I disagree with Krugman in his work “Confronting Inequality” more than I agree with him. However, I am not saying his ideas are won’t work, in fact they probably would in a system where economic equality is the goal, but America has a system of equal opportunity and not equal outcome. My problem with Krugman lies in his “evidence” for his claims, and so I will use this response to point out the problems with the biggest offender of my sensibilities: the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) statistic linking intelligence and family income to college completion. The statistic shows that “students who scored in the bottom fourth on the [math] exam, but came from families whose status put them in the top fourth… were more likely to finish college than students who scored in the top fourth but whose parents were in the bottom fourth” (Krugman 566). The first big problem is that this study was 19 years old when he published his work and today it is 28 years old, which draws considerable doubts to its accuracy to modern day. The second problem is that his analysis is misleading at best. The study actually says that 29% of smart poor kids graduate college compared to 30% of dumb rich kids; that’s a percent difference of 3.3%, which is well within the margin of error accepted by statisticians. Therefore, because of the relation between the margin-of-error to the sample size, it is actually more accurate to claim that grades have the same effect on college completion as family income.
The final problem is that the NCES’ data collection for this statistic was flawed. For example, the students’ intelligence were only tested by their mathematics abilities. As Albert Einstein stated, “Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.” Just because a student isn’t gifted in math doesn’t mean they’re a “rich dumb kid”, it just means that the student isn’t good at math. The data collection is also flawed in that the study does not include a student’s interest to complete college. Under their definition, my sister’s choice to not attend college (despite getting a 33 on her ACT) would “prove” that poor smart people are disadvantaged even though there really wasn’t any correlation. Krugman’s integration of this statistic in his essay, especially without a statement qualifying its validity, was highly questionable and even made me skeptical of his own credibility. Even if we were to share the exact same economic views, Krugman’s use of this source would have singlehandedly made me disagree with him as well.
The final problem is that the NCES’ data collection for this statistic was flawed. For example, the students’ intelligence were only tested by their mathematics abilities. As Albert Einstein stated, “Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.” Just because a student isn’t gifted in math doesn’t mean they’re a “rich dumb kid”, it just means that the student isn’t good at math. The data collection is also flawed in that the study does not include a student’s interest to complete college. Under their definition, my sister’s choice to not attend college (despite getting a 33 on her ACT) would “prove” that poor smart people are disadvantaged even though there really wasn’t any correlation. Krugman’s integration of this statistic in his essay, especially without a statement qualifying its validity, was highly questionable and even made me skeptical of his own credibility. Even if we were to share the exact same economic views, Krugman’s use of this source would have singlehandedly made me disagree with him as well.