A University of California advisory board suspended the much-celebrated planned review of the system’s admissions policies to bring back standardized testing requirements for undergraduate applicants. The decision of the academic senate’s Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools is not surprising to many of us who have been critical of the system in abandoning objective standards for admissions.
Ahmet Palazoglu, chair of the system’s academic senate, confirmed that the faculty group was ”revising its timeline” for ”a comprehensive review of standardized testing in admissions.”
As various schools reversed the disastrous abandonment of standardized testing, the California system continues to slow-walk the process. Many of the advocates of abandoning standardized testing to advance diversity in admissions are relatively silent in the face of falling academic standards. However, there was still a successful effort behind the scenes to delay any restoration.
As I have previously written, the University of California system was an early supporter of this disastrous move. It was heralded as a way to preserve diversity after voters in California repeatedly rejected race-based admissions and the Supreme Court appeared ready to bar such practices (commonly proven with reference to standardized test differentials among applicants).
Now, many professors in the California system have come to the same conclusion as some of us who denounced the move years ago. They have witnessed the drop in academic skills and abilities among incoming students.
The value of standardized testing was well established years ago. The claim that additional time is needed to contemplate the change is consistent with the university’s prior record. It previously studied the question and then ignored the findings to end the use of standardized testing.
These tests not only have the greatest predictive power for performance but also play an important role in advancing minority students. Former University of California President Janet Napolitano, however, overrode those conclusions.
Napolitano responded to such criticism with a Standardized Testing Task Force in 2019. Many people expected the task force to recommend the cessation of standardized testing. The task force did find that 59 percent of high school graduates were Latino, African-American, or Native American, but only 37 percent were admitted as UC freshman students. The Task Force did not find standardized testing to be unreliable or call for its abandonment, however.
Instead, its final report concluded that “At UC, test scores are currently better predictors of first-year GPA than high school grade point average (HSGPA), and about as good at predicting first-year retention, [University] GPA, and graduation.”
Not only that, it found: “Further, the amount of variance in student outcomes explained by test scores has increased since 2007 … Test scores are predictive for all demographic groups and disciplines … In fact, test scores are better predictors of success for students who are Underrepresented Minority Students (URMs), who are first generation, or whose families are low-income.” In other words, test scores remain the best indicator for continued performance in college.
That clearly was not the result Napolitano or some others wanted. So, she simply announced a cessation of the use of such scores in admissions. The system would go to a “test-blind” system until it developed its own test.
Ending standardized testing had an obvious secondary purpose: to frustrate new legal challenges to the use of race in college admissions.
We have also seen the dismal decline in standards at elite universities like Harvard, where faculty have been compelled to teach high school-level math classes to students.
Various schools have now reversed this ridiculous move pushed by faculty and administrators in the cause of racial diversity. The proponents of the change, such as Napolitano, have said little after they decimated the academic integrity and standing of their schools.
The UC faculty cited the UC San Diego Senate–Administration Workgroup on Admissions report, which found that 70 percent of these students are performing below a middle-school level.
Like Harvard, faculty are now teaching high-school-level math.
The trust of the new push to restore standardized testing has focused on STEM subjects. In a June 5 open letter, STEM faculty raised the alarm that UC has regularly admitted students who cannot complete college-level coursework.
UC Board Chair Maria Anguiano insisted that they just needed more time before reintroducing testing that it required by the vast majority of schools: “The goal of this review is not to rehash old questions or data but an opportunity to take a fresh look at how we define and evaluate college readiness in a rapidly changing world.”
For many critics, this comes off as a state academic system contemplating its collective navel as academic standards plummet. Neither the public nor many of the faculty want to continue on the terrible course taken under Napolitano. However, even on this easy and straightforward question, the faculty is dragging its feet to study the matter further — after previously disregarding the results of a study supporting standardized testing.
What if Obama was there to give Lindsey Graham mouth-to-mouth resuscitation? Then would any of you have
anything nice to say about him?
If you are injured in a horrible accident and can no longer work, you will feel differently about the social Darwinism of capitalism.
Capitalism does include Medicaid or other benefits for injured individuals. In fact, the wealth generated by capitalism makes those benefits feasible.
If you have to live your life in a socialist nation like Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela – or you had to live in any of the Eastern Bloc countries during the Cold War – you would then appreciate in very tangible terms the benefits of free market capitalism. Notice the migration was always East to West during that time. East Germany built the Berlin Wall to keep people in, not out.
Blanche On Weaponization Fund
Blanche at various turns pegged the fund as a “moot issue” and even pointed out he was under oath in saying he had “rescinded” the document establishing the $1.776 billion fund.
But Cornyn argued the issue was not settled, as President Trump or other parties could push the matter in court.
Cornyn also pointed to a memo Blanche signed shortly thereafter that “forever bars and precludes” Trump, as well as his children and businesses, from facing any prosecution or investigation, a wide-reaching document insulating them from reviews beyond just the IRS.
