Tuesday, December 29, 2009, 1:47PM ET - U.S. Markets close in 2 hours and 13 minutes.

Charles Wheelan, Ph.D. The Naked Economist

Charles Wheelan, Ph.D., The Naked Economist

Want Good Schools? First, Define 'Good'

by Charles Wheelan, Ph.D.

Email this Page IM this StoryBookmark this StoryAdd to your Del.icio.us accountDigg this StoryPrint this Story
Very Good (505 Ratings)
3.837618/5
Posted on Tuesday, July 31, 2007, 12:00AM

The country may be sweltering in the August heat, but that means autumn isn't far off. Vacations are winding down. The NFL has started training camp. Mattress stores everywhere are gearing up for their Labor Day sales.

And soon the kids will be back in school. This seems like a reasonable time to begin a series of columns on what we know about the economics of school reform -- or, more accurately in some cases, how surprisingly little we know.

Something We Didn't Learn in School

We know a lot of things about educational outcomes -- for instance, that schooling matters now more than ever before. The wage gap between college graduates and high school graduates is large and growing. And students who end up at the bottom of the skill spectrum, such as high school dropouts, have seen their paychecks shrink now that a personal computer or a guy in India with a phone can do the same work for less.

And we know that American students aren't doing particularly well by international standards. In eighth grade science, for example, U.S. students trail their peers in Singapore, China, Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, Hungary, and Estonia.

But school itself -- what happens inside the buildings between the first and last bells -- is still largely a black hole. We have a very limited understanding of what inputs -- teachers, books, curricula, memorization, reading, extracurricular activities -- map into the outcomes that we care about, whether it's test scores, or earnings, or just not dropping out of high school.

An Error in Logic

It's actually more frustrating than that. Here's the shocking secret of school reform research: We don't really even know which schools are good schools.

That seems impossible. Surely the local newspaper has just released the list of the "50 Best Schools" or "20 Communities with Great School Districts." And indeed, the students in those places are likely to be doing very well.

But that doesn't necessarily mean the schools are any good.

Why? Well, see if you can spot the flaw in this logic: "The pediatrics unit of the hospital is doing a far better job than the intensive care unit because fewer of the patients are dying."

Hint: The patients in the intensive care unit start out sicker. And that's exactly what happens with schools. Family background has a profound influence on student outcomes. Highly educated parents produce children who do well in school, for lots of fairly obvious reasons: Smart parents are more likely to have smart kids (though it's no sure thing), and they spend extensive time and money doing things that promote the academic success of their children.

What 'Good' and 'Bad' Really Mean

More than a decade ago, I wrote a magazine story on a very famous high school located in an affluent Chicago suburb. I remember an education researcher telling me at the time, "If you took these kids and put them in a closet in their freshman year, and then let them out three years later, they'd still do well on the SAT."

(Just to be clear, this was a hypothetical example. No students were actually put in a closet. Their parents would have gone ballistic.)

Sadly, the opposite is true in other communities: Students begin kindergarten woefully unprepared to learn, and they receive little support while they're in school. Because American communities tend to be highly segregated by income, we have a lot of schools with a disproportionate number of privileged or disadvantaged students.

We all know that -- and yet we routinely describe schools as "good" or "bad" based on things that have more to do with who walks in the front door than with what happens inside the building.

Measuring with a Broken Yardstick

Think of it this way: If a golf pro gives Tiger Woods a lesson, and a different golf pro gives me a lesson, can we conclude that Tiger's teacher is better than mine because Tiger beats me by three shots in a match after our lessons?

That's usually how newspapers and real estate agents pick the "best schools." The true measure of quality -- with golf pros or elementary schools -- is how much value they add. In education, that turns out to be extremely difficult to calculate.

You may be thinking that we could probably fix this with a simple pre- and post-test -- let's measure what kids know when they walk in the school door, and then measure how much they know when they leave, one or four or eight years later. The best schools will be the ones with the students who show the most improvement.

Not exactly. Gifted students don't merely begin at a higher level, they also learn at a faster rate. So, to stick with our athletic example, suppose that neither Tiger Woods nor Michael Moore has ever played tennis before. If we give them each a tennis coach, can we evaluate the quality of those coaches based on the subsequent outcome of a tennis match between Tiger Woods and Michael Moore? (Pause for a moment and consider what a great pay-per-view event that would be.)

Evaluate the Evaluation

So schools with high test scores may or may not be doing a great job; perhaps their students are capable of much more. And conversely, some schools with middling or poor test scores may be doing a terrific job educating students who would otherwise be failing abjectly.

