R Hansen says: >Again, you are missing the point. This isn't about me claiming to be right as it is about me offering a more reasonable explanation that is nowhere to be found in the story
I actually scanned the paper by Reardon rather than just the summarizing article. Nevertheless, what *exactly* is your (first, say) rebuttal? That the family-income-educational-achievement gap is merely reflecting an IQ-income gap? Reardon's argument is based on changing strengths of correlations: the income-achievement link has grown sharply stronger in the last 30 years. If this trend is only reflective of basic IQ-income trends then you should show how IQ-income correlation has grown proportionally stronger in the last 30 years.
The box you are in was named after a beautiful Greek youth, unfortunately the story is a tragedy.