The Political Corruption Of Science — Grade Manipulation In STEM Edition

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

Second: Colleges are dropping testing, curriculum standards in order to create ‘diversity’.

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

14 Thoughts

  1. Clearly women and disadvantaged groups are delicate flowers in need of special considerations to make them equal.

  2. equal pay for equal work? NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NEVER. It was equal pay for work the lying, lazy women called equal. Women ALREADY GET EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK. If you drive a truck in a mine at 2 am, you get the same pay no matter what sex you are. But the lazy, stupid, whiney worthless pieces of crap XX’s don’ t want that work. No, they want to sit on their behinds in an air-conditioned office 9 to 5 and call it equal. Nuke them from space. It’s the only answer. (You can hit the universities—that will take out most of the idiots and we can still produce women with brains thereafter. Those without brains can be dropped on a desert island to make sure this does not happen again……)

    AGAIN, TO HELL WITH COLLEGE AND HIGH SCHOOL AND ALL SCHOOL. Just hand out the damn diplomas and call it good. Stanford is the model. Why waste time and money for this farce????? Let ‘em run the streets, join gangs and kill off as much of humanity as possible. WOMEN HATE THE HUMAN SPECIES. They are vile, vile creatures. A good culling might save the species—Alcatraz is open. Drop ‘em there and let ‘em fend for themselves. Don’t even need to the lock the doors—in spite of the lies, women can’t swim far enough to escape, with the possible exception of one or two. NO testosterone or anything like that on the island. NOTHING. They are 100% on their own and live or die by their stupid, worthless lies.

    Assuming any human gives a damn about their kids, about the time these stupid, airheads KILL thousands of them in surgery, collapsed buildings, bridges falling in the river, etc, maybe the MEN will actually do something instead sitting like morons and watching the women kill humanity. Face it, HUMANITY HATES ITSELF.

    (God definately owes Sodom and Gomorrah an apology. Or there should have been fire raining down ten years ago……..)

  3. “Masculine republics give way to feminine democracies, and feminine democracies give way to tyranny” — Aristotle

  4. (not related to Fibonacci)
    Mediocre mush has infected many universities and their Nobel Prize “winners” as well (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50989423). Arnold was praised because she admitted she was too busy to follow the submission of the paper and she was “bummed” out about the retraction. She is another Nobel Prize winner following in the footsteps of Johannes Fibiger(https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2015/10/nobel_prizes_awarded_for_disproved_discoveries.html).
    I know a female student who went to UCLA a few years back to do a combined chemistry and archaeology PhD. The women overseeing her work told her that chemistry and physics were the Frankenstein monsters of science. They even used a textbook in anthropology (a required course for the interdisciplinary study) with photo of the movie set of the laboratory used in the 1930’s film. The women in charge refused to accept any of her proposed research for a thesis. (She already had several publications on the GC-MS analyses of artifacts from the Minoans).
    Women in power are hard on men, but they are even harder on women, especially those who might be competitors.

  5. “Harsher grading policies in science, technology, engineering and math courses disproportionately affect women”
    Oh no! Having to get the right answer is harsh grading. Remember that bridge that collapsed in Minneapolis? It seems that somebody made a mistake in calculating the size of the gusset plates. Design calculations are checked, double checked, triple checked, etc., and nobody caught that mistake. But what the heck. It worked OK for a long time. Obviously the correct answer wasn’t really necessary.

  6. Separate but equal-ish? I thought universities already had additional class time and “learning assistants” in the form of office hours, TAs and GAs, tutoring, and how to teach yourself via books in the library. Rhetorical question: unless it’s required curriculum material for graduation, why are are you taking physics at an ivy league school? Maybe better: how did you get into an ivy league school and not obtain a high schooler’s understanding of elementary physics?

  7. “women value good grades significantly more than men do”

    If this is true, and if it’s axiomatic that scholastic aptitude in all subjects is distributed identically between men and women, I would expect that women put in more effort in STEM classes and get better grades than men. So what’s the problem?

  8. Note to women: If you aren’t black, don’t bother entering any beauty pageants. To correct historic injustices, only black women get to wear tiaras for the next 100 years.

    Note to men and boys: Don’t bother entering any STEM contests; all the top prizes are reserved for females.

    Everything is turning into another Special Olympics, and soon the only people paying any attention will be the contestants’ parents.

    https://www.returnofkings.com/32053/this-accidental-experiment-shows-the-superiority-of-patriarchy

    This experiment has been duplicated many times since. Women: “A snake! We’re all gonna die!” Men: “A snake, help me catch it for dinner!”

  9. Gratissimam Sane

    # 17…
    While speaking about employment in reference to the family, it is appropriate to emphasize how important and burdensome is the work women do within the family unit: that work should be acknowledged and deeply appreciated. The “toil” of a woman who, having given birth to a child, nourishes and cares for that child and devotes herself to its upbringing, particularly in the early years, is so great as to be comparable to any professional work. This ought to be clearly stated and upheld, no less than any other labour right. Motherhood, because of all the hard work it entails, should be recognized as giving the right to financial benefits at least equal to those of other kinds of work undertaken in order to support the family during such a delicate phase of its life.

    https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_02021994_families.html

    The Stupid Party will not touch this truth with a ten foot pole as its usury-economics hates this true observation. It would much rather have a Husband/Father competing with the Wife/Mother in the work place because such competition keeps wages low.

    But what about the kids?

    The Kids are all right. Strangers can raise them in Day Care Centers and the State can corrupt them in their crummy pre-schools.

    The Evil party would not touch this with a ten foot pole because ideological feminism but where is the man or woman courageous enough and sensible enough to include pay for Mothers as part of their campaign platform?

    He who champions this will never tire of winning…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *