« Should Californians walk more? | Main | Richard Florida is blogging »
The Kerry Joke
John Kerry this week has been abjectly apologizing for his statements on Iraq and education. According to Kerry he intended to critique President Bush:
Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq.
But what he said was:
You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.
The irony is that the joke he intended to make is a lie but what he actually said may be the truth. The disaster in Iraq was created by a bunch of highly educated intellectuals but the soldiers fighting in Iraq do have less education than the young men and women who have stayed home. According to historian David Kennedy, quoted in the October issue of the Atlantic, 50 percent of 18-24 year olds in the general population have some college education compared to only 6.5 percent of the same age group in the U.S. military. (Kennedy's figures are contested by others.)
American political correctness extends to more than women and minorities and as in those areas it prevents discussion of important but uncomfortable truths.
Posted by Alex Tabarrok on November 3, 2006 at 07:22 AM in Current Affairs | Permalink
Comments
I wouldn't be too surprised if your general conclusion were true, but the statistic you choose is not a very convincing way to show it.
Consider that being in the military that early in life tends to leave little time for college, and also has in various ways since the GI Bill been part of people's college plans.
And especially for the soldiers under age 21, what would it mean if the proportion of soldiers with some college education were high? They didn't have time for a four-year degree before entering the armed services; would it not be spun as a high proportion of college dropouts?
It would be much more convincing if you could show, e.g., that the people weren't college material by some measure, but I'm not sure what measure is available. Or if you could show that despite the advertising the connection to college education, people 5 years and 10 years after leaving the service still have less college education and/or lower incomes than average.
Posted by: Bill Newman at Nov 3, 2006 7:40:53 AM
Isn't that still a misleading statement? By the figures you cite, it's not like people are doing poorly in college and ending up stuck in the military. The military is what they are choosing to do instead of college. (Or perhaps, putting off college to do -- remember the GI Bill?)
It seems like it would be much more interesting to compare the relative high school records of the two groups. Or better yet, the high school records of those in the military versus the overall population. Or the lifetime education records of those in the military, rather than just how much education they managed to get by 24.
Posted by: Sol at Nov 3, 2006 7:47:00 AM
Ah, I see Bill beat me to the punch with a better version of what I was trying to say.
Posted by: Sol at Nov 3, 2006 7:48:02 AM
I imagine that military service is a significant education in and of itself. One in which "if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well".
For that matter, so is skipping college and entering the workforce.
Posted by: eddie at Nov 3, 2006 8:15:00 AM
For that age group, the stat may well be true. But soldiers who stay in the Army tend to get a lot of education, both military and civilian. The old canard about dimwitted soldiers isn't wholly without merit, but it is greatly exaggerated. I have worked with quite a few soldiers with as much or more education than I possess, and they often have gotten their education while serving full time.
Posted by: Andrew Olmsted at Nov 3, 2006 8:18:10 AM
Your other half isn't very good either. The joke was about Bush, not his advisors. And it was made to a group of college students about studying, so it was aimed only at those already getting a college education. In short, it focused on studying in college not educational level. Bush was demonstrably a poor student (spare me the so was Kerry), who ultimately is responsible for the decision to invade Iraq, which of late has looked like a pretty terrible decision. See also Tyler's interesting post how the soaring levels of Iraqi deaths is an indictment of the post war American planning.
Posted by: dynamicinfo at Nov 3, 2006 8:27:59 AM
I'd bet that statistic is even bull. I'd like to see actual data instead of a second-hand quote from the Atlantic. Moreover, even if the Atlantic's data is true, Kerry's statement is false under its own terms, at the very least implying that one cannot both do well and serve in Iraq. It also implies that those who chose to serve in Iraq did not "make an effort to be smart." Sorry Alex, but this dog won't hunt.
Posted by: John Jenkins at Nov 3, 2006 8:29:37 AM
Don't forget that many high school graduates join the armed forces for the college benefits.
Moreover, the officer corp is over 90% college educated, and many have advanced degrees.
Posted by: ron at Nov 3, 2006 8:34:23 AM
Some other article pointed out how the mistake suggested Kerry wasn't quick-witted enough to realize the joke his handlers had created for him, and lamented that our leaders are no longer in any way responsible for the witticisms and opinions they spout. Is there any politician out there that can talk policy off-the-cuff?
