Analysis of states and educational attainment

Audacious Epigone has done some analysis of states and educational attainment, compared to voting preference for Republicans or Democrats.

His take is that the percent of people with a bachelor’s degree minus the percent of people without a high school degree is a key statistic. This formula causes California to appear less educated because of all the Hispanics with less than high school education..

One still can’t help but notice that a large number of red states fall at the bottom of the list, and a large number of blue states are at the top of the list. Higher educational attainment definitely leads to voting Democratic.

Comments

[The Undiscovered Jew]

"Higher educational attainment definitely leads to voting Democratic."

I wonder if there is an inverse relation between A) what percentage of a state's white population has a undergraduate and postgraduate degrees and B) the state's white fertility rate?

46% of white female high school graduates go on to college. It is hard to see how the high rate of white women attending college is not reducing white fertility, especially among white women with the highest IQ levels.

As I have noted before, white fertility has fallen because women ages 20-24 have seen a huge fall in their fertility rates since the end of the baby boom (now down to 83.3 births per 1000 white women in the 20-24 age group in 2006) while birth rates for 25-29 year olds have held steady at a little over 100 births per 1000 white women.

Women over 30 have actually seen big increases in fertility since at least 1989, but this rise has not been enough to offset the drop in the 20-24 age group.

In order to raise the white birth rate past 2.1, the fall in fertility among 20-24 year olds has to be either halted or reversed by accelerating the speed of education for college bound white teenagers and encouraging white teenagers who are not going to college to skip high school and get an apprenticeship with a business to enter the labor market sooner.

Increasing the 20-24 age group's fertility from 83.3 births per 1000 women to just 103.3 births per 1000 women would instantly bump up white fertility from 1.864 in 2006 to 1.964.

[Audacious Epigone]

But there is no relationship between intelligence as measured by NAEP scores and voting Democratic. The generalization of 'credentialism'--in the form of simply having a degree of some kind--probably does not serve conservatives well (or larger society, for that matter).

The emphasis on "going to college" that many people in the 100-110 IQ range receive is counterproductive and unnecessarily puts these people several steps behind in life without much of an identifiable benefit.

[Gentleman's C]

"Higher educational attainment definitely leads to voting Democratic."

How many of those with "educational attainment" have degrees in Education, Womyn's Studies, Black Studies, GLBT Studies, Journalism or other vitally important and difficult subjects? I'm interested in quality, not quantity.

[Audacious Epigone]

... for the reason that Undiscovered Jew points to--instead of getting to it at 18, they dally around for four years, rack up debt, and develop a lethargic leftism. With an IQ of 105, you're not getting a technical degree (okay, you might be able to squeeze into accounting), so you're not going to be turning much bigger bucks than you would've without the degree. Not good for family formation.

[Just Wondering]

The Undiscovered Jew,
Are you like hiding from the Nazis or the Inquisition or something?

[Gentleman's C]

"Not good for family formation."

Shit, or for the rest of us...

[slagging for yucks]

"How many of those with "educational attainment" have degrees in Education, Womyn's Studies, Black Studies, GLBT Studies, Journalism or other vitally important and difficult subjects? I'm interested in quality, not quantity."

Just wait. Vim will be here soon to tell you about the inherent value to self and society that these courses of study provide. He has already discoursed on test tube washing and other aspects of "real science" so I'm sure he can break this down for you too. Did I mention that he claims to be studying at an Ivy. That makes him an expert!

[The Undiscovered Jew]

"Are you like hiding from the Nazis or the Inquisition or something?"

I ain't hiding from nobody, but Sigma appears to be living in terror of being dragged away nude by torch carrying "Proles".

[El Gringo]

The red states at the bottom of the list are primarily southern states with high black populations (Democrat voters with low educational achievements). There are far more republican voters with college degrees than democrats. Bush won the college educated vote 52% to 46% in 2004.

[Todd]

The ease at which Palin lies makes W look like George Washington.