At one point, Blanche protested saying the agreement “binds only the IRS and by extension the Treasury.”
“I hear what you’re saying, but I certainly don’t read that in the agreement,” Cornyn said.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5970491-blanche-ag-confirmation-cornyn-anti-weaponization/
……………………………………….
The agreement ‘binds only the IRS’..?? That’s reassuring! In other words the Trump family could just blow off taxes from now on and face no criminal penalties.
Like Harvard, faculty are now teaching high-school-level math.
Like your blog, commenters are now using grammar-school level discourse. It’s not just math that has been rejected by Americans.
Pro-tip: use a standardized test in order for commenters to use the comment boxes in your blog, where they must score >80th percentile. I predict that the number of comments would fall drastically, and quite possibly elevate the discourse.
Pot. Kettle.
It’s okay, the world needs more baristas. It seems there is a Starbucks on every corner and they all need to fill those positions. An overeducated idiot should be able to handle the job.
Tickle Me Elmo on fire
Donald Trump, as a creator of insults, is not a poet. But he is prolific—no critic can doubt his commitment to his craft—and his body of work, whatever it may lack in artistry, is notable for its volume alone. Every time the president calls someone a “dog” or a “pig” or a “horseface,” he solidifies his status as the GOAT. As a result, whether the insults are personalized attacks (“Sleepy Joe,” “Shifty Schiff,” “Pocahontas”) or general ones (“crazy,” “nasty,” “dumb as a rock”), they form, together, a data set: a collection of text that can be categorized, analyzed, and mined for insights—not into the person being targeted but into the man who does the aiming.
I have to say that it was absolutely delightful to watch capitalism work its wonders today with the continuing downward spiral to oblivion of SpaceX stock.
Intra-day it dipped to $132.15, well below the IPO offering price of $135, and closed at 135.27, just barely above the IPO price.
This means that virtually all the idiots who hold this worthless stock have lost money.
It also means that the scamming huckster Elmo’s net worth has dropped by $600 billion in just over a month. Another $150 billion loss will see his net worth cut in half. It is my fervent hope that the stock price will fall so low that the loans he has taken out with the stock as collateral will be called due because the loan exceeds the value of the collateral. Elmo has pledged some of his stock holdings as collateral, which means that the bank can sell the stock without his permission, and this would trigger massive capital gains taxes that he tried to avoid by taking out the loans in the first place. He does not receive a salary from any of his companies. Instead he finances his daily living with low interest loans against his stock holdings. He doesn’t sell the stock, because that would trigger massive capital gains.
Morningstar, the highly respected independent financial analysis company values Spacex stock at no more than $63, so hopefully the downward spiral has a long way to go.
It is also worth noting that more than 30% of the public stock float has been sold short. A short interest of 10% is considered high. A short interest of 30% is considered to be extraordinarily high.
What this means is that the Wall St heavy hitters see this IPO stock offering for what it really is. A grossly overvalued scam.
Couldn’t happen to a nicer fellow.
Capitalism is such a wonderful thing.
I can see by your statement you are not successful in the stock market. I am. I bought at IPO knowing full well the price would fluctuate and the returns, while likely substantial, will arrive over the course of the next 5 years. Same with Tesla. Socialism not doing so well anywhere now is it?
Wishful thinking is not a rational position, compared to the cold hard reality of actual analysis of real numbers.
You probably also bought Trump’s gold sneakers, and gold watches , and totally fake crypto.
SPCX is grossly overvalued by any measure, as the market is telling you. Trust the market, it is always right.
By the way my YTD return is 97.95%, and my 3y return is 451.44%.
Stocks fluctuate. Everybody knows that. You only lose if sell on a dip instead of buying on a dip.
But SPCX is not FLUCTUATING.
It has spiraled straight down from Day 1.
Trust what the market tells you. It is always right.
Wishful thinking leads to major losses.
Todd Blanche: “I’m His Lawyer”
Pressed by Democratic senators on Wednesday, Blanche insisted that he does not merely do the president’s bidding and that he would resign if ever asked to do anything illegal or unethical. He also said he had disagreed at times with Trump and said he did not believe the president was eligible to run for a third term.
“President Trump trusts me to give him counsel,” Blanche said at one point. “Counsel does not mean I’m a yes man.”
Still, Blanche had a notable slip when pressed by the senator John Kennedy of Louisiana, who asked whether the two men were friends. “I’m his lawyer,” Blanche said, before correcting himself. “Was his lawyer,” he said.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/15/todd-blanche-confirmation-hearing-attorney-general
……………………………………………
Todd Blanche accidentally told the Senate exactly what critics fear: ‘He’s Trump’s lawyer’. Not the man to be running DOJ.
Exactly the man to run the DOJ. I think the people involved in the Obama seditious conspiracy should pucker up…
Eight Ball (Estovir), just so we know how wacky you are, describe the ‘Obama conspiracy’.
Come on Nozzle, you can figure it out, here’s a hint… Hillary Clinton, John Brennan and Jim Comey…Russssssia.
Another aspect is that Universities, by accepting objectively unqualified students, are being dishonest with those students. I get that the test results are not fully deterministic and that some students can rise above the prediction of their test scores – I am perhaps a beneficiary of tolerant admissions. Even so, the universities are accepting the incoming student’s money, generally expending low expenses for freshmen schooling with famously large classes and inexpensive laboratories, and pocketing the change. If the student drops out, the university doesn’t care as it has its money with no refund. But the student has expended, and perhaps borrowed, significant funds on an endeavor for which the university full well knew he was at great risk without telling him so. This, frankly, is highly unethical on the part of the universities.
Everyone treated the same. It’s up to the individual to prepare for the test. Those of you saying, people of color can’t do well on testing. What would the reason be? If they need remedial assistance, then sign up for it to sharpen your skills. If you don’t do well, just stop the test, sounds pretty dumb.
I once worked for the Princeton Review which tutors people on improving scores on standardized tests. When in high school, I was a National Merit Semifinalist based on PSAT scores which might be a way Turley suggested benefits minority students by singling out high achievers that most of you would label as DEI that should be abolished. My point today is that standardized tests are historically biased, many questions assume familiarity with subjects like cricket (the game not the insect) and country clubs that aren’t uniformly known. The wealthier and whiter you are, the more likely you are to perform well.
OOOOOh boy the Turley faithful are NOT going to like this take – that is – if they can actually see through the eye holes of their white hoods to read it.
Black Olives Matter
“Black Olives Matter”
Or spatter, if dropped from a sufficient height.
Actually they will think it’s a good thing. The subpar students will cheapen a Degree from the University and employers will stop hiring their graduates. That means less idiots in the work force and cheaper coffee because baristas will be a dime a dozen. I really hope the University of California lowers admission standards too. That should also speed the demise of a useless University.
The libs go lower. Shocked we are not.
That’s a load of Cricket crap!
Schools are for teaching a standard curriculum.
Learn the English language and grammar, might actually help students to write a complete sentence.
Learn Math
Learn Chemistry
Learn some basic Science
Learn some history
It’s not a racial thing, it’s a parenting thing and when the average IQ of a specific demographic is 80, well that’s the breaks.
What part of what I said is untrue. That I worked for the Princeton Review and taught people how to improve their scores? That the questions often require a basic knowledge of some non-basic things? That wealthy and white people have an easier time on tests written for them? I get that you don’t want those things to be true, but they are.
Let me get back to you, I am up at our exclusive Whites Only Country Club Cricket match.
😂 that argument died with the advent of TV and drawling accents also.
Then why do Asians score as good, if not better than whites on those tests?
Because they of Asian country clubs where they go conspire against other people and of course discuss Bingo.
Reportedly, Asians have an average IQ of 110, Caucasians 100, Blacks 80, Sect of European Jews 120. That’s reportedly the Science.
🤔 study? Wild guess…
Blacks score 1 std dev below whites, Asians score .5-1 std dev above whites – on average.
Foreign-born blacks score higher than American born.
Asians score well, not good like a Merican. And it’s because they play cricket in India and the tests are written for them.
How recent is your experience. The “regatta” type questions were considered problematic a couple decades ago, but the questions used in the SAT now undergo rigorous prior review for any type of cultural biases. By the way as a kid raised poor and white I’d never seen a yacht and never been to a regatta. Nonetheless knowledge of what these things are is, in my opinion, a reasonable way to test breadth of knowledge and understanding of cultural experiences other than one’s own. Bottom line, SAT always has been and still is a valuable tool in determining the ability to do college work.
“What part of what I said is untrue.:
Most of what you wrote is unfalsifiable – again if you were a merit scholar you would know that.
I have no idea if you were a merit scholar – but your writing does not lead to that conclusion.
I have no idea if you worked for the Princeton review – not honestly do I care.
Can people improve their standardized test scores ? A little – but not much, and if what you claim was True – you would know that.
No the questions do not require basic knowledge of non-basic things – College admissions tests are IQ tests – they test your logic and reasoning skills.
We have spent decades trying to figure out how to boost intelligence with no consequential results. Slow improvements occur naturally over time.
some of the biggest factors are things like diet – all the factors that have lead to increases in average height over the past 200 years have also lead to increases in intelligence.
An NO the wealthy and white do not have an easier time because the tests are written for them – Contra your claim – standardized tests do NOT ask about Cricket,
and the over performance of Asians obliterates your cultural bias and whiteness claims.
It is irrelevant what I want to be true. It is irrelevant what YOU want to be true – what is relevant is what IS true.
Are SATs biased in favor of the more intelligent ? Absoluitely. Are they culturally biased – Nope.
There is a reason that Asians sued Harvard and want colleges to do race blind admissions only favoring standardized tests – it is because Asians out perform everyone.
Regardless East Asians score one half to on std deviation higher than whites on tests that purportedly are designed to culturally favor whites.
“Hundreds of studies on millions of people have confirmed the three-way racial pattern (Jensen, 1998b; Lynn &
Vanhanen, 2002; Rushton, 2000). This same order of mean group differences is also found on “culture-fair” tests and on reaction time tasks.”
There is still a fight – mostly because academia leans heavily to the left and is trying to force the data, over this – and this idiotic FALSIFIED cultural claim persists.
Just as YOU a purported Merit Scholar are echoing it.
The DATA generally finds that IQ is about 75% genetic – that has held solid for over a century despite efforts to falsify it.
Further the disturbing racial patterns that we find in college bound students are found in testing as early as 3-6 years old. Again not only is the White/Black difference present – but the White/Asian one as well.
AS EARLY AS 3-6
No standardized tests are not “culturally biased”
If you wish to debate other “nurture” based explanations – be my guest.
But please quit selling GARBAGE.
It is nonsense like this that is why people hate DEI.
It is just a reality denying mechanism to claim that real world differences do not exist.
Again I do not have a problem with a college using any criteria they wish so long as ZERO public money is involved
an d so long as parents and students are free to make their own choices.
One size fits all approaches – including pure admission tests everywhere always under perform – because each individual is unique.
But lets not repeat lies that were falsified long ago.
John, a student, can work for The Princeton Review.
This claim is absolutely untrue. In the late 1970s, College Board began “sensitivity reviews” to ensure “fairness and equity” and that was institutionalized. By the early 1980s, every SAT question underwent a review before it could appear on an exam.
Spreading this misinformation is inappropriate. There may be other reasons wealthier and whiter students – again a lie because it’s ASIANs who perform best. Those reasons could include: formal test prep, stronger K-12s, focus on academics, and parental pressure to perform, but it’s not because of the questions.
I find it hard to believe you were a Merit Scholar – just from this post – DEI based selection and Merit based selection are the OPPOSITE of each either – if you are intelligent enough to earn a Merit Scholarship – you would grasp that.
Again if you were an actual merit scholar – you would know the claims of historical bias are Garbage.
Nearly all standardized tests are essentially IQ tests. While IQ has risen over time – and due to the way IQ is defined – as a deviation from the mean, that means that a person with an IQ of 100 today has greater intelligence than a person whose IQ was 100 a century ago – again presuming the baseline reference for the IQ measurement was the population 100 years ago.
It has been argued that because tests like the PSAT or SAT’s or ACT’s – were develkoped by western white males that must mean they are as you claim “culturally biased”.
But we have developed IQ tests that are constructed such as to completely remove any possibility of Bias. We have IQ tests that produce decent results on children before they can read or write. We have IQ tests that are purely graphic and symbolic – without any “cultural references”
of any kind. And these produce the same results as those that are supposedly culturally or racially biased.
No standardized tests are NOT culturally or racially biased.
This is also confirmed by the FACT that despite the massive standardized test study industry – there is very little that you can do to more than marginally improve performance on an IQ or other standardized test.
Again if you actually were a Merit Scholar – you would know that, and you would not be making these stupid arguments.
Nearly all of what we call “standardized tests” are just IQ tests. If you have your scores on PSAT’s SAT’s ACT’s GRE’s … you can go online and look up your score and the year you took the test and get your IQ. Even without online tables – you can calculate your IQ by knowing not your SCORE – but the percentile that you scored in. If your PSAT score was 50% – half the people taking the PSAT did better than you and half did worse – then your IQ is 100 – assuming that everyone was required to take the PSAT
NO Standardized Tests like the PSAT’s do NOT have questions about Cricket – not the insect and not the game. Again if you actually were an National Merit scholar – you would not be arguing such nonsense. Long BEFORE the lefts cultural attacks on standardized tests – the producers of these tests – tested the tests to remove any questions that offered any advantage aside from differences in intelligence. That process BTW is ongoing. A small percent of questions on EVERY standardized Test are “test questions”
They do not count – but they are being examined to determine how accurately they reflect IQ and how much cultural or racial bias they exhibit. Those questions that accurately measure IQ and have no biases are incorporated into future tests – replacing questions that were not predictive or had evidence of bias.
Most of us are subject to a wide barrage of standardized tests going through school – nearly all standardized tests are IQ tests.
Regardless in a lifetime of taking standardized tests – which have ALWAYS produced the same results, I do not recall a single question on Cricket ever.
Again – If you actually were a national merit scholar – you have turned off your ability to critically think and damaged your own IQ.
You note that Whites perform well on Standardized tests. Asians perform better – Maybe Indians are better informed about Cricket than Americans – but the Chinese, and Singaporeans are not.
