May 22, 2013

1. Chelsea Clinton running NYU's "multifaith" institute. 2. The Harvard Kennedy School granting a PhD for a dissertation about the IQ of Hispanic immigrants.

1. We learn today that Chelsea Clinton will take on "a 'multifaith' role as co-founder and co-chair of [NYU's] brand-new Of Many Institute, a program to "develop multifaith dialogue and train multifaith leaders." It should be noted, in this context, that Chelsea Clinton's degree is a Master's of Public Health, and that she has been teaching at the graduate level at Columbia's Mailman School of Public Health.

2. Yesterday, we were talking about the Harvard students who are petitioning for an investigation into how the Harvard Kennedy School accepted a dissertation that reached conclusions that the students regarded as unethical, because it supported discrimination against persons of a particular ethnicity on the ground of purported lower intelligence.

Let's talk about these 2 stories together. Here are 3 highly prestigious institutions — NYU, Columbia, and Harvard — and schools/institutes within them that most of us would assume have a political slant in the liberal direction:  NYU's Of Many Institute, Columbia's Mailman School of Public Health, and Harvard's Kennedy School.

Both stories make the institutions look weak — NYU and Columbia for taking in the Clintons' daughter — and Harvard for awarding degrees for weak dissertations.

Be clear what I'm saying about Harvard. I mean to express no opinion about Jason Richwine's "IQ and Immigration Policy" dissertation. I haven't read it, and I'm not an expert in the field. I can't believe the professors at the Kennedy School liked where Richwine was going with his research, but I suspect that they went forward, approving his dissertation, because it wasn't any worse than the many  left/liberal dissertations they've approved over the years.

ADDED: Why is NYU's multifaith institute called "Of Many"? Is it based on "Out of many, one" — E pluribus unum?



AND: Do students at Columbia's Mailman School of Public Health take courses with Chelsea because of the value of networking the Clintons? That's pretty valuable! Inference: you're a chump if you're paying high tuition and not buying access to power.

75 comments:

Strelnikov said...

An obvious connection: The Left has always considered protection and promotion of the Clintons as a religious duty. Why not cut to the chase and have our tax dollars begin to pay directly for that?

Expat(ish) said...

You may think the dissertation topic is weak , but the dissertation itself was undoubtedly highly technical and very carefully vetted.

My wife's dissertation was on the relatively un-controversial topic of entrepreneurial rates and social factors affecting them in a 25+ country sample. She spent, literally, over a year on the statistical analysis alone. She had a world expert on her methodology on her committee.

My guess is that something pretty similar happened at Harvard. Especially with a topic like this - you'd have to be very very careful on your committee.

There is certainly no way post "Bell Curve" that sloppy work on a topic like that would be allowed.

Or so I would be willing to bet.

-XC

Tom altee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Drago said...

ADDED: Why is NYU's multifaith institute called "Of Many"? Is it based on "Out of many, one" — E pluribus unum?

No, it is not based on "Out of many, one".

In fact, it's meant to be the exact opposite.

Remember, "diversity our strength", many little "nations"/truths/realities/pperspectives etc (necessarily excluding conservative ones, of course!) not this "one" nation of which these crazy right wingers speak today and those crazy right wing/DWEM founders spoke.

Expat(ish) said...

Here is the paper


http://www.scribd.com/doc/140239668/IQ-and-Immigration-Policy-Jason-Richwine

Expat(ish) said...

Awesome, the Committee chair is George Borjas

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/gborjas/biography.html

He is Cuban.

Here I am, doing the reporting that American reporters aren't willing to do.

-XC

traditionalguy said...

Out of Judeo-Christian revelation's world view of man and God and then into pagan Gaia Worship's human sacrifices is the basic path for 'The New World Order."

Many a side trail is being taken as a distraction to slow cooking this stubborn frog, but in the end, goal remains the same.

Nonapod said...

