Glenn, loved this discussion and in particular your point about causation. I seem to vaguely recall that back in the day The Gates Foundation tried to get as many kids to take Algebra 2 as possible because kids who managed to get through that class seemed to do better on average in life than kids who didn't. So getting through an Algebra 2 curriculum was viewed as some sort of panacea.
Of course there very well might have been a self selection effect and the kids who were more resourceful as you put it might have been the ones to have disproportionately gravitated towards and passed Algebra 2. I suppose one could always run an A/B test of some sort and compare how a randomly sampled test group that took Algebra 2 fared in life compared to a control group that didn't. I took Ian's perspective as conceding that even if causality couldn't be definitively inferred based on the data, with respect to the example of Algebra 2 for instance we should just have as many kids go through that class as possible and see what ultimately results, since we know that those who've passed the class in the past have on average tended to do better in life compared to those who didn't.
I'm a little skeptical that that's necessarily the optimal approach because to your point what we want to cultivate are the underlying traits that ultimately lead people to positive outcomes in life. Everyone's strengths and circumstances are different. I'm sure the data also shows that on average people who get 4 year degrees are more likely to be well-off in life than people who don't. But as various individuals including John McWhorter have argued, we should emphasize vocational training more in this country instead of subscribing to the idea that a 4 year degree is the right path for everyone. I believe that conflating correlation with causation can ultimately lead to sub-optimal policies based on possibly incorrect assumptions.
Glenn, loved this discussion and in particular your point about causation. I seem to vaguely recall that back in the day The Gates Foundation tried to get as many kids to take Algebra 2 as possible because kids who managed to get through that class seemed to do better on average in life than kids who didn't. So getting through an Algebra 2 curriculum was viewed as some sort of panacea.
Of course there very well might have been a self selection effect and the kids who were more resourceful as you put it might have been the ones to have disproportionately gravitated towards and passed Algebra 2. I suppose one could always run an A/B test of some sort and compare how a randomly sampled test group that took Algebra 2 fared in life compared to a control group that didn't. I took Ian's perspective as conceding that even if causality couldn't be definitively inferred based on the data, with respect to the example of Algebra 2 for instance we should just have as many kids go through that class as possible and see what ultimately results, since we know that those who've passed the class in the past have on average tended to do better in life compared to those who didn't.
I'm a little skeptical that that's necessarily the optimal approach because to your point what we want to cultivate are the underlying traits that ultimately lead people to positive outcomes in life. Everyone's strengths and circumstances are different. I'm sure the data also shows that on average people who get 4 year degrees are more likely to be well-off in life than people who don't. But as various individuals including John McWhorter have argued, we should emphasize vocational training more in this country instead of subscribing to the idea that a 4 year degree is the right path for everyone. I believe that conflating correlation with causation can ultimately lead to sub-optimal policies based on possibly incorrect assumptions.