Most standardized tests – and particularly College admissions tests are IQ tests. The correlation between IQ and success – most any form of success is BY FAR the strongest in ALL social sciences. Colleges use standardized tests for admissions because far more accurately than ANY other measure they predict success in college and success past college. Nothing else comes close.
You are free to argue that performance in college and life should not be the sole criteria in admitting students.
But standardized tests produce the most accurate prediction of future performance that we have.
I have zero problem with Colleges using whatever Criteria they wish to select students – so long as we are truly dealing with a FREE MARKET.
That means ZERO government involvement – no subsidies, no research grants, no guaranteed student loans, no threats with respect to Title IX or anything else.
No left wing government threats no right wing government threats.
Just colleges choosing how they wish to perform their role and students and parents choosing where they wish to go.
Just as McD’;s chooses how to make their burgers and you and I choose where and whether we wish to buy a burger.
John Say, I’ve got to say this is by far the most ignorant post from you today.
Casting doubt on enigma’s credentials because YOU assert some sort of expertise by proceeding to provide completely irrelevant comparisons and expose how ignorant you are. This is how the anti-DEI movement grew, by the sheer amount of arguments from ignorance.
Your entire argument relies on outdated 1970s myths about intelligence testing that have been thoroughly debunked by modern psychometrics. Insulting someone’s credentials while being completely wrong about basic science is a bad look.
Standardized tests are NOT IQ tests. They are not even close to alike. No psychometrician or testing agency (like the College Board or ACT) classifies these exams as IQ tests. They are achievement and aptitude tests designed to measure acquired knowledge in specific high school subjects like algebra and reading comprehension.
You claim a 50th percentile score equals a 100 IQ “assuming everyone took the test.” This is a gross logical failure. The SAT and PSAT are taken by a highly selective, self-selecting pool of college-bound students, not the general population. Scoring in the 50th percentile of an elite, hyper-educated subgroup means your score is significantly higher than the general population’s average. Bypassing this basic statistical concept proves you do not understand how percentiles work.
You claim that prep industries only “marginally improve” performance. This is false. Controlled studies show that targeted test preparation, high-quality tutoring, and repeating the exam consistently raise scores by significant margins. If the tests were purely measuring unchangeable, un-trainable IQ, the multi-billion-dollar test prep industry would have zero statistical efficacy.
Also, You mention that a person with a 100 IQ today is more intelligent than a century ago due to deviations from the mean. This is a complete inversion of the Flynn Effect. The Flynn Effect proves that raw scores rose over the 20th century because of environmental factors—better nutrition, increased schooling, and exposure to technology—not because human genetics suddenly evolved higher baseline intelligence. This confirms that these tests measure environmental access and education, not unchangeable biological traits.
You took the mention of “cricket” literally to brag about your own test history. The point about cultural bias isn’t literally about sports trivia; it is about language syntax, vocabulary selection, and socio-economic context that favors students from wealthy, English-speaking households who can afford private schooling.
Trying to use pseudo-psychology to claim that standardized tests are infallible, unchangeable metrics of human worth isn’t “critical thinking.” It is just a desperate attempt to justify systemic inequalities using broken data.
I am not castring doubt on EBs claims – his own arguments are.
If you argue up is down and down is up – no one is going to believe you are a national merit scholar.
Regardless, such claims are unfalsifiable, so I really do not put much weight in what others claim about themselves.
I posted that my IQ is so high that I am 1000 times more probable to be correct than you – would you take that seriously ?
MOSTLY – I do not make appeals to my own authority.
I judge EB’s intelligence by his posts. Those do not demonstrate being in the top 2% – which is what is required for a Merit scholar.
But as Nasseem Talib notes in the Black Swan and is unfortunately obvious in the rreal world – there are LOTS of IYI’s
Intellectual Yet Idiots.
This video is not political, the title is correct but deceptive.
What it is about is “how to think critically”
Intelligence increases the odds of that – but intligence is unfortunately not a guarantee of critical thinking.
“Your entire argument relies on outdated 1970s myths”
I cited studies that reached the same conclusions in the 90’s and the 21st century.
It is not the arguments of the 70’s that are outdated – it is the failed attempts to falsify them.
There is no valid cultural explanation for the differences in IQ.
BTW I did not cite “arguments” – I cited DATA – FACTS.
The discrepancies in IQ by race are detectable as early as 3-6 years old.
They have nothing to do with Cricket or culture.
Regardless – the culture argument is STUPID – if Cultural differences are the foundation of differences in outcome
TEACH THE CULTURE
LEARN THE CULTURE
If IQ can be raised by Culture – then adopt the culture that results in the highest IQ.
” about intelligence testing that have been thoroughly debunked by modern psychometrics.”
ROFL
Again look at the cite above – from the 21st century – hundreds of studies over millions of people ALL universally come to the same result.
Absolutely the left has TRIED valiantly to flasify these results. AND FAILED.
No they have no been debunked by modern psychometrics – they have been REINFORCED.