I think it's sad that institutions that are oestensibly places of education appear to be driven primarily by political considerations rather than... ya know... teaching stuff. But that's nothing new of course. The primary focus of institutions of higher education hasn't really been about higher education in decades. Similar to big government, a majority of effort has been expended on sustaining and growing the existing system rather than providing a useful education that will get people jobs.

buwaya said...

Interesting. Somebody is giving Chelsea Clinton a sinecure.
There is material for a conspiracy theorist here of course. This is a quid pro quo for something.
More mundane cynicism suggests the possibility that they just want her name for fund-raising.

Chip S. said...

Harvard will only look weak if it capitulates in any way to the petitioners.

FFS, one of Richwine's committee members was Christopher Jencks, whose moderate-lefty credentials are impeccable.

And another member of his committee was George Borjas, who's not only an authority on the economics of immigration but is also a Hispanic immigrant.

William said...

Well, good for Harvard......I wonder about the student who prepared the dissertation. He spent years of his life trying to prove that Hispanics are stupid. If you're looking a for a career in the academy, that's not the route to take. Good luck to him finding work in his field. I wonder if he is a man of principle or of prejudice or whether there is some kind of Venn overlap between these forces. At any rate, he followed his beliefs and not his self interest......In this he differs from the Clintons whose guiding princple is their self interest.

T J Sawyer said...

Where do prejudices originate? Many come from academia.

Go to your nearest University library and pull out a few old geography texts written around 1900. Go to the index and look up Negroes. Read all the related text. (can you find "half-civilized?" How about "need to be educated by their European leaders?")

You might be surprised at what the cream of academia at Princeton, Harvard and other schools put into the textbooks that were the foundation of education for the group of political, business and labor leaders of the 1930s, 40s and 50s.

kcom said...

I'm sure he's a self-hating Hispanic immigrant.

Jim said...

I wonder about the student who prepared the dissertation. He spent years of his life trying to prove that Hispanics are stupid.

What? How about he came up with a question, found data on it, and went where the data took him.

X said...

I mean to express no opinion about Jason Richwine's "IQ and Immigration Policy" dissertation.

you failed.

Brennan said...

If Harvard were to revoke Richwine's degree would they not have to revoke the positions of the 3 faculty members that reviewed and approved the dissertation?

I look forward to the 1200 Harvard grads getting owned by the three faculty members.

Jeff Teal said...

Why is this not a question about the overall weakening of academia refarding multicultural analysis and diversity studies generally?

Dante said...

and Harvard for awarding degrees for weak dissertations

What's weak about it? Estimates are from 11Million to 18Million illegals in the country. Shouldn't we know what were getting into?

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Be clear what I'm saying about Harvard.

I'm not. In what way is the dissertation weak? It is certainly un-PC. I guess from a certain point of view enforcing politically correct standards is considered a sign of strength. Is that what you are saying?

Marshal said...

Maybe these events make the institutions look weak on a scale you care about. It seems a more important priority is being satisfied. I wonder what that ould be?

Mumpsimus said...

Why is NYU's multifaith institute called "Of Many"? Is it based on "Out of many, one" — E pluribus unum?

No, it's based on Star Trek.

Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one.

mccullough said...

Does Columbia's Mailman School of Public Health have a bronze statute of Karl Malone out front?

Billy Oblivion said...

Ms. Althouse, your last paragraph (prior to the "added") expresses the appropriate liberal attitude. You CLEARLY believe that there is NO POSSIBLE way that his research could actually, you know, be right.

First off we have considerable evidence that early childhood nutrition and stimulation have a dramatic impact on intelligence. Why is it so hard to believe that certain cultural practices--that may take two or three generations to wipe out--lead to measurable reductions among a large cultural set?

By definition different races have different genetic expression. This is basically what race *is*. (making shit up completely: )

If one presents evidence that whites have a genetic expression that disposes them to being nearsighted, well this is something we need to study further, moar grant muny pleeze.

If one presents evidence that Persians have a gene that tends towards weaker muscles, well this is something we need to study further, moar grant muny pleeze.