Obviously, we can spot the outliers -- the school in the middle of Detroit that manages to send 95 percent of its students to college, say. If we give researchers enough time and enough data, they can try to answer the school-quality question using statistical techniques that take account of what kind of students are walking through the front door.

But even then the results are often equivocal. The bottom line is that it's hard to evaluate school quality, which is why it's even harder to make schools better.

The First Challenge

We're trying to encourage and replicate success without being able to tell with any degree of certainty which schools are succeeding, then. Imagine a pharmaceutical company trying to evaluate new cancer treatments without being able to determine which patients are getting better.

So that's the first big education challenge -- developing a more sophisticated way to identify "good schools." Only then will we be able to create more of them.

Email this Page IM this StoryBookmark this StoryAdd to your Del.icio.us accountDigg this StoryPrint this Story

Rate This story

Very Good (505 Ratings)
4/5
Sign-in to rate!

122 Comments

Showing comments 6-35 of 122<< PreviousNext >>
Sort: first to last

  • Derek - Saturday, August 25, 2007, 1:35PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 4/5

    There are many people who are pointing out the lack of a proposed solution by dr. Wheelan. Ironically, he would draw the ire of many if he were to propose a solution, as he makes no claims to be an expert in providing such solutions. Regardless of their source, ideas that challenge current norms and attempt to provide some insight into issues are crucial to the eventual "solution" or evolution of change surrounding those issues. That the idea and the solution come fro different sources is immaterial. For an example, a food critic may be well able to comment on a particular recipe, but it is the chef who will eventually modify said recipe in pursuit of its perfection. (Obviously this example only works in an ideal world!) With the large number of positive comments from academicians in this posting, it seems like Dr. Wheelan has hit some points correctly. Also, from many of the negative postings, it is obvious that our country has a complicated problem with our education system - one that includes aspects of wealth, race, immigration, and several others. It is unlikely that there is ONE solution that will bring about an improvement. Also, it is unlikely that a blanket political solution is the correct answer, as there will always be an opposition pulling for a change in the laws "for the sake of our children" every 2 - 4 years. This is not a problem solved during an elected term, this is a problem that necessitates innovation and change on several scales in the interest of improvements across the board rather than a single law or bill where it is impossible to measure its success via a mutually agreed-upon set of metrics. By raising the question of "what is good" and highlighting some of the difficulties encountered in such a distinction, the author has created a healthy discourse about one of the larger challenges facing our country, and one that we will have to work to solve over the next decade. Bravo.

  • TT - Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 2:54PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 3/5

    The author is correct in that present measures of school quality are probably misleading. He touches on the real problem (parental role), but doesn't go deep enough. I would argue that the school's role is minor compared to that of the parents. The difference in school quality will never make the difference between a high school dropout and a successful doctor. Difference in parenting can make that difference. People talk about family income level or race as indicators for success in school. That's meaningless and largely inaccurate. The real reason behind poor performance in school is parents who don't place a high emphasis on kids' education. Those parents are likely to come from a culture that doesn't emphasis education (related to race, but not a perfect correlation). Those parents are also likely to have not received as much education themselves, hence lower income. So if we want higher performance in school, we need to get the message to all parents that school is very, very important. This is exactly why demographically, Asian Americans perform better in school, many of whom are low income. You can either believe that Asians are smarter, or you can believe that Asian cultures have placed utmost emphasis on education for thousands of years.

  • Nambi - Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 2:04PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 3/5

    Apparently, any discussion of school quality is fair game. This topic even though Whelan did not really point out anything new than the obvious is generating a lot of interesting comments. I guess that makes this edition from the prof. an A grade?

  • Jim - Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 11:23AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    Bla bla-bla b-bla. Bad parenting = bad students. Bad genetics= Bad students. Those things mean given a level playing field, some will rise and some will fall. Just like Moore falling down with a heart attack if he moved fast. What are we supposed to do. Unless of course you would be willing to invite all the millions of dysfunctional and intellectually flawed individuals you described in your article, and invite them into your home. Wait a minute this was targeted at all of us not yourself. Sorry about that. We will begin right now attempting to revise the laws of nature and build a new world. Don't worry about a thing we'll take care of everything.

  • BrianB - Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 8:28AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    Well written article that highlights mass media's sensationalism and abuse of statistics. If reader's are interested, a related section of the book "Freakonomics" covers the topic of 'what factors influence a child's academic success.' As Wheelan suggests here...it is not the schools and the head start programs that are the best indicators of future success.