[Half Sigma]

"How many of those with "educational attainment" have degrees in Education, Womyn's Studies, Black Studies, GLBT Studies, Journalism or other vitally important and difficult subjects? "

Education is a very common major, and although not difficult, it gives people the credential they need to enter the solidly middle-class career track of teacher.

Women's Studies, Black Studies, and GLBT Studies are extremely rare majors. People at places like the University if Idaho like to major in something that sounds practical, like "business" (because they think that means they will become rich businessmen--ha ha).

Apparently a degree in Journalism qualifies you to be Vice President.

[mnjohn]

"Increasing the 20-24 age group's fertility from 83.3 births per 1000 women to just 103.3 births per 1000 women would instantly bump up white fertility from 1.864 in 2006 to 1.964."

In the future the aging process will be slowed down allowing for many more reproductive years for females. The idea that men or women would want to start a family that young instead of going out and having fun is ridiculous.

[RottonPickle]

If only she were black, she could have run for President.

[David Alexander]

"The idea that men or women would want to start a family that young instead of going out and having fun is ridiculous. "

Even if at the age of 18, I could secure long-term middle class wages, why would I or my contemporaries spend that money on raising children when we can buy high-end goods and services? You can't go to Spring Break in Cancun when you're caring for an infant, and the money spent on diapers and clothes for kids detracts from the money she can spend on Coach bags or I can spend on railfanning...

[Half Sigma]

"I can spend on railfanning"

Stop wasting your money on railfanning. You need to spend your money on a college degree, and getting married (maybe to that nice white girl you were dating).

[David Alexander]

"Stop wasting your money on railfanning."

You're jealous that my hobby can lead to exploring fun new locations while playing with computers leads you to nowhere. :)

"You need to spend your money on a college degree"

No shit, dude. I should be in a four year school in February with 68 credits. Depending on how glacially slow I proceed, I may have another two to three years left.

"getting married (maybe to that nice white girl you were dating)."

1) I am unlikely to get married. I suspect that any marriage that I take part in will lead to a nasty divorce with my assets stripped from me via child support, and extremely limited visitation if I'm stupid enough to have kids.

2) She's nice and she loves kids, but she's a prole. Plus, I can't imagine myself having sex with her.

3) Wives and girlfriends get in the way of railfanning or roadgeeking. Or buying a $75,000 sports car used with one hobby or a $3500 camera used with another.

4) Marriage = kids. Low IQ types like myself shouldn't have kids, especially if they're black.

[The Undiscovered Jew]

"The idea that men or women would want to start a family that young instead of going out and having fun is ridiculous. "

Even if at the age of 18, I could secure long-term middle class wages, why would I or my contemporaries spend that money on raising children when we can buy high-end goods and services?"

1) The main goal of accelerating education is to increase the birth rate among 20-24 year old white women *modestly*. A rise from 83.3 births per 1000 to 103.3 per 1000 is not a gigantic increase and should be doable. Certainly, there is no reason why birth rates would *drop* if education were accelerated for college students.

2) In 1989, the birth rate for white women age 20-24 was about 95 births per 1000. I don't think 20-24 year old women today are much more immature than they were during the 1980's. So increasing the birth rate from 83.3 per 1000 to 103.3 per 1000 should not be an impossible objective to acheive.

3) White college students are often immature, in part, because college and high school extends adolescence. However, if you treat 14 year olds like adults and force most of them to work as an apprentice at a business they will mature emotionally much faster and they will have children a bit earlier.

4) Even if white Americans were seeing Colonial American style birth rates of over 6 babies per white woman, I would STILL argue education should be accelerated for college bound Americans, and those not smart enough to get something out of college ought to go into apprenticeships because our education system is badly designed.

The current education system is just flat out stupid because it takes too long and costs too much to get a college degree. And too frequently, Americans are getting useless Humanities degrees.

Humanities degrees are useless because there is NOTHING a Humanities program can teach a smart student that that student could not learn on his own by ordering books from Amazon.com, watching tapes of great college lectures or just doing a simple Google search for scholarly papers.

