"Then when George Floyd died in May 2020, there was a rush to abolish test requirements forever because George would have wanted it that way. Or something. It all seemed to make sense at the time. You had to be there."
LMAO. As Nancy Pelosi said, thank you for dying George Floyd! Will be fascinating to see longitudinal studies on the college classes of 2020-2024. They endured the triple whammy of school closures, Maoist protests, and peak affirmative action.
Funny that nearly every comment on this post got an SS black heart but this one. Are you the baddy?
I wonder if Substack supports subscriber blacklists, or if money always talks too much. Free speech champion Althouse has had problems for years keeping a couple of truly problem commenters off ancient Blogger.
I bought it as well. There was no mention of a free Substack subscription, but I do believe there was an invitation to one of Mr. Sailer’s meet and greets.
Biracial (white-black) students will usually ID as black. But their scores will be intermediate. Indeed, with assortative mating for intelligence (high IQ blacks, relative to other blacks and high IQ whites relative to other whites) some offspring’s IQs can get pretty high.
Lenny Kravitz is a half-Jewish half-black rock and roll singer who seems quite intelligent about playing the music industry game. He was smart enough to become famous without much of a following or huge hits but someone is a "rock star" that has lasted decades. He gets good radio play and name checks boomer music a lot, so maybe he's big with them, even though he's much younger.
I think Kravitz may one day get a Bond theme to his credit, if they are ever able to save the dead franchise.
I enjoyed getting to I laughed at MIT admissions policies. Of course, a problem is that the administrators and a large % of the faculty believe in Affirmative Action and will never quit. It would help if governments stopped over-funding higher education and made philanthropic agencies pay income taxes. That would in turn cut back on the pseudo-intellectuals (non-creative intellectuals) and the pseudo-science that clogs scientific publications.
Alum here from long before your tables begin, so this might no longer be true- the striking thing about MIT is how purely interested it was in smart, especially math-smart students; No place to hide. Economics was mathematically rigorous. The closest thing to a gut major was political science (which James Woods and my party oriented roommate chose). No division 1 sports. Consequently MIT students do very well on average first decade out of school, but always lagged in that Harvard/Stanford thing of (still mysterious to me) glad handing or whatever until you can make even more money off the efforts of others ;) MIT==pure nerd school. Harvard and Stanford saw greater value in diversity
MIT also has a higher suicide rate than Harvard or Princeton. It comes from half of the entering freshmen class going from being the smartest student in their high school to not being in the top half anymore.
That was in the back of my mind when I turned down Duke and didn't even apply to Princeton. Small ponds, please. Fortunately, I went to a fairly rigorous prep school, so I wasn't out of my depth.
How many parents and counsellors are knowledge enough to recommend a student not go for the reach school. Also, how many school counsellors or parents know about firewalls around certain departments, colleges, or programs where there are higher standards.
As a forum on education, I asked a high school principal from Texas whether, under the top 10% rule, a student from her high school would be better off going to UT-Austin and majoring in communications or sociology or attending Houston/Texas Tech while majoring in business. The principal was honest enough to admit the track into career degrees made more sense.
It must happen enough that UT-A's enrolled SATs are respectable for a state school with a 10 or 6% rule and large black & Hispanic populations (and probably self-segregated HSs). Someone could compare the enrolled SAT distribution over the decades with diversity numbers and the changes in how they achieve them.
Of course, Texas probably loses many of its brightest prospective b/H students to the top schools in the country, while keeping more bright white ones denied by those schools. If they didn't reach down, they'd be almost all white/Asian like 60 years ago.
Someone attractive, sociable, and hardworking (IOW, not me) might still be better off with the other climbers at UT. MRS, Greeks, the old boy network, and all that.
One needs to read the book "Paying for the Party" by Armstrong and Hamilton. the idea of the MRS degrees is anachronistic given that age of first marriage for college educated white males is above 30 years old. The modern MRS degree is meant to put a woman on a pathway to be around successful male when she is in her late 20's.