Actually, I have been impressed whenever I saw Tony Blair taking questions in the House of Lords--some dodging and empty promises, but mostly relevant. Does the British system cause this, or is it an anomaly? How often does Tony Blair retire to his vacation home?
Posted by: Chi at Nov 3, 2006 8:42:38 AM
Chi, I think the Queen spends most of her time at resort-like castles, while Tony Blair runs the country. As usual, the returns to increasing specialization are high.
Alex's, Kennedy's, and Kerry's statements are all examples of a correlation != causation error.
Posted by: DK at Nov 3, 2006 8:59:07 AM
That's just poor thinking. I expect better. If you compare those entering service they have a higher percentage of high school completion than the population at large. The also are much healthier, fitter, etc than the population at large - which tends to the obese side of things.
Comparing college stats for enlisted 19 year olds is silly -- they have entered the military before college by definition.
Face it, this was just an emotion-laden anti-Bush post. It's ok, everybody is overtaken by their emotions at times. But you guys are supposed to be the cool headed rationalists.
...
As for Tony Blair and parliament. My understanding is that the main questions are submitted beforehand -- that is why he can jump up immediately with such quick facts and counterarguments.
Posted by: mike at Nov 3, 2006 9:01:05 AM
[Total tangent; not on topic. What Kerry said was stupid politically.
I don't care how else it might be considered. It shows his lack of
political professionalism.]
mike,
Even given the questions beforehand, I cannot think of more than five or
six members of the senate who would deliver their answers and rebuttals
half as well as Blair. Could it be that elements of the British system
reward oratory to a greater degree than the U.S. system? Is this a symtom
of our nation's birth; that we are a nation "less refined" than our parent?
Just thinkin' here.
-hamilton
Posted by: hamilton at Nov 3, 2006 9:12:52 AM
Assuming that Alex's statistics on education levels are true (I have no idea) , isn't our politically correct attitude toward soldiers (they're "professionals," they're smarter than average, etc.) part of what we "pay" them for their service?
Posted by: jp at Nov 3, 2006 9:18:56 AM
hmm, i kinda got the idea that the bigger point in the end is that were avoiding the issue of education before making a life changing decision such as joining the army? i would think that the bigger question is should we rethink the educational requirements for joining the service? is a high school education really enough to join the military during a time of war when ones life is on the lines?
i dont really think the tone is that everyone in the military is dumb, and only dumb people support the war, which i feel is how some people are taking his statements....
Posted by: mr.Yawn at Nov 3, 2006 9:24:05 AM
I agree it's hugely impressive watching PM question hour, even if he does know the topics ahead of time. I think the British systems produces better debaters for a few reasons.
Parliamentary systems tend to be even more dominated by elites than our systems. There is a stronger tradition of debating societies in British elite universities and boarding schools. American debate teams produce the same type of person, but most Americans don't like that style of speech.
Britain is much, much smaller, so the culture of a few universities has a more powerful impact. Yes, we have Harvard and Yale, which produce an inordinate amount of political leaders, but their effect is diluted by the size of the country.
There is also more distrust of slick talkers in American society. Perhaps this started off as antagonism towards Britain?
Lastly, I'd say that the British simply talk faster than Americans. Americans interpret fast talk as both a sign of intelligence and a sign of deception. Standard tv technique for portraying a smart character, just double the rate of speech.
Posted by: mike at Nov 3, 2006 9:30:20 AM
Should we be suprised that a college professor believes the only way
to be smart is to go to college? If you "get stuck in Iraq" if you dont study
and are not smart, I have a few people I would like to report. I am quite
sure that there are more people in America that are stupid than there are
in Iraq. That makes the statement false.
Posted by: rick at Nov 3, 2006 9:31:05 AM
"American political correctness extends to more than women and minorities and as in those areas it prevents discussion of important but uncomfortable truths."
Ironic statement. Obviously people in the military have less years of college education because it's something people do BEFORE college (or INSTEAD of college). Of course this has already been pointed out.
But there is a truth--the elites look down on the military as something that they not would want their kids to do. The enlisted come from the working class and the officers come from the middle class. The upper middle class don't join the military.
I pretty much share Kerry's view that joining the army is something you do if you're not Harvard material.
