October 13, 2013

Do charter schools most help whites?

An op-ed in the Buffalo News by a couple of University of Buffalo social science professors:
Charter schools have limited ability to close student achievement gap 
By Adeline Levine and Murray Levine 
... Four large-scale studies by two respected research institutes, CREDO and Mathematica, comparing charter schools with traditional public schools were reported in 2013. Major newspapers, apparently relying on the press releases, trumpeted that charter schools had shown astonishing results in closing the achievement gap between disadvantaged and not-disadvantaged students. 
Achievement tests are the major yardstick used to assess schools. CREDO conducted three national evaluation studies comparing the achievement test performance of students in charter schools with matched students in traditional public schools. Mathematica studied middle schools in the well-regarded KIPP charter school chain. All four studies compared the amount of “gain” or “growth” in achievement test scores over a school year, not the actual levels of achievement. Even with gains, the achievement level may still be well below norms for the test. 
Buried deep in its report, one CREDO study states, “Only when the annual learning gain of these student [minority/poverty] subgroups exceeds that of white or non-poverty students can progress on closing the achievement gap be made.” Charter school minority and economically disadvantaged students made some very small gains in reading and math when compared to matched controls in public schools. However, the difference in achievement growth between white non-poverty students in traditional public schools and minority/poverty students in charter schools is the most relevant comparison. 
The average gain, in standard deviation units, for minority or poverty students in charter schools when compared to their counterparts in traditional public schools, was about 0.03. However, the average gain for non-minority, non-poverty traditional public school white students was 0.80. The gain was up to 27 times the gain for poverty or minority students in charter schools. The Mathematica study of KIPP middle schools showed similar large gaps in gains. 

I haven't read these reports, so I can't attest to whether the Levines are interpreting the studies correctly.

But, this assertion is not out of line with what I've read in many, many articles on charter schools. The usual goes something like this: "Students from impoverished black and Hispanic neighborhoods were given the opportunity to participate in a lottery for a charter school funded by billionaires that hires only Ivy League grads who all work 90 hours per week. Remarkably, the students now score above state averages."

Okay, but how much would white and Asian students improve if they were given the same resources?

I don't know, but the usual assumption around the world throughout history has been that higher potential students tend to benefit more from the best teachers. For example, Plato benefited more from Socrates' socratic teaching method than did Xenophon. In turn, it's usually been assumed to be a good thing that Aristotle had Plato for a teacher. Today's consensus about K-12 schools, however is that, in effect, Socrates should have given less attention to Plato and more to Xenophon, while Plato should have found some field hands to instruct rather than Aristotle. And don't get me started on how Isaac Barrow mentored Isaac Newton instead of somebody with lower test scores. And why in the world did Dean Smith coach Michael Jordan instead of some young man shaped like George Costanza?

(The other bit of sleight of hand is that blacks and Hispanics make up a majority of public school students in some big states, and a substantial minority in many others, so comparing non-Asian minorities to the state median isn't the black and white comparison that people with outdated demographic models in their heads naturally assume.)
The CREDO Institute states: “For many charter school supporters, improving education outcomes for historically disadvantaged is the paramount goal.” While all of the groups in both kinds of schools show gains over the years, the achievement gap remains, as it always has when students from homes in poverty are compared to non-poor ones, in this country and internationally. The “paramount goal” to level the field is not being met by charter schools. 
... What excuse do charters have for the persistent achievement test gap between disadvantaged students in charter schools compared to non-disadvantaged students in the public schools? And why continue down a path where the numbers show that the national policy favoring charter schools will make the majority-minority gap worse?

Because raising all groups' test scores is a good thing?

I've long argued that the elite consensus on the proper goal for K-12 education -- to raise black and Hispanic performance by roughly one standard deviation while preventing whites and Asians from improving (which is what it would take to Close the Gap) -- is obviously wrong-headed. A fairer, more feasible goal is to try to raise every group's performance by half a standard deviation.
*******

Okay, I'm going to take a break from posting and approving comments for a few days to catch up on a whole lot of family business that has been piling up while I write.

See you in a while.

94 comments:

Anonymous said...

That darned gap again...

Matthew said...

The problem with this excessive focus on the bottom is that even if you improve their academic performance, they're still at the bottom. So you raise a bunch of kids from the 11th percentile to the 15th percentile? Whoop-de-doo. They're still barely employable, if at all.

The kids at the top are mostly being looked after by their parents, if not their school system. Those who are suffering are the ones in the middle. Even decent, middle class suburban schools find it very hard to get good science and math teachers, let alone comp sci instructors.

If you want another 5% of students to graduate from college - which would be a huge improvement of our labor force, BTW - you look towards the middle, not towards the inner city kids these billionaires all obsess about.

But billionaires mostly give their money to schools at the very bottom (because it makes them look compassionate), and to the schools at the very top that their own children and grandchildren attend.

Whiskey said...

Asking the White middle and working class to sacrifice their kids futures for the sake of racial equality is a non-starter. Particularly when the Gates kids, or Obama's kids, go to elite private schools available to only the super-powerful and super-rich.

That won't happen. Instead IMHO you will see a flight towards online homesechooling with things like the Khan Academy, Capistrano Connections, and others operating state-by-state. Only the approval requirement by State Boards of Education prevents private money like News Corp and Pearson from flowing in now (they've invested serious money into private, online education).

This is particularly true when success in life is credential-based. Which means the most competitive test scores to achieve admission and aid to the most prestigious schools.

Whiskey said...

Let me add, as incomes stagnate under high real inflation (the CPI excludes fuel and food, which are constantly marching upwards in price as the fed manufactures more money), or decline, the willingness to sacrifice for the God of Diversity is very low, among the White middle and working classes. If you believe Putnam is correct that Diversity increases distrust and decreases public participation and public good provision, that's also not surprising.

The elites believed that magic American or British or French dust would turn the Third World into industrious, money-generating First Worlders. Through education and schooling because everyone knows there was and is no significant difference between Pakistanis and Mexican immigrants today and Poles of say, 1910 in America.

This was a serious, civilization-altering bet that has collapsed. The budget impasse is really about the lack of money to pay for everything, without seriously screwing the losers over.

Anonymous said...

"a charter school funded by billionaires that hires only Ivy League grads who all work 90 hours per week"

This is what I don't get. What kind of a fool goes to an Ivy League school to major in education-below-college-level?

Elementary school education is about teaching kids ABC's and math.
Middle School education is a just bit more challenging.
High school education requires teachers to be more educated. Advanced courses call for teachers with maybe masters degrees. But even most high school stuff is on the introductory level.

It seems to me that the only reason to go to Ivy League school is to be the best at the most difficult tasks, like doing research in medicine, chemistry, physics, etc. Or writing history books. Or, if you wanna be a teacher, teaching at the college level with top students.

But general education from K-12 is about teaching general stuff. You don't have to be brilliant or extra-smart to do that. Just be patient, diligent, tough, and dedicated. (And realistic.)

What does it matter if you went to Harvard or a public university if your job is to teach kids adding and subtracting? Or teach them how to read at the basic level or teach simple grammar?

Now, I can see the point of Ivy League graduates working with super-gifted children or prodigies, but most students, especially among blacks and latinos, would be lucky just to learn to read and write. You don't need geniuses to teach kids how to do that, just like you don't need Michael Jordan to show kids how to dribble the ball.

I mean how many 'creative' and 'advanced' ways are there to teach kids to learn how to add and subtract? You just teach the basics and drill them over and over.

Success will really depend on keeping the school safe, maintaining discipline,and etc.
It's better to hire muscle-bound teachers in a barracks setting for early grades and make sure everyone behaves.

What a waste of Ivy League material. Also, what kind of a fool goes to Ivy League schools to learn how to teach kids simple stuff?

Peter Lachance said...

Steve,
Great article, thanks! I've been on a PA charter school board for 7 years and I was board prez for 2 years. Our school is not a good comparator because most of our students come to us because they could not graduate in a regular school setting.

