A new report from Professor Robert Plomin at King’s College London Institute of Psychiatry, based on studies of 11,000+ pairs of twins, shows that genetic inheritance — that is, innate intelligence — accounts for nearly 60% of differences in academic performance, with schools accounting for around 36%. Presumably the other 4% reflects home background.
I am fairly astonished that this appears to be news. It has long been accepted that a large part of academic performance is based on inherited intelligence, which is measured (albeit imperfectly) by intelligence tests. Indeed this is surely self-evident to anyone who went to school, which includes most of us. Some kids are just brighter than others, and find it easier to learn and understand. Professor Plomin adds a new angle — these differences are not softened by time, but appear to increase. I suggest that this may because less able children reach a plateau of achievement, after which they find progress very difficult, while more able children forge ahead.
I have previously argued that since bright parents tend to have bright children, and since bright people tend to succeed both academically and in their lives and careers, there will tend to be a correlation between academic ability and social class. This has earned me a number of brickbats from people writing to say “Are you telling me I’m stupid because I came from a poorer background?”. So one more time: no, I’m not telling you that. Bright people don’t necessarily have bright children, and bright people don’t necessarily do well and become middle-class. There are large numbers of exceptions.
Nonetheless broadly, on balance, statistically speaking, bright parents are more likely to have bright children, and more likely to succeed in life and career. Therefore (again, statistically speaking), universities which select on academic ability will, on balance, tend to find that their intake is skewed to the middle classes.
This of course is anathema to leftist teachers and to the academic educational establishment, who believe as an article of faith that all children are intellectually equal, and that any perceived differences are the result of discrimination and deprivation. But it is also a vital antidote to the egalitarian nonsense served up by the likes of Nick Clegg, and others who ought to know better. A middle-class bias in university intake is not evidence of social and class discrimination. On the contrary, it is the inevitable outcome of the heritability of intelligence.
It follows that well-meaning policies and quota systems designed to achieve “fair access” only have the effect of denying places to those who deserve them on grounds of ability, and offering places to those who do not deserve them. This is evidently bad for academic standards and therefore for our economy generally. But it is also bad for the “beneficiaries”, for those who get to university on the basis of quotas rather than ability. These individuals, for whose “benefit” the fair access system has been created, will struggle to keep up, will enjoy their work less, and will be much more likely to drop out (and drop-out rates at our B-list universities are already very serious).
Would you rather have a son who did well at an apprenticeship and became a successful plumber or car mechanic — or a son who dropped out after two years in a course in nuclear physics or brain surgery, and ended up flipping burgers in McDonalds?