Posted by: Half Sigma at Nov 3, 2006 9:40:39 AM
One note: the officer corps in the U.S. military is 100% college-educated. It requires a bachelor's degree to get a commission.
Posted by: Andrew Olmsted at Nov 3, 2006 9:41:56 AM
Steve Sailer has estimated that in 1998, the latest year for which statistics are available, the average IQ score of male armed forces enlistees was 105. That is about five points higher than the national average.
Posted by: Peter at Nov 3, 2006 9:42:58 AM
One note: the officer corps in the U.S. military is 100% college-educated. It requires a bachelor's degree to get a commission.
Almost right except for that last part. The Army, at least, allows current enlisted to apply to officer candidate school if they have 90 hours of college credit. After they receive their commission they must complete their degree under the Army's Degree Completion Program (DCP) during their time as a 1LT.
Posted by: Dylan at Nov 3, 2006 10:00:35 AM
Right. There are two ways to think of the Kerry quote:
a. The claimed original joke: Bush didn't study in college, so he made dumb decisions about invading Iraq.
b. The widely-trumpeted joke as stated: People who don't study in college or maybe high school end up going into the Army and getting shipped off to Iraq.
Both of these are empirical statements at some level, but are evaluated as moral statements, which almost always leads to people saying mind-numbingly dumb things.
As far as (a) goes, it's hard to say whether Bush having been a better student would have changed his decision to invade Iraq, but highly-educated people sure seem capable of making stupid foreign policy decisions, and Bush had plenty of advisors with PhDs from ivy league colleges agreeing with him.
As far as (b) goes, it's an empirical question, not one that can be answered by moral outrage about not speaking ill of the troops. The military screens recruits for both IQ and high school graduation (I'm not sure how many exceptions, if any, are made), so they get a reasonably competent set of soldiers. But there presumably are people who went into the Army because they saw few good alternatives, having screwed around in high school enough to not have much chance of doing anything worthwhile in college, or having flunked out of college their freshman year. I have no idea how common that is, though.
It seems like (b) was much closer to the truth when we had a draft, and flunking out of college made you a prime target for being shipped off to Vietnam.
Political correctness isn't about left or right, it's about crimethink. Some ideas are too offensive to be said or thought, and anyone who says them must be shouted down. In the Rumsfeld pentagon, talking about postwar planning in Iraq or the need for massively more soldiers was politically incorrect, with the same kind of impact on intelligent decisions as you get when you try to address urban crime but aren't allowed to mention or think about racial differences in crime rate.
Posted by: albatross at Nov 3, 2006 10:22:25 AM
I thought of it as a confusion of necessary and sufficient conditions.
If we (mis)understood Kerry to say that not studying is a sufficient condition for winding up in Iraq (and charitably assume he means this only weakly), then he's surely right. The Army is often a Plan B for young people not suited to higher ed.
And most everyone who criticized him (Bush, McCain, etc.) claimed that he said not studying was a necessary condition for being in the Army, i.e., that the troops are stupid.
Posted by: Lee at Nov 3, 2006 10:27:19 AM
The disaster in Iraq was created by a bunch of highly educated intellectuals but the soldiers fighting in Iraq do have less education than the young men and women who have stayed home.
You know, the feel I got early in this administration was that it was a "revenge of the D students." In other words, a strongly anti-intellectual vibe coming from folks (kids of the elite?) who went through all the good schools.
No?
Posted by: odograph at Nov 3, 2006 10:42:12 AM
Albatross has my point exactly correct. Empirical statements have been evaluated as moral statements which leads to poor thinking.
Alex
Posted by: Alex Tabarrok at Nov 3, 2006 11:19:22 AM
Is there any one in America that is not aware the what the Miltary offers is, to some an alternative to college, and to others a way to pay for collage. You only had to see their TV ads for the last 20 years. The debate about this took place when we decided to end the draft and have an all volunteer army over 30 years ago. The American public is not interested in revisiting the decision so "discussion of important but uncomfortable truths" will serve no positive purpose, but will just make people uncomfortable. I noticed that over the period the rebublicans were making an issue of the Kerry remark, they lost ground in the polls and on tradesports. Politicians are punished for making people uncomfortable.
Posted by: joan at Nov 3, 2006 11:57:11 AM