If one suggests that sub-Saharan Africans have a gene that causes them to taste better to tigers, well this is something we need to study further, moar grant muny pleeze.

If one suggests that Asians have better eyesight, well this is something we need to study further, moar grant muny pleeze.

If one suggest that has a reduced IQ? RACISTS!!!!

Why is this?

Because liberals, progressives and academics (but I repeat myself) PLACE A MORAL JUDGEMENT ON INTELLIGENCE. To suggest that a group might have less intelligence is to say they are MORALLY less worthy.

I suggest that you might want to stick that in your navel and gaze it a bit.

Fernandinande said...

"...[Richwines's thesis] wasn't any worse than the many left/liberal dissertations they've approved over the years."

It's actually turned out to be pretty important and/or influencial, hasn't it?

"There is certainly no way post "Bell Curve" that sloppy work on a topic like that would be allowed."

Quite so. Linda Gottfredson has some papers regarding the extra rigor required for any research referencing IQ.

Mitch H. said...

Your assumption that a dissertation with an objectionable, even toxic thesis could *possibly* be "weak" and yet make it through the academic thickets seems... unsupportable. My presumption is that it had to have been technically ironclad to have made it through intact.

Skimming the precis, I can see some questionable assertions, especially the flat declaration of the general-use validity of IQ tests in chapter 1, which could make it weak. I don't *like* the standing hypothesis that there are broad-based genetic-based ethnic IQ variance, but AFAIK it's an otherwise robust hypothesis which has been... poorly explored because lots of other people don't like the implications any more than I do.

MadisonMan said...

Columbia's Mailman School of Public Health

This name makes me laugh.

CEO-MMP said...

Out of many, one? But Algore, the second smartest living man (was first smartest until they discovered the half black messiah dwelling in the midwest) told us it was out of one, many.

So obviously Althouse is wrong. Algore is always right.

SteveR said...

Regarding the dissertation, as I said yesterday, he didn't say what people are saying he said. Talk about stupid

zahid ahmed said...

es, Videos, Loll Pictures, Hot Pictures, Funny Pictures, Funny Videos, Hot Videos, Entertainment Pictures, Entertainment Articles, Entertainment News, Internet Classified Sites, Buying and Selling Classified Sites, Online Jobs, Online Marketing and all Current Affairs News updates.
All Current Affairs in Only 1 Best Entertainment Website Network
hotcurrentaffairs.com

ricpic said...

I hope NYU didn't appoint Chelsea to head its multifaith institute without first vetting her groundbreaking Phd thesis: Judeo-Christianity: the mystery of why Cardinals wear yarmulkes unveiled.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

He spent years of his life trying to prove that Hispanics are stupid.

No. Not true. He was trying to show that the immigrant Hispanics were of a lower IQ than existing population in the country. Not that all Hispanics are stupid (which is not true at all), but rather that the self selection in the subset of immigrants, is causing people from the lower end of the bell curve to be that subset. Most of whom are ILLEGAL and are CRIMINALS for the sheer act of being illegally in this country. We already know that the educational level of illegal immigrants is on the lowest level. Those Hispanics who choose not to immigrate may not be in the same subset of IQ range. However, without reading his whole dissertation, there is no way to ascertain this.

If Harvard were to revoke Richwine's degree would they not have to revoke the positions of the 3 faculty members that reviewed and approved the dissertation?

Approving a dissertation is NOT the same thing as approving or agreeing with the topic of the dissertation. You are approving the methodology, the scholarship behind the dissertation. The way in which the topic has been researched and presented. It doesn't mean that you necessarily agree with the subject or conclusion.

Just because you don't agree with the topic, it doesn't make it 'weak'.

SOJO said...

I think situations like Chelsea Clinton are WHY people see affirmative action/diversity as justified. You have an entire class of people that get prestigious things handed to them for no seriously logic reason other than their position in society, so it makes perfect sense to equalize that by race/gender/ethnicity.

