For most Americans and the lives they hope to live, a college degree is neither necessary nor beneficial. The learning skills required to speak and think and write and calculate and acquire needed knowledge throughout most people's lives can be inculcated before the end of adolescence. High school can and should do the job completely.
The only thing preventing this has been America's system of education, and the whole utterly damnable "educationalist" teaching establishment.
@Moionfire the problem is not that kids with good grades who can pay for college are being turned away. The problem is that kids who have neither the money nor the brains for college are still going, because they're told it's "Yale or jail."
I don't think Murray is a eugenicist, but if he is, so what? Teddy Roosevelt, Marcus Garvey, Plato, Aristotle and Aldous Huxley all supported eugenics or eugenic practices. There are good arguments against eugenics, "They're losers" isn't one of them.
Murray is a loser and a eugenicist - hence he hates many people going to college. If people are willing to pay the money to go to college and they have the proper grades, why shouldn't they go in.
In addition he ignores that only 30% of people have a BA--- so it is not like we are being saturated with BA degrees.
College level material is really tuff and not for everyone. However, people are not so dumb they can't get a basic understanding and set of fundamentals. These fundamentals are not taught well in high school. I went to college just to learn basic knowledge that I should have learned years earlier but didn't.
@roll2996 Yes, I must admit, while I agree with his general point that we send too many kids to college, and that we're a status-whoring society who says a BA in some random major has real value for...I don't know why, apparently art history makes you better at sales than working?
But not for the same reason. We're a service sector economy, and we should be thinking about how we can get 1/3rd, even 40% of our kids to pursue meaningful study successfully. This starts way before college.
As far back as I could remember, I was always writing....short stories, poetry, etc. I was terrible at math and science in high school. However, my parents kept encouraging me to go to medical school. So I learned how to be good at the sciences, aced everything in college, and now I'm a first year med student. I still write though...all the time...and I love it. Medicine is interesting, but it's just okay to me. I wish everybody would have pushed me more towards what I love.
It's ridiculous this self-esteem crap. Children are special until they reach adults... then you aren't so special are you? Some people have larger feet... so why not smarter? It's not that hard... That 50% is spot on, of 4 of my friends, 2 of us went. It does setup for failure. I think high school and college need to figure this out soon. I didn't go for many reasons (debt and this). I went for like 3 months and felt it wasn't what they said it was. I thought it would be more Greek-like.
I almost was in favor with what Charles,but too frequently he referred to the academically achieved as intelligent. He needs to be clear on his stance. Is he in support that the Academic system is selling false hopes;or is he delivering a message that only a selective few should attend college.I personally think college is flawed; because you can regurgitate information from a lecture on a test that does not reflect intelligence.Intelligence is the ability to put to use information attained.
Ask a noble in the 13th century and he would tell you that most peasants are not smart enough to learn to read.
Ask a scientist in the 17th century and he would tell you that most women are not smart enough to do science.
Ask Charles Murray in the 21th century and he tells you that some kids (with a tendency to be African-American and poor) are not smart enough to excel in academics.
There will always be people who ignore or hide the real reasons for inequality to advance political goals.
What the hell are you saying? His position is simply that are current educational system ends up doing more harm than good. Most jobs don't require a four years of college, nor do most people want to attend four years of college. If one does wish to attain such an education, so be it. But don't extrapolate that into a system which enjoins people to attend years of superfluous schooling.
Did you listen to the justification he gives for his position that the "current educational system ends up doing more harm than good"? Perhaps you should watch the video again, more carefully. See if you can sort out the key wrong assumption that he makes.
Murray says nothing about the poor or African Americans. He simply says that some kids have a snowballs chance in hell at finishing college. Given that these kids will in all likelihood not finish and waste their time ...why should we subsidize it?
It is a weak analogy to compare Murray with nobles and scientists in the 17th century.
@Rockynurse Murray says nothing explicitly about the black or poor. People who oppose gay marriage say nothing about hating gays either. They are "protecting marriage". People who opposed mixed marriage in the past did not admit to racism. They claimed all sorts of nonsense about biological compatibility. It is clear what Murray is really after, and he is smart enough to know that he can't say it publicly.
@yak6ex "Some people are not smart enough to read and write."
Sound absurd? Guess what - this statement has the same merits as your statement: a claim which comes out of nowhere with no evidence to support it whatsoever.
Oh, and don't think that the difference is that people believe your statement and not mine. There was a time when plenty of people believed my statement as well.
