and his coauthor and collabotors are not mistaken about the average IQ of nations but somehow everyone is missing the very obvious conclusions
1. All humans are born with a physiological brain capability/capacity for developing IQ
2. IQ is induced or instilled into individuals in the first 5 years of life
The obvious explanation for IQ spread in siblings; for high IQ’s occurring in populations with low IQ average; for decreasing average IQ’s in some western races
IF ONE DOESN’T TRIGGER A CHILD’s THINKING AND REASONING MECHANISMS CONTINUALLY AND DILIGENTLY IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS OF LIFE THESE ABILITIES WILL NEVER DEVELOP
TAKE CARE OF YOUR CHILDREN AND SPEND TIME WITH THEM STIMULATING THEIR MINDS!!!!!
I disagree with this dude on most stuff;.but his views on learning are spot on
you will come around on the rest
@@robertwoodpa6463 nah bro I’ve been in the ancap world before; much prefer mutualism nowadays
@@jackmythos299 Sounds like you are coping and can't to terms with reality, no white person is having a " mutual " relationship with Jews or any other race living in our nation, the White race is going extinct because of your so called " mutualism " GTFO
@@chadliterutherford9198 looks like you got offended by a differing opinion lmaooo
Shoutout to charles murray
It's quite possible that they are one in the same for this distribution.
The net effect of school choice is that schools must improve in order to attract students. They must contain their costs in order to attract parents willing to spend their money there.
I would give a needs-based voucher only to the poor, equivalent to the average private school tuition.
This would improve education for the poor, and allow the best among them more chance to rise within the economic strata.
Government school monopolies tend to keep the poor down.
"Half of the kids have below average ability".
That is only true if your distribution is symmetric (for example, gaussian). Which is _not_ obvious at all. Especially since there is no scientific measure of 'ability'.
So true.
@PANDAjoe2x
@PANDAjoe2x
Yes and exactly what percentage of students with B.A.s in history and P.H.Ds in Political Philosophy are anywhere near as successful as Murray?
College is a BUSINESS and when you put a price tag on something that is a necessity for human survival in the modern world among other things we suffer. Capitalism cares not for the people but for the top 2% that rule everything. I had to drop out of college two quarters ago because of the large amount of debt that I was amassing and the realization that I could learn everything on my own. I also realized that I would have to give up my dreams of becoming a director if i stayed in debt school
We might need something like remote home school for adults with professional mentors - without the debt burden. I never understood why remote classroom college was as costly as it is, seems like it should be much less costly to provide education in that remote model, but many of these remote colleges are pretty spendy.
Interesting point that the BA takes more time than professional degrees.
The problem is multifaceted. One idea is that freshman aren't advised properly in selecting the right degree path for themselves. Secondly - to piggyback off of my first claim - universities provide such a narrow scope of material in a student's degree path. Case in point, in any degree path, there ought to be plenty of philosophy; which there isn't. Tax courses, contemporary history courses, macro/micro economics, epistemology, sociology courses should all be required material (amongst others) before saying that an undergraduate has truly received an "education." The bachelors ought to be a more roughly cut stone, where a wider breadth of knowledge has been studied with the strict intention to make the student more worldly as opposed to sending out a 23 year old who only knows accounting but won't last at your firm because they never had a chance to see that it wasn't what they wanted to do in the first place. Another problem I find in the system of higher education in the United States is that we push the continuous classroom model so that students never get time off to explore the world/themselves. There's so little time for introspection after high-school. Most if not all students will have already chosen their degree path for University whilst IN high school. And then they're spat into the machine again once THIRTEEN years of their lives have just been successfully spent climbing out of K-12. A year off, or some kind of "Preliminary Study" as an introduction to adulthood/commitment to a University needs to be proposed. All this and more. 🍻
If you go to college please pick a major that's worth going into debt.
I once read in the newspaper of a young lady having trouble finding a job with her new degree...in women's studies. As Dr Murray stated, perhaps she wasn't really smart enough to go to college.
care to add a little substantiation to your claim?
"Nominal versus de facto", applies to college degrees.
Notice that it is only SLIGHTLY greater in that case.
a question and a statement for you.
(1) Do the studies that you are talking about which compare the IQ of Asians and Caucasians compare the IQ of Caucasian subjects in more than one country and (2) The fact remains that there are EXTREME social issues entangled in the matter in a Black/ white comparison. As I have said, the system had literally functioned to keep Blacks uneducated for centuries, these are test results 40 years later.