Nor should this surprise anyone. “Debunking” actual data is very nearly impossible.
You can succeed when”
The statistical significance is law – the two points I have made have the highest statistical significance in all of the social sciences.
Another alternative is demonstrating poor study methodology – that MIGHT work for a small number of studies with small sample sizes.
But we are talking hundreds of studies and millions of participants.
First and foremost. IQ CAN NOT BE LEARNED. We have tried – that is the “holy grail” of social science.
EVERYONE want that to be possible – Including me. If there is any valid way to boost IQ – it would be valuable – many times more valuable than SpaceX.
We have looked HARD – and we have found nothing that improves IQ – beyond the few standard of living factors that also increase height such as diet.
These are more evidence that you can STUNT IQ – not that you can raise it.
In the domain of race and IQ – which is a sub point, not my main refutation of EB, we have beleived – and it is likely true that lead in paint contrinuted to lower IQ’s in poor children – and there is more poverty in minorities. But that does not explain the fact that the same patterns are found outside the US in places where there has never been lead paint – because there is no paint.
The conclusion regarding IQ from the time of Darwin through the present is that it is 75% heritable. In 2 centuries no effort to falsify that has succeeded.
Again I would be happy – nearly everyone in the world would be happy to discover that IQ can be taught or nurtured or improved with a pill.
But we have found nothing in 200 years to displace the heritable nature of IQ.
Claiming you have without evidence is just the typical garbage from the left.
” Insulting someone’s credentials while being completely wrong about basic science is a bad look.”
Meaningless drivel
EB is a pseudonym – he has no “credentials” – his claims about himself – just as most all of our claims about ourselves are not falsifiable.
That is not an insult – it is just reality.
Asserting based on the intellectual nonsense that EB and now you are repeating that his claim to be a merit scholar is dubious
IS AN INSULT
It is also valid analysis.
Sometimes the Truth hurts.
In fact that is one of the Core truths that the left rejects – that any conclusion that is emoptionaly hurtful is inherently false.
“Standardized tests are NOT IQ tests. They are not even close to alike. No psychometrician or testing agency (like the College Board or ACT) classifies these exams as IQ tests. They are achievement and aptitude tests designed to measure acquired knowledge in specific high school subjects like algebra and reading comprehension.”
“A typical “SAT to IQ” conversion (for the SAT 1995+ version) lists 1600 SAT ≈ IQ 138 and 1500 SAT ≈ IQ 129. For the SAT 1994 and older version, the same scores are listed as 1600 SAT ≈ IQ 166 and 1500 SAT ≈ IQ 150.”
From AI
https://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/satiq.aspx
“Mensa accepts SAT scores as proof of IQ if they were taken prior to specific cutoff dates, typically requiring a score that places you in the top 2% of the population. For the SAT, this generally means achieving a combined score that meets Mensa’s qualifying criteria, which is often around 130 or higher on standardized tests.”
“You claim a 50th percentile score equals a 100 IQ “assuming everyone took the test.” ”
“This is a gross logical failure. ”
Nope qualification is right in my claim – no error at all.
Regardless you argument is both poor and irrelevant. It does not alter that PSAT’s and SAT’s correspond to IQ’s
Nor that IQ is distributed on a Bell Curve and that PSAT and SAT scores distribute on a Bell curve.
Nor that an IQ of 100 ius by definition someone who is smack dab at the 50% point.
If – as you correctly claim – though you exagerate the SAT’s PSATs are self selecting. Then you can adjust.
The mean SAT score in 2024 was 1024. The SATR score corresponding to an IQ of 100 was 880 – so there is about 1 30 point SQUEW to SATs – which is about 22%
None of thos makes anything I claimed a logical failure.
Further while I did not explicitly identify the shift – I did note its existance.
:The SAT and PSAT are taken by a highly selective, self-selecting pool of college-bound students, not the general population. Scoring in the 50th percentile of an elite, hyper-educated subgroup means your score is significantly higher than the general population’s average. Bypassing this basic statistical concept proves you do not understand how percentiles work.”
Did not bypass anything – READ WHAT I WROTE AGAIN.
“You claim that prep industries only “marginally improve” performance. This is false. Controlled studies show that targeted test preparation, high-quality tutoring, and repeating the exam consistently raise scores by significant margins. If the tests were purely measuring unchangeable, un-trainable IQ, the multi-billion-dollar test prep industry would have zero statistical efficacy.”
If you are east asian private SAT prep courses have been found to result in as much as a 200pt increase in your SAT score. Only East Asains have been found to significantly benefit. Self Study produces about 60% of the same benefit.
Regardless this is a diminishing returns issue – If you scored 1500 before taking a prep course you are not going to score an impossible 1700 after, Nor are you going to score a perfect 1600. You will be lucky to get a 30 pt bump. While if you scored 800 the first time – you could get a 200pt bump from test prep.