And for the 72% of whites who will never get a degree, they would be better off just working so they can establish themselves financially and form a family sooner.

[mnjohn]

"And for the 72% of whites who will never get a degree, they would be better off just working so they can establish themselves financially and form a family sooner."

You're missing the point. Nobody nowadays wants to start a family in their 20's. They want to take vacations, go out drinking, and have promiscuous sex. They aren't going to give this up whether they go to college or don't. What I'm saying is in the long run it won't matter because a woman's reproductive years will be vastly extended. That way people can still go out and have fun when their young adults and can settle down later when they are older.

[David Alexander]

"Certainly, there is no reason why birth rates would *drop* if education were accelerated for college students."

I never stated that they would drop, but so far, you've neglected to explain why somebody in his or her early twenties would be interested in marriage and having children at such a young age when there are other superior options. The only people stupid enough to have kids at that young age are the types of people you don't want breeding in the first place, the low IQ.

"However, if you treat 14 year olds like adults and force most of them to work as an apprentice at a business they will mature emotionally much faster and they will have children a bit earlier."

How many parents are willing to let their 14 year olds work when the current trend is to put kids into various extra-curricular activities. How many employers are willing to employ children with no proven track record? How many middle class parents are willing to give up on the dream of sending their children to college. I don't think Americans are willing to allow a college education to return into the province of the elite.

Besides, the extended adolescence, IMHO, is a sign of the superiority of our culture. It is a sign of our ability to be rich enough to allow for our youth to enjoy the fruits of living in our civilization. I would imagine that most of the world would desire to have a similar option as well.

"And for the 72% of whites who will never get a degree"

Interestingly, from my perspective, it seems like nearly every white twenty-something has a college degree, and those who don't are simply light-skinned black people...

[The Undiscovered Jew]

"What I'm saying is in the long run it won't matter because a woman's reproductive years will be vastly extended."

Very fine point. Reproductive rejuvination therapies and IVF will be perfected to where we can increase the birth rate for women over 35 and offset the drop in fertility among younger white women.

For instance, based on the below PDF, there were 8.4 births per 1000 white women aged 40-44. If articiifial reproductive technologies pushed that number up to 75.4 births per 1000 women aged 40-44, the overall white birth rate would be 2.2 children.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_07.pdf

[The Undiscovered Jew]

"I never stated that they would drop, but so far, you've neglected to explain why somebody in his or her early twenties would be interested in marriage and having children at such a young age when there are other superior options."

There would be enough women interested in having babies earlier that the birth rate for women in their early 20's would increase *modestly*. A gigantic increase in the birth rate to American Colonial era levels is not needed.

"How many parents are willing to let their 14 year olds work when the current trend is to put kids into various extra-curricular activities."

Obviously attitudes would have to change for apprenticeships to become widely accepted. But 60% of white teens never go to college and the whole point of high school is to prepare people for college. There must be better ways to give students on the job training/experience, not "education".

But for college bound Americans, I think there would be substantial support for putting the best students on accelerated college education tracks.

[David Alexander]

"There would be enough women interested in having babies earlier that the birth rate for women in their early 20's would increase *modestly*."

Let's be honest, which women are more likely to have children at earlier ages? The smart high-IQ women or low-IQ women? If your aim is for a high quantity of white women, then your approach may work. If you want high-IQ women, you may need to refine your approach.

Interestingly, one could argue that Germany's education system which separates students into three tracks with one track taking in a small number of students for university and the rest going to job training or vocational/technical programmes. Given the absurdly low German birth rate, I don't think that ending college education en masse would work as well as one may suspect.

[Vim]

Undiscovered Jew:

"But for college bound Americans, I think there would be substantial support for putting the best students on accelerated college education tracks."

No offense, but what would that achieve? You don't learn anything in college anyway. At university, you get a social context for pushing yourself and it's no place for kids.

A student who learns more in class than he does at home reading is a pretty bad student in my opinion. If these are really good students, they are already self-motivated and prodigiously reading outside of school. Schooling should be like shackles to them. They need to be liberated. No? Well, that's how I always felt.

