So we measure „better“ in life using academic success now? Is academic success the ultimate goal in life, the key to happiness? Or is the WP just pushing typical political propaganda using fake science these days?
"Academic success" as a useful proxy because of how it predicts income, health, longevity, and so on [1], [2], [3].
I'm not sure whether "fake science" in the absence of obvious, easy-to-google evidence is mere intellectual laziness, or if you actually believe that because some people are successful (by many reasonable measures) without an education that this somehow means that education itself is not valuable. In either case, here you go.
> it predicts income, health, longevity, and so on [1], [2], [3].
We already knew that rich people live longer, so what's the point in using "academic success" as an intermediate predictor?
> if you actually believe that because some people are successful (by many reasonable measures) without an education that this somehow means that education itself is not valuable.
Straw man.
It's not a valid (scientific) conclusion to apply the result of correlation studies on a large mixed group to selected subgroups and assume it will apply equally. IOW, rich people with college degree might not live longer than those without just because the general population does.
But my point was something else: a better life is neither measured by wealth nor academic success or life expectancy at 25. It's entirely subjective and such click-baity titles are misleading. It should read "it's better for academic success to be born rich than gifted", but then it would't be sensationalist enough.
> We already knew that rich people live longer, so what's the point in using "academic success" as an intermediate predictor?
That’s because we can then explore if it’s causal or not. Current best research suggests it is, at least in the USA[1]
[1]: Lleras-Muney Adriana. The Relationship Between Education and Adult Mortality in the United States. Review of Economic Studies. 2005;72(1):189–221.Kawachi Ichiro, et al. Money, Schooling, and Health: Mechanisms and Causal Evidence. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2010;(1186):56–68
> Straw man.
Sorry: how exactly have I misstated your point?
You’ve got a controversial opinion, and an aggressive way of presenting it (fake news). You’re giving it even though it’s not the mainstream opinion, and you’re doing it without reference or attribution. If you actually think I’m not giving you a fair shot, please explain.
My understanding is: You think that since money and lifespan are related, and education and money are related, that IFF lifespan and education are linked it must be through money?
If you've actually got a different point, then you haven’t yet made it clear to me. If you can manage that, I’ll try to address it, but this one has been addressed.
