Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Poor kids who do things right don't do better than rich kids who do things wrong

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 308 posts

Re: Poor kids who do things right don't do better than rich kids who do things wrong

#111

Post by blfr »

michael_h wrote: post #109
blfr wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK. "each point increase in IQ test scores raises income by between $234 and $616 per year" http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289607... and conscientiousness may even trump IQ when it comes to SES http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/06/does_personalit....

That's 'high IQ'->'higher income'. You are implying 'higher income'->'high IQ', of which there are multitudes of counterexamples.

There are always lottery winners. It's not a perfect correlation.

Re: Poor kids who do things right don't do better than rich kids who do things wrong

#112

Post by busterarm »

refurb wrote: post #22
busterarm wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a jumping off point, undo the damage Ronald Reagan did to it.

Reagan was last president almost 30 years ago. Time to blame someone else.

Who said anything about him being President? Look at what he did to the university system in California as Governor. That was the model for the disaster that followed.

Gotta love the kneejerk downvotes I'm getting from people who likely don't have a clue what happened.

http://www.newfoundations.com/Clabaugh/CuttingEdge/Reagan.ht... http://www.nytimes.com/1982/12/28/science/california-weighs-... https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/from-master-plan-to-... http://www.salon.com/2014/07/05/ronald_reagan_stuck_it_to_mi... http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Ronald_Reagan_Education.htm

Re: Poor kids who do things right don't do better than rich kids who do things wrong

#114

Post by jimmies »

randomdata wrote: post #104
jimmies wrote: post #83

Dropping out of high school isn't "doing everything wrong" and finishing college is pretty far from "doing everything right" so this seems to be a little bit of editorial journalism. From the paper: "Children who go on to achieve a college degree, irrespective of their parents’ income, are more likely to make it to the top income quintile [...] Bottom-income children without a diploma have a 54% probability of remain…

> So really what it says is that you have a much better shot in life being educated regardless of who you are. Not quite. All it says that the people who are able to do well in school also are able to do well in the workplace. If you want to try and derive causation here, the simplest and most reasonable explanation is that the qualities that allowed them to do well in school are also what allowed them to do well in…

That's better. There is some back-and-forth between the how much drive one has correlated with how far can one get in education, but I totally agree that you have a more direct narrative of what the paper claims.

Re: Poor kids who do things right don't do better than rich kids who do things wrong

#115

Post by contextmattrs30 »

blfr wrote: post #103
michael_h wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was thinking less about the 'intelligence is partly heritable' part, and more about 'affluent people are smart and conscientious' part.

OK. "each point increase in IQ test scores raises income by between $234 and $616 per year" http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289607... and conscientiousness may even trump IQ when it comes to SES http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/06/does_personalit....

Lol this correlation says nothing about poor people being dumber

But that better educated make more money

Get back to me when society stops tilted the economic success playing field against poor people, and offers them the same welfare we give the rich

Until then this 36 yr old, born and raised in a trailer park, college dropout with enough assets now to only have to work part time on contracts that interest me, while living in a city with higher than average cost of living, will call bs

Re: Poor kids who do things right don't do better than rich kids who do things wrong

#116

Post by anotheryou »

Anyone else confused by the diagonal arrow on the graph?

edit:

> Specifically, rich high school dropouts remain in the top about as much as poor college grads stay stuck in the bottom — 14 versus 16 percent, respectively.

weird comparison

Re: Poor kids who do things right don't do better than rich kids who do things wrong

#117

Post by tr1ck5t3r »

mac01021 wrote: post #26

This doesn't seem particularly remarkable to me. > Specifically, rich high school dropouts remain in the top about as much as poor college grads stay stuck in the bottom — 14 versus 16 percent, respectively. They're saying social mobility (up or down) is attainable for 85% of each group. And graduating college is not really the same as making all the right choices...

The 1% write the rules, so whilst its illegal to ethnically cleanse its not illegal to financially cleanse people. Divide and conquer its starts with education and continues on throughout life.

Re: Poor kids who do things right don't do better than rich kids who do things wrong

#118

Post by pyre »

abrahamepton wrote: post #71
blfr wrote: post #49

But, of course, it's not just a matter of dollars and cents. It's also a matter of letters and words. Affluent parents talk to their kids three more hours a week on average than poor parents, which is critical during a child's formative early years. That's why, as Stanford professor Sean Reardon explains, "rich students are increasingly entering kindergarten much better prepared to succeed in school than middle-class…

This is one of the most HN comments ever. Without getting into the nature-vs-nurture debate for the trillionth time, "Actually, mostly a matter of genes because this is by far the biggest influence parents have on their kids" is a totally preposterous statement. Genes are certainly AN influence, but I think my parents' encouraging my nerdiness, buying me a graphing calculator in high school and surrounding me with co…

> but I think my parents' encouraging my nerdiness, buying me a graphing calculator in high school and surrounding me with computers my whole life had something to do with how I got interested in computers and subsequently developed a career out of it.

Nope. "Computer Gene." No other explanation.

Re: Poor kids who do things right don't do better than rich kids who do things wrong

#119

Post by oicisdumb33 »

blfr wrote: post #110
contextmattrs30 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the issues the social sciences have with reproducible results, that Gwern is linking more science blogs than papers, and that we know rich people have conspired to hold poor people back via laws and other self serving maneuvers I'm still going to lean into "bullshit" category When you have evidence that the supposedly smart and highly moral are guilty of oppressing an entire swath of people and you point at mos…

Conscientious here means 'diligent' more than 'moral'.

So your entire thesis really is higher educated people are better equipped to contribute in economic affairs

While poor people focus on immediate needs

There's plenty of rigorous research in this area to show that being poor and struggling actually creates mental barriers to achieving success

I'm going to keep leaning on that versus the blog post of some objectivist who peddles around stats to make up whatever argument fits his world view

Re: Poor kids who do things right don't do better than rich kids who do things wrong

#120

Post by oicisdumb33 »

blfr wrote: post #111
michael_h wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's 'high IQ'->'higher income'. You are implying 'higher income'->'high IQ', of which there are multitudes of counterexamples.

There are always lottery winners. It's not a perfect correlation.

So it's completely useless then

If you are going to make a blanket statement in your thesis then pull back from its correctness then best not to spout the original as hard truth

Post reply on HN