Nomennovum said...

Why is NYU's multifaith institute called "Of Many"? Is it based on "Out of many, one" — E pluribus unum? -- AA

With the vacuousness of most doctoral papers in the liberal arts, more likely ex nihilo, merda.

bgates said...

Be clear what I'm saying about Harvard.

You first.

Chip S. said...

Anyone who wants to see what the Richwine dissertation actually says can find it here.

There are 3 basic talking points I've seen him accused of neglecting. He argues against them, but does not neglect them.

Flynn Effect? Discussed. Possible explanations cited.

Gardner's "Multiple Intelligences"? Discussed. Criticisms of it by others cited.

S.J. Gould's "Mismeasure of Man?" This:

Gould contributed essentially nothing to the science of IQ, but his influence among laypeople regrettably remains.

Ann Althouse said...

Expat(ish) said..."Here is the paper... Here I am, doing the reporting that American reporters aren't willing to do."

The link to the paper is at the link that I linked to in my post yesterday.

Note that my theory is that Richwine's paper is stronger than many other papers, that they had to approve him or the political discrimination would be obvious. The real problem is those other dissertations that are weaker than Richwine's.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Richwine believes that allowing low IQ immigrants into the country is socially and economically harmful. Underclass behavior, less social trust, and an increase of unskilled workers in the labor market top his lists of concerns.

Instead, Richwine suggests that a “skill based” or intelligence based visa would be more lucrative than a diversity visa, which is the idea of the current immigration lottery. Rather than choosing a random selection of individuals, the “skill based” policy would increase the skilled workforce, reunite families, and further other humanitarian goals.

“The legal immigration system should be altered to greatly reduce the number of low-skill immigrants entering the country and increase the number of new entrants with high levels of education and skills that are in demand by U.S. firms,” wrote Richwine.


There is nothing "racist" about his position. It is practicality. If you are going to grant a large influx of people into a country, why shouldn't you try to select for more skilled, educated and capable individuals instead of the least skilled, least educated and least capable. Why wouldn't you want people who will be self supporting and productive instead of those who will be a drain on the rest of society.

Is is YOUR country, YOUR home. You should have the ability to be selective about who you invite in.

LarsPorsena said...

Check out the latest multifaith news from London. See Woolwich

Fernandinande said...

"First off we have considerable evidence that early childhood nutrition and stimulation have a dramatic impact on intelligence."

That's the oft repeated claim, always refuted. Variance in adult IQ in western societies is 80% due to genes - the rest mostly unknown - which is why racial IQ differences are largely unchanged in the past 50 years, and why child Asian immigrants who've literally been starved still have IQs higher than the white average.

victor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dust Bunny Queen said...

One thing that I have some difficulty with, is that it is not easy to determine IQs and make comparisons between populations that are so culturally different.

Being UN-educated doesn't necessarily translate into being of a lower IQ. However, being UNeducated and encouraged NOT to assimilate into the culture (American) is a large problem in that the immigrant will continue to be on the lowest rungs of society, both in "smarts" (education) and economically.

victor said...

I would assume that "Of Many" has a more relativistic bent to it. Presumably whichever faith you uphold as Truth is just one "Of Many", no more or less valid than any other religious faith.

Chip S. said...

Note that my theory is that Richwine's paper is stronger than many other papers

Is it customary in legal scholarship to use "conjecture" as a synonym for "theory"?

JohnGalt said...

The first thing I thought:

Poor girl's in her thirties and still hasn't decided what to do with her life.

JohnGalt said...

The first thing I thought:

Poor girl's in her thirties and still hasn't decided what to do with her life.

Ann Althouse said...

"Ms. Althouse, your last paragraph (prior to the "added") expresses the appropriate liberal attitude. You CLEARLY believe that there is NO POSSIBLE way that his research could actually, you know, be right."

I clearly said I hadn't read it, am not an expert, and mean to express no opinion!

Consider the possibility of your own hysteria.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I clearly said I hadn't read it, am not an expert, and mean to express no opinion!

Calling it 'weak' without having read it... or not, certainly sounds like expressing an opinion.

CEO-MMP said...

Ann sez:

"Consider the possibility of your own hysteria."


Why is someone arguing with you always reduced (by you) to suffering from hysteria or homophobia or sexual assignment anxiety etc etc ad infinitum?


Dante said...

Harvard for awarding degrees for weak dissertations

I doubt 1 in 100 people would come to this conclusion from the story, and so they do not "look weak." I suspect most people are focused on what the dissertation means for America or how terrible it is something like this was allowed.

I'm a bit slow with this, Ann, can you please help what I see as several unable to follow your reasoning.

Chip S. said...

I clearly said I hadn't read it, am not an expert, and mean to express no opinion!
......

Both stories make the institutions look weak--NYU and Columbia for taking in the Clintons' daughter — and Harvard for awarding degrees for weak dissertations.

Nope. No opinion there!

You're just reporting on perceptions. The boldface font is in no way meant to bring particular attention to the part in boldface font.

Of course, if the perception of weakness wasn't yours, you probably should've specified whose perceptions you were talking about.

You know how easily confused your commenters are.

Dante said...

DBQ:

Calling it 'weak' without having read it... or not, certainly sounds like expressing an opinion.

She didn't call it weak. She said Harvard has approved weak dissertations, but isn't commenting on this one. She is probably right about that.

She also says this dissertation topic was probably approved because of the previous poor quality dissertations.

She then says the story makes Harvard look weak, and I think her claim is it's self evident from this story the reason they approved this dissertation is on account of the other weak dissertations.

I doubt many people would come to this conclusion, so I'm not clear how the story makes Harvard look weak, at least not to most people. And further, it's simply strange to bash an organization over the head for doing something that makes sense.

What makes sense is to get an understanding of what the 11 - 18Million illegals are going to do to this country. This dissertation helps paint the picture.

Her position is mighty confusing to me.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

I mean to express no opinion about Jason Richwine's "IQ and Immigration Policy" dissertation. I haven't read it, and I'm not an expert in the field.

One could say that's more than a bit cowardly, I'm afraid.

If mean IQ varies significantly by Race (it does), the legal and social policy ramifications are huge.

To willfully remain ignorant of the subject, given its importance, begs the question: why? why remain ignorant of the subject? It's not as if there aren't easy ways to inform oneself.

X said...

The real problem is those other dissertations that are weaker than Richwine's.

that's clearer writing. unsupported, but more clear.

Consider the possibility of your own hysteria.

libertarians don't make me cry.

cubanbob said...

Perhaps we can study the likelihood of a very diligent student with an IQ of 85 graduating from Cal-Tech. I would gladly bet of the 1200 Harvard kids a grand each on that. How many of them would take my bet and bet me that such a student would graduate Cal-Tech?

bgates said...

Both stories make the institutions look weak — NYU and Columbia for taking in the Clintons' daughter — and Harvard for awarding degrees for weak dissertations.

Be clear what I'm saying about Harvard


Now I'm more interested in what you're saying about Chelsea. If the statement "this story makes Harvard look weak for awarding degrees for weak dissertations" is in no way meant to suggest that the only dissertation mentioned in the story is weak, does the statement "NYU and Columbia look weak for taking in the Clintons' daughter" indicate you are agnostic on the question of Chelsea's paternity?

chrisnavin.com said...

Maybe Chelsea can open up a Jiffy Lube next, or go visit uncle Roger for a few months, or marry a Tsarnaev-type.

So many options is the sisterhood of the traveling pants.

Balfegor said...

What will make Harvard look weak is if they withdraw the degree now.

There's no particular reason to think Richwine's thesis is weak. A bunch of people passionately wish he were wrong, but if anything, that suggests his thesis must have been stronger than the average.

AllenS said...

Michelle Obama's dissertation.

