The Kauffman Foundation's Ben Wildavsky reviews the new Charles Murray book in today's Wall Street Journal, and doesn't like what he reads. He describes Murray's vision as "dismayingly fatalistic":
One can accept the idea that inherent academic abilities are unevenly distributed while also believing that many low-achieving kids--and high-achieving kids, too, for that matter--could learn a lot more than they are learning now. International tests show that students in many other nations bypass American kids in reading and math. Could such comparative results really be a function of higher raw intelligence overseas--or are they more likely to reflect superior educational practices? It is telling that hard-headed education reformers like Eric Hanushek, Chester E. Finn and Jay Greene believe that we can do much more to boost the academic achievement of children upon whom Mr. Murray would essentially give up.
And:
While accusing education reformers of being wooly-headed romantics, then, Mr. Murray conjures up a romantic vision of his own. In his brave new world, the bell curve of abilities is cheerfully acknowledged; students and workers gladly accept their designated places in the pecking order; and happy, well-paid electricians and plumbers go about their business while their brainy brethren read Plato and prepare for the burdens of ruling the world. It is hard to believe that a dynamic, upwardly mobile society would emerge from such an arrangement, or "dignity" either.
Zing! Wildavsky concludes:
Mr. Murray says that he is deeply concerned about the dangers of overestimating the abilities of students. To which one might reply: Aren't the dangers of underestimating their abilities vastly worse?
I think Wildavsky's arguments are closer to the truth than Murray's are, but let's admit one thing. Education reformers do tend to be wooly-headed romantics (I speak from personal experience), so Murray's realism is a helpful tonic for our soft edutopian world.
