"I am forced to conclude that your work is bad science"

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.

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…
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…
There was a nice piece at Inside Higher Ed yesterday on the myth of more time: A lack of confidence in one's abilities as a writer, researcher, speaker, etc. is at the root of the myth of more time. When a deadline looms, we become acutely aware of the imminent reception of our work by others. As…
Today is my tenth anniversary as one of the academic archaeology journal Fornvännen's editors. While I was an undergrad my teacher Bo Petré encouraged me to subscribe from 1991 on, and I started contributing to the journal in 1994. That first contribution became a life-changer for me. It was my…

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.

By Calli Arcale (not verified) on 30 May 2013 #permalink

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.