Barack Obama's missing thesis.

Too funny.

damikesc said...

Is is YOUR country, YOUR home. You should have the ability to be selective about who you invite in.

I find it ironic that the people most opposed to any limits on the borders tend to never open their doors to those less fortunate than they.

And, again, nice to see the list of people whose college work is deemed as being more news-worthy than our "brilliant" President and FLOTUS continues to grow unabated.

chrisnavin.com said...

'Of Many' even sounds a bit like a campaign slogan.

Though I really do think if Chelsea and her husband opened up a Jiffy Lube with a picture of Billary out front, they'd make a killing.

Then she could keep the books, deal with customers, and climb up the hard way. Live amongst the yokels for while, join the tea party and maybe get audited.

Are the universal human rights really worth it to her? Was it all a dream?

edutcher said...

The Lefties like to believe America is in decline.

In fact, it is they are in decline and, because they've done the Gramscian march through the institutions, they are trying to pull the country (and Western Civilization) with them.

"The legal immigration system should be altered to greatly reduce the number of low-skill immigrants entering the country and increase the number of new entrants with high levels of education and skills that are in demand by U.S. firms," wrote Richwine.

The reason he must be destroyed.

If his work is taken seriously, it will destroy everything Teddy Kennedy and Chuckie Schumer have tried to do.

Michael Haz said...

A woman who has no theological training is selected to run a "multi-faith institute".

A woman who holds a MPH was hired to run money for a hedge fund.

A woman who has no journalism training was hired to be a television news reporter.

All so the "right people" can access her parents.

Sam L. said...

It it an article of faith that no group of people can have a lower or higher IQ than any other group of people, though of course the libs are 30 points higher than Republicans, libertarians, religious people, conservatives, home-schooling parents,...

And first generation immigrants can score lower than 2nd/3rd gens because RAAAAACISM (testing them in English).

khesanh0802 said...

I have only seen a short excerpt that was supposed to be from the dissertation. In it the candidate made the observation that our current immigration policy and patterns lead to a population of immigrants whose IQ was lower than white natives. (It seems to me that it's not much of a stretch to assume that if we are being over-weighted by illegal immigrants who are essentially manual laborers then we might expect the population's IQ to be lower than average whether the immigrants are white, black or polka dot.) The candidate's suggestion was that we should change our immigration policy so that we allow in more high skilled (assume higher IQ) immigrants to help alleviate some of the problems associated with low-wage populations. Certainly made sense as a point of departure for further discussion and exploration.

As for the petitioning students I would bet that not one in 1000 read the thesis. Harvard students- maybe more than others - can be real idiots. I know I were one.

Robt C said...

OK, Chelsea has an MPH and teaches at the graduate level at Columbia. Hmm. I teach at a public university in Texas, and the policy here is that unless you have a "terminal degree" in the field (ie, a PhD) you cannot teach upper-division undergraduate courses! Master's degree holders are limited to lower-division survey courses unless Provost-level exemptions are granted. I'm sure that's what happened in Ms. Clinton's case: she earned it.

boldface said...

It's not obvious to me that Richwine's data lead to the conclusion that the lefties seem to think. (Leave aside for now that, for it to be science, the only question should be whether it's true, and not whether it's "acceptable.") If Richwine is right -- he may or may not be -- the followup question is, "then what?" The logical next step is to look at longitudinal data relating to prior immigrant groups over time, to see how their IQs changed with acculturation. I take it as given that IQ is significantly affected by (1) language facility and (2) degree of cultural understanding. It should surprise no one that new immigrants, whose native language is not English and whose native culture is not American, score lower on IQ tests. I am no researcher so I cant' tell you how long that effect will persist through a second generation or a third. BUT I suspect that the multicultural/bilingual education complex has severely hobbled children of immigrants by hindering their early acquisition of English fluency and interrupting their acculturation.

Dante said...

he logical next step is to look at longitudinal data relating to prior immigrant groups over time, to see how their IQs changed with acculturation.

