lol
Your link refers to people who argue against teenage pregnancy as "eugenicists" and sounds like it was written by a sophomore. Seems like a credible and unbiased source!
Actually, it was written by a sociologist who formerly taught at UC Santa Cruz. I know you're likely much more experienced than him, but regardless, it was not intended to be an "unbiased" source. It was intended to be a critical commentary on bias in the mass media and such, and would therefore necessarily be "biased."
Furthermore, your own link notes that the study you keep citing contained a calculation error which necessitated a correction in a 2005 study. If that's the case, why have you been repeatedly referring to the 1999 version? And for that matter, why didn't you
link to it in the first place? You could have saved a lot of time.
I never attempted to "hide" the calculation error. I even referred you to Hoffman, who you refused to research (but inadvertently cited anyway :lol
, in an attempt to provide the greatest clarity. The 1999 study is merely the most available one that you would have derived the greatest understanding from. The 2005 revision doesn't contain any major new findings.
So then you were just being unnecessarily condescending when you said this?
Good to know.
Actually, no. There's significant analysis that can be derived by merely reading the abstracts of several pertinent studies by a person such as yourself.
Uh....I got that article by looking at the "articles that cite this piece" section in the abstract link that you provided.
Really? So you ignored other citations that contradicted your preconceived viewpoint?
My apologies, I assumed that you were capable of understanding what I was referring to when I used the term "article." I'll be sure to spell things out for you in the future.
My apologies, I assumed that you were capable of understanding the difference between a mere "article" and a formal study. I'll be sure to spell things out for you in the future.
:2wave:
I was referring to your conclusion that because the study that I cited dealt with the UK, not the US, I must not have read it. I'm aware that a UK study isn't 100% applicable to the US, but I'm not aware of any reason why the result would be so drastically different in the US. Are you?
Of course there are reasons. For instance, we might consider different external factors between the U.S. and the UK, given the fall in inter-generational income mobility that the expansion of tertiary schooling promoted in the UK. You might want to refer to Machin and Gregg's
A lesson for education: University expansion and falling income mobility.
The fall in intergenerational income mobility can partly be accounted for by the fact that a greater share of the rapid educational upgrading of the British population has been concentrated on people with richer parents. The unequal increase in educational attainment has been one factor in reinforcing the link between earnings and income of children and their parents. This seems to be an unintended consequence of the expansion of the university system that occurred in the late 1980s and early 1990s. It demonstrates that education policy matters for income equality, and can have wide reaching and long lasting consequences for individuals.
I appreciate that you're not familiar with this data, but you could at least not assume that others suffer from the same deficiency.
And since you're so well versed in this field, I'm sure you've already read
this paper directly attacking the methodological underpinnings used in Hotz's study and coming to a contrary conclusion, right?
I'm afraid I haven't, and I'll have to take a closer look at it, but my immediate impressions are that since National Campaign researcher
Hoffman is cited as a reference, I wouldn't doubt that they failed to analyze the role of 1990's "welfare reform" as an external factor in destabilizing persons who bore children as teenage parents. You'll also want to keep in mind Geronimus and Korenman's commentary that many studies insufficiently measure for endogeneity.
Hardly ever. Guess my mother never read any John Holt. It's the never ending story of my life, you might say. But then, none of this has much to do with the topic at hand.
Well, I don't doubt that.
[T]hough we may respond authentically to many qualities of children to many qualities of children, we too often respond either condescendingly or sentimentally to many others-condescendingly to their littleness, weakness, clumsiness, ignorance, inexperience, helplessness, dependency, immoderation...
[Escape From Childhood, p. 113]
:2wave:
