Heritability of Academic Performance

Posted on by

Reporting on a study conducted by researchers at King’s College, this story says,

The team found nine general groups of traits that were all highly hereditary—the identical twins were more likely to share the traits than nonidentical twins—and also correlated with performance on the GCSE. Not only were traits other than intelligence correlated with GCSE scores, but these other traits also explained more than half of the total genetic basis for the test scores.

…In all, about 62% of the individual differences in academic achievement—at least when it came to GCSE scores—could be attributed to genetic factors, a number similar to previous studies’ findings

The reporter, Sarah C. P. Williams, writes,

The results may lead to new ways to improve childhood education.

She does not explain how. If anything, the results seem to me to reinforce the null hypothesis.

And note that in this article on the high correlation between parents’ wealth and childrens’ SAT scores, it’s like the writer is thinking, “I know that wealthy people buy good SAT scores for their kids, but I can’t figure out how they do it.” There is not one mention of anything related to heritability of traits. This bothered James Pethokoukis, also.

9 thoughts on “Heritability of Academic Performance”

  1. How far are we from the first Progressive policy (let’s say, even if just a proposal from a credible think tank or national poitician) that addresses what to them must be the harmful effects of assortative mariage? What would this policy look like?

    I don’t mind snarky remarks, if they are funny, but I am looking more for “devious” examples of progressive policies that (a) can actually have the effect of influencing if not directing marriage choices while (b) affording the media some ability to either rationalize them to the public or just ignore them if more convenient.

    • “What would this policy look like?”
      (Just kidding
      Medicaid would pay for artificial insemination from Harvard students to low income women.
      Medicaid could also pay for artificial insemination. )
      More seriously integrated schools by income.

    • What would this policy look like?

      It would look like a lot of the “diversity is our greatest strength” chatter we’re already subject to, I suspect.

    • You assume the people who call themselves Progressives really have the interests of the lower classes close to their hearts when you ask this question, I think. I don’t think the policies would be designed to affect the mating of the higher classes. What would be more likely would be restrictions on procreation for those deemed unintelligent. History supports my notion.

  3. Keep this in mind the next time you hear an educator say they need more involvement from the student’s parents.

    They see good students. They see involvement from good student’s parents. They assume that the involvement makes the student good. They don’t assume that being a good student and being an involved parent are co-linear indicators of the same genetic feature shared by the student and parent.

  4. These results are hardly new. It seems the same common-sense ‘revelations’ are announced over and over, and no one feels free to publicly state the obvious implications.

    Perhaps one could pull the Charles Murray trick and just try to compare the bottom quintile with the second quintile for one particular race. That would get rid of racial complications, and I’m guessing that total ‘supplemental educational expenditures’ aren’t really that different between these two quintiles, because it’s probably close to zero for both groups.

    Nevertheless, one can see a dramatic bounce in test scores and educational outcomes. Are the 20-40% ‘buying’ that improvement over the 0-20%? I’m guessing if someone followed the money, they couldn’t support that hypothesis.

  6. It’s even worse.
    Almost nothing is purely heritable or purely environmental.
    So what happens in well off households? Good genes and decent environments.
    What often opens in poor households? Not the winners of the genetic lottery, and often weak or outright dysfunctional households.

    In other words, poor nurturing of a not so great genetic heritage.

Comments are closed.