  • N icole - Thursday, August 16, 2007, 11:15AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    What nonsense. Being true as far as it goes but laced with falacy. It is not individuals as in his Tiger Woods/Moore comparison that we are measuring but group. You would hope he MIGHT realize the difference that makes. THough his ideas remain solid it is the environment. The simple solution he evades is vouchers for education. The measurement of success would be educated students and parents trying to get their kids in. Would there be some falling by the wayside -of course! - those who would have failed anyway and are dragging down those that would have had achance if they could escape the detention facilities they attend called schools. Give them vouchers give thema chance

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Tuesday, August 14, 2007, 10:38PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 4/5

    As someone in education this article only touches the surface. Those who make the laws are not educators, so I ask why are they qualified to make the rules? All students are going to college. We push every student to do the same thing at the same speed. If this were how it was wouldn't every adult be doing the same thing? Social and economic--I have parents who are educated and care but yet their child is very apathetic. I have parents who, yes are apathetic, but their child excels. Lots of parents talk a good game but very few attempt to discipline there children and I don't mean ground, spank, time out or take away their cell phone. I mean teach their kids time management, choice making and the ability to do what is not popular. Many students begin to hate school by grade 5 and blame the teacher. Many of this is due to expectations of a student that are not reinforced at home and in the community. I am one of the first to say that there are many teachers who need to move on but many would do much better if not bogged down other aspects of the classroom. Sorry this is so random but it takes a village. We all have a part in this, but parents lead the pack.

  • Leanne - Tuesday, August 14, 2007, 9:59AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 4/5

    In the article, it was shown how difficult it was to evaluate a school when the students are doing well. Trying to compare compare two schools that are graduating students and where the students are doing well on tests is difficult. Trying to evaluate that slim margin of difference is difficult. So how looking at this question from a different angle. Let's look at the schools where students are not graduating and who are not doing well on their tests. This is especially the case when these schools are in economically strong communities. When parents find themselves in such a community, what can they do? They move. They home-school. They pay for private school. Do the schools improve? Usually not. Why? Because the public schools are a monopoly and there is no incentive to do better. The worse they are, the more money is sent their way to improve their programs. Not only that, the longer they can keep the students (Super Seniors), the more money the school districts will continue to have rolling in. The solution is Parental Empowerment with "School Choice" where the money follows the student to the learning center (private or public) that the parents choose. In this way the benefits of the free-market system can take hold. It will not be necessary for legislators and governmental executives (presidents and governors) to micro-manage the country's education system, because if a learning center does not perform, parents will stop sending their children there. This free-market approach to our country's educational system is good for our children, our families, our communities, and our nation. It has already been demonstrated in Europe and Canada, that the countries and province (Alberta) that have "School-Choice" create better educated students than those that don't have this Parental-Empowering option. Isn't it time we put parents back in the equation to have a say in their own children's education? Parent's are responsible for all other aspects of their children's well-being. Why are parents being denied the authority to have control in this very important area, the education of their children, that has so many major consequences to their children's future? Please give your support to School-Choice. Thank you.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Sunday, August 12, 2007, 8:02PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    I found it as an interesting observation, we do have the same standard for students of different capability. Expecting a slower kid to get the same grades as a sharper student would be impossible even unfair. Its like making sure everyone runs as fast or everyone has to be of certain height, just doesn’t make sense. This article was written to inform us why the problem persists not what the solution to the problem is. If he wanted to write about his solution he would need an audience that understands why other attempts have not worked and why his approach is better.

  • christy - Wednesday, August 8, 2007, 2:38AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    I'm going to add this author on my list of people who like to point out flaws in society and then fail to come up with practical solutions. Michael Moore, Al Gore, and now Charles Wheelan are all on my list. I'm so sick of this growing trend of people complaining about how the United States is such a horrible place. I for one love being here and appreciate how wonderful a place this country is. I just wish others would start to feel the same way!

  • Matt Reid - Wednesday, August 8, 2007, 1:00AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    Nothing new in this article. Someone from outside the education system not only telling us how bad the schools are but there is no way to measure "good". So what does this guy normally write about?

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Wednesday, August 8, 2007, 12:31AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    Many foreign schools specialize by the time kids get to high school, they don't have textbooks with thousands of pages to memorize. Also, we are swimming in illegal immigrants we are required to educate according to Supreme Court decisions, and these kids come over with NO NO NO resources, parents with third grade education, and nothing in the way of resource materials. Lastly, many foreign countries are increasing their school day calendar up to 220 or more days leaving behind the antiquated farmer's calendar of school days something we refuse to do cause it cuts into our tourist industry. Finally, with teacher salaries among the lowest in the professional category, why would anyone dedicated want to do this when he or she could do a million other things to help society other than starve to death. We are the world's entertainment capital and pay our sports figures more than the best teachers will make in a dozen life times. If the government, or this economist really cared about public education, he should question why the Fed. cut spending on Head Start programs, pass No Child Behind with not a penny for implementation, and why states are trying to get out from under the costs of public schools buy passing the buck (and a smaller one to voucher programs). There is a black hole in American education, and I believe that it is the result of people like Mr. Wheelan spending all his time with complaints and nothing about solutions. The fix, I am afraid will cost, yet we have no problem building ten million dollar tanks and fighter jets, or paying thousands of bucks to see a Super Bowl, yet have another 10 cents per hundred levied on home and business owners to improve public education is a pariah. Shame on you doctor. Point your finger at the real culprits, the politicians and right wingers that want to keep the people ignorant because a smart population will get wise the the thievery and deception, graft and corruption that occurs daily in the government against the very people these bozos have sworn to protect.

  • Ed - Tuesday, August 7, 2007, 8:05PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    The medical school system in the United States is one of the best in the world. I believe the reason that it is good is because everybody gets on-the-job training, and there is constant testing against a national benchmark. If schools of music, art, engineering, journalism, business adopted these two criteria, it would help students become more prepared for the real world. I graduated with a degree in industrial engineering, but did not have a substantial internship or apprenticeship. I was never required to take any national testing to prove my capacity to be an industrial engineer. My education was never measured to be effective or ineffective. Interestingly, a lot of information was published about the starting salary of graduates in industrial engineering (both for my school, and national statistics). I guess that is a yardstick, but not a great one. As for highschool. Their only goal should be to teach you the basic concepts to prepare you for college. There is a national test for this, the SAT and ACT. Perhaps everybody should be required to take an SAT / ACT test every year of high school. Then the improvements could be measured year-by-year.

  • Ann - Tuesday, August 7, 2007, 7:43PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 2/5

    Like test scores DON'T matter? Where's his kid going to school?

  • Brian - Tuesday, August 7, 2007, 7:09PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    Half the columnists on Yahoo are terrible in my opinion, but Charles Wheelan is one of the few who consistently puts out articles like this one that make me think about a normal subject (schooling) in a new way. He then provides actual arguments and substance to back his claims, which is more than I can say for some others cough*RK*cough. "The Naked Economist" is the only column I'll make a point of reading.

  • Gokey Fan - Tuesday, August 7, 2007, 5:58PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    Surface rhetoric. No direction or information on 'high quality' schools that have been identified through government agencies. One identifier of a good school is 'blue ribbon' . Blue ribbon schools take into account economically disadvantaged and ethnographic subgroups. Another caveat: typical affluent, suburban districts pay more therefore, they attract better teachers. It's annoying to see these "yahoos" on yahoo writing and actually getting paid for their shallow opinions. This guy thinks his cute little quips, quotes, and anecdotes will charm the reader...blech. And by the way, I am and education specialist and researcher with an advanced degree in the field. One third of all students who struggle with literacy acquisition come from homes where one or both parents have graduated from an institute of higher education (college). Clearly he is too lazy to even understand this and thinks its much simpler to give his own narrow opinion and idealogy instead of reviewing the exhaustive research that has been documented on public education beginning with Bond and Dykstra's First Grade Studies more than fifty years ago. I wonder where he earned his Ph.D? Kmart-U? Ick ick ick!

  • David - Tuesday, August 7, 2007, 5:39PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 2/5

    Nothing new here. Until we're ready to openly and honestly discuss the home environment and race, we're wasting time and money.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Tuesday, August 7, 2007, 5:32PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 2/5

    Another flavor of the nature vs nurture discussions.

  • DexterG - Tuesday, August 7, 2007, 5:19PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    This article sounds nice, but tells us nothing we did not already know. As for a metric, focus on improvement in just one simple measure. Graduation rates x percentage of graduates NOT requiring remediation for college. The best school system is the one showing consitent improvement in this number.

  • johnk - Tuesday, August 7, 2007, 4:12PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 2/5

    I think this writing misses a very important point. We have the ability to break down and compare like schools. Schools with similar demographics and with students of similar background and compare those. So the Tiger woods vs. me comparison is not really accurate. Also you can easily compare schools right down the street from each other with children from the same area. As a school board member I understand that the student and their background have an impact. But we are also able to see many instances where good results are attained by those who are disadvantaged. The outcomes of our students are tied to the strength of the principles and the teachers under them. They have far more power to influence learning than many recognize. Good parenting and great students are important. But it's also important not to blame the students and family entirely when we fail to educate. Here in Ohio the data is there you can break it down so many ways and you can access the effectiveness of individual schools, teachers and principles.

  • Raj - Tuesday, August 7, 2007, 3:32PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 3/5

    If the goal of the article was to give different perspective on teachers of school system - I think this is a good different perspective. If in fact we are comparing schools itself, what the article completly misses is the good competition in good schools make the students do better - In schools that have a lower starting standard a good student never feels challanged enough. Also, Parent participation is not mentioned which I think is very important as well for good performance of the student.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Tuesday, August 7, 2007, 3:31PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    I went to India's MIT. A school that is even more selective than Stanford or MIT. My experience has shown that it matters a lot what company you keep. The good schools are so because they make it happen that most students are of good caliber, in addition to them having good faculty and resources. It is like the value of the Internet. Isolated machines are nowhere as useful as networked computers. There is "synergy" in interacting with people that are smart and come from stable families. It is unfortunate but is unlikely to change anytime soon. Better schools would remain better in large part because of this synergy.

  • Matthew - Tuesday, August 7, 2007, 3:28PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 4/5

    It’s amusing to read the comments from those who seem to quickly forget what they just read… Aside from that, I have to admit that I am guilty of placing too much emphasis on the local "school rankings", the logic of which Charles rightfully questioned. As the parent of two preschool-aged children, I was very pleased to see their future elementary, middle and high schools favorably rated in the latest area rankings. As a recent graduate now with an Ed.M. (School Counseling) in the midst of a career change, however, I should have known to be more critical of methodology. A ranking system based primarily on test scores, no matter how longitudinally tracked, leaves too many qualitative variables out of the picture. Perhaps there is no universally acceptable manner by which to rate our schools, and let’s not even bother wasting time talking about NCLB. The section of the article that caught my attention the most was the impact that a student’s family on his/her school experience and performance. A more appropriate and/or accurate way to describe it might be “family culture,” rather than “family background.” The importance of positive and supportive influence from family members cannot be overestimated. The role of educators is to educate our children, but it is the responsibility of the parent/guardian to RAISE their children. I look forward to Charles’ next installment.

  • mary - Tuesday, August 7, 2007, 3:26PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    Rarely have I ever seen put so concisely into words the complexity of rating the schools in our country. No Child Left Behind only fosters, even demands that a teacher teach to the test. It truly inhibits quality education, and the resulting student learning. Learning is the process of making lifelong curious minds motivated and able to search out and evaluate information. Thank you Dr. Wheelan for a realistic view of the tip of this iceburg. Yours, A retired Reading Specialist

  • Ron M - Tuesday, August 7, 2007, 3:23PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    great article...thought provoking..however there was no mention of the impact of peer pressure...driving students to excel. That's one of the reasons parents still want to choose a "good" school.

  • parex - Tuesday, August 7, 2007, 2:29PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 4/5

    I was fortunate enough to attend a top-tier university. We students had a common experience: whenever we'd tell somebody where we went to school they'd say "Gee, you must be smart." They were right. I frequently point out that the university assures its reputation with its admissions policy. The quality of the education it provides is secondary. The quality is unsurpassed, but the school would have a great reputation even if it were merely average in "value added." Good article. Good job of pointing out the all too common fallacious logic used in current public dialogs. Maybe the best thing schools could do is require minimal mastery of basic predicate logic to graduate. The rest would then work itself out.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Tuesday, August 7, 2007, 2:23PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 3/5