@Rockynurse You misunderstand Murray's message. He is NOT claiming that "some kids have a snowballs chance in hell at finishing college.". This is already accepted as a premise. The point of the discussion is to ANALYZE why this happens. Murray's analysis is simply a dismissive "It's all about their genes." Note that he does not actually provide a single piece of evidence towards this conclusion. He just attempts to draw consequences from it, insinuating that his claim is obvious.
genetic intelligence is a very small part to ones IQ the main part is how a child is raised.
take Finland or hong kong they have VERY HIGH test scores actually the some of the highest. there working class are paid more and have MUCH MUCH MORE free time that ours to raise there children...also the culture makes intellectual enlightenment an important thing...maybe people should look at how foreign countries fair against our own
i think everyone should go to 2ndary education for specific educational goals,
if i want to be a history "major" and then go on to get a masters and then a Phd then why do i have to take a science class or a math class wtf is that shit
There are two criteria that determine intelligence- heritable traits (genes) and environment. Genes put some limits on ability, but I think there are enormous improvements we can make to the environment kids and people are in so that they can improve long term memory, processing time, etc- all of which contribute to intelligence as an IQ test would define it-
thumbs up if u bumping bone thugs to this!
wwwwwwisgay 1 day ago
For most Americans and the lives they hope to live, a college degree is neither necessary nor beneficial. The learning skills required to speak and think and write and calculate and acquire needed knowledge throughout most people's lives can be inculcated before the end of adolescence. High school can and should do the job completely.
The only thing preventing this has been America's system of education, and the whole utterly damnable "educationalist" teaching establishment.
RichMatarese 5 months ago
@Moionfire the problem is not that kids with good grades who can pay for college are being turned away. The problem is that kids who have neither the money nor the brains for college are still going, because they're told it's "Yale or jail."
I don't think Murray is a eugenicist, but if he is, so what? Teddy Roosevelt, Marcus Garvey, Plato, Aristotle and Aldous Huxley all supported eugenics or eugenic practices. There are good arguments against eugenics, "They're losers" isn't one of them.
eugenicsmovement 5 months ago
Dr. Murray summed it up very well.
cardo1111 7 months ago
Murray is a loser and a eugenicist - hence he hates many people going to college. If people are willing to pay the money to go to college and they have the proper grades, why shouldn't they go in.
In addition he ignores that only 30% of people have a BA--- so it is not like we are being saturated with BA degrees.
Moionfire 8 months ago
America's writing is so Fake its not even funny.
tnguyen318 11 months ago
College level material is really tuff and not for everyone. However, people are not so dumb they can't get a basic understanding and set of fundamentals. These fundamentals are not taught well in high school. I went to college just to learn basic knowledge that I should have learned years earlier but didn't.
redblue18700 11 months ago
We need to come out a book of Facts about the Universe and our Solar System. No balogny that goes on and on and on.
heartlessvietboy 1 year ago
What about all the other countries who are ahead of the USA in math and science?
Are they just smarter than us? I don't think
so. They have a longer school day , a longer
school year , different teaching metodologies
and populations who value education. His
entire argument - FAIL.
roll2996 1 year ago
@roll2996 Yes, I must admit, while I agree with his general point that we send too many kids to college, and that we're a status-whoring society who says a BA in some random major has real value for...I don't know why, apparently art history makes you better at sales than working?
But not for the same reason. We're a service sector economy, and we should be thinking about how we can get 1/3rd, even 40% of our kids to pursue meaningful study successfully. This starts way before college.
jrsub3 1 year ago
As far back as I could remember, I was always writing....short stories, poetry, etc. I was terrible at math and science in high school. However, my parents kept encouraging me to go to medical school. So I learned how to be good at the sciences, aced everything in college, and now I'm a first year med student. I still write though...all the time...and I love it. Medicine is interesting, but it's just okay to me. I wish everybody would have pushed me more towards what I love.
gunittsolja1 1 year ago
It's ridiculous this self-esteem crap. Children are special until they reach adults... then you aren't so special are you? Some people have larger feet... so why not smarter? It's not that hard... That 50% is spot on, of 4 of my friends, 2 of us went. It does setup for failure. I think high school and college need to figure this out soon. I didn't go for many reasons (debt and this). I went for like 3 months and felt it wasn't what they said it was. I thought it would be more Greek-like.
Shrunkenhead61 1 year ago
I'M GONNA GET MY MBA AND BE A RICH BANKER SO HAR! YOUR KIDS WILL BE SERVING MINE FRIES!
MBAStudentToBe 1 year ago
So true, so true.
yak6ex 1 year ago
I almost was in favor with what Charles,but too frequently he referred to the academically achieved as intelligent. He needs to be clear on his stance. Is he in support that the Academic system is selling false hopes;or is he delivering a message that only a selective few should attend college.I personally think college is flawed; because you can regurgitate information from a lecture on a test that does not reflect intelligence.Intelligence is the ability to put to use information attained.
EZBROWN27 1 year ago
@EZBROWN27 That being said I will read this book. LOL
EZBROWN27 1 year ago
Anyone who disagrees with this analysis is too stupid to be taken seriously.
DAILEYericCaryUSA 2 years ago
Sounds like a great argument. Maybe you should work as an Ann Coulter stunt double.
awrezy 2 years ago
Ask a noble in the 13th century and he would tell you that most peasants are not smart enough to learn to read.