Honor classes are also a joke. I am an honor student at my local community college. At the beginning of my economics' course, the professor blabbered about how the material would "challenge" us and "change our outlook on life." Of course the material did neither; consequently, I found myself day-dreaming during his blathering lectures. I guess it challenged us to endure boredom to lengths never endured before. Also, his unwarranted detours into global warming made me want to slap him. Teach econ
Keep an open mind. Perhaps you could find a connection between global warming and economics. Be a lifelong learner.
On the iq test he refers to they could only test 140 countries. The rest of the countries they made up results. Japan scored higer on the verbal portion of the iq test not the visual spatial version. Because they don't look the part( quiet and submissive) they said that the results showed the opposite of what the test said. The chinese and the irish scored low on these iq despite being genetically close to england and japanese. This bc the test results had nothing to do with genes instead it had to do with bias. They changed the results of the chinese and irish. to be more similar to the japanese. The submissive nature culture of the japanese does not come from genes it comes from religion. Buddhism. The chinese japanese and most asians countries have a submissive non confrontational nature. They overlooked this. A lot of asians countries are more bc of communism( thailand)
@TheMedievalMan - You're going after this dork with a machete when the appropriate tool is a butterknife.
Might even be one of those plastic disposable butterknives from the grab-it bin at Wendy's.
Samuel Johnson said that "assign, study, recite" methods don' t work. We have known that for 200 years! Any questions?
My question is, what about learning the piano, or a foreign language, or a poem? What do you mean "we have known this", and who cares what Johnson said?
Well, the Progressives, especially those whose livelihoods are either directly or indirectly connected to the university, would say that a university education is a collective good, that stands to raise the quality of our society. However, what is missing in this broad stroke assertion, is the fact that college is not so much a place to gain wisdom and experience, but more so, a place to spend a lot of money and time preparing for absolutely nothing.
@AndroidPolitician He pointed out a fact which many people dont want to admit to.
The man claims that the working class underachieve simply and only because they commit more crime, sleep around more, and are more lazy then the middle class. I could list the faults with that argument, but I'd be typing all night.
If you know of any of his papers or books that actually state anything reliable and valid I'd be genuinely interested to know :)
By the way, I agree with your post about degrees, the most intellegent people I know have recieced little formal education.
2:34 May not be always true. e.g. if entire class has same score, e.g. 60, Average would be 60. That means nobody is below average.
+330MillionGods You need a class in statistics.
+Nicholas Cornor do explain.
You're right, but your hypothetical is highly unlikely.
Columbia College in Chicago.
The only thing this speech indicates is that college courses need to be shorter and more relevant to the employment market. The only reason noone wants people to "learn on the job" is because shallow thinkers like the CATO Institute told employers it's not worth the money to do so. Well here's the consequence: People think that essential job skills and experience can come from college education, and that's just... so many different kinds of wrong.
A.G.
Not quite, I'm studying towards a BSc, after which a hope to obtain a masters and work towards a PhD. I do so hope that meets with your standards :)
Did you obtain a Ph.D.?
The thing wrong with his ideology is that the thing which is wrong with education for the past 25-30 years starting from post elementary school is that courses that teach analytical and problem solving skills in addition to teaching how to organize your thoughts into coherent ways into making solutions have been dropped. Subjects like basic studies of philosophy or classic literature. Things that foster discussion on how we should or shouldn't view the world and to challenge the social mores if they obscure the truth and ask us to find the truth ourselves instead of having it dictated to us. These things were important because they taught us how we can teach ourselves. These kind of subjects were also the ones that liberal arts curriculum would stress on which they no longer do. School has become focused on teaching how to find a certain career and then learning how to do that job. Usually a pretty fairly basic job. Someone who has been taught how to order his/her thoughts into analyzing a problem or problems then ascertain solutions for those problems is much more apt to applying that under any circumstance. We can see example of how this is lacking in today's education with the explosion of young people on college campuses who give more importance to what they "feel" than to what is verifiable truth and fact. Then when confronted with undeniable facts their only counter is insults and hurling expletives. College was supposed to be a way to expose yourself to knowledge and view points so you could enrich yourself to being informed so that you could be capable in making rational decisions or opinions on different ways of thinking with the clearest view possible on what it may be. The only way to do that is when you analyze things from all sides taking into account the pros and cons then basing a conclusion. If only one side is looked at how can the truth be ascertained? How can we claim that view is correct if its never challenged? This is where our colleges and universities stand and the fact that the agenda driven professors that teach at them endorse this is not only shameful but it's dangerous as we are starting to see with these movements to suppress free speech on college campuses. Movements that are often times either initiated or backed by the professors of the college who oppose those who wish to speak with a different view. This is beyond disgraceful. We need to get back to having an education that teaches our children to think an not just to do.
I'm not going to read your comment until you add paragraph breaks.
I teach calculus, not spelling.
And give me a break. People usually criticise spelling mistakes if they have no substantive arguments.
School spending is not correlated with outcomes. Choice would help the poor by improving inner city school quality.
Murray's point is that gifted students are more likely to bring social benefits. He is right about this, too, but none of this constitutes eugenics. Your slander remains just that.
Look up Godwin's Law, dude. You brought up Hitler.
@prayfertrey My //real// education at university, was how to go up to my eyeballs into DEBT.
English universities have some bizarre ideas about all this...downright "un American". Here are a few of them
1At 16 and wishing eventually to read for a BA in English...in order to get a "place" even.you need to have passed the national exams in English called GCSE..general certificates of Education. A kid will have taken about 7 such exams in a variety f subjecte. Then you begin your Advanced Level course and for the next 2 years (16 to 18) you study only 3 subjects...one if which will of course be English..plus 2 others. At the end, at 18, you take these great scary "A" level exams then you apply to the university of your choice. You really need at least a "B" in your English A level to have much of a hope pf being offered place to "Read" English.....
2At uni they of course expect you arrive already knowing a hell of a lot of English.And a hell of a lot about the processes of scholarship. On the basic English BA course you do 3 years of just English...lots and lots..nothing else..no compulsory gender studies, or "electives.,Just EnglishThe level is pretty formidable and you have to struggle, no question
Compare this with a US college where you can "Major" in English doing a fraction of that amount of work. Almost a fraud...as Charles Murray is suggesting.
He is 100% right.
Go take the Air Force, or similar, job tests. They have scores of good jobs they will train you to do.
Don't...go....thinking that armed forces training is good or that civilian employers are interested in armed forces experience. There are some niches in which a narrow band of veterans are in demand.
A problem not addressed is that 18 is not a great age to go to college. Lets face it. All we can do when we are 18 is think about sex. What if our govt gave great educational scholarships to people who were thirty years old and had kept their nose clean? They are much more likely to thrive in academics. So you get a whole crop of well-trained thirty five year olds every year. Thumbs up if you agree.
I think many youth already know at age 12 what career they should pursue, but they probably had mentoring or examples to follow, but some youth know what they would be good at doing (and also enjoy doing it). I've heard people say that they will let their kids choose their own religion etc, you can be sure that those families don't provide any credible mentoring in career choices.
College is a waste of time but it looks good on your CV.
BA and BS are the same in this discussion, fyi.
This. We as a culture put way too much value on intelligence at the expense of other abilities. This unhealthy fixation is what poisons so many debates on social issues.
No, humans até not made by culture
I don't think that is what he is arguing. It might be useful to have a less narrow view of education. You can obtain an education without it being in pursuit of the paper called a BA, which indicates little about what you actually know in many cases. Murray believes that each individual student should be allowed to shape his education around his/her intellectual abilities. No BA does not mean no education and no rise in intellectual capacity.
The average is merely an abstraction and does not justify treating any individual differently. To do otherwise would be racism. But we need to study the averages as Murray has done, in order to solve social problems. What causes the average score differences? If we don't study them and acknowledge them, we will never make progress on this important problem.
Some social conservatives misunderstood Murray as justifying their racism, but that is not what you get from a careful reading.
Refreshing to hear in 2020.
excellent video thank you for posting it, cheers!
FIRST !!!
Wow. They were saying first 9 years ago
@@GazMatic can’t believe it 😂
What is the justification for studying averages and coming to definitive conclusions about race, if the averages you study occur within a society that has strategically operated to severely handicap a particular ethnic group intellectually for it's entire three century stay within that country save about 40 years?
The fact that he would not immediately suspect social causes as playing the real role until such time as VERY rigorous evidence to the contrary was provided makes me suspect racism.
graduate college at 22.
It's time we listen before we end up a nation of basketball players
My Boss has a BA and doesn't know jack shit about the inner workings of the company. No one can go to him for any help. He refers employees under him to others. We have workers who didn't go to college knowing more about the business than he does.And he's a terrible people person... He's getting on the job training just like everyone he hires. The majority of the time he's sitting at a computer,drinking coffee. He earns better than $100,000 per!
$100K ? Is the company hiring ?
What you have cited above does not say anything about eugenics.
Murray points out that black students don't tend to perform as well as whites, and whites on average don't perform as well as Asians. But he never attempts to determine whether nature or nurture is the cause.