He looked at 3rd generation illegals, and found their IQs were still quite low compared to whites.

Chip S. said...

I am no researcher so I cant' tell you how long that effect will persist through a second generation or a third.

Take a look at Table 2.6 of Richwine's dissertation.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

the multicultural/bilingual education complex has severely hobbled children of immigrants by hindering their early acquisition of English fluency and interrupting their acculturation.

Ah...but, you see that IS the intention. The liberals/progressives do NOT want to have acculturation. We are all going to die on the altar of diversity.

Instead of teaching young immigrants the history of their NEW country and making them feel proud to be American and understand how we got to be the country that we are, the education complex stresses the negativeness of America. Children are forbidden from understanding, much less celebrating national holidays like the 4th of July, while Cinco de Mayo is venerated. Lincoln is a paragraph in the history books. WWI and WWII are barely discussed.

The emphasis is on dividing groups from each other. Keeping us separate and at odds with each other. Because if they can't create a permanent victim class, create a tamed and ignorant voter pool filled with propaganda......they can't keep in power. If the immigrants, minorities all find out that there really aren't any major differences, that no one is set to oppress them (other than the progressives who want them to stay in their places) and they gain pride in their adopted country, the Progtards will loose their strangle hold on the people.

It is by design.

Ann Althouse said...

"Calling it 'weak' without having read it... or not, certainly sounds like expressing an opinion."

I agree, but that does describe anything I did. Seriously, quote something I said or be clear that I did not say that. I have no idea whether he did a good job or not, but the incident makes me suspect that a lot of weak work--weaker than his--is getting approved. I'm speaking relatively and making an inference from what I actually do know.

Chip S. said...

I have no idea whether he did a good job or not, but the incident makes me suspect that a lot of weak work--weaker than his--is getting approved.

The "incident" is a witch hunt that has succeeded in diverting attention from the Heritage estimate of the long-term cost of current immigration policy. To me, that suggests that amnesty advocates thought the study was a possible game-changer and successfully found a way to get people like you speculating about the "weak work" done by Richwine in his dissertation rather than the potential consequences of our immigration policy. As a bonus, this lame ad hominem attack even got Heritage to disavow the study and fire Richwine, in classic Capt. Renault style.

You've been squirreled.

Anglelyne said...

boldface: The logical next step is to look at longitudinal data relating to prior immigrant groups over time, to see how their IQs changed with acculturation. I take it as given that IQ is significantly affected by (1) language facility and (2) degree of cultural understanding. It should surprise no one that new immigrants, whose native language is not English and whose native culture is not American, score lower on IQ tests.

If this is so obvious that you're sure it "should surprise no one", why do you assume that that people who devote careers to the study of IQ would not take it into account?

I'm scratching my head at the number of people I see commenting on this who a)haven't read the paper, and b)don't really know anything about the field, but are c)dead sure that psychometricians have completely overlooked possible confounding factors that are obvious to anybody who's ever given it two minutes thought.

Anglelyne said...

Chip S.: The "incident" is a witch hunt that has succeeded in diverting attention from the Heritage estimate of the long-term cost of current immigration policy.

Yup. And the "immigration reform" bill is such a monstrosity that it makes Obamacare look like a model of legislative prudence, foresight, and fiscal soundness that...

squirrel!

rcocean said...

"The "incident" is a witch hunt that has succeeded in diverting attention from the Heritage estimate of the long-term cost of current immigration policy."

Which is why it is being conducted. Funny how the libertarians and the
"small government" Conservatives, don't want to discuss the Heritage Study. The study PROVES amnesty will cost this country $$$$ TRILLIONS, and lead to a vast expansion of Government clients and services.

But look, Squirrel!

Rialby said...

Richwine cites a study by Philip Roth where he did meta-analysis of a set of tests with a sample size of 5,696,529.

The same people who are going to swear up and down we should regard temperatures taken in 1825 as precise as those taken in 2013 are the ones decrying this research.