Reported by Jane Edwards
Last week (25.07.13) Graeme Paton, the Education Editor of the Daily Telegraph, reported on a study carried out by Professor Robert Plomin of the Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College, London, which showed that inherited intelligence may account for around 60 per cent of teenage scores in exams while factors such as school performance account for only a third.
I read on and my eye caught this comment from Prof Plomin: “Little genetic difference become bigger and bigger as you go through life…”
It rang a bell. The implication of this is the fundamental point that was raised recently by John Bean in his article, still published on this site: “How Small Genetic Differences Give Racial Diversity”. Tim Heydon, a fellow contributor, described it as: “ A most valuable summary of the current state of research, which refutes the left-liberal assertion, based essentially on wishful thinking, that races are merely a ‘social construct’ “.
Prof Plomin, an American geneticist, runs the Twins Early Development Study, which tracks twins born between 1994 and 1996. His latest study, the results of which have still to be fully published, analysed the GCSE results of 11,117 twins. Across all subjects, inherited ability accounted for around 58 per cent, while “shared environment” such as the school accounted for about 36 per cent.
Graeme Paton’s article said that other studies have linked genes with IQ but the latest research suggests the link becomes more pronounced with age.
Elsewhere last week UCAS (Universities and Colleges Admission Services) reported that in Britain fewer than three in 10 white teenagers have lodged applications to start degree courses this autumn. To my knowledge no press reporter has raised whether or not this is because the white percentage of the UK population under the age of 18 could now be less than the Afro-Asian in origin.
The UCAS figures show that white pupils are now about half as likely to strive for university as school-leavers from Chinese families, and 41 per cent of applications were from Asians (other than Chinese). This is probably partly indicative of the fact that nearly all IQ tests now put East Asians higher than Europeans, with both well above Africans. African students are now chief recipients of special aid in advanced education as a ‘disadvantaged group”, which may explain why 34 per cent of applications were from black students and only 29 per cent from whites!
Maybe the percentage not going to university are going to be plumbers, electricians, butchers, bakers, nurses, self-employed, etc.
IMHO we need them more than umpteen people qualified in Media Studies, Social Sciences,& philosophy.
Too many people getting degrees simply devalues the degree, & whether they are above average intelligence or not, they still don’t find it easy to get a job of any sort, especially if they are being undercut by foreigners.
I know that this is not really what you are on about in this article, but I just don’t think that university is proof of intelligence, or that it is always a good idea for everyone.
The idea that black underperformance is due to ‘disadvantage’ rather than to genetic factors has led to gross injustice towards non-blacks as well as a massive waste of tax payers money
That genes are largely responsible for Intelligence might be (unwelcome) news to worshippers of the cult of equality, but it is old news to the rest of us,
In estimating that genetic factors were twice as important as shared environment in influencing educational achievement at age 16, Plomin merely confirmed the main claim of ‘The g Factor’ (1996/2000);
He also was reinventing the wheel when he stated what had been known by 1985, that heritability of intelligence increased with age, perhaps reaching 80% by adulthood.
Mo, you raise a very good point that we need artisans more than we need young people getting useless degrees. Engineering, Science and the true ‘Arts’ degrees are a different matter.