Which leads me to a question about the studies that I think will interest you (well, the answer should). What is the graduation rate of the charter schools in the study vs. the public schools? Most people (including me) assume that the graduation rate in charters for both minority students and low-performing white students is higher. What do the studies reveal in that regard?

IF (and I really mean IF) charters have higher graduation rates on average, then comparing scores becomes a dicey situation, because perhaps there are many students who were tested in the charter schools who wouldn't have existed in the public schools (I'm talking high school here of course).

I'm very curious about this and I look forward to your thoughts.

Peter Lachance
Lower Makefield, PA

Anonymous said...

To close the gap, reduce out of wedlock births. More kids growing up with 2 parents (regardless of gender) will raise test scores and IQ scores.

jody said...

"I'm going to take a break from posting and approving comments for a few days"

about time. i thought steve was on steroids considering the pace he was posting at these days.

Steve Sailer said...

"That Darned Gap"

Remind me to steal that.

But does anybody anymore recognize the reference to the 1965 Disney movie "That Darned Cat"? When I was in second grade I insisted my mother buy me the novelization paperback of the movie, but it was in small, grown-up type and I only got to the second page before giving up.



Anonymous said...

"Remind me to steal that."

All yours, Mr. Sailer, all yours...

countenance said...

Disney rebooted "That Darn Cat" in 1997.

Now for the business at hand, I'm surprised there were enough non-poor white students in charter schools to have a big enough study sample. Maybe that's the selection bias of my own geography; Missouri only allows charters in St. Louis and Kansas City cities proper, which is a clue to who charters were supposed to appeal to.

And any attempts by whites in charter-permitted areas to establish a charter as a workaround for the SLPS or KCPS and as a way to avoid having to pay private/Catholic school tuition is a dead end. For instance, the informal union of St. Louis City cops tried to start a law enforcement career themed charter, but they couldn't even find the necessary sponsor, and even if they did, the state board that certifies charters made it clear they'd never approve. Until recently, SLPD officers were required to live in the city itself, the residency rule was somewhat weakened but not eliminated a few years ago. So the cop "union" thought it could get a charter going as a way for its members not to have to pay Catholic school tuition and also avoid the SLPS; even though most city-residing white cops reside in a certain part of the city, the SLPS is still under intra-district deseg mandates.

Education Realist said...

It seems to me that the only reason to go to Ivy League school is to be the best at the most difficult tasks, like doing research in medicine, chemistry, physics, etc. Or writing history books. Or, if you wanna be a teacher, teaching at the college level with top students.


Good lord, you're wrong from so many different perspectives.

First, many kids go to Harvard because they are legacies and it's where they find mates.

Second, the Ivy League grads that work in charters did not major in education, they majored in something else but billionaires believe that smart people make better teachers.

Third, high school teachers in content subjects major in something other than education.

Fourth, teaching is intellectually challenging the same way that being a good cop is intellectually challenging. People who don't care for academia but are quite smart often find teaching interesting. High school teachers are chosen from the top half of college graduates, despite the hype pretending otherwise.

Steve, it's quite true that charters benefit white people, but in obscure ways. One minor correction on a good post: the best research does not ever show charters taking kids from the basement to above the state average. In fact, the recent TFA study showed that teachers with one full standard deviation higher math scores barely managed to move a matched set .07 of a standard deviation. There's no matched, controls studies showing that charters with any sort of teachers get equivalent kids significantly improved. The very best get maybe six months in elementary school.

My post on the TFA study is relevant: http://educationrealist.wordpress.com/2013/09/13/the-takeaway-from-the-tfa-study/

And I think Steve already discussed my post on Diverse Schools, which is how charters do benefit whites: http://educationrealist.wordpress.com/2012/11/24/the-parental-diversity-dilemma/

countenance said...

Education Realist wrote:

the best research does not ever show charters taking kids from the basement to above the state average

I respond:

I am of the opinion that even though they're not supposed to have any sort of selective admission criteria, charters do find ways around it, mainly by selecting for motivated students by making the application process tedious and time consuming for the parents. That said, charters are skimming off the "top," not taking anyone from the basement.

KIPP also spends a lot of resources. See this:

http://countenance.wordpress.com/2009/02/13/kipp-orphanage-comes-to-st-louis/

Mountain Maven said...

All charter schools are different so it's hard to generalize about them. Also not all benefits show up in test scores (duh) Our kid goes to the charter HS because 1.the students self select, so no NAM's 2.It's partial independent study so the students are only stuck in class half as much with the crappy public school fare. 3.We can more easily opt out of the classes and do more independent study or take JC classes to avoid the really bad teachers and classes e.g. Environmental Science. 4.There isn't a decent private school nearby.

panjoomby said...

schools don't make kids smarter.
Good instruction SPREADS OUT achievement even more (smart kids gain even more from it than dumb ones). Duh!

Mr. Anon said...

"“For many charter school supporters, improving education outcomes for historically disadvantaged is the paramount goal.” While all of the groups in both kinds of schools show gains over the years, the achievement gap remains, as it always has when students from homes in poverty are compared to non-poor ones, in this country and internationally. The “paramount goal” to level the field is not being met by charter schools."

I would expect that for most parents, improving the educational outcome for thier own children is the paramount goal. But what do they know, and who cares what they think?

Power Child said...

I have no idea whether this is typical or exceptional, but on Cleveland's east side there's this charter school (junior high, I think) attended by poor (mostly black) kids. They are made to march around in lines, stand up straight, dress as though they were going to work in an office, speak clearly and with eye contact, always do their homework, never be late, etc. The school gives the students money for good grades, too: I think something like $27 for straight As at the end of the year.

The result of this unfair and abusive (racist?) treatment is that their test scores, and their long-term academic and life achievements, are far superior to other poor black kids from Cleveland. (The horror!)

This documentary was made about that charter school.

Anonymous said...

What elephant in the living room? What naked emperor? What fundamental constant of social science?

Enjoy your break, Steve -- it'll all be the same when you get back.

A Working Class American said...

paging harrison bergeron...

countenance said...

Trailer for "Facing Forward."

http://vimeo.com/6130631

Dime to a donut says this school skims.

Colin Laney said...

"I've long argued that the elite consensus on the proper goal for K-12 education -- to raise black and Hispanic performance by roughly one standard deviation while preventing whites and Asians from improving (which is what it would take to Close the Gap) -- is obviously wrong-headed."

Using the term 'wrong headed' when the word 'evil' is called for is what got us into this mess.

Anonymous said...

High school charter School admissions process in Chicago is corrupt. They try to cherry pick. I have first hand knowledge of a charter school sending an acceptance letter to a top 99.9 percentile performing 8th grader that did not even apply to the charter school's lottery. It was an inside job from within the Chicago Public Schools administration that appeared to be funneling names and addresses of top performers to the charter school. Don't trust any data about charter performance coming out of the Windy City.

Peter the Shark said...

I've long argued that the elite consensus on the proper goal for K-12 education -- to raise black and Hispanic performance by roughly one standard deviation while preventing whites and Asians from improving (which is what it would take to Close the Gap) -- is obviously wrong-headed

It makes perfect sense as a survival strategy however. The children of the elites either go to very good private schools, or at worst excellent public schools in elite neighborhoods. Plenty of resources get lavished on their own kids. So why not divert the remaining resources as much as possible to black and hispanic kids who will never be competitive with their own kids? Keep potential intelligent Asian and white upstarts languishing in mediocre schools with mediocre teachers. Who whom indeed.

Anonymous said...

Yep.

The idea is celebration of mediocrity ie the whole leitmotif is ultimately dystopian and destructive.
As Steve says the whole thrusts toward perfection and excellence, (ie the best teachers teach the best students), is in full accord with the general thrust of civilization, culture, life the universe and everything. Basically, it's the idea that an amoeba can eventually become a man. Of course it leads to an enormous amount of wastage and disappointment, but it's the only way.
Would anyone watch a football game if the very worst players were given all the big league slots?, Would anyone fly in an airplane if the engineers and technicians who built it were deliberately selected from the dimmest of dim bulbs?, and the corollary is this - the dim-bulbd are promoted above and beyond their ability by the very worst form of malapated, soft-headed, soft-dicked socialism, (of a type even Karl Marx would disown, but the loons of Berkeley 1968 are mad for), whilst the truly gifted are denied the opportunities and are herded into the dead-end occupations. Would one want Leonardo to mix concrete?, Shakespeare to carry bricks?

Dave Pinsen said...

The gap aside, there's another reason to keep overstating the potential of education for the left half of the bell curve. It provides moral and political cover for growing economic equality.

There's a symbiotic relationship between the super wealthy and education advocates, exemplified by Zuck and Cory Booker, etc. $100 million for Newark schools shows Zuck cares about the have-nots, and since anyone can improve their station in life with a good education, no need to worry about Zuck & friends flooding the labor market via expanded immigration.

Anonymous said...

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2013/10/why-does-college-cost-so-much-posner.html

"I see hope, however, in the MOOCs—massive open online courses, which offer enormous potential cost savings and quality improvements for colleges."

Mooc, what's a Mooc?

Maya said...

" They are made to march around in lines, stand up straight, dress as though they were going to work in an office, speak clearly and with eye contact, always do their homework, never be late, etc. ...
The result of this unfair and abusive (racist?) treatment is that their test scores, and their long-term academic and life achievements, are far superior to other poor black kids from Cleveland."

Hey, just want to mention that virtually ALL schools require their students to always turn in homework, be on time, dress decently and present themselves in a respectful, orderly fashion which includes the right kind of body language.

The difference between the charters and the public schools is that the charter schools can kick out those who don't comply. Charter schools are allowed to enforce discipline. Public schools can't do anything about rowdy students who refuse to do any work at all.

jody said...

i had the 1965 version of that darned cat on VHS right around the time VHS became dominant over betamax. like 1982 or something. but i'm approaching 'old' status, so i don't think you use should any references to that darned gap. people under 30 won't get it at all and even a lot of people under 40 won't.

and yeah it's true, if you improved the general level of education, that it would actually help the europeans and east asians more than the other groups, and would increase the academic performance difference between the groups, not decrease it.

steve is right - the goal should be to improve everybody's performance. the problem is, there is no way that, if you applied the method fairly to all groups, you'd decrease the performance difference. pretty much anything you tried that has any measurable effect, when applied broadly, is gonna help the top 2 groups more than the other groups.

considering the amount of money, effort, time, and brainpower spent on this issue, i long ago concluded there was nothing you could do to improve the academic performance of most groups. they're already performing as good as they're gonna get. with existing technology at least. maybe in the future there will be some breakthrough that will enable scientists to directly improve their brains.

probably the only group in the world who still has unrealized gains are the upper class indians in india who are not already getting a first rate education. some of them get that, but not all of them do. if you dumped the top couple million indians into charter schools, they'd improve a good amount. and maybe some of the vietnamese? they probably have unrealized gains.

i actually think the islamic peoples of the world would not improve that much even if you dropped them into existing high quality schools. like in afghanistan for example where they basically don't have school in many places, they're still just gonna go from 'terrible' to 'really bad' in academic performance even if you built them great schools and paid to staff them. they are never going to deliver even mediocre levels of output. saudi arabia, egypt, turkey, iran have a few respectable high schools and colleges (that is, not total crap) and they produce nothing.

Anonymous said...

Steve,

Rather than an overly simplistic "nature/nurture" divide, sociobiology suggests that the "nurture" component is also going to be related to "nature". That is, the effect of nurture is going to vary according to nature. People are going to vary by how well they naturally respond to nurture. The same heaping of nurture is unlikely to produce the same gains.

Most likely the kids who are bright naturally will benefit more from nurture.

Anonymous said...

"Asking the White middle and working class to sacrifice their kids futures for the sake of racial equality is a non-starter." I am not so sure about that, people did not care that their country would go from white to non white in a single generation.

Anonymous said...

Come to Massachusetts, Whiskey. There's a program, METCO, that specifically brings minority kids to the suburbs to be taught by the Nice White Ladies. The town next to mine is in a tizzy because they expanded their participation in METCO four years ago and the test scores have fallen precipitously. Because they're deluded about what causes That Darn Gap to begin with, the real problem isn't even part of the discussion. That's why people there with young children are starting to pay the $50K-$100K housing premium to move to the three Nicer White Towns immediately north that aren't part of the program, racists that they are.

Anonymous said...

"...the ultimate weapon... gay people."

Anonymous said...

Amazingly wrong-headed article on learning over at Spiked Magazine:

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/14150#.UlwC8Yso6M8

Anonymous said...

Asking the White middle and working class to sacrifice their kids futures for the sake of racial equality is a non-starter. Particularly when the Gates kids, or Obama's kids, go to elite private schools available to only the super-powerful and super-rich.

That won't happen. Instead IMHO you will see a flight towards online homesechooling with things like the Khan Academy, Capistrano Connections, and others operating state-by-state. Only the approval requirement by State Boards of Education prevents private money like News Corp and Pearson from flowing in now (they've invested serious money into private, online education).

This is particularly true when success in life is credential-based. Which means the most competitive test scores to achieve admission and aid to the most prestigious schools.
The OC doesn't have much of a white working class, there is some. Whiskey would be more honest in mentioning that the average white in So Orange County is between the 80,000 to 150,000 range not wealthy there but few are in the 50,000 or under.

Anonymous said...

secret world of the fed: monetary monastery.

Anonymous said...

Most of the white kids with bad academic skills are dyslexics, Adhd or slow learners which means the private schools or charter schools don't help unless they are for those types of students. The Regular Joe white kid without being classified as dyslexic or Hyperactive usually is not that bad in school. In fact both ADHD and Dyslexic kids dropped out the most along with the slow learner. Education could be made to help Dyslexics by doing multisensory education in earlier grades to learn to read. ADHD, drugs and therapy and plan around their academic difficulties since these kids tend to not pay attention as much. Slow learners can be track again in a slow learner track which many student district have gotten rid of.

pat said...

This reminds me of the expectations that computers would close the racial achievement gap. But of course it didn't work out that way. Why would anyone think it would?

When I took weight lifting in college some of the guys got much bigger fast. Everyone got stronger of course but some put on muscle much faster than average.

We were using simple free weights. But if we had suddenly acquired the kind of chrome weight machines seen in the commercial gyms who would have expected the slow gainers to catch up? Better weights weren't going to make everyone equally strong and muscular.

There's something wrong with peoples expectations. We should expect that better equipment will open gaps not close them.

Albertosaurus

PC Makes You Stupid said...

people did not care

Wrong. Whites put up massive resistance to the integration imposed by a hostile elite. We still do. According to the elite narrative this resistance is evidence that Whites, as a group, are stupid, crazy and evil. In reality it is evidence of something else entirely.

Whiskey said...

Pinsen nails it. Yes elites moral status monger over sacred NAM objects and prevent challenges to their kids hereditary dominance.

But anon it is one thing to replace God with sacred objects and worship the Colors of Benetton, another to sacrifice your kid to Baal.

When escape is as close as the internet.

What happens when religious belief in the Colors of Benetton collapses among the people but not elites?

Anonymous said...

"Second, the Ivy League grads that work in charters did not major in education, they majored in something else but billionaires believe that smart people make better teachers."

yeah, i figured this would be the case. but still, why major in advanced computers to go to some dumbass school to teach young ones how to add and subtract?

Anonymous said...

Probably easier to send them all to Iceland.

Old Rebel said...

Equality is more important than quality to these people.

Anonymous said...

The only thing that can raise Mestizo performance is if more white blood was mixed with it and they all suddenly became Castizos (it's a name for someone who is 3/4 white + 1/4 Amerindian). Amerindians are a hopeless case though (just like Blacks).

TomV said...

"See you in a while."

Who *are* you? The real Steve would have written "awhile." The real Steve is wrong about that, of course, but it's how we know he is who he says he is.

Anonymous said...

"Do charter schools most help whites?"

'mostly',no?

Anonymous said...

Bad example. Plato and Xenophon were both brilliant students of Socrates. Plato wrote more, to be sure, but Xenophon's writings are almost every bit as profound. Xenophon was more of a "man of action" than Plato and spent many years in the field, fighting and such. Plato was a pure egghead who was content to study all the time.

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnci56BCxjQ

Why Has There Never Been A Black Batman?

Anonymous said...

" The “paramount goal” to level the field is not being met by charter schools."

As schools, districts, billionaires, starry eyed Ivy league suckers etc., all try everything imaginable to fix the gap, they just add more and more data proving that the gap is unfixable.

The paramount goal of the Nurses' Health Study was to prove once and for all that Premarin was safe, effective hormone replacement that lowered risk of heart disease and did not increase cancer risk. Unfortunately for Ayerst, the study was so detailed, so huge, so representative that when the opposite was established by the data, the study had to be cut short because use of the drug had killed participants in the study and could no longer meet the standards for studies using human subjects.

We pretty much already have enough data on education to establish that the gap cannot be eliminated short of sterilizing all NAM's with IQ's lower than say 90, which would be most of them.

Anonymous said...


"The only thing that can raise Mestizo performance is if more white blood was mixed with it and they all suddenly became Castizos (it's a name for someone who is 3/4 white + 1/4 Amerindian). Amerindians are a hopeless case though (just like Blacks)."

Not true. Through clever advertising and many financial incentives, they could be sold on one child or no child lifestyles. Seriously, even if it cost the gov't (us) $100k to sterilize every woman with an IQ below 100 before she had two kids, it would still be a bargain.

Ex Submarine Officer said...

"What happens when religious belief in the Colors of Benetton collapses among the people but not elites?"

After the wave of independence in South America, what amounted to PC had a lot of traction there, of forming a new people from the indians, mestizos, mulattos, and spanish elements.

I don't have the footnote, but some countries, it was illegal for two whites, or at least Spain born whites (peninsulars) to marry.

Don't think it something like this could happen here (forced mixing?). Gay marriage used to sound pretty outlandish/outrageous not so very long ago.

Camlost said...

Trailer for "Facing Forward."

http://vimeo.com/6130631

Dime to a donut says this school skims.


The "secret" of these schools is that their test scores are still terribly low and their per-student spending still far outstrips the average public school inhabited by white kids who can read on grade level successfully without massive intervention programs.

Remember Arne Duncan's much ballyhooed"Urban Prep Academy" from Chicago in the news last year because 100% of black males that graduate there went to a 4-year college? ... and for 4 years running!!? (wow, that just blows away any public high school in an affluent white area!!)

http://www.bet.com/news/national/2013/04/01/100-percent-of-urban-prep-academy-students-going-to-college.html

The dirty little secret is that Urban Prep draws carefully selected black students from across 31 zip codes, but their average ACT score is still a paltry 17.2, which is actually far lower than the white average for the entire state of Illnois. (includes bitter rural clingers)

http://michaelklonsky.blogspot.com/2012/03/urban-prep-charter-hype-redux.html

Most of those schools also fiddle with enrollment numbers to hide their dropouts, as well.

Dave Pinsen said...

Maybe have a Birth Control Gala.

Anonymous said...

He has a point:

http://www.indiewire.com/critic/jonathan-rosenbaum

Lincoln:

"I don'€™t mean to disparage Spielberg’s storytelling gifts, only to suggest that they often depend on a ruthless catering to what we already think we know about a given subject."

Anonymous said...

He has a point:

http://www.indiewire.com/critic/jonathan-rosenbaum

Lincoln:

"I don'€™t mean to disparage Spielberg’s storytelling gifts, only to suggest that they often depend on a ruthless catering to what we already think we know about a given subject."

el supremo said...

RE: @Ex Submarine Officer on South American marriage laws

The requirements banning marriage between Spaniards existed only in Paraguay, which was ruled at the time by the eccentric dictator Gaspar de Francia, who ran the country inspired by Rousseau. The policy was one of his many idiosyncratic policies to build an ideal society isolated from the outside world, and was very much not typical of post-independence Latin American white elites. Regardless, the policy didn't have much impact, as one of Francia's other Rousseau inspired policies was to make marriage very difficult to obtain (he insisted on officiating at any legal marriage) and there weren't many Spanish in Paraguay to begin with.

The restrictions placed in some other newly independent countries on Spaniards only applied to the Spanish born whites (peninsulares) and restricted their office holdings, in attempt to allow local Spanish descended elites to dominate the country. Outside Paraguay (which is itself a small and odd case) Spanish descended elites showed little interest in mixing with colored populations after independence, and in many cases stripped protections from Indians that the Spanish monarchy had maintained.

Anonymous said...

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/10/14/forget-the-debt-concentrate-on-growth/

But doesn't the level of debt interfere with growth?

Btw, how did Summers advice in the past pan out for Russia and Wall Street?

Anonymous said...

The inclination of "liberals" to Lamarckism is obviously an expression of the wish that there should be no unbridgeable racial distinctions.

Anonymous said...

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/10/jay-knotts-unethical-view-of-ethnocentrism/

First, there is no such thing as race.

Now, there may be the reality of races but being aware of it is evil.

Anonymous said...

If gender is a social construct, and girls play with dolls and like pretty things because society made them feel that way and love such things, then femininity is socially imposed on the minds of girls.

But if homo boys are born homo, and if homo boys NATURALLY feel feminine and that fact accounts for their love of dolls, dresses, and pretty things, then it means feminine traits are natural and inborn.

PC tells us that femininity among girls is socially imposed but effeminacy among homo boys is inborn.

How is it that females are made to feel 'female-ish' by society, but homos are BORN with femaleness even though they are born with male bodies?

Ichabod Crane said...

A well-deserved break. You must work harder than I do in medical school.

Anonymous said...

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/prufrock/

Anonymous said...

MY GOD!! Something that helps whites! The horror! The horror!

Anonymous said...

The chief rationale for public education is to allow society to benefit from very smart kids who would otherwise not have the opportunity to develop their intellects.

In any reasonably prosperous and meritocratic society, this rationale will become less compelling over time. I would guess that a hugely disproportionate number of smart kids are already middle-class or above; upward mobility will have been realized by their smart parents, or smart grandparents, or smart great-grandparents, etc.

But people in the world-saving business are never able to take "yes" for an answer. Aside from the ideological obsessions involved, it would put them out of a job. It would be inconceivable for ed-biz types, politicians, etc. to say "Well, we've realized most of the positive externalities to be gained from universal public education already."

So, since the next Thomas Edison already has well-credentialed bourgeois parents and attends a good private school or a nice Whitopian public school, the system must find a new raison d'être.

So never mind that there is little external social benefit from moving NAMs from the 10th percentile to the 20th percentile. Never mind that the Gap, as such, is irrelevant to individuals. Never mind the strangeness of deriving social status from conspicuous shows of out-group altruism.

That's all beside the point. The goal is to keep the Do-Gooders in the Good-Doing business in order to satisfy both their material interests and their ideological smugness. If the Gap didn't exist, they'd have to invent it.

Anonymous said...

So. High IQ or plain cheating?
Asian high achievers.

http://educationrealist.wordpress.com/2013/10/08/asian-immigrants-and-what-no-one-mentions-aloud/

Anonymous said...

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/walmart-food-stamp-shopping-spree-choice/story?id=20579980

This is how some people act when something is made 'free'.

Paul Ciotti said...

what kind of a fool goes to Ivy League schools to learn how to teach kids simple stuff?

I went to an Ivy League school and then spent the next five years in Naval Aviation. I didn't require an Ivy League degree to do that. But I am glad I spent that time in the Navy. And in some ways I learned as much as I ever did at Columbia.

Anonymous said...

http://server1.nationalinterest.org/commentary/the-psychology-barack-obama-9244

Peter the Shark said...

I would guess that a hugely disproportionate number of smart kids are already middle-class or above; upward mobility will have been realized by their smart parents, or smart grandparents, or smart great-grandparents, etc.

I agree. I suspect it is even truer in the UK than in the US. But HBD aware people often fail to come to grips with the issue that now that we have strip-mined the lower classes of most of the intelligent hard-working people, what are we supposed to do with the left overs? The idea that the right combination of economic incentives will get them off their asses is probably nonsense since they lack the planning skills and cognitive capacity to respond to economic incentives according to the standard textbook.

