The Cognitive Aristocracy

What Should We Do About the Growing Intellectual Divide?

Photo: Pixabay

In the year 1900, the United States had a high school graduation rate less than 10% and only half of all children aged 5-19 were enrolled in any form of schooling.  Why was school enrollment so low and virtually unchanged since the 1850s?  Most children were working.  As Frederick Lewis Allen stated in The Big Change: America Transforms Itself 1900-1950:

Among the boys between the ages of ten and fifteen, no less than 26 percent—over a quarter—were “gainfully employed”; among girls in the same group, 10 percent were.  Most of these children were doing farm work, but 284,000 of them were in mills, factories, etc., during years in which, in any satisfactorily arranged society, they would have been at school.

But, it was around the year 1900 that urbanization began to take hold of American society.  Across the country, people were abandoning their farms, moving to the city, and putting their children in school.  As illustrated by the National Center for Education Statistics in their 120 Years of American Education: A Statistical Portrait, high school graduation rates took off in the early 20th century:By 1940, the graduation rate had hit 50% and continued to increase in the postwar period.  As the demand for technical jobs in society increased, the number of college graduates also went up nearly eightfold (chart from 120 Years of American Education):

Once again fromThe Big Change:

At the mid-century there are fewer and fewer people working with their hands, more and more people working at desks; fewer workers with brawn, more workers with brain; fewer whose jobs require only a limited education, more who need an advanced education.

However, it wasn’t just that more jobs were requiring more education, but the individuals receiving these educations were increasingly the most cognitively gifted in society.  In 1975, Paul Taberman and Terence Wales illustrated how individuals with higher cognitive ability (IQ) were more likely to go to college than individuals with lower cognitive ability.  From their chapter titled “Mental Ability and Higher Educational Attainment in the Twentieth Century” we can see this relationship increasing over time:

The shift we see above occurred most dramatically at the uppermost part of the cognitive spectrum, especially within elite universities.  As Charles Murray stated in The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life:

In fact, the mean SAT-Verbal score for the incoming freshman class [at Harvard in 1952] was 583, well above the national mean but nothing to brag about.  Harvard men came from a range of ability that could be duplicated in the top half of many state universities.

In the fall of 1952, the mean SAT-Verbal score for incoming freshman at Harvard was at the 66th percentile.  Today, the mean SAT-Verbal score (760) is at the 99th percentileThis change was the result of an American educational system that had become increasingly efficient at identifying the most gifted students in the country.  The cognitive aristocracy was born.

With the creation of a cognitive upper class, the ramifications are starting to become more apparent everyday.  The New York Times recently published an article on the separation of the U.S. labor force into two distinct groups.  The first group is highly educated and highly compensated while the second group has less education and no clear path for career advancement.

Unfortunately, there are many individuals in the second group that should be in the first group.  Noah Smith, a columnist at Bloomberg, recently highlighted how the education system fails to identify many talented students from poor and minority backgrounds.  The proposed solution to this problem is more standardized testing for such students earlier in their educations.

While I do support the solution proposed by Smith, it is a solution that exacerbates the problem of the cognitive aristocracy.  Testing will help identify those students with the most talent, but what will it do for those that struggle in school?

When I think about this problem my immediate reaction is probably similar to yours: we need to improve the education system.  I agree with this wholeheartedly, but this solution will have its limits.  If you believe the studies that cognitive ability is 60%-80% genetic, then even the best education system can only do so much.  You can tell people to “learn to code”, but that doesn’t guarantee that it will work.

So, what should we do in a world where intelligence is becoming more and more important in the labor market?

What Beats Cognition?

A growing cognitive aristocracy is important for one reason, and one reason alone—income.  If being smarter, on average, didn’t help you to have a higher income, then this post would be moot.  So how do we improve the incomes of those who didn’t win the genetic lottery or never received a great education?  We give them capital.

Of all the solutions I have heard to fix the growing divide between rich and poor, the idea that seems the most reasonable is a sovereign wealth fund (SWF).  A sovereign wealth fund is a government-managed, globally-diversified portfolio of assets that periodically distributes income to all of its citizens.  Every citizen owns one share of the fund (i.e. equal ownership) and no citizen can sell their share or acquire more shares.  Norway has a SWF, Alaska has a SWF, and others are being tested out.  I particularly like Matt Bruenig’s proposal of a Social Wealth Fund for America.

I like the idea of a SWF because it gives every American one thing that many of them have not had historically—asset ownership.  If we look at the composition of household wealth between the top 1% and everyone else, the largest difference is the percentage ownership of financial securities and other business assets (table from this paper):

And since most of the income of the top 1% is derived from capital income (not labor income), you can see why increasing capital ownership for everyone else could be beneficial.  I have doubts about the future growth of labor income for many Americans, but I have far less doubts about the future growth of capital income.  So, what beats cognition?  Capital.  As Josh Brown once said, “Just own the damn robots.”

