Lion of the Blogosphere

Archive for the ‘Education’ Category

False information about SATs and college admissions in Atlantic article

The article says:

Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, and Yale collectively enroll more students from households in the top 1 percent of the income distribution than from households in the bottom 60 percent. Legacy preferences, nepotism, and outright fraud continue to give rich applicants corrupt advantages. But the dominant causes of this skew toward wealth can be traced to meritocracy. On average, children whose parents make more than $200,000 a year score about 250 points higher on the SAT than children whose parents make $40,000 to $60,000.

If we learned anything from the recent news story about the rich and famous parents who paid people to take the SAT for their kids, we should have learned that wealth doesn’t guarantee high SAT scores. We should also know the SAT is only one of many factors for admission to elite schools, and we regularly hear that elite schools reject applicants with even perfect SAT or ACT scores in favor of lower-scoring students who show “leadership potential” on their application. “Leadership potential” more often than not just means kids who did the right things because they come from a wealthy background where the right things to do are well known. And then to guarantee that their kids do the right things, rich parents can hire the best college admissions consultants. Meanwhile, clueless Asian immigrant parents of modest means are duped into thinking that all their kids have to do is study and get good grades and test scores and they will be rewarded for that, but it doesn’t happen.

There would be more kids admitted from the bottom 60% and fewer from the top 1% if elite schools stopped looking at stuff other than SAT scores.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

August 21, 2019 at 9:39 AM

Posted in Education

An Atlantic article doubting the college Narrative

Totally surprised to see this in The Atlantic (because that magazine mostly posts Trump-hating or extreme SJW articles these days):

[A]t some point along the way, the value of college became divorced from skill acquisition, to the point where 61 percent of employers told researchers at Harvard Business School that they turned away employees who possessed the requisite skills and experiences for job openings simply because they did not have a diploma, as Hess and Addison report in a recent essay in National Affairs.

Hess and Addison argue that the rise of the diploma as a signaling mechanism dates back to the Civil Rights Act. As late as 1963, 84 percent of jobs required some sort of general aptitude or job-specific test during the interview process. When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was drafted, though, it included language aimed at ensuring that these interview exams were not stalking horses for discrimination. In the 1971 Supreme Court decision Griggs v. Duke Power Company, the Court ruled that employer tests were only acceptable if the material was job related (as opposed to general or aptitude based), and in cases where preemployment tests have a disparate impact on protected groups, employers must show both that the test is predictive of job performance and that there is no less discriminatory method of separating out unqualified applicants. Grant and Addison argue that the fear of being sued pushed employers away from tests and toward the pursuit of bachelor’s-degree holders, which serves to signal a set of core competencies, many of which are what we consider basic character and social skills, rather than hard skills.

And then it continues:

Hess and Addison argue that we need to once again allow employers to select for skills, rather than for crude proxies of skill. They call on a sympathetic administration to begin bringing legal action against employers who insist upon college degrees for seemingly low-skill jobs under the same Griggs v. Duke Power Company precedent. College degrees are far from evenly distributed across racial and ethnic groups, and the fact that degree requirements have not already been challenged on these grounds is evidence of the rarefied place college education occupies in our culture.

It’s almost as if these guys have been reading my blog! As I previously wrote:

On HBD blogs, commenters only seem to remember that the Supreme Court held that Duke Power was not allowed to use an IQ test to hire workers. They forget that the Court also held that Duke could not use high school diplomas.

The facts of this case demonstrate the inadequacy of broad and general testing devices, as well as the infirmity of using diplomas or degrees as fixed measures of capability. History is filled with examples of men and women who rendered highly effective performance without the conventional badges of accomplishment in terms of certificates, diplomas, or degrees. Diplomas and tests are useful servants, but Congress has mandated the common sense proposition that they are not to become masters of reality.

So people who say that employers use “diplomas or degrees” to hire because they’re not allowed to use tests, they have not bothered to read the case or understand it.

However, I agree that as a practical matter, the government enforcers and everyone else have ignored the other holding of Griggs. They only care about restricting the use of aptitude tests.

The Trump administration should start immediately enforcing the other half of Griggs, and sue employers who require college degrees without proving a business necessity for the requirement.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

August 20, 2019 at 2:26 PM

Posted in Education

New York Times CENSORS my comment

The headline says “How New York’s Elite Public Schools Lost Their Black and Hispanic Students.”

But if you look at the graph for Stuyvesant High School, it shows that while Black+Hispanic enrollement declined from 14% to 4%, White enrollment declined from 70% to 18%, which is an even BIGGER proportionate decline.

The correct headline for the article should be “How New York’s Elite Public Schools Lost Their Non-Asian Students.”

I tried to point this out, without any mention about black people’s genetically lower IQ and Asians’ genetically higher IQ, but it still got censored.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

June 4, 2019 at 1:55 PM

Posted in Education

How to destroy the power of universities

Coming up with a collection of policy proposals that I’ve previously blogged about.

1. Abolish degrees as much as possible. People should attend college to learn, and they should stay as long as they feel they need to, although federal student aid should stop after a certain number of years.

It should be illegal to discriminate against someone because they don’t have a degree, just as it’s illegal to discriminate against people based on race, sex, etc. Technically this is already the law because the Supreme Court in Griggs v. Duke Power Company (1971) held that it was illegal for Duke Power Company to make a high school degree a requirement for getting a job. The Supreme Court wrote, “History is filled with examples of men and women who rendered highly effective performance without the conventional badges of accomplishment in terms of certificates, diplomas, or degrees.”

But this aspect of Griggs has been ignored, so Congress must pass a law stating explicitly that it’s illegal to discriminate on the basis of degrees.

2. The government should not provide any direct or indirect aid (as in student grants or loans) to any university that has exclusive admissions. When an institution has more applicants than they have room for, they must use a lottery system.

3. Federal student aid should be contingent on proof of successful learning. After taking a course, a student must pass a national test demonstrating knowledge in order to qualify for additional student aid for more education. Of course we need to make sure the tests are administered securely so that test takers don’t cheat on them.

I favor increased federal grants for students who can score high enough on the tests of knowledge so that education is available for all who can demonstrate that they are able to learn. Up to a point. We don’t want people to be students for their entire lives, they have to be cut off at some point.

Job applicants should be allowed, and encouraged, to use the scores on these federal tests as proof of their value to prospective employers, and employers may require test scores to be submitted. Legal safe harbors should be created so that employers can make employment decisions based on these test scores without fear of legal liability. And it should be illegal to favor an job applicant because of the where they took classes (which favors the rich and connected), the only thing that should matter is actual demonstrations of learning such as the score on the national test.

4. Eliminate degree requirements for fields like law and engineering and public accounting. For critical occupations like medicine, where doctors need hands-on training, we need to make some allowances. But doctors should go straight into medicine and not spend four years studying something else before they are allowed to start learning how to be doctors.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

March 28, 2019 at 3:05 PM

Posted in Education

I support lottery-based admissions

A liberal group called New America made this recommendation and it has been picked up by NPR.

I say, let’s go for it. This would turn Harvard into a community college (unless Harvard decides to turn down all federal money in order to keep its evil elitist policies), but that’s a good thing because the elite universities have become enemies of the people with their support for radical SJWism. Let them be destroyed by the very left-wing policies they’ve pushed on the rest of the nation. I think that it’s totally politically feasible that Democrats in Congress would go for this, because they believe in the magic-bricks-and-mortar theory of education.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

March 27, 2019 at 12:50 PM

Posted in Education

The REAL reason there are so few blacks at Stuyvesant High School

And not, it’s NOT just an HBD thing. Although of course, the fact that blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites (on average, on average, of course there are unusually smart blacks like Obama, and Staten Island is full of dumb prole whites) and Asians is a big factor.

The real story is that the city’s elite private schools give out scholarships to poor minority students, and private organizations exist to find the best and brightest minorities and channel them into these opportunities.

According to a NY Post article, “at least 1,500 talented minority and immigrant kids from the city’s poorest neighborhoods currently enrolled in ritzy private and boarding schools — most for free.”

Any black kid who is smart enough to get into Stuyvesant can get a free ride at a much better private school. It would be pretty stupid if they gave that up to attend Stuyvesant.

The media is now full of articles, like this crap fake-news article at The Atlantic about the discrimination that minorities face. The discrimination is totally false. Being a poor but smart minority is so much better than being a poor but smart white.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

March 20, 2019 at 4:21 PM

Posted in Education

HBD in the news

The incoming class at Stuyvesant High School, which uses only a competitive test for admissions, nothing else, no affirmative action, no “holistic” crap, only 7 blacks were offered admission out of 895 students.

66% of the admission offers went to Asians. 22% to whites. The other 11% went to Hispanics and “Other,” with “Other” outnumbering the Hispanics.

That’s what meritocratic race-blind money-blind class-blind admissions looks like!

New York City as a whole, according to Wikipedia, is:

White: 44.6%
Hispanic: 27.5%
Black: 25.1%
Other races: 16%
Asian: 11.8%

Which adds up to 125%!

Non-Hispanic whites are 35.1% of the population, which I think is what the Stuyvesant High school article means by “white.”

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

March 19, 2019 at 7:28 AM

Posted in Education

SAT not biased against poor

This is another lie that multiple fakestream media sources have been pushing. They say that one of the big advantages rich people have is that they can hire the best test-prep tutors so their kids ace the tests. This is totally false. If it were true, then these rich people who have been charged with crimes wouldn’t have had to cheat to have their kids’ SAT scores fraudulently inflated.

Once upon a time, I trained to be a Princeton Review teacher, and I can assure you that there’s nothing about their course that you can’t learn for a lot less money by buying one of the many excellent review books. Or for free by using the review books at the school library.

The SAT has been very thoroughly evaluated for it’s reliability. For the multiple choice part of the test, test prep and coaching has shown to be of limited use in increasing scores. There is no magic coaching that allows someone who would naturally score 1000 score a 1500.

The reason why this is the case is because the SAT is predominantly a test of g, and g is a biologically based trait that can’t be increased for high-school-aged people.

I agree that a student who goes into the SAT cold would be at a disadvantage, but no one does that. Every student taking the SAT should know the importance of the test and have had the opportunity to do some test prep. If they were too lazy to do that, then they are too lazy to excel at college anyway.

The SAT, and similar tests, are the fairest way to evaluate students for admission to college. It’s the other things that colleges look at, such as athletics, volunteer work, leadership activities, internships, other extracurricular accomplishments, that are gamed by the rich who have the inside track and who hire expensive consultants who can groom their kids to have the perfect CV that the elite colleges are looking for.

Even athletics as an admissions criteria, which sounds merit based, benefits wealthier applicants whose parents can afford expensive sports coaching. At expensive private college-prepatory schools which have smaller student bodies, the emphasis is on making sure that every student does some sort of sport, even if they aren’t good at it. While at public schools, only the athletic kids get to participate in sports.

Why should sports be such a big factor for admission to elite colleges if, allegedly, they are places of higher learning and not places of higher athletics? This was something that was added in the earlier part of the 20th century when too many Jews were getting into elite schools, so the schools struck back against the Jews by emphasizing athletic skills, something they believed that Jews weren’t good at. But Jews have learned to adapt to the WASP-imposed admissions regime, and now Jewish parents make sure their kids do athletic activities so they don’t look like unathletic nerds on their college applications.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

March 14, 2019 at 10:30 AM

Posted in Education

Fake story about college admissions in NY Times

NY Times story, currently showing on the home page of their website, that claims that the college entrance scam that has been in the news shows how blacks are hurt worst by the admissions process.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The article is absolutely false. The true news is that blacks are given a handicap of approximately 200 points on the SAT. On top of that, other requirements (such as “leadership” activities) are less rigorous for blacks. Applying to college while black is like having a legacy father who donated millions to the college. Affirmative action for blacks is that strong.

The college admissions game hurts Asians most, and then poor and middle-class whites. Blacks come out on top.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

March 14, 2019 at 7:45 AM

Posted in Education

My plan for abolishing the power of colleges

It’s a plan that will never be enacted, but here it is:

The federal government should create a series of standardized tests for college subjects. Anyone can take the test, regardless of whether or not they are a student at a college.

Nationwide standardized tests would allow us to truly compare Harvard students to people from lesser schools or not attending school at all.

All hiring for federal jobs should be based on how people scored on these standardized tests, regardless of their formal education or lack thereof.

Congress could also make it illegal for businesses to discriminate in favor of people with college degrees because that disproportionately benefits the wealthy and connected and has a disparate impact on those less privileged.

I imagine that under this system, most non-elite types will come to see traditional colleges for the waste of money that they are. Test-prep companies organized much like BARBRI (which teaches people what they need to know to pass the state bar exams) will do a better job of teaching and MOTIVATING students so that they do well on the tests.

The chance of Congress passing something like this in the near future is zero, but conservative bloggers should take this up.

One of the reasons why SJWs will rage against this is because the know that blacks do poorly on tests compared to whites, and our current college-education system of affirmative action for admittance to college, and then no accountability about whether anyone actually learns anything in college, hides black incompetence* compared to whites. (*On average, of course. There exist individual competent blacks and incompetent whites. But the average black graduate from a college is quite a bit less competent than the average white graduate of the same college.)

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

March 13, 2019 at 10:21 AM

Posted in Education

%d bloggers like this: