Iowahawk takes down Krugman re: education

[Jacob]

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk...badgers-1.html

Iowahawk forgoes his usual satire and makes a substantive post to counter a Krugman argument.

Krugman claims:

And in low-tax, low-spending Texas, the kids are not all right. The high school graduation rate, at just 61.3 percent, puts Texas 43rd out of 50 in state rankings. Nationally, the state ranks fifth in child poverty; it leads in the percentage of children without health insurance. And only 78 percent of Texas children are in excellent or very good health, significantly below the national average.

And The Economist adds:

Only 5 states do not have collective bargaining for educators and have deemed it illegal. Those states and their ranking on ACT/SAT scores are as follows:

South Carolina – 50th
North Carolina – 49th
Georgia – 48th
Texas – 47th
Virginia – 44th

If you are wondering, Wisconsin, with its collective bargaining for teachers, is ranked 2nd in the country.

So Iowahawk looks at the numbers, controlling for ethnicity:

To recap: white students in Texas perform better than white students in Wisconsin, black students in Texas perform better than black students in Wisconsin, Hispanic students in Texas perform better than Hispanic students in Wisconsin. In 18 separate ethnicity-controlled comparisons, the only one where Wisconsin students performed better than their peers in Texas was 4th grade science for Hispanic students (statistically insignificant), and this was reversed by 8th grade. Further, Texas students exceeded the national average for their ethnic cohort in all 18 comparisons; Wisconsinites were below the national average in 8, above average in 8.

I'd be interested to read a response to Iowahawk. But not from Krugman. He's an idiot.

[il Padrino Ute]

That was a great read.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk...badgers-1.html

Iowahawk forgoes his usual satire and makes a substantive post to counter a Krugman argument.

Krugman claims:



And The Economist adds:


So Iowahawk looks at the numbers, controlling for ethnicity:



I'd be interested to read a response to Iowahawk. But not from Krugman. He's an idiot.

Krugman is such an ass. I'd be interested in how California (highly unionized) compares to Wisconsin. For shits and giggles, why don't we compare California to Texas?

Comparing test scores Wisconsin to Texas is almost as useless as comparing the per capita income of Japan to that in Haiti and trying to argue in favor of Japan's sweet-ass high speed rail system.

[Uncle Ted]

Krugman is such an ass. I'd be interested in how California (highly unionized) compares to Wisconsin. For shits and giggles, why don't we compare California to Texas?

Comparing test scores Wisconsin to Texas is almost as useless as comparing the per capita income of Japan to that in Haiti and trying to argue in favor of Japan's sweet-ass high speed rail system.

Yes, so what the hell is a smart guy like Krugman comparing Texas to Wisconsin? Maybe both he and Obama should give their Nobel Prizes back.

FYI, about comparing California to Texas in education.

In short, Texas is doing a better job than California in educating students. Both states have about the same demographics (California does have a lot more Asians, however). California spends about 12% more on educating each student than Texas but Texas kids are about one to two years ahead of California kids of the same age. And whites, blacks, and hispanics all do better in Texas schools than they do in California schools.

[Paperback Writer]

Off topic. But the same data for Texas informs why its very difficult for a white student to gain admittance to the University of Texas or Texas A&M University.

Unlike other large population states like California and New York, Texas does not have many highly rated public universities. That alone makes admitance to UT and A&M competitive. The Texas courts have ruled that race cannot be considered so the compromise was to automatically admit the top 8-10% of a HS graduating class. Minority representation goals (Texas is 42% minority) are reached because much of the state is "voluntarily" (more accurately economically) segregated. So the top 10% of a heavily minority urban HS gets accepted even though SAT/ACT scores could be average while students in a white suburb don't get accepted because they are not in the top 10% of a competitive HS class even though they have a high SAT score. I know of students who were denied admission to UT but got accepted to more elite schools like Vanderbilt and Carnegie Mellon.

The result is Texas is exporting talented white HS scholars to out-of-state universities while minority students struggle getting admitted to competitive programs once they are admitted to UT or A&M. Consequently, there are employment opportunities for non-Texas college graduates because Texas cannot fill them internally.

[RobinFinderson]

Jacob, that article isn't very good, and your title for this thread is terrible.

The article starts with the Krugman quote referencing HS dropout rates. Then it goes on to mention the Economist's comparison of test scores, which you also mention. Then Iowahawk spends the rest of the article refuting the Economist's data, and never discusses Krugman's point about dropout rates.

So this is HARDLY a takedown of Krugman, and you title is terrible.

He eventually gets back to to Krugman's point, as a response to readers' complaints:

a few emails complaining that I focused on NAEP 4th and 8th graders, and didn't address Krugman's "point" about Texas dropout rates...

So I decided to investigate.

Event Dropout Rates for 9th-12th graders during 2006-7 school year:

White students: Texas 1.9%, Wisconsin 1.2% (national average 3.0%)
Black students: Texas 5.8%, Wisconsin 7.8% (national 6.8%)
Hispanic students: Texas 5.6%, Wisconsin 5.2% (national 6.5%)

White and Hispanic Texas students indeed seem to dropout at a higher rate than their counterparts in Wisconsin, although in both cases (a) the difference is not statistically significant; and (b) in both cases, both states are significantly below the national average.