Is it racist to take some measurements and report what you find? If so, then many social scientists are racists.
But racism is not science. Racism is judging an individual based on skin color instead of character.
"intellegence has something to do with your genetic makeup."
Actually, the latest scientific research suggests that intelligence is about 70 percent genetic.
Yeah and the other 30% is environment of the baby, while in the womb or being underfed or physically harmed
If you think school makes you intelligent, you are coping
How many of them got affirmitive action?
The Bell Curve did not make the argument you are making here. It is a statistical fact, as the book argues, that there are group IQ differences that have significant impact on social policy when keeping socioeconomic status and other variables constant. At the individual level, IQ loses its value significantly. And ones race does not inherently imply IQ level x. Thousands of years of evolution produced certain group differences. Its not "lifting oneself up," its acknowledged fact.
sorry but a BA in Lesbian Dance Theory is functionally worthless and you will be stocking shelves at Target
So Tawana and Tyrone are smarter, simply because they grew up poor and out of wedlock.
Both Wilbur and Orville Wright (and their sister) were able to write well and neatly though they were not highly educated. I don't think that our education system teaches people well at all. While we can learn a great deal, we often don't. While we can read well, often we merely watch TV.
@deltapunk21 The young don't vote, so you really can't blame left wing educational institutions for left-wing leaders.
Also, the fact that professors are liberal now, or were 30 years ago, doesn't really explain why they should continue to be liberal forever. With so many people getting degrees now, it seems unlikely that people with a BA are more than 60% liberal, so why would all of the professors be liberals?
The only way to fix this is by establishing firm baselines for proficiency and achievement.
I think it is really funny to have a goal of getting all the kids testing and performing “above average”!
Think about it.
Anyone who has seen "Waiting For Superman" should see this clip. The current educational mentality is just a waste of taxpayer's money.
The bulk of property taxes is consumed by the local public schools, the raising property taxes make it more difficult for young people to be able to afford a home. Less costly public schools would benefit society - not so expensive buildings, sports facilities and extras beyond the classroom fundamentals, its all very costly today. Pay the teachers more, hire fewer administrators.
How many of those degrees were in the hard subjects(not poetry and english)? How many blacks choose the easy professors at Harvard(not the upper level physics teachers)? Also we give blacks affirmitive action. What about the massive grants that we give to dead beat poor people?
3:56 Haha, what??!! Try to tell a puritanical america they dont need to push themselves into a wall until they're dead from stress? Seriously? LOL
More Godwin's Law.
Via state socialism and dictatorship?
Not worth it, my friend.
It is a fundamental principle of fairness that dictates that the role of government must be to be equal and fair in the defense of our individual rights. That means the rights of the stupid are equal to those of the smart. We are all to be treated equally by the law, even if there are gross disparities in private society.
Government may not take from one class in order to give to another, especially not to the smarter.
Murray is really good.
I love "The Bell Curve" and "Human Accomplishment."
Great Video!
I'm a high school math teacher.
Private school, of course!
freesk8 thank you for letting me know about “Human Accomplishment”.
ruclips.net/video/UBc7qBS1Ujo/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/GgZFGgJlAsk/видео.html
Please tell me you don't teach your kids lies.
What is the Cato Institutes Agenda?
Well, its a libertarian think tank founded by the Kochs.
So its motivations are quite plain.
@AutumnAlmonds Fedex driver ftw
Don't we throw out much of what he says if we admit that IQ can be increased?
Admit IQ can be increased?
@@Ankinos I'm a teacher, not a researcher, but have been fed some literature on this strategy. Of course, everyone's IQ -- as an aggregate -- seems to increase each generation due to massive group factors.
John Stewart ah, the IQ increases across a population over generations. I thought you were attempting to suggest there were techniques to increase an individual’s IQ. The phenomenon you’re alluding to is known as the ‘Flynn Effect’.
@@Ankinos Right I have heard of the Flynn Effect. But, I believe there is also research to support ways of increasing IQ among school children.
John Stewart I’ve completed some reading on the literature associated with programs such as ‘Head Start’.
If you’re curious, here’s a very simple summation of the findings:
• Analysis @ 3 yrs of age = Very promising
• Analysis @ 5 yrs of age = Stagnation of progress
• Analysis @ 18 yrs of age = Absolutley no influence
There’s was an approximately 1.0 (marginally less than) correlation with IQ at age 6 and age 18. Another study suggested there was no influence on academic performance amongst ‘Head Start children’ versus ‘regular children’ upon reaching 6th grade.
If you’ve come across any literature suggesting the contrary, I’m quite interested to read more!