It’s not as though all that money in mommy’s and daddy’s bank account makes their kids magically more intelligent. (But it can pay for private schools or for private lessons and so on.)
FWIW, numerous studies have found that the vast majority of correlation between parental income and the academic success of children can be explained by a third factor: Parental education. Educated parents both earn more and provide far more educational encouragement and assistance to their children.
Yeah, I knew that and should have written that in my comment. You are right.
I’m from Germany where this kind of inequality is particularly egregious. The explanation is probably that the fate of students is decided early on, in fourth grade. (You continue in one of three different types of schools after fourth grade, depending on your grades. Switching between schools is a hassle and only the highest school has a clear path to all universities.) Looking back at my own experience in elementary school, I would say that it was essential for me that my parents learned with me and helped me with my homework.
I feel that you are omitting genetics as a possible (probable) significant cause of academic success, which because of the corelation with the parents own academic success will be hard to disambiguate as a variable.
According to horizon (a main stream medium-high brow documentary series in the UK), separated twin studies show that as much as 50% of 'measured intelligence' can be attributed to genetics - which was fairly surprising (not the figure itself, because it agrees with my own suspicions) but because it was on a mainstream show. What is more earlier in the show they talked about a scientist in the 30's (nephew of Francis Galton, forget his name) who had faked a bunch of such studies and made up numbers. The figure he invented was 30%.
There has been many studies for a long time (several decades) which show that as far as environment matters, what matters is not so much money, but what is called in sociology "cultural capital" (not sure it is the right expression in English). For example, in France (but I guess in other countries as well), children from teachers succeed much better than children from workers, even though income is not so much different. The ability to speak well, to dress well, manners, etc... matters a lot for getting high social status (through work, etc...), and they are valuable because of the inequality. If everybody has a certain quality, its value is almost zero, it is the same as resources in economy.
As for the origin of measured intelligence, I would be surprised about 50 % of intelligence which could be attributed to genetics if you mean IQ (I don't see how it would be consistent with the Flynn effect, for once). But I would rather avoid a discussion on IQ (I don't think it is very relevant to the discussion, as its correlation with success in modern societies is pretty weak, once above a minimal threshold).
But I would rather avoid a discussion on IQ (I don't think it is very relevant to the discussion, as its correlation with success in modern societies is pretty weak, once above a minimal threshold).
No, it's predictive value for individual success is pretty weak. That's not the same thing. Here is a rather famous graph:
I suppose the counter point is that teachers are 'underpaid' for their intelligence, when compared to workers. There is probably an element of that since teaching is vocational and most people entering the profession do so in the knowledge that they will not earn as much. Hence we should not be surprised that their children do better - for both cultural and genetic reasons (50-50?).
The original point was about academic success, which is surely more corelated with IQ than economic success.
I think discussion about IQ, genetics and co are mostly meaningless for various reasons: the issue is extremely loaded politically, which means it is difficult to discuss about it with people who has a different opinion, and the science around it is inconclusive at best (the nature or even the reality of flynn effect is still debated, for example).
This is not to say it is not interesting, but I would put it in the same camp as discussion around religion: it is possible to discuss about it, but almost impossible to do it in a reasonable manner with random people in the internet. That's why I refuse to discuss it as a matter of principle in most cases with people I don't know personally.
From your recollection of that UK documentary series ... you haven't told what percent of the population has bad genetics.
My wife works in a kindergarten: lots of kids have problems assimilating concepts / participating in games. But for most of those kids, their ability to follow the rules and learn can be attributed to a problem at home: i.e. parents that lost control over them (think Dennis the Menace) or parents that don't provide harmony in their family (fighting a lot, getting separated, etc...).
And really, the difference between kids with parents that work/play with them and that provide a balanced home environment versus those with problems at home is striking.
Even if %50 of intelligence can be attributed to genetics, that doesn't say a lot.
Just want to point out that you are assuming that everyone has access to decent public schools. I'll bet genetics is far less important if that weren't the case.
Not at all. That would be part of the other 50% ... going with that number.
In fact your remark is quite confused. 50% is the variation in a 'typical' population. If everyone had access to public schools genetics would be more important. Since that would eliminate one of the major factors which accounts for the other 50% (again, going with that number).
He said genetics wouldn't be so important if everyone didn't have access to decent schools. In other words, he's saying genetics is more important if the school inequality is equalized. You're actually agreeing with him.
I had to reread both of these comments a couple of times, before it dawned on me why you disagreed - correctly.
Since I am from the UK public school reads 'posh elite school', not 'state school' so it had an opposite sense to my thinking.
As to the alleged assumption, I'm not entirely sure to what degree I am making it. I am assuming of course the same conditions as the experiments I mentioned - which were, I am fairly sure, western society in general in the last few decades. I won't pass judgement as to whether this meets the condition of decent state schools for all.
In all not too sure what the point of the original observation was, it could go in both directions. The figure of 50% only makes sense given some context.
I’m not really surprised that genetics influence intelligence. I always thought that to be a pretty standard view and the 50 percent figure you are citing doesn’t exactly startle me.
I’m not so sure how important those 50 percent are in this context, though. One question that I think is not answered by twin studies is how ‘hereditary’ intelligence is. (I’m certain that there exists a wealth of literature about just that topic, I’m too lazy to look for it right now.) Do two parents of average intelligence only have children with similarly average intelligence or is the range of intelligence of their children much wider? Then there is obviously the question how well wealth corresponds to intelligence in the first place.
What's your point? Because '50% of measured intelligence (whatever that is) can be attributed to genetics' nothing/little/less can/should be done about it? Or because only 50% is determined by genetics, we should do more about inequality in educational systems?
I don't get it.
FWIW, numerous studies have found that the vast majority of correlation between parental income and the academic success of children can be explained by a third factor: Parental education. Educated parents both earn more and provide far more educational encouragement and assistance to their children.