    Thank you, Mr. Wheelan, for an article that asks some of the most important and often unasked questions about education. I understand the posters who wonder where the solutions are. Before I offer some, I would like to restate the problem a bit. Following your initial logic, what is important is improving our education levels, *not our schools.* That is, we should be focused on outcomes, not means. Well, if outcomes are the important thing, then how can we improve education levels? Looking to Freakonomics and other sources, improving education of children primarily requires improving parents. Unless we want a nanny government, we are unlikely to accept direct intervention in parenting. Fine, so how can we improve parents indirectly? One obvious way is to use new urbanist principles to build better communities. Public transit reduces stress on parents and grants older children needed independence. Mixed-use development reduces commute times, giving families more quality time together. Dense housing gives children easier access to each other, to other mentors, and to unstructured play. Dense, mixed-use neighborhoods increase overall safety through the proven method of increasing *eyes on the street.* (See Jane Jacobs, etc.) Density also fosters community organizations such as churches, charities, schools, neighborhood associations, etc. If anyone has doubts about this, ask why the "best schools" (really the best students, as Wheelan points out) are almost always located in the best communities -- ones that are old and established with many families, tight-knit, easy to get around (often small and dense), and have both housing and jobs.

  • Shoba - Tuesday, August 7, 2007, 1:57PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 4/5

    This was really good. Nevertheless to say, smart parents produce smart kids. The more time parents spend with kids, the more better the kids do and it mostly does not have anything do with the schools the kids go to. I was discussing about the difference in level of education in U.S and other countries like India and everyone around seems to agree that it is true and little has been done to make it better. I think it is just the possibilities of making money even without a high school is the cause of this. If a ice road trucker who has none to little education can make $15-40k for one truck delivery( no to belittle the pain they undergo)... But that is a lot of money and if you can spend 40 hours non-stop driving and two or three trips a year and make more money than working at a office for a whole year...Guess what... That is what money does to education... Importance of education is not emphasized enough and inculcated in the little minds. Little minds are very smart and beautiful and what we as parents make out of it is all up to us..:-)

  • Joe P - Tuesday, August 7, 2007, 1:36PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    As someone with a doctorate in education I couldn't agree more with the article. I'm continually amazed at how political public education has become and the absence of real leadership in the professional or public arena.

  • happyguy - Tuesday, August 7, 2007, 1:20PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 4/5

    Another poster mentioned socio-economic background. I partially agree. More socio- less economic. The socio- part has to do with the emphasis the parents place on education. I think it has much less to do with race and economic status than one would believe. Here is why: In the bad old days of segregated schools in New York, the black high schools and white high schools competed for academic top rank. Some years the white kids won, other years the black kids won. But in those days, families stayed together, so the kids had both parents in the home encouraging success. This l learned from a black fellow who attended those schools. That guy is a lot older than me. My own experience was later, when family disintegration became more common. But nonetheless, several of my black classmates were top scorers. The difference was, they were highly motivated students. It's the motivation and the time on task that determines most of the outcome.

Showing comments 6-35 of 122<< PreviousNext >>
The columns, articles, message board posts and any other features provided on Yahoo! Finance are provided for personal finance and investment information and are not to be construed as investment advice. Under no circumstances does the information in this content represent a recommendation to buy, sell or hold any security. The views and opinions expressed in an article or column are the author's own and not necessarily those of Yahoo! and there is no implied endorsement by Yahoo! of any advice or trading strategy.

More From Charles Wheelan

Naked Economics: Undressing the Dismal Science

An accessible and entertaining introduction to economics for lay readers, now available in paperback.

View more about Charles Wheelan.

The Chicago Tribune described Naked Economics as "clear, concise, informative and (gasp) witty."

Order Naked Economics today. Average customer review on Amazon.com: 4.7 out of 5 stars.

More from Yahoo! Sources

  • CNN Money
  • Consumer Reports
  • Kiplinger
  • The Motley Fool
  • Business Week
  • Wall Street Journal

Historical chart data and daily updates provided by Commodity Systems, Inc. (CSI). International historical chart data and daily updates provided by Morningstar, Inc. Fundamental company data provided by Capital IQ. Quotes and other information supplied by independent providers identified on the Yahoo! Finance partner page. Quotes are updated automatically, but will be turned off after 25 minutes of inactivity. Quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes. Real-Time continuous streaming quotes are available through our premium service. You may turn streaming quotes on or off. All information provided "as is" for informational purposes only, not intended for trading purposes or advice. Neither Yahoo! nor any of independent providers is liable for any informational errors, incompleteness, or delays, or for any actions taken in reliance on information contained herein. By accessing the Yahoo! site, you agree not to redistribute the information found therein.

Yahoo! Answers is provided for informational purposes only, and no Q&A is intended for trading or investing purposes. Yahoo! shall not be responsible or liable for the accuracy, usefulness or availability of any Q&A information, and shall not be responsible or liable for any trading or investment decisions based on such information. View Complete Answers Disclaimer.