Ask a scientist in the 17th century and he would tell you that most women are not smart enough to do science.
Ask Charles Murray in the 21th century and he tells you that some kids (with a tendency to be African-American and poor) are not smart enough to excel in academics.
There will always be people who ignore or hide the real reasons for inequality to advance political goals.
awrezy 2 years ago
What the hell are you saying? His position is simply that are current educational system ends up doing more harm than good. Most jobs don't require a four years of college, nor do most people want to attend four years of college. If one does wish to attain such an education, so be it. But don't extrapolate that into a system which enjoins people to attend years of superfluous schooling.
XxxNuMbxxX0301 2 years ago
Did you listen to the justification he gives for his position that the "current educational system ends up doing more harm than good"? Perhaps you should watch the video again, more carefully. See if you can sort out the key wrong assumption that he makes.
awrezy 2 years ago
@awrezy
black 85 latino 90
white 100
far east asian 110
european jew 114
The problem is bigger than just blacks.
yak6ex 2 years ago
@yak6ex Do you have any idea what these numbers even mean?
awrezy 1 year ago
Comment removed
yak6ex 1 year ago
@yak6ex But do you know what IQ is? What does it measure, exactly?
awrezy 1 year ago
Murray says nothing about the poor or African Americans. He simply says that some kids have a snowballs chance in hell at finishing college. Given that these kids will in all likelihood not finish and waste their time ...why should we subsidize it?
It is a weak analogy to compare Murray with nobles and scientists in the 17th century.
Rockynurse 1 year ago
@Rockynurse Murray says nothing explicitly about the black or poor. People who oppose gay marriage say nothing about hating gays either. They are "protecting marriage". People who opposed mixed marriage in the past did not admit to racism. They claimed all sorts of nonsense about biological compatibility. It is clear what Murray is really after, and he is smart enough to know that he can't say it publicly.
awrezy 1 year ago
Comment removed
yak6ex 1 year ago
@yak6ex "Some people are not smart enough to read and write."
Sound absurd? Guess what - this statement has the same merits as your statement: a claim which comes out of nowhere with no evidence to support it whatsoever.
Oh, and don't think that the difference is that people believe your statement and not mine. There was a time when plenty of people believed my statement as well.
awrezy 1 year ago
@Rockynurse You misunderstand Murray's message. He is NOT claiming that "some kids have a snowballs chance in hell at finishing college.". This is already accepted as a premise. The point of the discussion is to ANALYZE why this happens. Murray's analysis is simply a dismissive "It's all about their genes." Note that he does not actually provide a single piece of evidence towards this conclusion. He just attempts to draw consequences from it, insinuating that his claim is obvious.
awrezy 1 year ago
@Rockynurse One more thing: it is not an analogy. It is the exact same phenomena, descended down the centuries.
awrezy 1 year ago
Comment removed
yak6ex 1 year ago
@yak6ex Sure. That's no surprise when 90% of scientists are men. Your statement misses the point.
awrezy 1 year ago
Comment removed
awrezy 1 year ago
genetic intelligence is a very small part to ones IQ the main part is how a child is raised.
take Finland or hong kong they have VERY HIGH test scores actually the some of the highest. there working class are paid more and have MUCH MUCH MORE free time that ours to raise there children...also the culture makes intellectual enlightenment an important thing...maybe people should look at how foreign countries fair against our own
xfvkemosx 2 years ago
If you want to understand the destruction of the Humanities by the Left read:
"Higher Superstition" by Levitt & Gross
"The Closing of the American Mind" by Bloom
thomaserossi 2 years ago
Murry was not advocating no education just educating specific to gifting.
kimjimbro 2 years ago
i think everyone should go to 2ndary education for specific educational goals,
if i want to be a history "major" and then go on to get a masters and then a Phd then why do i have to take a science class or a math class wtf is that shit
xfvkemosx 2 years ago
I agree. Four years is too long for most degrees.
Virginityrocks 2 years ago
haha old people
TheEvilCorporation 2 years ago
There are two criteria that determine intelligence- heritable traits (genes) and environment. Genes put some limits on ability, but I think there are enormous improvements we can make to the environment kids and people are in so that they can improve long term memory, processing time, etc- all of which contribute to intelligence as an IQ test would define it-
mariastacy2002 2 years ago
I agree with Murray's point,
All men are created equal, NOT identical
Intelligence is but one attribute!
Leadership, persistence, ingenuity, honesty, compassion, bravery, common sense, theyre all just as important.
A good, healthy and successful society needs all the above
uzijohn 3 years ago 15
I think he has a point, but there is still a value for a society to educate it's populace
conway668 3 years ago
"there is still a value for a society to educate it's populace"
Does Murray, in your view, NOT think "there is ... a value for a society to educate it's populace"?
MrCropper 3 years ago 9