Here are two recent examples, of many, with many more to come, of the pozzing of science by grade deflation. Meaning the lowering of standards as measured by grades.
LADIES IN STEM
What was that cry we heard from the squeaky-voiced contingent about equal pay for equal work? Never mind. That was always a false charge and fake desire. What is wanted is not equity, but superiority.
Inside Higher Ed is reporting on a “study” that “suggests that professors should standardize their grading curves, saying it’s an efficient way to boost women’s enrollment in STEM.”
Harsher grading policies in science, technology, engineering and math courses disproportionately affect women — because women value good grades significantly more than men do, according to a new working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research.
What to do? The study’s authors suggest restricting grading policies that equalize average grades across classes, such as curving all courses around a B grade. Beyond helping close STEM’s gender gap, they wrote, such a policy change would boost overall enrollment in STEM classes.
What is a “gender gap”? This means there are not more ladies than men in these fields, which they regard as affront to Equality (Equity). Equality has been reached whenever the ladies, or some other favored political group, exist is greater numbers, prestige, or pay than white men, but only in areas seen as desirable. Equity in STEM, but not in, say, sewer pipe layers or prisoners.
The study examined supply-side issues in STEM enrollment as well, and posits that professors give lower grades, in part, to prevent overenrollment (which is costly to them, in terms of time). But based their supply-side model, the authors found that requiring the same mean grade across classes led to a substantial increase in the number of STEM classes taken by women.
There was no need for such a model; the results were already known. If you reduce requirements, but present the same lures for achievement, you will increase enrollment. At first, anyway, STEM positions will be just as lucrative as in days of yore. But then, at last, the effects of mandated Equality will be felt, and STEM will be less valuable.
Enrolling more women in STEM this way could also lead to other changes that make the natural sciences “more hospitable to women,” the study says, “creating a positive feedback loop.”
Positive, you understand, is used in a mathematical and not judgmental way. Placing people who are insufficiently qualified in fields will create a negative quality feedback loop.
DIVERSITY AND TEST SCORES
3. Stanford pushes separate physics course for minority students
This year Stanford pushed a separate physics course to ensure retention of “underrepresented” physics majors. The course is a modified version of a standard required course, with additional class time and “learning assistants” hired to offer extra help with coursework. The school stated that “students from underrepresented groups often don’t have the same level of preparation from high school as their majority peers,” and that “the difference in preparation is large enough that it may lead students to drop out of the major but small enough that the kind of support offered by this course can be enough to keep them in.”
Who decides who is “underrepresented”? And what characteristics count toward this special victim status? Are those unusual spleens counted as “underrepresented”?
The separation of those who can, from those who cannot, is bound to lead to greater resentment and calls of “racism” and all the rest. It is true that some who could do not because of constrained circumstance, but it is often the case that constrained circumstance is caused by inability.
4. Ditching SAT/ACT requirement to promote diversity
To increase diversity, Colorado College has decided to make it “optional” to submit SAT/ACT scores. “Standardized test scores do not always reflect the academic potential of students from disadvantaged backgrounds,” said one professor. The school suggests these tests limit minorities, and therefore that removing this requirement makes it easier to reach those with a disadvantaged background. By removing the SAT/ACT requirement, the school claims that their numbers of freshmen have doubled. These numbers do not say, however, the academic success the institution is experiencing with this change.
This will work. Removing requirements, as we have seen, is an excellent way to boost enrollment.
Of course, they’ll have to go the route of the ladies once enrolled, and raise grades of those who do poorly, and lower grades of those who do well. Else rampant inequalities will soon result.
As always, these things do not stay on campuses, but move out from them and into a neighborhood near you.
To support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal (in any amount) click here