So Krugman's statistics hold up when subjected to Iowahawk's ethnic breakdown (except for black students, who don't move Wisconsin's overall numbers very much because there is not a large black population in Wisconsin). Furthermore, regarding the white students (presumably the largest population in both states), Iowahawk claims that the 1.9% to 1.2% difference in insignificant. Since when is a 58.33% difference insignificant?? That is a HUGE statistical difference in the largest population of students in both states.

This was NOT a take down of Krugman, whose point Iowahawk eventually concedes.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Jacob, that article isn't very good, and your title for this thread is terrible.

The article starts with the Krugman quote referencing HS dropout rates. Then it goes on to mention the Economist's comparison of test scores, which you also mention. Then Iowahawk spends the rest of the article refuting the Economist's data, and never discusses Krugman's point about dropout rates.

So this is HARDLY a takedown of Krugman, and you title is terrible.

He eventually gets back to to Krugman's point, as a response to readers' complaints:



So Krugman's statistics hold up when subjected to Iowahawk's ethnic breakdown (except for black students, who don't move Wisconsin's overall numbers very much because there is not a large black population in Wisconsin). Furthermore, regarding the white students (presumably the largest population in both states), Iowahawk claims that the 1.9% to 1.2% difference in insignificant. Since when is a 58.33% difference insignificant?? That is a HUGE statistical difference in the largest population of students in both states.

This was NOT a take down of Krugman, whose point Iowahawk eventually concedes.

Wrong, Krugman said that Texas's dropout rate was well above the national average while the NCES link posted shows that Texas's drop out rate was below the national average.

The difference when breaking down the dropout rates between the different races is indeed statistically insignificant -- are you really going to bat for Krugman based on 1.9% vs. 1.2% when Krugman's "Texas's dropout rate exceeds the national average" stat is likely total bullshit?

[RobinFinderson]

Wrong, Krugman said that Texas's dropout rate was well above the national average while the NCES link posted shows that Texas's drop out rate was below the national average.

The difference when breaking down the dropout rates between the different races is indeed statistically insignificant -- are you really going to bat for Krugman based on 1.9% vs. 1.2% when Krugman's "Texas's dropout rate exceeds the national average" stat is likely total bullshit?

As Iowahawk points out, he isn't sure where Krugman got his statistics. But wherever Krugman got them, he didn't claim that the TX dropout rate was below the national average. He claimed that their rate ranks them 43 out of 50 states. Krugman points out that the percentage of Texas youth that are healthy is well below the national average, which is a point that Iowahawk never addresses at all.

If we really want to compare apples to apples, we should start by finding out Krugman's fact sources, then see what explains the difference between those and the NCES breakdown.

[Paperback Writer]

From Krugman's article:
"And in low-tax, low-spending Texas, the kids are not all right. The high school graduation rate, at just 61.3 percent, puts Texas 43rd out of 50 in state rankings. Nationally, the state ranks fifth in child poverty; it leads in the percentage of children without health insurance. And only 78 percent of Texas children are in excellent or very good health, significantly below the national average.

The low rankings for Texas is these categories are a result of Texas' high minority populations. I suspect California would rank very similar. As stated earlier, when analyzing education based on minority variation - Texas holds up well in comparision to other states.

The lack of health insurance and over all health of Texas children is a concern. Texas is not a state with generous social programs; but it is a state with low taxes. As far as the future of Texas that Krugman laments about with his closing coments "Lose the future" - a solution has already been found. Despite some long-term Texans' view of the Republic of Texas, the state is not a closed bordered country. People can move here and many highly educated people choose to relocate to Texas. The overwhelming majority of my ward would be considered "highly educated" and they are not native Texans. My neighborhood is similar but not to the same degree - more native Texans (but still not a majority) and somewhat less educated. The future of Texas will be just fine as long as business and industry continue to thrive (because of low taxes) and create jobs that will attrack educated people both within and outside of Texas.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

As Iowahawk points out, he isn't sure where Krugman got his statistics. But wherever Krugman got them, he didn't claim that the TX dropout rate was below the national average. He claimed that their rate ranks them 43 out of 50 states. Krugman points out that the percentage of Texas youth that are healthy is well below the national average, which is a point that Iowahawk never addresses at all.

If we really want to compare apples to apples, we should start by finding out Krugman's fact sources, then see what explains the difference between those and the NCES breakdown.

Are you shittin' me? So, do you honestly think that the 7 states ahead of Texas from the stat that Krugman pulled out of his ass have such high dropout rates that they skew the stats to the point that Texas is 43rd yet still below the national average as pointed out by the stats released by the US Dep. of Education?

I think we can arrive on one of two conclusions here:

1. Krugman is being disingenuous with some kind of stat he read somewhere and either extrapolated from an isolated sample size and projected it on the entire state of Texas, or he's looking at sheer numbers and saying that only 7 states have more dropouts than the state of Texas (but doesn't mention that Texas has the second highest population).

2. Krugman read some stats that are flat out wrong and put them in his column without verifying them.

Simply put, either the US Dep. of Education's stats are incorrect or Krugman's stats are incorrect. Given Krugman's record on things like this, I'm not going with Krugman over the US Dep. of Education.

The US Dep of Education stats show that 22 states have higher dropout rates with two states not reporting. That puts Texas right in the middle and given Texas's sizeable population of recent immigrants, that's pretty impressive.

[statman]

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk...badgers-1.html

Iowahawk forgoes his usual satire and makes a substantive post to counter a Krugman argument.

Krugman claims:



And The Economist adds:


So Iowahawk looks at the numbers, controlling for ethnicity:



I'd be interested to read a response to Iowahawk. But not from Krugman. He's an idiot.

He's not an idiot. He's admittedly 100% idealogue. He says stuff he's smart enough to not really believe because it helps his cause. Al the crap he spouted about the Obamacare bill bringing down costs? A load of equine excrement and he knew it. But it's what the party wanted/needed, so he played along. He's 100% willing to pull the wool over the sheeple's eyes now and again...

[Jacob]

This was NOT a take down of Krugman, whose point Iowahawk eventually concedes.

That's not true. Also, I found your post uninteresting.

[Jacob]

He's not an idiot. He's admittedly 100% idealogue. He says stuff he's smart enough to not really believe because it helps his cause. Al the crap he spouted about the Obamacare bill bringing down costs? A load of equine excrement and he knew it. But it's what the party wanted/needed, so he played along. He's 100% willing to pull the wool over the sheeple's eyes now and again...

You say tomato....

[Uncle Ted]

He's not an idiot. He's admittedly 100% idealogue. He says stuff he's smart enough to not really believe because it helps his cause. Al the crap he spouted about the Obamacare bill bringing down costs? A load of equine excrement and he knew it. But it's what the party wanted/needed, so he played along. He's 100% willing to pull the wool over the sheeple's eyes now and again...

I view Krugman as the "Glen Beck" of the democrats. I love reading his column for the entertainment value. He is much more entertaining than Glen Beck, however.

What is really entertaining about Krugman's column are the comments. There are a lot of very smart people that slam him all the time. Now and then Krugman will actually respond back. Thus, my signature quote.

[RobinFinderson]

Are you shittin' me? So, do you honestly think that the 7 states ahead of Texas from the stat that Krugman pulled out of his ass have such high dropout rates that they skew the stats to the point that Texas is 43rd yet still below the national average as pointed out by the stats released by the US Dep. of Education?

I think we can arrive on one of two conclusions here:

1. Krugman is being disingenuous with some kind of stat he read somewhere and either extrapolated from an isolated sample size and projected it on the entire state of Texas, or he's looking at sheer numbers and saying that only 7 states have more dropouts than the state of Texas (but doesn't mention that Texas has the second highest population).

2. Krugman read some stats that are flat out wrong and put them in his column without verifying them.

Simply put, either the US Dep. of Education's stats are incorrect or Krugman's stats are incorrect. Given Krugman's record on things like this, I'm not going with Krugman over the US Dep. of Education.

The US Dep of Education stats show that 22 states have higher dropout rates with two states not reporting. That puts Texas right in the middle and given Texas's sizeable population of recent immigrants, that's pretty impressive.

I'm not shitting you. There is a discrepancy between Krugman's stats and the Iowahawk stats. I can't explain it, but so far no one in this thread (nor Iowahawk) has bothered to explain it either, which leaves that point in limbo.

But whether or not TX is ahead or behind the majority of the nation when it comes to HS dropout rates is beside the point. Krugman was taking a comparative measure between WI and TX, and even by Iowahawk's own stats, Krugman's comparison between the two states holds, with a nearly 60% higher dropout rate of TX white students compared to WI white students (the majority ethnic group in both states). Again, Iowahawk calls that almost 60% difference insignificant, which goes to shows that he is either ignorant about statistical significance, or that he partisan in an untrustworthy way.

A quick google search of 'Texas high school graduation rate' shows where Krugman may have been getting his number:

John Barton, the board's public information and report production manager, said the agency pulled the statistic from State Rankings 2009, a comprehensive publication issued by CQ Press, a widely-regarded nonpartisan publisher of infomation related to American politics and policy.

The budget board's depressing ranking indeed matched CQ's, which used data from the National Education Association in Washington and the National Center for Education Statistics to compare the estimated number of public high school graduates in 2009 with the number who were enrolled in 9th grade in fall 2005.

Vermont ranked first, with 96.6 percent graduating. South Carolina ranked last with 55.2 percent; Washington, D.C., isn't included. The national rate of graduating students in 2009 was 69.3 percent.

Texas' graduation rate has been sliding. In 2001 the state ranked 35th, with 65 percent of students graduating from high school. In 2008, Texas ranked 42nd with 62.6 percent of students graduating.

We rate White's claim as True.

Finally, whatever the source of the discrepancy, TX graduation rates are nothing to brag about. You don't win just because your shit sandwich has more corn.