One of the core aspects of National Socialism is its emphasis on meritocracy. While the farmer and the doctor are regarded as equally important and vital to a well-functioning society and the good of the Volk, it is understood that certain persons will make better farmers and others would be better doctors. Whether a person becomes a successful farmer or qualified physician is a matter of ability, not quotas or birth right.

We can find the truth and value of this position by looking at a recent example of its opposite: DEI hiring, affirmative action, and social engineering based on ideology instead of facts and common sense. During the Covid Scamdemic, admission standards to public institutions of higher learning were suspended or abandoned. In other words, merit and ability were no longer the key considerations when deciding who could go to college.

Instead, using the societal madness so ubiquitous during the Scamdemic as an opportunity to instigate sweeping changes without meaningful discussion or thought, leftist social-engineers recited the catchall excuse of “systemic racism” as though it were a mantra and opened the doors to all-comers, whether they were capable and qualified or not, in an effort to increase “diversity” on campuses. Their thinking: if a minority cannot meet the standards for admission, lower the standards. Their argument is that merit based decision making, and especially the means by which that merit is assessed, is racist. The argument against the standardized testing used to assess ability is simple: the tests reflect the society the applicant lives in; the society is systemically racist; therefore standardized testing is racist. The idea of actually studying for the test to pass it, regardless of its underlying content, never enters the discussion.

The University of California college system is now coming to terms with the consequences of this thinking.

Recently, more than 600 University of California faculty members, some outlets report 1,000, led by mathematicians at UC Berkeley, asked the UC college system to reinstate standardized testing requirements for STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) applicants. They argue that six years of test-free admissions has not reliably assessed readiness and as a consequence, professors are often teaching middle school math to incoming students.

In an open letter, professors said that without standardized testing, they don’t know whether incoming students can handle college-level math. The open letter, addressed to top UC leaders, asks for SAT or ACT exams to be required beginning in fall 2027 and for STEM faculty to be given formal oversight of readiness standards in their majors.

“We now observe preparation gaps so severe that instructors must reteach middle-school mathematics while simultaneously teaching the material students need for sciences, engineering, economics, and other quantitatively demanding fields,” they warned.

Indeed, In November, a UC San Diego Academic Senate work group report said it documented a roughly thirty-fold increase between 2020 and 2025 in incoming first-year students whose math skills tested below high school level. The report said 70% of those students fell below middle school levels.

Of course, there is an added component to this which is being ignored: what the hell is going on in the middle-schools? The demand for the return of standardized testing in college admissions avoids this question entirely. But, again, it is pretty obvious: in an effort to increase the performance of minority (read, Black) students, academic standards have been lowered to the point that high school graduates are no longer able to do high school math.

In the event, the University of California gained national attention in May 2020 when regents unanimously voted to suspend SAT and ACT testing requirements and eliminate them entirely by 2025. Board members cited concerns the tests were biased against students of color and those from lower-income families — including students who did not have access to prep courses. The Compton Unified School District alleged that the UC’s use of SAT and ACT scores in admissions put students of color, students with disabilities and low-income students at a disadvantage. Interestingly, the Compton Unified School District is over 84% Hispanic and 14% Black. Whites make up 0.3%.

At the time, some hailed the vote to suspend SAT and ACT testing as a bold and visionary move to expand access and equity.

Now the results of this nonsense are becoming apparent, even to some of its proponents.

True, during the COVID Scamdemic, other campuses across the country also suspended admissions testing requirements, including many of the nation’s most prestigious institutions. However, the requirement has largely resumed at elite universities. Unfortunately, most public universities still avoid standardized testing altogether (that is, they do not require the SAT or ACT from applicants), or use a “testing optional” approach. One hopes that if California (of all places) leads the way in returning to a standardized means of assessing merit, public universities in other states will follow.

Of course, the SAT and ACT are hardly the gold standards of academic rigor nowadays, but they are at least a bare minimum threshold, which numerous UC students simply cannot meet.

There is also the increasingly relevant question of why a college degree is necessary to begin with. There are many jobs that require college degrees, and yet, don’t really need them. In addition, many American youths attend university for little more reason than to get an extremely expensive job qualification or because it gives them four more years to put off adulthood.

Which is all well and good. But we must ask ourselves what are the consequences of allowing our institutions of higher learning to be little more than expensive baby-sitters waiting for a cohort to grow up, or indoctrination centers for extreme left-wing ideologies. These two purposes, baby-sitting and indoctrination, do not need standardized testing. They need bodies. And it is the proponents of these two functions that are protesting a return to merit-based admissions and the ability to assess that merit using standardized testing.

In addition to demonstrating a baseline understanding of the core concepts necessary to succeed at university, the SAT and ACT also serves to weed out those who would pour money into the higher education system, only to fail. For many universities, lower standards mean more enrollees, which means more dollars. But we all pay for it by living in a dumber America. Even morons vote.

I understand the difficulties of taking the SAT and other standardized tests when one does not fit the typical college-prep mold. But it can be done.

I think my own experiences is a case in point: I did not take the SAT when I was in high school. For a variety of reasons, I chose not to. At that time, I did not see myself attending college any time soon and saw little point in it. Instead, I joined the Army. After that experience, I went to work in a factory. In time, I grew dissatisfied with that line of work and decided to go to college to study journalism, which required me to take the SAT. This was long before the internet, so I ordered study materials and crammed, studied, memorized, and took practice test after practice test. I had to overcome not being in a scholastic environment while studying, working during the day, and a lack of outside support. When I finally took the actual test, I did quite well on the Language part, and seriously mediocre on the Math. Which was fine, as I was headed towards a liberal arts degree at a public institution anyway. My Math score, however, would not have been sufficient to pursue a STEM degree. And you know what? That’s right. I simply don’t have the mathematical ability. It’s not discriminatory, it’s simply a fact. People have different abilities and limitations. I’m never going to be a doctor, because I can’t do the chemistry. That doesn’t make me a loser or a victim of the system, it simply means my talents lie elsewhere.

Interestingly, when I finally got into my current career, my employer said he didn’t really care how I did in college or even what my degree was in, so long as I had one: the degree showed an ability to commit to something and follow it through.

My point is, the SAT was simply a step on a longer path. The standardized test demonstrated to the University that I was 1) serious about attending, and 2) capable of starting at the freshman level and not a remedial high school student. My professors could get on with what they wanted to teach instead of dropping their curriculum to revisit what I should have already known before coming to their classes. More to the point, I was not entitled in any way. I had to study to make the grade. The standardized test didn’t know know or care about my race or background.

The simple fact of the matter is, in theory, there is no reason a person of color could not do the same thing. If, after cramming and practice testing, they still cannot get the scores necessary to attend college, then they should not be in college. Period. Allowing them into university regardless of their score, or with no score at all, only sets them up for failure: they won’t be able to do the coursework once they get there. They likely will not get a degree. It will be a depressing and frustrating experience, and catering or manipulating the system for them harms more deserving students. This is what the UC system is learning.

There is another reason to feel positive about this. Most of us have taken it on faith that given enough time, the unsustainable and moronic tenets of the neo-communist left will reveal themselves to be fundamentally flawed, and any society founded on those tenets will inevitably collapse. Modern “progressivism” is a bit like jumping out of an airplane without a parachute: you can self-identify as a bird and shout that gravity is nothing more than a social construct as much as you like on the way down, but eventually, the truth will out in the form of a resounding splat.

So, we can look at the bright side: as a result of extreme leftist thinking, the STEM education in California finds itself in crises. Even the very people in that leftist-compromised system are now calling for reform (or in this case, a return to common sense).

As I said at the beginning, the value of National Socialist meritocratic thinking can be seen in the consequences of following its opposite. Thanks for the lesson, California.

Amerika Erwache!

SUBSCRIBE TO THIS BLOG
(It’s free, and mostly painless)