Posted on 10/19/2026 6:16:37 AM PDT by karpov
For quite a few years, the opponents of using standardized tests in college admissions were riding high. More and more schools were falling for the argument that the tests were unfair if not outright racist, and were not good at predicting whether a student would succeed in college. More recently, the battle’s course has shifted, as numerous colleges and universities have reinstated the requirement that applicants submit their scores on one of the tests.
Naturally, this has inflamed the anti-testing forces.
In a New York Times piece published on Sept. 16, Miriam Pawel declares, “This California Educational Juggernaut Doesn’t Need the SAT.” (It’s subscriber-only content.) In it, she argues that universities such as UCLA should not restore the standardized test requirement. Why? Because without it, California’s universities can be more “inclusive.”
She acknowledges the criticism that has recently been lodged by faculty members throughout California that large numbers of students are entering college with ridiculously weak academic backgrounds—so much so that professors must teach basic high school math. Professors in the University of California system are pleading for the restoration of the SAT to screen out students who are terribly deficient in mathematics preparation.
But to Pawel, the low level of math preparation is not important. What is important, she argues, is getting “underrepresented” students into top universities and through to their degrees. The problem with the SAT is that it screens out many of the “diverse” students she thinks are vital. Admitting “underrepresented” students makes the university more diverse and that, according to progressives like Pawel, is a key element of social justice. The SAT, she believes, gets in the way of inclusivity. That view fails to consider the students who are excluded.
(Excerpt) Read more at jamesgmartin.center ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
Civilizational suicide.
The fact that this issue contains a strong racial component makes frank discussion difficult.
only difficult for those that don’t want to hear it ...
NYT ‘journalists’ actually believe that two plus two equals six (for large values of two as two approaches three).
This is why they are only journalists and will remain that way until the sun consumes the earth.
There is a real debate to be had about the emphasis placed on standardized testing. Anyone who is or knows a teacher knows that schools teach to get good scores on the battery of standardized tests that students now are required to take, which is not necessarily a good education. Is there a way to use them while not incentivizing schools to be in a competition to have their students get good scores on them? Unfortunately, that is not the debate we are going to have. We are going to have the DEI debate.
A rigorous testing program runs counter to the left’s desire to keep the population stupid.
People have to realize that those like Ms. Pawel don’t care about success they care about arbitrary numbers of their own making. To them success is not measured by how well students do in college, it is measured by how many students of a particular ‘victim’ group get into college. Once they are there, they could care less about them.
Progressive have the highest rate of mental illness of any group because they are always trying to reconcile their irrational minds with a rational world. Do that all day long and it will drive you insane.
Because those tests absolutely "predict whether a student would succeed in college."
They also do not care about the far more qualified White and Asian students who are displaced by unqualified DEI students, along with the massive failure rate of those same DEI students when they flunk out, as they inevitably will.
Thomas Sowell says that courses such as dumbed down “black” and “Chicano” studies were created to deal with these potential drop outs who couldn’t cut regular college classes. IOW, they were created to prevent DEI from dropping out.
After junking standardized testing, our self described “elite “ universities began admitting functionality illiterate students from our failing schools where DEI admissions officers had a predisposition to admit
They had 4.0 GPA because they were the cream of the crop from DEI high schools graduating students with sub 6 th grade skills
Of course, these low functioning students couldn't cut it and blamed thier inability to keep up on institutional racism
Stanford , to their credit, revered their policies very quickly and reinstated standardized testing after a couple of years of admissions disasters but Harvard and the many others had to be forced to do so by outside pressure
Princeton is finally phasing standardized tests back in this year
They are against testing because it reveals the criminal incompetence of the teachers.
Will all of our doctors, engineers and other generally smart professionals have to be imported from India and other more rational nations?
And should people who are cognizant of this issue, like ourselves, be more aware of the background of these professionals that we may encounter?
A university should be extremely EXCLUSIVE, maintaining high academic and behavioral standards and EXCLUDING those (prospective) students and faculty who cannot, or cannot be expected to, meet those standards.
An "inclusive" university is a garbage institution providing garbage instruction and graduating garbage alumni.
“The fact that this issue contains a strong racial component makes frank discussion difficult.”
What is racist about math for instance? There are few real world issues that people use every day involving math that have more than one right answer. Your bank balance, the interest amount on a car loan, etc all have only one correct answer.
I agree that if one cannot manage those simple things life will be a bit more daunting. But race is not an issue here as there are lots on Whites that cannot balance a checkbook.
“I don’t care if every seat is filled by Asians if they have earned the right to be there.” - Then California Governor Ronald Reagan
DEI has been a disaster
DEI has its roots in a book from the 1980s called The Bell Curve, which documented huge disparities in IQ in various racial demographics
The activists first knee jerk response was to characterize the book as a racist fraud but they could not attack it on substance
They then tried to rationalize it on the basis institutionalized racism and cultural test bias but that arguement eventually fell apart
By the year 2000 the DEI proponents were faced with the dilemma of” what do we do given our racial activism targets are legitimately 20-30 IQ points lower than other groups in society and simply can’t compete in many areas in society on a level playing field”
Our current DEI polices are the answer to that dilemma.
Attempts to force fit low functioning minorities into mainstream academia really took off under Barak Obama and Eric Holder was his point man
Eric Holder famously stated openly that he was going to use DEI to push the interests of “ his people” and by his people he was referring to pushing low functioning minorities minority groups into jobs they were unqualified for
What about aptitude tests.... or is that racist as well?
Miriam Pawel dissents
https://miriampawel.com/california-dreams/
https://x.com/paulg/status/2100388241052406238?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.