Further more than 50% of the gain between the first test and the 2nd is just the automatic 90pt bump that most people get from a retake – that occurs whether you do test prep or not.
But again these are averages and they are diminishing returns – the higher your initial score is the less impact there will be.
“Also, You mention that a person with a 100 IQ today is more intelligent than a century ago due to deviations from the mean.”
NO I DID NOT SAY THAT – nor would I.
” This is a complete inversion of the Flynn Effect. The Flynn Effect proves that raw scores rose over the 20th century because of environmental factors—better nutrition, increased schooling, and exposure to technology”
Partly correct – and I SAID THAT.
There is negligible benefit to better schooling or exposure to technology. Nutrition is without a doubt a factor in higher average intelligence.
BTW the reporting on the “flynn effect” is logical garbage. Intelligence has risen – albeit not consistently over time.
IQ SCORES have not – because the definition of an IQ of 100 is CURRENT average intelligence.
X
Finding a factor in intelligence that is within human control is the holy grail of the social sciences.
NO SUCH FACTOR HAS EVER BEEN FOUND.
If it had been we would be able to make everyone super intelligent.
While nutrition is absolutely a controllable factor – it is also of diminishing returns.
Nutrition globally has improved – and Intelligence has followed.
but we have come very close to maxing out the gains from nutrition.
There is no pill to make you more intelligent.
Nor does education or exposure to technology increase intelligence – tests of the IQ’s of 3-6 year olds do not show much change at older ages.
I linked a video that was titled something like the AI skills that will make you more valuable.
But for the most part it was NOT about AI. It was a lesson in critical thinking.
ONE of the points in the video – something you CONSTANTLY fail, was – when you are presented with a claim – whether a random claim or one purportedly by experts,
ALWAYS think “what else must be true for that to be true ?” or “What else must be false for that to be true ?”
Basically you are looking at the claim and determining whether it is supported or contradicted by other things that you either know to be true,
or that are required to be true (or false)
Better education and exposure to technology FAIL THAT TEST.
Numerous studies are reporting either a reversal or stagnation in the improvement of IQ in developed countries in the 21st century and possibly the late 20th century.
That requires that either “exposure to technology” only provides a flat rate one time bump. Or it is a false claim.
Take your pick – I do not care – regardless that aspect of the “flynn effect” is either falsified or at best not ongoing.
Education is more complex – improvement in intelligence through most of the 20th century
DOES correlate to improved education AND decline or stagnation in intelligence in the late 20th and 21st centuries DOES correlate to decline in education.
But the fact that measure of IQ before school and after do not show changes discounts education.
Regardless the flynn effect claim that education improves intelligence is at best a possibility – not anything proven by data.
While the benefits of nutrition are proven – but diminishing returns, and the benefits of exposure to technology are even less well established – in FACT massive amounts of data are coming out that exposure of children to technology STUNTS their intellectual development.
This is so well accepted that the left AND the right are rushing to pass laws that make it easier to age restrict access to technology.
The data on this is so solid that it is a surprisingly bipartisan issue.
“You took the mention of “cricket” literally to brag about your own test history”
Nope – I have never revealed my IQ or SAT scores. Unlike Bug I am not making arguments as appeals to authority.
OCCASIONALLY I make appeals to my own experience – I have never seen “cricket” in a standardized test.
I have also never seen “regatta” which someone else mentioned.
As another posted mentioned – The Testing services have spent the past 60 years trying to get rid of the slightest HINT of cultural favor in their tests.
They have done so to placate the left.
But they have also done so to maintain the value of their tests.
Schools, employers, …. WILL NOT USE tests that produce skewed results.
If College admissions tests were not predictive of college success without any racial factor – no one would be defending them no one would be using them.
As with everything in the free market – produces MUST meet the demands of consumers.
While no such consequential flaw was found in standardized tests – you woulkd have to be a moron to beleive that the test companies would not rapidly fix that if it was found.
Again – “what else must be true (or false) for some assertion to be true ?”
The claim that standardized tests were and remain culturally biased REQUIRES that the creators of the tests are so racist that they would go out of business rather than remove bias.
I will guarantee you that if ECT could produce a test that would score minorities higher (and asians lower) AND accurately predict success in college – they would do so in a heart beat. Colleges are the primary consumer of SAT’s – they are the “customer” – we have seen many left wing nut colleges abandon standardized tests.
If the test company’s could change that – they would.
The reason for Jim Crow laws in the south was because people on their own without the force of law behind it valued commerce over racism – and they still do.
Almost no business in existance – not today – not in 1900 will screw over a race of people if that costs them business.
ECT would fix any bias in standardized tests if it was there.
If you do not understand that – then you are a moron.
“The point about cultural bias isn’t literally about sports trivia; it is about language syntax, vocabulary selection, and socio-economic context that favors students from wealthy, English-speaking households who can afford private schooling.”
ROFL
sports trivia, language syntax, vocabulary, are all LEARNABLE
AND they are all removable.
If they were actual factors in test scores – the tests would REMOVE THEM
AND concurrently poor schools would TEACH those things.
The differences in test scores can ONLY be attributable to either
Factors we do not know,
or Factors we can not change
Otherwise we would have changed them.
I will be happy to hear from YOU some factor no one has ever thought of before.
But anything that has been proposed 50 years ago – has been falsified by the fact that the problem has not gone away.
BTW 10% of school children are in private schools – and more than half of those are catholic schools.
Regardless, if you actually beleive Private schools do so much better a job – then you should support school choice.
“Trying to use pseudo-psychology to claim that standardized tests are infallible, unchangeable metrics of human worth”
Have not done that. Just claimed that they were a very accurate predictor of success in college and later and that they are essentially IQ tests.
Are they either perfectly ? Nope, But contra the left – they are NOT deeply flawed. They are not the only factor that can be used to predict success.
But they are the single most important predictor that we have for students preparing to go to college. Perfect no – really really good, yes.
Perfect is unachievable. Further intelligence alone is NOT the only factor in future success – rarely intelligent people fail. Rarely less intelligent people succeed.
X
I do not have a dog in this fight.
I would be happy to find any way that works to eliminate these disparities.
For the past 60 plus years we have concurrently been trying to discredit the data,
and to try most every conceivable thing to make the disparities disappear.
Both public and private programs.
Over those 60 years you have failed to discredit the data – you have only made the evidence more robust.
And you have failed to find anything that corrects the disparities – aside from denying reality.
Every claim you and Bug have made – EVEN IF TRUE – is correctable.
As noted standardized tests have done everything in their power to remove any biases – it is in their interests to do so.
Still the differences remain.
Further EVERY claim you have made for the source of the biases is LEARNABLE.
Learn sports trivia, learn vocabulary, learn …..
We have thrown MASSIVE amounts of money at the problem.
The most expensive school districts in the country are also the worst performing.
All the things you claim are the source of the problem have remedies that have been tried and FAILED
The data is fine – it has produced the same results for 6 mnore than a century – If you could do something successful to correct that -you would have.
It is YOU – the left that have failed.
And the losers are the very people you claim to be helping.
“I find it hard to believe you were a Merit Scholar –“
John, all merit scholarships are not equal. The academic one, the National Merit Scholarship, is based on outstanding academic achievement. The other one is the Merit Scholarship, which is not financially based and includes athletics. Enigma had an athletic scholarship.
Even the math section?
enigma:
(1) Looks like you lifted the “cricket” example from the Internet “practice” set, which does NOT represent any real questions on the test.
(2) absolutely NO knowledge or familiarity with cricket is required to answer the questions posed. All the information needed to answer is contained in the paragraphs leading up to the questions.
(3) https://brainly.in/question/56419328
(4) thanks anyway.
Lin, you are completely missing the entire point of the psychometric argument to protect your bias. Posting a link to a reading comprehension passage about cricket from a homework-help site doesn’t prove what you think it does. It actually proves the point enigma is making.
You claim that because the text block gives you the information, no outside knowledge is required. That is false. Psychometricians prove that if a passage uses vocabulary, idioms, or structural framing familiar to an elite or specific culture (like sports metrics, sailing terms, or upper-class hobbies), a student from that background will read and decode the text significantly faster and with less cognitive load than an outsider. The bias isn’t about “hiding facts”; it is about systemic speed and decoding advantages.
The link you posted (brainly.in/question/56419328) is from a localized exam in India, where cricket is a national obsession. Passing a reading test in India about cricket in India is highly intuitive because the entire culture understands the sport’s basic premise. If you gave that exact same reading passage to an underfunded student in inner-city Chicagowho has never seen a cricket match, they would spend extra cognitive energy trying to visualize the basic context instead of focusing purely on the logic.
Ah, no.
There is nothing specific to cricket in that link that someone could answer the questions. For that matter you could swap out cricket and replace it with just about any other two team sport and the questions would apply equally.
Precisely.
X: I provided the specific link. Please review it and cite, with specificity, the vocabulary, idioms, or structural framing familiar to an elite or specific culture (like sports metrics, sailing terms, or upper-class hobbies) contained therein, without explanation or definition of the term so employed.
Thank you in advance.
apology, I forgot to put quotation marks around your AI sentence, “vocabulary, idioms, or structural framing familiar to an elite or specific culture (like sports metrics, sailing terms, or upper-class hobbies),”
I just looked it up on the SATs. There is an entire section on Cricket and flatware settings in formal dinning at country clubs.
Dinning? Like dinner? Lunching?
No, dunning as when they present the bill. After taking inventory of the flatware at the end of the meal.
The ACT has sections on line dancing, etiquette for high tea, badminton and backgammon.
Just on the minute chance that you are taking a break today form being the lying sack of shit you invariably are here, do you have a link to back that up?