Chris Auld wrote:
> How do you figure that? Strip away everything from the problem and
> suppose that we live in a world where:
>
> wages = bIQ + u1
> afqt = cIQ + u2
> educ = dIQ + u3.
But there's a great deal of evidence that AFQT is a very accurate
measure of IQ; indeed there's probably nothing else in psychology that
can be measured so reliably. So if wages really solely depended on IQ,
adding education would hardly matter.
We've also got the Twinsberg studies of the return to education for
identical twins. They get pretty usual ROR results, even though
identical twin IQ is almost identical.
I will say that I'm puzzled when you call this literature "massive."
The return to education literature in economics is massive, but only a
small fraction of that even tries to control for cognitive ability. And
the literature on this in psychology, at least on my reading, focuses
more on job performance than earnings (though of course there is a good
amount on that too). From all that I've heard, a lot of the stuff in
the Bell Curve hadn't been done before. Maybe I'm missing a whole
literature - if I am I'd like to know.
--
Prof. Bryan Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan
"We may be dissatisfied with television for two quite different
reasons: because our set does not work, or because we dislike
the program we are receiving. Similarly, we may be dissatisfied
with ourselves for two quite different reasons: because our body
does not work (bodily illness), or because we dislike our
conduct (mental illness)."
--Thomas Szasz, *The Untamed Tongue*