As a gradaute student, I see the immediate disadvantage that most of those people racking up huge debts are paying for the labs and salaries. I like it the way it is. Unless the government is going to pick up the tab ... though that seems sort of socialist to replace a perfectly good market-based research model with government funding.

[Todd]

Is Palin smarter than a fifth grader?

[Mr. Mercy Vetsel]

"Higher educational attainment definitely leads to voting Democratic."

That's simply not true. State level analysis always gets this backwards. Why use such a crude proxy that lumps millions of people together, when you have the GSS?

As you step through each additional level of educational attainment the proportion of Republicans increases UNTIL you get to graduate degrees.

Overall Republicans have more years of formal education than Democrats.

-Mercy

[whiskey]

Mr. John --

There are several objections to your points.

1. You cannot "extend" fertility. You can cheat a bit for a few years, at the risk of greatly increased Breast Cancer, for the mother, with fertility drugs. There is also a huge increase in the risk of Downs Syndrome and other genetic defects like Autism. The rise in both are attributable to older mothers. Mothers over 30, first born child also have great increases in Breast Cancer.

Older mothers = one designer eugenic yuppie baby by IVF with sperm donated by well, a sperm donor. That's it.

2. High costs of real estate in job centers (where also, most young women are to be found: LA, NYC, Chicago, Seattle, Portland, DC, etc.) make family formation unaffordable unless you are in your late thirties. It takes that much time to accumulate enough dough to swing a house. Which means, essentially a huge drop in White fertility (Black Middle Class has an even bigger drop btw, for the same economic reasons).

3. Current wealth could go away due to any number of factors, making extended adolescence ... simply unaffordable. Nuclear terrorism could shut down trans-Pacific and Atlantic container shipping trade. Permanently. [Any great volume of trade simply cannot be checked -- risk to a city too great.] Oil prices could rise again and stay there -- making all business activity far more costly. Global Warming measures could choke off much economic activity, plunging the world into a global recession. Betting on continued affluence is like financial planning by winning the lottery. Not very wise.

The only way to increase White fertility is to make middle class family formation ... well affordable early. So ala the Palins, kids start at age 25 rather than 35, or 45. This means expensive labor, and cheap land. Utah, Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho come to mind. Women going to College will NOT have kids, in the main. For several reasons: they wish to find a man who will have greater status/power than they do; they will find only a small pool of such men, and they tend to overestimate the duration of their beauty.

This is the future of Urban White Fertility among high income / High IQ women:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/magazine/319dad.html?pagewanted=print

I would bet on a wider spread: Working Class white women. You'll get a higher average return, and with the spread, a few geniuses and dopes, and a lot of "average" kids. For all their smarts, the women above don't seem very ... savvy.

[7.62x54R]

"You don't learn anything in college anyway.
At university, you get a social context for pushing yourself and it's no place for kids."

I had no idea you didn't learn anything in college. Guess I wasted 4 years of my life when I should have just gone straight to grad school instead. If only I had known!
Maybe try talking to your professors in college, some of them do have knowledge to impart and many are happy to do it. And if you are at "university" you shouldn't need any nonsense "social contexts" for pushing yourself. If you do, you probably shouldn't be there.

[The Undiscovered Jew]

"You cannot "extend" fertility."

Not yet.

That's why he talked about future reproductive technologies extending fertility. For women of all races, fertility rates fall off a cliff after their late 30's due to menopause and other physical hurdles. If those physical problems can be overcome with gene therapy, cheaper, fertility will be extended.

[Vim]

A venue where you can talk to professors is part of what I mean by social context. Actually conversations with faculty, I think, is the only benefit of accelerating a kid. I think if a kid can skip ahead to college at a really early age then I would advise that the child not take classes but instead have at least one structured conversation with a faculty mentor a week in addition to a little bit of discussion here and there with members of whatever department or departments they are interested in. However, I do not recommend acceleration to university unless the student can handle disappointments and difficulties without needing social support from others in the professional environment as there is almost none of this at the university level especially at a research universiy.

There are other aspects of the social context. People are having interesting conversations about interesting work all the time and I am a big believer in random discussions in the hallway on the way to something else. Those kinds of serendipitous interactions are important.

Then there is the structured environment of class and grades which helps give one an organized framework in which to learn a subject.

Then there is the fact that people in society, especially nonacademics, will accept and support four years of structured schooling in a way that they will not accept being shut up in your room all day for four years 'working' even if it is cheaper. Even if you do the exact same things that you would do if enrolled in college, parents for example are much less likely to support this kind of empty time if there isn't something tangible like a degree to validate the exercise. This is something many a college goof-off takes advantage of. I think many college students would be a lot better off and their parents would spend less money if they just gave their kids permission to get drunk and laid for four years in an apartment paid for by the parents, no questions asked.

Getting back to the topic of what is learned in classes: in graduate school, I would argue the ratio is almost 1:9 in terms of what is learned in class to what needs to be learned outside of class. The actual lecture is definitely not where the action is. While this kind of steep ratio is probably not relevant at lower levels, I think it's the level you need to perform at if you plan on being a research level academic.

[Vim]

The Undiscovered Jew:

What's the point of raising fertility rates? Shouldn't we be going in the opposite direction? Even with the declines we have now, global population is expected to grow to 9 billion in 40 years. Shouldn't we be doing everything we can to turn this around and decrease our resource demands on the planet? For instance, America already uses 25% of oil produced. Do we really want even more Americans or even more Chinese and Indians striving for an American level of consumption?

[The Undiscovered Jew]

"What's the point of raising fertility rates? Shouldn't we be going in the opposite direction? Even with the declines we have now, global population is expected to grow to 9 billion in 40 years. Shouldn't we be doing everything we can to turn this around and decrease our resource demands on the planet?"

All of that projected growth is expected to come from the the third world.

I would be VERY happy to fork over my tax money to pay millions of third world women, including the ones living here, to sterilize themselves.

But until thrid worlders agree to stop reproducing their poverty and low IQs at such absurd levels, I will have to support raising the white American birth rate to at least replacement.

[7.62x54R]

"However, I do not recommend acceleration to university unless the student can handle disappointments and difficulties without needing social support from others in the professional environment as there is almost none of this at the university level especially at a research universiy."

So "social contexts" don't exist at the university level?

But before they did?

"At university, you get a social context for pushing yourself and it's no place for kids."

You need to make up your mind. Apparently "social contexts" exist for "pushing yourself", except when they don't exist.

"Then there is the structured environment of class and grades which helps give one an organized framework in which to learn a subject."

That sounds a bit oppressive to me. One should feel like school is shackles or something, right?

"If these are really good students, they are already self-motivated and prodigiously reading outside of school. Schooling should be like shackles to them. They need to be liberated. No? Well, that's how I always felt."

Please try and stay consistent. You sound like you are talking out of your ass. If you expect anyone to take you seriously, try being more concise.

[Vim]

7.62x54R

"Please try and stay consistent."

Have you considered that the deficiency may be on your end and not mine? I understand what you're saying just fine. You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. Why is that?

"So "social contexts" don't exist at the university level?"

A social context for an ADULT to push themselves NOT a child.

"That sounds a bit oppressive to me. One should feel like school is shackles or something, right?"

After a certain IQ level, it is. Boring. Rote. Busy work. One wishes that one could just do the final on the first day and just be done with it. You may not have had this experience ... for obvious reasons.

"You sound like you are talking out of your ass."

LOL. Unlike everybody else commenting here I'm sure. I don't think most people commenting here know very much about a university beyond the bachelors level and so they have a childish view of the structure and purpose of a university. In your case, there is this naive notion that professional scientists don't even need to get approval and that somehow, going through an ethics board would be introducing some new element to the process of research. While someone like an economist suffers fewer restrictions, more pratical disciplines can have tremendous difficulty getting studies approved.