The larger problem is that Krugmen will continue to be quoted and the guy in Iowa with the huge pipe will be stealthfully shuffled to the bottom of the deck.
>"I believe the test gap between minority students and white students can be attributed to differences in socioeconomic status. And poverty. And yes, racism. And yes, family structure."
I love this guy's sense of humor. See the way he mocks the prevailing liberal wisdom?
Iowahawk always makes great reading. His blog and his twitter feed have probably led to lots of keyboards being replaced after coffee was spewed on them by readers.
How does any NYT columnist keep his or her job? Krugman’s function for the Left is the “appeal to authority.” He’s an economist with a Nobel Prize and he trades on that in order to lend credibility to what he opines. That his Nobel Prize has almost nothing to do with anything he opines about is immaterial to this appeal, nor is anything as pedestrian as factual accuracy. Take away his Nobel Prize and Krugman’s writings are indistinguishable from any other reasonably literate liberal’s regurgitation of liberal orthodoxies.
Just wow. On substance, that's as thorough a beating as I've seen anyone give Krugman. Ever.
Problem is, we all know that no GOP politician can make this argument without the interviewing journalist breaking in with, "Well wait, Congressman/Senator/Governor. What exactly are you suggesting??"
Then, of course, it's game over as the poor sap backpedals piteously, insists he's not "racist," and is probably hounded to resign before the week's out. It's so sad we have to keep performing this kabuki dance when we talk about education.
The interesting comparison is IowaHawk:Krugman versus business salaries:governmental salaries. The 'Hawk schools Krugman with his more sophisticated model. The less sophisticated models for salaries show a big advantage to government employees but the more sophisticated models including education and years of service reduce or reverse that difference. The problem with the sophisticated salary methods is that employees union/civil service models have an incentive to obtain expensive advanced degrees while business employees are paid based on outputs (I know that it is imperfectly applied).
The point is the 'Hawk's model works because it is a better model not because it is more complicated. Ethnicity is a good predictor of scholastic outcomes. Education and years in service are questionable predictors of output.
That's stunning information, and so worth hearing. Yet, we all know it will not get reported anywhere. All of the lib news media will ignore the facts, and they'll just parrot Krugman's blather, as usual.
One does wonder somewhat where the rest of the conservative pundits who don't wear clown noses have been. (Excepting Taranto.) The factual superiority of the case for Walker's plan and against public service unions is rarely in evidence although it is strong. Meanwhile, residents in Wisconsin are treated to nastiness that seems more true with increasingly vehement claims.
Holy mackerel. That was an butt whoopin'. Statistically speaking. I wonder when Paul Krugman will hang it up as a commentator and earn his dignity back as a economist?
What's so tricky about getting this data out and past mainstream media indigantion? Some prominent voice speaking on behalf of Texas-- and specifically in rebuttal to Krugman-- points out that "Texas is having demonstrably greater success than states like Wisconsin [and et. al.] at educating students, whether they are black, white or Hispanic. What we haven't solved is the tragic and stubborn nationwide gap between the performance of those groups-- we've just done a bit better at it than those other states."
What's so tricky about getting this data out and past mainstream media indigantion? Some prominent voice speaking on behalf of Texas-- and specifically in rebuttal to Krugman-- points out that "Texas is having demonstrably greater success than states like Wisconsin [and et. al.] at educating students, whether they are black, white or Hispanic. What we haven't solved is the tragic and stubborn nationwide gap between the performance of those groups-- we've just done a bit better at it than those other states."
Iowahawk may have knocked down Krugman's argument but he didn't address The Economist's at all. In fact his statement...
"... beginning to see a pattern? Perhaps because a state's "average ACT/SAT" is, for all intents and purposes, a proxy for the percent of white people who live there."
...is demonstrably untrue by the data in those pdfs.
Could the difference be due to "sampling bias"? Looking at a press release from Wisconsin, it states that 5% of 2009 graduates took the SAT. From Polifact, Texas apparently had 51% of its students taking the exam.
5% sounds like a lot of self-selecting on the part of students, most likely at the higher end of the bell curve. 50% is half the students, which is more likely to include those that wouldn't score as highly, thus dragging the average down.
On the other hand, the different tests IowaHawk presents don't have much in the way of self-selection / selection bias; it was supposed to be all students in 4th grade and in 8th grade, if I recall correctly.
Serious Cat, I'd read more than one rebuttal to this talking point, and even though Iowahawk doesn't address it explicitly, Another Anon is right. There are huge variations in the rates of ACT/SAT test-taking from one state to another. Hence they're not comparable populations.
He chose the NAEP scores because they're "universal(ly)" administered, with no selection bias. Having said that, I did explore the data myself, and found that there are non-unionized teaching systems near the bottom, in the middle, and near the top. So I don't think this is conclusive at all, but it does shred Krugman's specific comparison of TX and WI.
As a conservative, we want to address the racism that allows our inner city school systems to fail our precious young people. Let me cite my big city Milwaukee, somewhat related to this controversy, clearly recognized as near the bottom in most educational measures. We have to use broad, universal metrics that help us increase the educational proficiency of non-whites.
The larger problem is that Krugmen will continue to be quoted and the guy in Iowa with the huge pipe will be stealthfully shuffled to the bottom of the deck.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow does Krugman keep his job?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNobel for Iowahawk?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDang. He took "Dr. Krugman" to the statistical toolshed.
>"I believe the test gap between minority students and white students can be attributed to differences in socioeconomic status. And poverty. And yes, racism. And yes, family structure."