Lastly, how should we fund a SWF and what should it invest in?  I don’t know, but sovereign wealth funds deserve a more thorough examination.  If you are interested in reading more on this topic, check out Matt Bruenig’s SWF proposal and the The Bell Curve, where many of these ideas stem from.  I don’t agree with everything in The Bell Curve, but the authors’ main points warrant further discussion.  Thank you for reading!

➤ You can follow Of Dollars And Data via Twitter, Instagram, or my weekly newsletter (Sign up here!)

This is post 111. Any code I have related to this post can be found here with the same numbering:

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Full Disclosure: Nothing on this site should ever be considered to be advice, research or an invitation to buy or sell any securities, please see my Terms & Conditions page for a full disclaimer. is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to and affiliated sites.

15 Responses

  1. Anonymous commented on Feb 12

    On the other hand: Ounces of Protein from ages 0 to 7 years of age is probably the most determining factor on Cognitive Development(World Health Org.). So maybe this tracks the same as “wealth-by-zip-code” stuff?

    Babies born in poor neighborhoods don’t have much of a chance since they are raised Protein-deficient from birth, especially with the fewer mothers breastfeeding.

    Protein costs a lot of money compared to Grain & Fat! USA politicians (from one party) have been trying to cut things like school lunch programs since Reagan; that way they are assured of a supply of folks “not-to-sparky ” to work in their fast food businesses.

    Perhaps a look at daily ounces of Protein from ages 0 to 7 versus “IQ”/SAT/College attendance may make more sense?

  2. Anonymous commented on Feb 14

    Been a follower of your newsletter for a while now. Am a native citizen of Singapore. Singapore also has a SWF and also an asset manager that manages the reserves on behalf of its people.

    There’s a Quora answer here that explains this in greater detail.

    There’s an ebook with some nice pictures by the Singapore SWF (aka GIC) it’s based on interviews of the key players behind the formation of the SWF.

    Note: there’s an interesting anecdote of a meeting between the Rothschild banker and Singapore’s first Prime Minister inside the ebook.

    Hope this gives you a different perspective on this matter.

    Love your writing. Please continue.

    • Nick Maggiulli commented on Feb 14

      Thank you for sharing! Appreciate the support.

  3. Anonymous commented on Feb 14

    Protein is important and I’m not advocating for grain or refined carbohydrates. However you should rethink your position on Fats, breast fed babies are typically in ketosis, the brain is made of fat and natural in unmanufactured fats are important for Brain health

  4. Anonymous commented on Feb 15

    How can there be a growing intellectual divide when information is widely available to anyone who wants to learn? It appears there a contradiction between the subtitle of the article and reality.

  5. Anonymous commented on Feb 18

    Hi Nick,

    First time reading one of your posts, really enjoyed it. You made many excellent points, several of which I’d like to respond to below:

    I like how you mention that encouraging people to “learn to code” won’t work for everyone – such exhortations, in my view, ignore that software development and related skills are contingent upon a basic threshold of intellectual/cognitive ability.

    Your other point about winning the genetic lottery also stuck out to me – I think the point that many miss (including many among the educated and wealthy) is that one’s success (especially in today’s winner take all economy) is driven to a large extent by pure ability (i.e. IQ and cognitive capacity) which are largely the product of chance and environmental factors (genetic variables, the ability of one’s parents, access to resources growing up, etc.)

    The natural, primal response (and one loosely reinforced by American values of individualism and self-sufficiency) is to dismiss those who aren’t as capable as undeserving. I think the problem (if you think it’s a problem, that is) is exacerbated by growing residential self-segregation, i.e. the wealthy are unlikely to ever live by or regularly interact with people who are lower on the spectrum of cognitive ability.

    Areas like Westchester County and wealthy suburbs of Silicon Valley are hubs filled with people who are typically wealthier and have received desirable outcomes from the genetic lottery (and have also done well for themselves in finance, tech, etc.) Residents of areas like these are the least likely to have face-to-face interactions and conversations with less intelligent people, which is a prerequisite for empathy and compassion (which are necessary if some sort of SWF or other wealth-redistribution mechanism is ever to be implemented).

    Thanks for the great read.

  6. Anonymous commented on Feb 25

    Good article. Slightly different to your though process around intelligence and the link to wealth however a similar root-cause consideration around the growing wealth gap is the one Piketty outlines in his book ‘Capital in the Twenty First Century’.

  7. Anonymous commented on Mar 13

    I really agreed with you on a previous post where you were not in favor of a universal income – I may have misread your point on this article, but it seemed like you were actually leaning towards something similar.

    What ever the solution to the very real issue that you present here – part of the solution needs to come from empowering those who are suffering from injustice. Not giving them fish but teaching them that not only can they fish for themselves, but when they receive fish from someone else (excluding disabilities etc.) in a way they are not living up to their natural potential.

    We need to empower people and help them become stronger and more independent. If we can do this together, all the better …