Anonymous said...

The list of still-vibrant middle-wage jobs is long, and most typically require on-the-job training, work experience, or short-term certificates and degrees that community colleges specialize in. This includes customer service representatives (up 6%) and heavy/tractor-trailer truck drivers (up 7%), two occupations that have each added more than 118,000 estimated jobs since the start of 2010. Both offer solid, mid-tier earnings ($14.91 and $18.14 median hourly earnings, respectively).

Other examples of strong mid-wage occupations:

Machinists have the best combination of total jobs added from 2010 to 2013 (nearly 50,000) and percentage job growth (14%). This occupation is just one of several on-the-rebound production fields: computer controlled machine tool operators (17% growth since 2010), welders (11%), and inspectors, testers, sorters, samplers, and weighers (8%) have also performed well post-recession.
The fastest-growing mid-wage jobs are clustered in energy fields, specifically oil and gas: roustabouts (38% growth since 2010), oil, gas, and mining service unit operators (38%), helpers of extraction workers (28%), and extraction workers, all other (22%). Next in percentage growth since 2010 are computer controlled machine tool operators (17%).
The factory jobs up are a little more skilled than assembly work. This is an interesting article on mid wage skilled jobs in Joel Konkin's New Georgraphy, big winners in the middle part of the US.

Anonymous said...

At the bottom, Rhode Island is the only state that’s lost middle-wage jobs the last few years. Coincidentally, it’s also seen a decline in high-wage jobs, meaning all of its job growth has been in occupations that pay $13.83 or lower.

Meanwhile, Mississippi (10%) and New York (13%) have the lowest share of new mid-wage jobs among states that have seen job increases.

Generally, states with higher cost of living are at the bottom in mid-wage job growth, with the exception of Mississippi. (It’s worth noting 80% of new jobs in Mississippi have been low-wage).
Its not Detroit that going the way of hell in a hand basket but the whole state of Mississippi, low cost of living but the worst job creation terms of wages.

Anonymous said...

Wyoming 319,672 7,607 3,411 45%
Iowa 1,689,811 58,987 21,902 37%
North Dakota 492,918 71,607 25,970 36%
Michigan 4,391,882 214,075 74,536 35%
Arizona 2,805,158 155,430 53,115 34%
Alaska 388,436 9,790 3,296 34%
New Mexico 913,612 13,215 4,315 33%
Oklahoma 1,786,664 66,837 21,153 32%
Minnesota 3,007,618 128,418 39,433 31%
Pennsylvania 6,215,891 123,999 37,616 30%
Vermont 356,643 10,494 3,158 30%
Hawaii 742,002 27,637 8,262 30%
Kentucky 2,038,143 72,485 21,562 30%
South Carolina 2,085,991 83,597 24,601 29%
Wisconsin 2,989,657 60,737 17,661 29%
top leaders in mid wage states. New Mexico doing well in this but still high poverty issues, it would be great if New Mexico increase in mid level jobs since we finally have a Mexican/White State that doesn't just add poverty.

NOTA said...

To a large extent, this is all about diminishing returns. In a world where a substantial number of people are malnourished or never see a book or the inside of a school growing up, a huge amount of their bad outcomes in life really are environmental. Someplace like Haiti has a low average IQ and little achievement, but probably would see some significant improvement if they had a functional enough society to avoid cholera and malnutrition and get everyone some schooling.

But in the US, this is probably not much of a problem. There are lousy ghetto schools that ought to be improved, and that probably aren't being improved because of political and racial issues. But the available gains from improving them are probably pretty small, because the kids in those schools are already at least attending some kind of school, getting some kind of exposure to books and reading and smart teachers who want them to learn something. You're not taking some half-starved parasite-ridden unlettered peasant out of his mud hut, feeding and deworming him, and sending him to school. That gives you a big gain. Instead, you're talking about going from a badly run school to a better one, or from lousy but sufficient nutrition to better quality nutrition (like making sure poor kids get a decent breakfast and lunch every school day).

And the reason this is so hard to accept is because black kids, in particular, are visibly failing. As a group, they don't do very well in school or on tests, and that seems to continue in college and jobs and life choices. It would be a *really* good for the country if we knew how to make that better, and that creates a lot of incentive to claim to know how, even if you don't. For all the complaints about spending money and affirmative action and ebonics and urban schools and midnight basketball and all the rest, if any of it delivered on its promises, it would be worth ten times its cost.

Anonymous said...

If government is the source of power and if conservatives reject government, it means they are rejecting power.

Conservatives have given up on everything that are the concentrated sources of power: elite academia, culture and entertainment, big cities, and government.
They are pro-business but the most successful businessmen are products of elite academia and rely on close ties with government, which is why even Wall Street Journal now hates the Tea Party.

Can a party have a future with hillbillies and guns?

pat said...

Why has there never been a black Batman?

One possible answer:
Why has there never been a black philanthropist?

Batman is filthy rich but he risks it all for public service. Does that sound like Jay-Z or Kayne West? In the movies Bruce Wayne is always holding charity balls. Black people don't give to charities.

On "Chasing Classic Cars" last night a man gave his $27 Million dollar Ferrari to charity. Is anyone surprised to learn that he was white?

Similarly blacks are just not smart enough to play the master criminals that Batman opposes. A black Joker would lack credibility. Blacks makes sense as street thugs - they have plenty of menace but who would believe a black man would hatch all those intricate plots? That's why we have also never had an intricate 'bank heist' movie where the robbers were all black.

We have recently learned about the 'Warrior Gene'. I wonder if we will soon find an "Eleemosynary Gene" too.

Albertosaurus

Enrique Cardova said...

Sailer says:
I've long argued that the elite consensus on the proper goal for K-12 education -- to raise black and Hispanic performance by roughly one standard deviation while preventing whites and Asians from improving (which is what it would take to Close the Gap) -- is obviously wrong

But this claim seems a bit shaky. Elites know that the same "get tough" or more intensive methods will ALSO raise White and Asian scores. And that has been the case. More emphasis on test scores will also boost the prestige and profile of high academically performing individuals from certain groups such as white Jews or Asians- thus solidifying certain elite access patterns. White elites also support such measures because they know they will help THEIR children against Asian competition. They are not doing it out of pious concern for blacks. The notion that elites are "hurting" whites and Asians per above is dubious- its what they want the naive to believe.

Matthew sez:
But billionaires mostly give their money to schools at the very bottom (because it makes them look compassionate), and to the schools at the very top that their own children and grandchildren attend.
Only they don't. What billionaires give to schools at the very bottom is chump change in aggregate- but that chump change makes them look good and compassionate. Keep in mind that what they give is often supplemented by the taxpayer- in the form of school buildings, facilities, insurance and other costs. WHen Gates gives money to schools, he does not have to pay for school buildings or utilities for example. His "small schools initiative" for example used existing infrastructure.


Whiskey sez:
Asking the White middle and working class to sacrifice their kids futures for the sake of racial equality is a non-starter...
^^Yes and white elites are not asking for any such "sacrifice." The same "back to basics" test prep focus that raises black scores helps raise WHITE scores even more. White elites enjoy looking compassionate, but the bottom line is that they aren't giving anything away to black people.

The elites believed that magic American or British or French dust would turn the Third World into industrious, money-generating First Worlders.
ANd in some cases it has. But the magic dust has also failed to turn several white nations into industrious, money-generating First Worlders as the massive subsidies going to white Balkan areas, or continued turmoil/failure over the years in various of such areas attest.

Through education and schooling because everyone knows there was and is no significant difference between Pakistanis and Mexican immigrants today and Poles of say, 1910 in America.
Actually US Hispanics of today would post HIGHER education and incomes than 1910 Poles.


Education Realist said:
And I think Steve already discussed my post on Diverse Schools, which is how charters do benefit whites: http://educationrealist.wordpress.com/2012/11/24/the-parental-diversity-dilemma/

Indeed. And it was always expected that charter schools would benefit whites. Only the naive HBD faithful belieive that "elites" are "hurting" white people via things like charter schools. And you raise excellent points on the decreasing relevance of IvyLeaguism, or schooling and teaching- much more realistic and accurate than the simplistic "racial reductionism" so prevalent in some quarters.