I love this guy's sense of humor. See the way he mocks the prevailing liberal wisdom?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIowahawk always makes great reading. His blog and his twitter feed have probably led to lots of keyboards being replaced after coffee was spewed on them by readers.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGeorge - he keeps his job by telling his audience exactly what they want to hear.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"How does Krugman keep his job?"
How does any NYT columnist keep his or her job? Krugman’s function for the Left is the “appeal to authority.” He’s an economist with a Nobel Prize and he trades on that in order to lend credibility to what he opines. That his Nobel Prize has almost nothing to do with anything he opines about is immaterial to this appeal, nor is anything as pedestrian as factual accuracy. Take away his Nobel Prize and Krugman’s writings are indistinguishable from any other reasonably literate liberal’s regurgitation of liberal orthodoxies.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust wow. On substance, that's as thorough a beating as I've seen anyone give Krugman. Ever.
Problem is, we all know that no GOP politician can make this argument without the interviewing journalist breaking in with, "Well wait, Congressman/Senator/Governor. What exactly are you suggesting??"
Then, of course, it's game over as the poor sap backpedals piteously, insists he's not "racist," and is probably hounded to resign before the week's out. It's so sad we have to keep performing this kabuki dance when we talk about education.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe interesting comparison is IowaHawk:Krugman versus business salaries:governmental salaries. The 'Hawk schools Krugman with his more sophisticated model. The less sophisticated models for salaries show a big advantage to government employees but the more sophisticated models including education and years of service reduce or reverse that difference. The problem with the sophisticated salary methods is that employees union/civil service models have an incentive to obtain expensive advanced degrees while business employees are paid based on outputs (I know that it is imperfectly applied).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe point is the 'Hawk's model works because it is a better model not because it is more complicated. Ethnicity is a good predictor of scholastic outcomes. Education and years in service are questionable predictors of output.
That's stunning information, and so worth hearing. Yet, we all know it will not get reported anywhere. All of the lib news media will ignore the facts, and they'll just parrot Krugman's blather, as usual.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne does wonder somewhat where the rest of the conservative pundits who don't wear clown noses have been. (Excepting Taranto.) The factual superiority of the case for Walker's plan and against public service unions is rarely in evidence although it is strong. Meanwhile, residents in Wisconsin are treated to nastiness that seems more true with increasingly vehement claims.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHoly mackerel. That was an butt whoopin'. Statistically speaking. I wonder when Paul Krugman will hang it up as a commentator and earn his dignity back as a economist?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat's so tricky about getting this data out and past mainstream media indigantion? Some prominent voice speaking on behalf of Texas-- and specifically in rebuttal to Krugman-- points out that "Texas is having demonstrably greater success than states like Wisconsin [and et. al.] at educating students, whether they are black, white or Hispanic. What we haven't solved is the tragic and stubborn nationwide gap between the performance of those groups-- we've just done a bit better at it than those other states."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat's so tricky about getting this data out and past mainstream media indigantion? Some prominent voice speaking on behalf of Texas-- and specifically in rebuttal to Krugman-- points out that "Texas is having demonstrably greater success than states like Wisconsin [and et. al.] at educating students, whether they are black, white or Hispanic. What we haven't solved is the tragic and stubborn nationwide gap between the performance of those groups-- we've just done a bit better at it than those other states."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseQuestion: Why does "Krugman" pass the language filter, while the more genteel "Bulls**t" doesn't?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKrugman is, and always has been, a vicious liar.
Problem is, some people really like hearing those lies. Thus he remains ever-employed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUh, guys... I think Iowahawk might of messed up here.
As much as I love him, he inexplicably begins by talking about SAT scores but uses those NAEP to make his argument.
But, when you look at the SAT scores grouped by ethnicity... WI outscores TX in every group.
See page 7 of these pdfs (page 3 in document)...
External Link
External Link
Iowahawk may have knocked down Krugman's argument but he didn't address The Economist's at all. In fact his statement...
"... beginning to see a pattern? Perhaps because a state's "average ACT/SAT" is, for all intents and purposes, a proxy for the percent of white people who live there."
...is demonstrably untrue by the data in those pdfs.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSerious Cat:
Could the difference be due to "sampling bias"? Looking at a press release from Wisconsin, it states that 5% of 2009 graduates took the SAT. From Polifact, Texas apparently had 51% of its students taking the exam.
5% sounds like a lot of self-selecting on the part of students, most likely at the higher end of the bell curve. 50% is half the students, which is more likely to include those that wouldn't score as highly, thus dragging the average down.
On the other hand, the different tests IowaHawk presents don't have much in the way of self-selection / selection bias; it was supposed to be all students in 4th grade and in 8th grade, if I recall correctly.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSerious Cat, I'd read more than one rebuttal to this talking point, and even though Iowahawk doesn't address it explicitly, Another Anon is right. There are huge variations in the rates of ACT/SAT test-taking from one state to another. Hence they're not comparable populations.
He chose the NAEP scores because they're "universal(ly)" administered, with no selection bias. Having said that, I did explore the data myself, and found that there are non-unionized teaching systems near the bottom, in the middle, and near the top. So I don't think this is conclusive at all, but it does shred Krugman's specific comparison of TX and WI.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is elitist to rely on SAT scores, period.
As a conservative, we want to address the racism that allows our inner city school systems to fail our precious young people. Let me cite my big city Milwaukee, somewhat related to this controversy, clearly recognized as near the bottom in most educational measures. We have to use broad, universal metrics that help us increase the educational proficiency of non-whites.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse