Elizabeth Chin has written an excellent scholarly takedown, in the form of a "letter from your thesis reader," of Jason Richwine's 2009 Harvard PhD dissertation, " IQ and Immigration."
I've not read Richwine's thesis, though I probably will at some point. And you probably haven't either. But, you'll still find Chin's post informative and compelling.
It is here: What Jason Richwine Should Have Heard from his PhD Committee
While you are on the subject have a look at this: Harvard Students Demand Investigation Into Jason Richwine's Thesis On Hispanic IQ
Hat tip: Jennifer Raff.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Two weeks ago, the Heritage Foundation (a conservative think-tank) released a position paper based largely on the academic research of one Jason Richwine. The conclusion (roughly paraphrased): Hispanic people have lower IQ's than white people, so an overly permissive immigration policy will drag…
"I spent every night until four in the morning on my dissertation, until I came to the point when I could not write another word, not even the next letter. I went to bed. Eight o'clock the next morning I was up writing again." -Abraham Pais, physicist
You've been in graduate school for many years…
The other day, it occurred to me that I have a goodly number of friends who have been in Ph.D. programs (and may still be "in" the program in some more or less official way), and who have more or less finished their graduate research, but who haven't managed to get their dissertations written. (I'…
Tom Ball writes:
Didn't know if you had seen this article [by Jason Richwine] about political allegiance and IQ but wanted to make sure you did. I'm surprised the author hasn't heard or seen of your work on Red and Blue states! What do you think?
I think the article raises some interesting issues…
I'm slightly disappointed by the petition. They shouldn't just be opposing it on the basis that his paper is mean. They should be opposing it on the basis that it's bull hockey. Never mind the odious claim he's making; the paper itself is garbage from a scientific standpoint, and should never have been accepted.
I wasn't aware Charles Murray was a big defender of this guy, but upon reflection it isn't surprising.
I am surprised this cod-swallow got past the committee's review - any explanation about what they were thinking? Since they seem to be trying to have it both ways (his empirical work is strong but we don't like what he says) it would seem they have much to account for.