Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Are 'Classes' Back
Townhall ^ | 8/15/05 | Michael Barone

Posted on 08/15/2005 7:34:36 AM PDT by Molly Pitcher

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-56 next last

1 posted on 08/15/2005 7:34:38 AM PDT by Molly Pitcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Molly Pitcher
Meritocracy may leave people with no one to blame for failure. But, as Herrnstein and Murray argued, almost all Americans have the ability "to find valued places in society."

Actually, IIRC H/M said that Americans might be able to find valued places in society, but not as long as there is a massive centralized welfare state working against the purposes of local community. It's been awhile since I read their book, but they were gloomy about the ability of a highly meritocratic society to get along unless significant changes were made in that society.

2 posted on 08/15/2005 7:41:55 AM PDT by untenured (http://futureuncertain.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Molly Pitcher

My wife was surprised, when she immigrated here, at how hard Americans have to work for everything.

I explained to her that America doesn't promise to make anyone rich. What you get is opportunity.

Not everyone makes the most of it, and alot of folks fail. But they get the chance, and that's a damn sight more than most places offer.


3 posted on 08/15/2005 7:43:56 AM PDT by Gefreiter ("Are you drinking 1% because you think you're fat?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Molly Pitcher
Meritocracy may mean less mobility, but that is bearable if, as Brooks says, "America is becoming more virtuous."


4 posted on 08/15/2005 7:44:28 AM PDT by Paul Ross (Definition of strict constructionist: someone who DOESN'T hallucinate when reading the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Molly Pitcher
Meritocracy may leave people with no one to blame for failure.

Never under-estimate Jesse Jackson.

5 posted on 08/15/2005 7:45:08 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Molly Pitcher
"As college education becomes open to all with the requisite intelligence, graduates will tend to marry graduates and produce children with similar intelligence, while others will tend to produce children without it...

Does Mr. Parket suggest that George Washington Carver was some kind of an intellectual fluke? That the children of crop dusters will produce only cropdusters? What a Darwinian crock!

Has anyone noticed that the systematic dumbing-down of our "educational" system is producing endless crops of spiritually crippled Elitist parrots without a shred of critical-thinking ability?

Those "tests" that are ostensibly devised to measure this ever increasing superiority have been modified to the point of banality for the purpose of turning out intellectually fatuous and morally vacant corporatites.

I thoroughly disagree and object to the tone and conclusions of this pathetic analysis.

6 posted on 08/15/2005 7:45:19 AM PDT by steenkeenbadges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gefreiter

Well said.


7 posted on 08/15/2005 7:45:21 AM PDT by Jet Jaguar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Molly Pitcher

Since there will ALWAYS be some people with nothing... as a society becomes richer... isn't it inevitable that the gap between the rich and poor will grow?


8 posted on 08/15/2005 7:49:46 AM PDT by Texas_Conservative2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Molly Pitcher
"America," concludes Parker, "is becoming a stratified society based on education: a meritocracy."

And that's fine. The only thing we need to guarantee is that:

1) Anyone who is sufficiently self-motivated can educate him or herself at a reasonable cost through Internet courses and self-study options.

2) "Based on education" doesn't translate to "based on graduating from a select list of twenty schools."

9 posted on 08/15/2005 7:50:38 AM PDT by Mr. Jeeves ("Feelings are not a tool of cognition, therefore they are not a criterion of morality." -- Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Molly Pitcher

Lower class emulates upper class -- empire is rising.

Upper class emulates lower class -- empire is declining.


Considering that the media and certain rich kids believe it's both cool and fun to be impoverished crime-ridden inner city minorities, the current state of "class" indicates we a nation in free-fall.


10 posted on 08/15/2005 7:52:11 AM PDT by SteveMcKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steenkeenbadges

Yes. Also, I wonder if they are mistaking what we often call "success" or a high income with true intelligence. I know many people that could've gone onto very high paying jobs if they'd been born into the right circles - let's face it, in many instances it IS who you know and not what you know. You can learn the what very easily but getting in the door might require some effort. Also, there are plenty of rich and very high level people that produce children that grow up to be selfish, greedy and unwholesome. We had a very interesting story here in Cleveland over a year ago about a man that went through the most elite of private schools and he ended up screwing a bunch of people out of their investments (look up Frank Gruttaduria on Google) and he would have been considered in this upper tier, according to this article. They can HAVE their tier!


11 posted on 08/15/2005 7:59:26 AM PDT by Paved Paradise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

Denying that intelligence has a hereditary component doesn't make it so.

Of course this doesn't mean that every smart couple will birth nothing but smart kids nor that every stupid couple will birth nothing but stupid kids.

But lets say for the sake of argument that if 90% of all births to 2 intelligent people result in intelligent children, while only 10% of births to two stupid people result intelligent children... the guy would have a point, that meeting your spouse in college could result in a widening gap of intelligence.


12 posted on 08/15/2005 8:01:12 AM PDT by Texas_Conservative2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Paved Paradise

At the rate they limit their own family size (and abort the rest), they may very well darwin-ize themselves right out of existence. One can hope :-))


13 posted on 08/15/2005 8:02:58 AM PDT by steenkeenbadges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Texas_Conservative2

Yeah - I agree. Just because the gap is growing is not a bad thing. It just means that wealth in America is growing.

Living in Mississippi, I have seen a great explosion of wealth in parts of the state (while living other poverty stricken areas in the dust).

Increased wealth in America is a good thing. And conservatives more than liberals are likely to be advantaged by this.


14 posted on 08/15/2005 8:03:44 AM PDT by RKB-AFG (60 seats in '06)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Molly Pitcher

I've read the Bell Curve...liberals should be very afraid.


15 posted on 08/15/2005 8:04:12 AM PDT by Tulane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paved Paradise

Intelligence doesn't denote honesty.

You can be both smart and a crook.


16 posted on 08/15/2005 8:04:23 AM PDT by Texas_Conservative2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RKB-AFG

What part of the Great State? I grew up in Jackson...right down the street from North Park Mall.


17 posted on 08/15/2005 8:04:50 AM PDT by Tulane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: steenkeenbadges
That the children of crop dusters will produce only cropdusters? What a Darwinian crock!

Cropdusters? You have to be a pretty good stick (pilot) to be a successful cropduster. It's not a lower class job, IMHO. And yes, I know a pilot who's father was a "duster," and went another career path from spraying fields with needed chemicals so we can have healthier, more plentiful food.

18 posted on 08/15/2005 8:07:51 AM PDT by Ace's Dad ("There are more important things: Friendship, Bravery...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Molly Pitcher
This was the conclusion, as well, of a recent series of articles in The New York Times -- although, as the Times and Parker both note, polls show that Americans think their chances of moving up are better than a generation ago. Statistics tell a different story: There is a higher correlation today between parents' and children's income than in the 1980s, and the income gap between college graduates and non-graduated doubled between 1979 and 1997.

This is not surprising. The universal availability of college education was first available to our parent's generation. So the smart ones, even from working class backgrounds, went to college.

Thus, my grandfather was a migrant farm worker and a hard rock miner. He was plenty smart but the result of being the child of very poor Italian immigrants in the 1890's--they didn't go to college. But my father was a rocket scientist. I'm a professional. High correlation between my father's income and mine. Low correlation between my grandfather and my father. High correlation between by grandfather and my great-grandfather.

Smart parents tend to have smart kids. Once the class barrier to college education was broken, the decorrelation between generations will last for about one generation and then reassert itself. It's not a sign of anything other than the fact that the effect of universal college education has now worked it's way thru the system.

The only way in which this may truly have changed is that with smarter boys and girs going to college, I suspect that smart boys and smart girls are more likely to end up married to each other and that the kids may be supersmart, on average. So in that sense, there is probably a larger class of very smart folks than existed before.

19 posted on 08/15/2005 8:08:38 AM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas_Conservative2
The child of 2 extremely intelligent people is more likely than not to be highly intelligent themselves...

But intelligence alone is not the sole determiner of success.

Nor does intelligence infer determination, a good work ethic, or the will to succeed.

In fact, a smart kid could very easily determine that it was in their best interest to NOT succeed but instead to live off the wealth and support of their parents, and have a good time instead. A wealthy family providing a smart child with everything they want is no different than the government welfare to the poor.

The end result is that it robs the recipient of the will to better themselves.
20 posted on 08/15/2005 8:12:43 AM PDT by Texas_Conservative2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-56 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson