The problems really took off 50 years ago when the Supreme Court banned the use of IQ tests for job applicants in both the private and public sectors. Employers started to use credentials in place on smarts. Add in diversity quotas and suddenly everything seems worse, as competency was replaced.
The problems really took off 50 years ago when the Supreme Court banned the use of IQ tests for job applicants in both the private and public sectors. Employers started to use credentials in place on smarts. Add in diversity quotas and suddenly everything seems worse, as competency was replaced.
That's correct. Disparate impact is at the root of university credentialism. However, the regimen I'm suggesting steps around that: employers aren't applying the test themselves; functionally, it's no different from requiring a degree.
Sooner or later we will all have to bite the bullet and take on the IQ issue and do so reelntlessly and with vigour.
There is no evading it. The cowardice on display on this issue, the refusal for people to call a spade a spade, to insist on honesty and a focus on reliable evidence of innate ability has handed victory to the enemy (the left, the oligarchs, the system etc). No one who is not prepared to argue in favour of the intrinsic value of IQ testing will ever do a scrap of good in relation to any educational initiative.
The bell-curve enables us to keep the bastards honest. Without it we are lost. The minimal standard of genuine social justice requires IQ testing and the re-arrangement of education to match ability.
Absolutely right. The conversation around the recent supreme court decision is completely devoid of any acknowledgement of actual differences in innate ability and as a result it is all completely inane.
Horror of IQ is shared by progressives and conservatives alike. Progressives fear evidence of variation in the incidence of intelligence amongst disparate races, while conservatives fear the possible demands that high IQ people from the lower classes might make. Both racial egalitarians and social conservatives are invested in regulating access to educational opportunity to achieve the maximum disadvantage for those who deserve it.
Contrived, overly complicated, and pointless arguments of the kind that we see about affirmative action are preferrable to the regime and its loyal opposition than the alternative.
The most likely force for change is rivalry with serious countries: China and Russia, both of which are keen on developing the human resources of their own people.
This is why they want to replace us out demographically before we figure out that not only do we outnumber them but we outsmart and outfight them too. Basically it's the Seven Samurai Scenario Writ Large.
Not just IQ tests, any tests that showed a disparate impact. So no competency testing at all. You have Fire Departments and other public services departments spending millions of $ and years to create tests to help decide who to promote and these get tossed. Get rid of Griggs v Duke Power (disparate impact) and employers can start to fix the problems.
The problems really took off 50 years ago when the Supreme Court banned the use of IQ tests for job applicants in both the private and public sectors. Employers started to use credentials in place on smarts. Add in diversity quotas and suddenly everything seems worse, as competency was replaced.
Testing is incompatible with affirmative action.
That's correct. Disparate impact is at the root of university credentialism. However, the regimen I'm suggesting steps around that: employers aren't applying the test themselves; functionally, it's no different from requiring a degree.
Sooner or later we will all have to bite the bullet and take on the IQ issue and do so reelntlessly and with vigour.
There is no evading it. The cowardice on display on this issue, the refusal for people to call a spade a spade, to insist on honesty and a focus on reliable evidence of innate ability has handed victory to the enemy (the left, the oligarchs, the system etc). No one who is not prepared to argue in favour of the intrinsic value of IQ testing will ever do a scrap of good in relation to any educational initiative.
The bell-curve enables us to keep the bastards honest. Without it we are lost. The minimal standard of genuine social justice requires IQ testing and the re-arrangement of education to match ability.
Absolutely right. The conversation around the recent supreme court decision is completely devoid of any acknowledgement of actual differences in innate ability and as a result it is all completely inane.
Horror of IQ is shared by progressives and conservatives alike. Progressives fear evidence of variation in the incidence of intelligence amongst disparate races, while conservatives fear the possible demands that high IQ people from the lower classes might make. Both racial egalitarians and social conservatives are invested in regulating access to educational opportunity to achieve the maximum disadvantage for those who deserve it.
Contrived, overly complicated, and pointless arguments of the kind that we see about affirmative action are preferrable to the regime and its loyal opposition than the alternative.
The most likely force for change is rivalry with serious countries: China and Russia, both of which are keen on developing the human resources of their own people.
This is why they want to replace us out demographically before we figure out that not only do we outnumber them but we outsmart and outfight them too. Basically it's the Seven Samurai Scenario Writ Large.
Not just IQ tests, any tests that showed a disparate impact. So no competency testing at all. You have Fire Departments and other public services departments spending millions of $ and years to create tests to help decide who to promote and these get tossed. Get rid of Griggs v Duke Power (disparate impact) and employers can start to fix the problems.
Yes, that is the case that really has done great damage to the country.