Anonymous said...

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/10/comet-camille-paglia-comes-to-au-and-talks-gender/

Enrique Cardova said...

Anon sez:

First, there is no such thing as race. Now, there may be the reality of races but being aware of it is evil.


Credible scientists using hard data show that there is no such thing as BIOLOGICAL race in the sense of the rigorous threshold used to differentiate subspecies among mammals. But as far as race as a social construct, you can have as many "races" and "constructs" as you want including a "Jewish race", "Aryan race" or even... "Swedids"..
http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/2597/templetonracedebunk2003.jpg

countenance says:
ven though they're not supposed to have any sort of selective admission criteria, charters do find ways around it, mainly by selecting for motivated students by making the application process tedious and time consuming for the parents. That said, charters are skimming off the "top," not taking anyone from the basement.

KIPP also spends a lot of resources.


Indeed. And white people have figured out just what Realist says on his blog. They can use charters to not only boost test scores of their kids but to also put some distance between themselves and unloved "minorities" or bureaucrats. The notion of charters as "giveaways" to "undeserving" minorotees is just another installment of the right-wing propaganda narrative.. As Realist notes:

--------------------------------------------
Look at the history of most progressive charters and you’ll find they are initiated by white people who fit into one or more of the following categories:

-- Unnerved by the high percentage of low-achieving, low-income kids at their neighborhood school.
-- Unwilling to risk the lottery system for the good schools in their district.
-- Unable to afford private school, or a house in a homogenous suburb.
-- Unsure their kids are going to be able to compete with the top kids in their neighborhood school (particularly in high school)
-- Unhappy with the public school’s treatment of their idiosyncratic little snowflake.
-------------------------------------

^^ANd the above includes whites who use charters to escape hard-nosed Asian competition.

Anthony said...

Maya said:

Hey, just want to mention that virtually ALL schools require their students to always turn in homework, be on time, dress decently and present themselves in a respectful, orderly fashion which includes the right kind of body language.

The difference between the charters and the public schools is that the charter schools can kick out those who don't comply. Charter schools are allowed to enforce discipline. Public schools can't do anything about rowdy students who refuse to do any work at all.


If there were a huge unmet need for decent workers in moderately low-skill jobs, charters for lower-IQ students which could do this would actually make a significant difference. For some low-skill jobs, there is a shortage of workers who are natively fluent in English, show up on time, are willing to work overtime, and not on drugs.

Schools, with societal support, can teach pretty much anybody with an IQ over 70 or 75 to read, and to show up, and not sass the boss or customers, and to stay off drugs. For people with IQs between about 85 and 95, learning those things makes the difference between being employable and not.

Enrique Cardova said...

Peter says:
But HBD aware people often fail to come to grips with the issue that now that we have strip-mined the lower classes of most of the intelligent hard-working people, what are we supposed to do with the left overs? The idea that the right combination of economic incentives will get them off their asses is probably nonsense since they lack the planning skills and cognitive capacity to respond to economic incentives according to the standard textbook.

No we haven't "strip-mined" the lower classes of most of the intelligent, hard-working people. This statement has no basis in reality. But lets go with it for a moment. Why should HBDers be concerned? After all, if the most ambitious and intelligent move out of the lower classes isn't that a good HBD thing- a just, deserved separation, with the higher IQ reaping the rewards?

NOTA says:
Haiti.. probably would see some significant improvement if they had a functional enough society to avoid cholera and malnutrition and get everyone some schooling
Maybe, but cholera and malnutrition were very well represented amoong whites in various eras- like the white Irish and white southerners in the United States (Sowell 1981, 2005). And such maladies are also well represented in modern white nations such as some in the Balkans. As recently as 1994, Albania suffered a cholera epidemic, and in the early 1990s was virtually destitute- facing widespread malnutrition and economic collapse. It took the Italians, who shipped in tens of thousands of tons of basic food items throughout Albania to save the country. See "Operation Pelican" aid mission.

But the available gains from improving them are probably pretty small, because the kids in those schools are already at least attending some kind of school, getting some kind of exposure to books and reading and smart teachers who want them to learn something.
Actually the factors listed above present a basis for making large improvements. ANd that has occurred historically with both white and black schools over time. Such improvements do not occur overnight. WWI US Army intelligence tests for example show Jews scoring dismally despite centuries of Jewish advantages in learning and literacy, and Jewish immigrants having relatively high levels of literacy.

It would be a *really* good for the country if we knew how to make that better, and that creates a lot of incentive to claim to know how, even if you don't.
Actually we do know how to make it better, including doing such things as removing racist barriers, promoting equality before the law (not really accomplished in America until the 1970s), promoting economies encouraging work and saving, and reducing government interference, confiscatory policies and disincentives. The removal of white Jim Crow blockades and barriers for example was a boon to black Americans, enabling an acceleration of income and education gains- aided by an expanding economy that raised all boats in the post WW2 era. Corrections in internal factors- just as the white Irish slowly reined in their violence, crimiality and substance abuse are also part of the package. In past eras blacks actually did better on such internal factors than before the welfare state implemented by white liberals gained sway.

And numerous policies implemented by said white liberals, supposedly "specially for blacks" are actually designed to help WHITE people. The main beneficiaries of "Affirmative Action" for example are white women.
http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/1413


Pat says:
Black people don't give to charities.
You simply don't know what you are talking about. Actually blacks give MORE to charity, proportionately speaking than other groups.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/23/us-usa-blacks-donors-idUSTRE81M1WI20120223

Mr. Anon said...

"Enrique Cardova said...

""Matthew sez:

But billionaires mostly give their money to schools at the very bottom (because it makes them look compassionate), and to the schools at the very top that their own children and grandchildren attend.""

Only they don't."

Only they do, as you - in your highly confused paragraph - tacitly assume.

"Enrique Cardova said...

Credible scientists using hard data show that there is no such thing as BIOLOGICAL race in the sense of the rigorous threshold used to differentiate subspecies among mammals."

What "credible scientists"? Name them. What "hard data"? Show it. What is the "rigorous threshhold" used to differentiate sub-species? I don't think you know what you are talking about here. You have done nothing but make a bald, blatantly false assertion which - like everything you write - is total bullshit.

"You simply don't know what you are talking about. Actually blacks give MORE to charity, proportionately speaking than other groups.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/23/us-usa-blacks-donors idUSTRE81M1WI20120223"

Whereas, in your case, I suspect that you do know what you are talking about here, but you are just lying. A web search of this report turns up numerous references to the reuters article you linked to, but little mention of the original report. The actual report is entitled "Cultures of Giving: Energizing and Expanding Philanthropy by and for Communitites of Color" and it is about "Identity-based Philanthropy", i.e. - giving to your own. That's a very different thing than overall charitable giving.

Yes, I have no doubt that blacks give more to explicity black causes than do whites to explicity white causes. This does NOT make the case you wish it to seem to make. But I guess that was your purpose in mentioning it.

Anonymous said...

Actually US Hispanics of today would post HIGHER education and incomes than 1910 Poles.

Actually US Hispanics of today would post HIGHER education than Thomas Edison, but that doesn't amount to much in 2013. In 1910 most people did not have much more than a few years of instruction to become literate and numerate.

As for income, how many Poles in 1910 were on government assistance? I guess all that education hasn't really helped the Mexicans of 2013.

The main thing one should look at is that Mexico and the Mexicans have had 103 years to develop since 1910, and what have they created? The exodus of so many Mexicans over the last thirty years tells us not much.

Enrique Cardova said...

