Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

credit: blogs.campbell.edu

You’re a college devoted to woke insanity. You admit pretty much anyone whose checks don’t bounce, but you’re absolutely determined to admit “minorities,” particularly blacks, even though you know, many, perhaps most, will drop out without a degree, carrying crushing debt. This is known as diversity, inclusion and equity: DIE. Discriminating against highly qualified white and Asian students is blatantly illegal, and you know that, but nothing is more important than your woke ideology. That’s why you have more DIE bureaucrats than tenured professors.

But you’re in trouble. The Supreme Court seems ready to finally call you on your blatant discrimination and violation of state and federal law. What do you do? Lie, hide statistics, grotesquely dumb down the curriculum, and dump all admissions testing, the better to hide the truth. Charles Lipson at Real Clear Politics, explains:

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule against affirmative action programs this term, finding they violate the Constitution because they deliberately discriminate by race. If you think that ruling will stop universities from treating racial groups differently, think again. Admissions officers are already hard at work figuring out ways to evade the forthcoming decision. They are supported by countless ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ bureaucrats, nestled across campus. They are on a mission.

How will they skirt the high court’s ruling? By eliminating statistical evidence that they are actually discriminating, even as they continue to do so. They would be caught red-handed if they left data showing they admitted students from favored groups with markedly lower qualifications.

The proof lies in data from standardized tests. For undergraduates, those tests are SATs and ACTs; for law schools, LSATs; for medical schools, MCATs; and so on. Until now, they have been the accepted standard measuring scholastic aptitude and future academic performance.

Unfortunately, test scores for admitted students from different racial groups display stark differences, not the modest ones permitted by the Supreme Court several decades ago. Nor have they gradually faded away, as Justice Sandra Day O’Connor famously hoped.

credit: assumption.edu

Why would black kids do so poorly on the SAT? Culture matters. For decades, they’ve been pressured not to “act white,” by being responsible, on time, doing homework, behaving in school, and actually learning the knowledge and skills necessary to become productive citizens. More recently they’ve been assured they are perpetual victims of systemic racism, so they have no possibility of ever succeeding.

The differences have remained large and persistent. How large? Economist Peter Arcidiacono gave the answer for hypothetical applicants to Harvard with good grades and high SAT scores. If that hypothetical applicant were an Asian American male, he had a 25% chance of admission. If he were white, his chances rose to 36%. If he were black, however, he was almost certain to be admitted (95%). Other studies have shown similar differences in admission rates to colleges, graduate schools, and professional programs.

Differences like these are central to the cases now before the Supreme Court. They show how Harvard and the University of North Carolina regularly admit minority undergraduates with scores that would lead to rejection for most Asian Americans and whites. That’s racial discrimination, and it’s illegal, or so the court is likely to find.

If the court rules against affirmative action, universities will then face a choice. They can:

Try to evade the court decision by dropping the tests, admitting minority students with lower qualifications than other students, and hoping no one can prove their actions are illegal; or

Admit students without regard to race; keep the standardized tests because they are useful predictors of academic performance; and use them, along with high school grades, as primary criteria for admission.

For most schools, the choice isn’t hard. They will jettison the test requirement, unless they are stopped by their Boards of Trustees or state legislatures (in the case of public universities). This is not guesswork. Universities are already dropping the tests en masse, anticipating the court’s decision.

credit: management.ind.in

As regular readers know, I am not at all a fan of mandatory, high stakes testing. I am also not a fan of the SAT. I used to teach SAT test prep and my students commonly raised their SAT score substantially after taking the class. I didn’t make them smarter, I merely showed them how to take that particular test. I don’t think the SAT useless, I argue instead it should not be the ultimate factor in college admissions. For example, were I required to take the SAT when I returned to college in my 30s after many years as a police officer, I surely would have done poorly. I was out of academic practice, and would have benefited from my own class, yet I managed a near 4.0 GPS, made the dean’s list every semester, and took a bachelor’s degree in 2.5 years. The point is not how smart I was, but that non-traditional students should be judged by different criteria.

But what about minority students? Shouldn’t they be judged by different criteria? Certainly not as a class, but perhaps as individuals. In a genuine college, not a dumbed-down woke diploma factory, a minority student with a serious work ethic and real determination might do well, or at least, with a great deal of effort, graduate, while prospective students nursing grievances and carrying a heavy entitlement load, surely will fail. We do such people no favors by encouraging them to take on crushing debt and ensuring their academic failure. We also do them no favors by putting them through a sub-high school level “college” experience, and turning them out with a worthless degree and no actual knowledge or skills.

It is crucial to note that universities are not abandoning standardized tests because they are poor measures of future academic performance or because they are biased, racially or culturally. They were scrubbed of bias long ago and do a good job of predicting academic achievement. They are dropped solely to increase the enrollment of African Americans and, to a lesser extent, Hispanics, whose grades and test scores fall below a given university’s admission standards for other students. Although this is done ostensibly to help Latino and black students, there is some evidence that it does the opposite. Research suggests that students of any color or ethnicity tend do better academically – and graduate at much higher rates – if they attend universities that broadly match their qualifications. Students struggle if they are admitted with test scores and GPAs significantly below those of their classmates.

This is a particularly important point:

Standardized tests have one other advantage, irrelevant to Eastern elites but important to the rest of the country. They offer a golden opportunity for smart kids from remote locations and lesser-known schools to prove they can succeed at rigorous universities. That’s not a problem for good students at Phillips Andover Academy or Bronx Science. Admissions officers at Yale, Stanford, and Duke already know the meaning of high grades at those schools. But they don’t know anything about students – including the truly outstanding ones – from places like Dry Prong, Louisiana, or Humptulips, Washington. The best way for those students to prove they can succeed at a top-flight university is to submit top-flight SAT scores. Giving those students a shot at admission is one reason the national tests were developed.

The tests have worked as intended for a long time, opening the world of higher education for talented students across the country. A perfect score of 800 on the math test will impress Cal Tech or MIT, whether it comes from Scarsdale, New York, or Sweet Lips, Tennessee. Without the test, how would those universities know what to make of a straight-A student from rural Tennessee?

credit: ivywise.com

Lipson goes on to point out many “elite” schools are dropping the LSAT and abandoning national rankings. Why? Not because those rankings aren’t important to them. The problem is when they admit sub-standard students, and produce sub-standard lawyers, rankings expose their hypocrisy and blatant violation of the law. By all means, take the link and read the whole article.

Colleges aren’t the only institutions to drop the LSAT, as Jacqueline Toboroff at Human Events, reports:

This month, the American Bar Association voted to drop the LSAT and other standardized tests as requirements for law school admissions. The intent here merely confirms that these esteemed places of higher education are mostly hedge funds with classrooms attached.

Even medical schools are going entirely woke, abandoning science in favor of ideology.

Why is testing being scrapped? Why are traditional measures providing a benchmark of an individual’s ability done away with that help decide which school is a right fit?

Control masked as diversity.

There are many, many schools. Not everyone belongs in those once considered academically superior. There are myriad options. But in the name of diversity, everyone is entitled to the same diluted crap, and it comes at an expense.

The ABA concluded testing requirements hamper diversity in admissions. Translation, certain people are not up to snuff by the ABA’s barometer of educational and intellectual heft. By dumbing down, punishing those that work hard or are naturally gifted, the gaslight is that diversity will be achieved.

It’s a lie. Top-notch professors are no longer needed to teach incoming students of a lower caliber. This is part of the plan; older teachers that actually taught traditional academics are being replaced. It seems like the ones given the boot, Whites and Jews, are considered not diverse according to the Left.

Take the link to this article too, gentle readers.

Final Thoughts:

These trends are part of the continuing effort to replace merit with tribalism, racism and hatred of everything that has built America in general. One of America’s non-secret secrets has always been college athletes were graduated knowing nothing. Kept on campus for their athletic abilities, they were given diplomas, yet rarely, if ever, attended classes, and did little or no work. During those years, at least colleges more or less maintained academic standards, and a degree was a more or less reliable indicator of knowledge gained, a work ethic, and potentially, ability.

Now, the athletics scam continues, but in too many colleges, academics are being abandoned in favor of D/S/C ideology. Not enough minorities on campus? Admit them. They can’t hack actual college level work? Drop academics to their level and lower, because if you don’t, you’ll expose your own fraud. It’s a fraud not limited to minorities, but they benefit—not really—most from it.

College is not for everyone. As I pointed out in College: Certificate of Attendance only about 10-15% of the population has the intellect to do well in college. That’s a fully functioning, academically oriented college. That doesn’t mean people outside that 10-15% can’t, with hard work and determination, earn a degree. Good on them. We need people with that kind of character and work ethic. Yet, we’re increasingly discovering one can live well and have a successful career without a college degree.   

Colleges are playing a sick, and illegal, game that is already having destructive ramifications for us all. Merit matters, and propaganda is no replacement.

UPDATE, 12-05-22, 1230 MT: Consider this from the Harvard Crimson: 

Ostensibly, universities have this mostly tax-free status because they are charitable institutions serving educational missions, an exemption which dates to one of the first American income tax laws passed in 1894. This status makes sense. Harvard is one of the world’s preeminent universities; surely it has used its billions of dollars of accumulated wealth to primarily invest in its educational program, building an unparalleled roster of top professors, expanding offerings to students, and reducing class sizes. Right?

Wrong. Harvard has instead filled its halls with administrators. Across the University, for every academic employee there are approximately 1.45 administrators. When only considering faculty, this ratio jumps to 3.09. Harvard employs 7,024 total full-time administrators, only slightly fewer than the undergraduate population. What do they all do?

I suspect they do pretty much what was happening at Twitter. As Elon Musk said, for every Twitter employee coding, there were 10 people supervising.

In a 25-year timespan within the same window, American colleges added over 500,000 administrators at a hiring rate double that for faculty.

I’m sure each and every one of those administrators have made learning easier and more effective for each and every college student, and have lowered tuition costs, though greater efficiency, for every student.