Mr Anon says:
What "credible scientists"? Name them. What "hard data"? Show it

I already gave the hard data and names of scientists in the link above, and if I gave more the blog would be filled with more links debunking your claims yet again. But since you asked, let me repeat the link, which you oh so conveniently avoided, and add a few more. You says its all untrue "bullshiit" and "false assertion" but credible scientists as noted below show your claims are false. You really do not know what you are talking about.

original
http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/2597/templetonracedebunk2003.jpg

Add:
1)
http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/239/templeton1humanracesinf.jpg

2)
http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/2731/templeton2humanracesinf.jpg


"Cultures of Giving: Energizing and Expanding Philanthropy by and for Communitites of Color" and it is about "Identity-based Philanthropy", i.e. - giving to your own. That's a very different thing than overall charitable giving

^^But even if the above is true, it still debunks the claim. You say:

Black people don't give to charities.

The very information you proffer above shows the original statement is false.

Mr. Anon said...

"Enrique Cardova said...

I already gave the hard data and names of scientists in the link above,"

No, you didn't. You linked to a jpeg, abstracted from a book, that listed three citations to works by one man.

"......and if I gave more the blog would be filled with more links debunking your claims yet again. But since you asked, let me repeat the link, which you oh so conveniently avoided, and add a few more."

Yeah, a few more - all to the same guy. That is not "credible scientists" (plural) - it is one scientist who may or may not be credible. Here are two geneticists who DO believe the concept of race to be a biological reality: Neil Risch of Stanford University, and James Watson, co-discoverer of DNA, and winner of the 1962 Nobel prize in physiology/medicine. Are they not credible? Anyway, you are already down two-to-one.

"You says its all untrue "bullshiit" and "false assertion" but credible scientists as noted below show your claims are false. You really do not know what you are talking about."

Your claims are indeed bullshit, and you clearly do not know what you are talking bout.

""Black people don't give to charities.""

The very information you proffer above shows the original statement is false."

The claim that black people don't give to charities was not my claim - it was someone elses. I was replying to your assertion that they give more to charity than do whites. The fact that you do not now defend THAT statement indicates to me that you knew it was wrong at the time, and that you got caught out on it. I defy you to show me statistics showing that blacks give more to charities on a per capita basis than do whites. You can't.

For somebody with an air of superiority, you should really be right more often.

Enrique Cardova said...

Anon956says:

Actually US Hispanics of today would post HIGHER education than Thomas Edison

OK, but do you realize that you are debunking your own assertion above. You originally said:

everyone knows there was and is no significant difference between Pakistanis and Mexican immigrants today and Poles of say, 1910 in America.

But in that you now say the Hispanic immigrants today would have higher incomes, you have in essence falsified your own initial claim.


As for income, how many Poles in 1910 were on government assistance? I guess all that education hasn't really helped the Mexicans of 2013.
But that's the problem with your claim. You have provided little credible to back it up. How many Poles WERE on gubment assistant in 1910 versus Mexicans? You have provided nothing credible to answer your own question. And in 1910, very few Americans were on public assistance, Pole, Mexican or whatever..


The main thing one should look at is that Mexico and the Mexicans have had 103 years to develop since 1910, and what have they created? The exodus of so many Mexicans over the last thirty years tells us not much.

Actually the exodus of Mexicans is nothing unusual for a population with many immigrants, and does not tell us much vis a vis Poles. Some return to Mexico, others stay on. And in fact, Mexicans have progressed significantly in the US economy- from early employment as predominantly farm and railway labor to holding mostly urban occupations. They are very different from 1910. As such they have seen substantial increases in income over the years. Just the process of urbanization renders your claim false. See Sowell (1981) Ethnic America, 245-270

Mr. Anon said...

"Enrique Cardova said..

""The elites believed that magic American or British or French dust would turn the Third World into industrious, money-generating First Worlders.""

ANd in some cases it has. But the magic dust has also failed to turn several white nations into industrious, money-generating First Worlders as the massive subsidies going to white Balkan areas, or continued turmoil/failure over the years in various of such areas attest."

What "massive subsidies" given to white Balkan areas? Who ever gave massive subsidies to white Balkan areas?

You are not smart enough to pull off this "I'm smarter than everyone else here" schtick, and it shows. It really shows. You're just making stuff up, and gassing on about a bunch of stuff of which you have no inkling.

Anonymous said...

OK, but do you realize that you are debunking your own assertion above. You originally said:

No. I am not that anon. I was just a reader who caught your comment that claimed Mexicans in 2013 had higher education and wealth than Poles in 1913.

So my comment is to be taken in context of only your statement that I quoted. As such, I do admit that your Mexicans of 2013 have more formal education than Thomas Edison.

But that's the problem with your claim. You have provided little credible to back it up. How many Poles WERE on gubment assistant in 1910 versus Mexicans? You have provided nothing credible to answer your own question. And in 1910, very few Americans were on public assistance, Pole, Mexican or whatever..

I don't see a problem with this statement. You obviously are informed enough to pick up the fact that the USA did not have a welfare state in 1910. So obviously the Poles of 1910, whom you compared unfavorably to the Mexicans of 2013, were, by your own admission, not dependent upon the gubment (your term). So why are the high achieving Mexicans of 2013 so dependent upon the government today?

Actually the exodus of Mexicans is nothing unusual for a population with many immigrants,

I am confused by your statement. Are you saying Mexico has a lot of immigrants? I don't think they do. For a New World nation they haven't seemed to open the welcome mat to outsiders. Yes they have immigrants. But the lion's share of their population are Mestizos and Indios.

The mass exodus of Mexicans is not normal. We are discussing a New World nation, approximately the same age as the USA and Canada, with a great climate, access to oceans, natural resources etc., which in modern times has had a significant portion of her population leave.

To put the Mexican exodus into perspective,

From JFK's immigration pamphlet written around 1959, here are the figures he used showing immigration to America from Jamestown Colony (1607) to 1958. The top 3 groups, Germans, Italians and British, amount to around 16 million combined over 350 years.

Currently we have approximately 50 million hispanics in the USA. According to the Pew Center, about 70 percent of US hispanics are Mexican.

Also according to Pew, about half of all hispanics in the USA are immigrants themselves.

So a rough guestimate would be that there are approximately 17 million Mexican immigrants, legal and illegal, in the USA.

This means more Mexicans have come to the USA as immigrants in the past 3 decades or so as all the combined Germans, Italians and British who ever came here in the first 350 years of English settlement.

I'd say that doesn't sound like a normal amount of immigration. The fact that it is coming from a New World nation in 2013 is troubling.

Enrique Cardova said...

Has nothing to do with being smarter but rather debunking several of your bogus claims. Still waiting for you to show these blacks who never give to charity or why credible scientific data is false "bullshit". What's taking you so long?

As for the Balkans, if you had any inkling of even basic world news you would know that the EU has provided such subsidies under its Structural Funds programs and Common Agricultural Policy.

ANd speaking of inklings, what's taking you so long in providing credible support for your earlier claims?

Enrique Cardova said...

As such, I do admit that your Mexicans of 2013 have more formal education than Thomas Edison.
Fair enough.

So obviously the Poles of 1910, whom you compared unfavorably to the Mexicans of 2013, were, by your own admission, not dependent upon the gubment (your term).
I didn't compare the Poles unfavorably per se. I questioned the claim that there is no significant difference between Poles of 1910 and Mexicans today. There is a world of difference, and as demonstrated already, the claim is false.

And didn't say Mexicans were not dependent on the gubment. I asked-quote "How many Poles WERE on gubment assistance in 1910 versus Mexicans?" You first broached the question to insinuate that Mexican income is somehow uniquely dependent on government assistance, compared to Poles 1910. If so, what data do you proffer in support of your insinuation? And I again ask- how do you answer your own question?


So why are the high achieving Mexicans of 2013 so dependent upon the government today?
To what extent are high achieving Mexicans dependent on government assistance? Based on what parameters and data?

The mass exodus of Mexicans is not normal
Fair enough- you are asking why so many Mexicans are leaving their homeland to go north. You have to define what "normal" is. In the 19th and 20th century Europe sent tens of millions of migrants to the US in search of land and jobs. To what extent is that immigration "normal" and why would similar Mexican movement be "abnormal"?


a rough guestimate would be that there are approximately 17 million Mexican immigrants, legal and illegal, in the USA.
This means more Mexicans have come to the USA as immigrants in the past 3 decades or so as all the combined Germans, Italians and British who ever came here in the first 350 years of English settlement.


Your measurement indices are somewhat shaky and you give no credible source only your own guesstimate, which seems also shaky. Mexican immigration is not extraordinary as to speed or volume. It is surpassed by Italian immigration as to who entered the most over the shortest period. Italians show the most immigration over the shortest period. Here is what one scholar actually says.:
Between 1880 and 1920 more than 4.1 million Italians entered the US. No other ethnic group in the American history sent so many immigrants in such a short time." --Coming to America: A History of Immigration and Ethnicity ...By Roger Daniels 2007: 188

ANd your statistics seem strangely selective. Why do you leave out other white immigrants besides Brits, Germans and Italians? Isn't it a bit of sleight of hand- so as to make the Mexican numbers look excessively huge? A massive number of OTHER white Euros ALSO came to the US, By leaving them out you are also clearly trying to pump up the Mexican bogeyman as "abnormal"..

Camlost said...

"You simply don't know what you are talking about. Actually blacks give MORE to charity, proportionately speaking than other groups."

LOL

Nobody with actual prior experience with blacks would ever believe that.

Blacks may give a higher percentage of their incomes to their local church or televangelist where the pastor will be out driving a Cadillac or Rolls Royce. This is evidenced by the huge uptick in "prosperity preachin'" as started by con-artists like the Reverend Ike and continued by others like Bishop Eddie Long or Creflo Dollar.

Anonymous said...

Between 1880 and 1920 more than 4.1 million Italians entered the US. No other ethnic group in the American history sent so many immigrants in such a short time." --Coming to America: A History of Immigration and Ethnicity ...By Roger Daniels 2007: 188

I do not disagree that 4 million Italians came during that time. But I also acknowledge that total Italian immigration over our entire history amounts to a little over 5 million.

Let me spell it out. The JFK figures on immigration numbers from 1607 to 1958 were quoted and footnoted in the book "State of Emergency by Patrick Buchanan. See pages 242-243.

Based upon those figures, a little over 5 million Italians came here from 1607 to 1958. So what has happened since? Well since the 1965 Immigration Act we have had about 50 million immigrants, the vast majority of which are non-European. Why? Well since 1960, life has been pretty decent in Italy and the other parts of Europe that had sent us the lion's share of immigrants during our early days. So overall European immigration has not changed significantly from the time JFK compiled his figures.

I completely disagree with Roger Daniels' assertion that the 4 million Italians in 40 years set a record. I will show below why.

Your measurement indices are somewhat shaky and you give no credible source only your own guesstimate, which seems also shaky. Mexican immigration is not extraordinary as to speed or volume. It is surpassed by Italian immigration as to who entered the most over the shortest period.

I am disappointed that I could not find my original numbers on mexicans. But I will still present this which proves you are wrong. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, there are over 33.5 million Mexicans in America. Of which 35% are foreign born. So that would mean those 35 percent, or 11 million, are immigrants. I have seen other figures in the past suggesting that 50% of Mexicans are foreign born. But since I can't find it now, I will have to submit the 35 percent figure.

Now 11 million Mexican immigrants seems to be a greater number than 4 million Italian immigrants, doesn't it? Remember the Italian figure of 4 million occurred over a 40 year time frame. I am going to go out on a limb and say the 11 million Mexicans are on a 40 year or less time frame. Anything much longer than that and many of them will have died of old age. So I believe the Pew Center's figures refute your quote from from Roger Daniels.

Why do you leave out other white immigrants besides Brits, Germans and Italians? Isn't it a bit of sleight of hand- so as to make the Mexican numbers look excessively huge? A massive number of OTHER white Euros ALSO came to the US, By leaving them out you are also clearly trying to pump up the Mexican bogeyman as "abnormal"..

Keep in mind Europeans are different even though non-Europeans think we look alike. This is similar I guess to how Americans conflate Mexicans with Salvadorans, Cubans and other Latinos. So if you would like to group whites as one group, you would probably need to lump in other Latinos with Mexicans.

Mexicans are an ethnic group just like Germans or Greeks. So I was only trying to point out that they are the most numerous ethnic group in regards to immigration to the USA, which is true.

I chose the 3 Euro categories because prior to Mexican mass immigration, they were the most numerous immigrants. By showing that the Mexican numbers are greater than Germans and Italians and British combined, I was trying to show you that Mexican immigration is indeed highly unusual. Now granted the figures I could find at Pew will reduce my Mexican numbers down from 16 million to 11 million. But 11 million still means as many Mexicans have immigrated here as all the Germans and Italians in our history. That is still pretty ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

@Enrique Cardova

One more thing. I think you might be confused between immigrants and descendants of immigrants. You see the USA with a population of 305 million or so people. Over 200 million of which are "white". So naturally one would believe more Euros came here than non-Euros.

But you have to remember that we are talking immigrants. Most Euros are the children, grand children, great grand children, etc. of all those who came over a 400 year period. So to some people they look around and see all those pale faces and think a lot more Europeans immigrated to the USA than non-Euros. But with the great wave of post 1965 immigration, non-Euro immigration numbers are now at or greater than Euro numbers even though there are still a majority of Europeans in the USA.

Mr. Anon said...

"Enrique Cardova said...

Has nothing to do with being smarter but rather debunking several of your bogus claims."

You have debunked nothing.

"Still waiting for you to show these blacks who never give to charity or why credible scientific data is false "bullshit". What's taking you so long?""

You're now lying about what you said. I never said that blacks gave nothing to charity - I said they gave less than do whites. If you think otherwise, prove it. As for "credible scientific data", all you did was mention the name of one particular geneticist who thinks that race does not exist. I mentioned the names of two others (including a Nobelist in a relevant field) who think that it does. Answer them, not me. Anyway, race self-evidently exists. Race is no different a biological category than is family. Do families not exist? By the way, Charles Darwin also though that race was a valid biological category. Is your single professor brighter than Charles Darwin? Are you?

"As for the Balkans, if you had any inkling of even basic world news you would know that the EU has provided such subsidies under its Structural Funds programs and Common Agricultural Policy."

"Subsidies" are not the same as "massive subsidies". And, anyway, the Balkans is a lot better off economically than almost all of Africa and most of meso-America, and always has been.

"And speaking of inklings, what's taking you so long in providing credible support for your earlier claims?"

You have addressed none of mine - you just ignore anything anyone brings up that is inconvenient to your specious arguments.

Stick to talking about topics you known something about; let us know when you find one.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

@Enrique Cardova

One more thing. I think you might be confused between immigrants and descendants of immigrants."

Mr. Cardova is confused about a great many things. The world is a confusing place to the man who knows little.

Anonymous said...

Education Realist said...
It seems to me that the only reason to go to Ivy League school is to be the best at the most difficult tasks, like doing research in medicine, chemistry, physics, etc. Or writing history books. Or, if you wanna be a teacher, teaching at the college level with top students.


Good lord, you're wrong from so many different perspectives.


No, YOU are wrong in that you have MISSED his entire point of what he was in fact actually saying.

YOU DONT NEED to go to an Ivy League school per se, to actually become a certified K-12 teacher.

Also, you seem to mainly focus on high school whereas the bulk of his argument focused on 1-8th grade.

Harvard to teach 4th grade? The student then is better off attending state school.




First, many kids go to Harvard because they are legacies and it's where they find mates.


This is less than 15% of the total number currently at Ivy Leagues. A much labored upon stereotype that everyone at an Ivie is a legacy.





Third, high school teachers in content subjects major in something other than education.


AGAIN, his POINT was that you dont have to go to an Ivie to become certified in elementary education.






Fourth, teaching is intellectually challenging the same way that being a good cop is intellectually challenging. People who don't care for academia but are quite smart often find teaching interesting. High school teachers are chosen from the top half of college graduates, despite the hype pretending otherwise.



BS in that you can ONLY become a fully certified teacher if you attend an Ivy League University. Are you actually implying that a state school can't certify tomorrow's teachers?

Also, as point of fact, the vast majority of public school teachers do NOT graduate from Ivy League schools.