LOL Sure. Women right out of college have HIGHER pay than men. But they are not prepared to work as much overtime and, dare we say it, yes we dare, their brains don't function on the same logical level as those of men. Furthermore, they fill their studies with bullshit classes, as anyone who has been to college knows. The Obongo administration paid "women less than men!" How do you explain that? It was because the women with the same major didn't take classes that were actually useful, but instead socialist propaganda classes about how Whites are evil and, as we see from your leftist post, "women need higher grades than men to have the same opportunity!"
AS Richard Reeves points out, child rearing is what gets in the way of making partner at a law firm, getting on the tenure tract, or climbing the corporate ladder. That has nothing to do with their mental abilities.
And if one wants to see career fields where men and women are paid equally, look up pharmacy where the first hour worked has the same value as the last hour worked.
Why so? I’m a woman who majored in a STEM field and worked in a STEM field until I retired 10 years ago. STEM is heavily male. Yet MIT is 50% female. They’ve really got the thumb on the scale there.
Stem is not that heavily male. Math majors have been 40% female for a long time. All of the biological sciences are majority female. The majority of chemistry majors are female. Medical school and dental school are majority female.
It is only engineering and physics are still heavily male at around 25% female.
MIT clearly has its thumb on the scale when it comes to admission by gender. When I looked at the data a few years back, admissions rate for women was 16% while that for men was 6%.
Steve Sailer says: "MIT tried to stock up on their precious stock of blackness last year." A characteristically Sailerian way of breezing, humorously, right past a point.
The question "breezed past" is: WHY would MIT want to vastly inflate its number of Blacks? Are they really run by hard-core, anti-white race-ideologues? Is there another explanation?
Christopher Caldwell thinks the explanation is less ideological than legalistic and with concern over endowments (i.e., financial viability of the 'business side' of the big-business that is Higher Education).
The below is an excerpt from his 2023 essay on the rise of "affirmative action" and Diversity mechanisms at colleges and universities since the 1970s.
From "Unfair Harvard," by Christopher Caldwell, Claremont Review of Books, Summer 2023:
.
_________________
.
Affirmative action was meant to be a liberty, something a university is allowed to do—but colleges everywhere treated it as something they were required to do. The expression that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson uses in her dissenting opinion in Students for Fair Admissions is striking: taking race into account in affirmative action programs, she says, is something that the law “permits, but does not require.” But this is false. If affirmative action is not a de facto requirement, then why has the Supreme Court spent 45 years agonizing over whether and how to eliminate it?
Civil rights laws do not work by banning this or that. They work by incentivizing certain acts and then confronting citizens with the investigative power of the federal government and the awesome suing power that the Civil Rights Act gives to government, activist foundations, and private parties. Once the concept of racial diversity is defined in a Supreme Court decision as something that anti-racist colleges want, it comes to seem racist not to want it. No one is requiring you to do anything. But no university board member who has his institution’s endowment at stake wants to be brought into a courtroom and told: “You had the freedom to act the right way concerning race—why didn’t you avail yourself of it?” Bad things might happen to your institution should your student body wind up less than 12% black.
The problem with affirmative action has not just been in this or that way of interpreting diversity, nor in this or that tradition of Supreme Court scrutiny. The problem has always been that it is armed with the terrible swift sword of civil rights law, which works to transform every area of American law into anti-discrimination law. It was thus that, in 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act, meant to discourage immigration from Mexico by punishing employers who hired illegals, was hedged with language stressing the illegality of discriminating on grounds of national origin—and thereby wound up encouraging immigration. And it was thus that, after the riots of 2020, every single major corporation in the U.S. came to have a Diversity-Equity-Inclusion apparatus. Civil rights arrived promising to make race less important to our national life but has wound up racializing everything it touches.
I once heard a black student who went to a prestigious law school --top 10 law school, with some graduates on the Supreme Court -- argue that stock market fraud was a "crime of violence."
No, he wasn't being philosophical or musing idly. He simply didn't understand that "crime of violence" meant physical harm. He just thought because white/Jewish people stole lots of money and it hurt people that meant it should be in the same category as when his uncle Leroy mugged people uptown with a blackjack.
Affirmative action in action. One of the many data points I've used to discount the opinions of people with "outstanding academic pedigrees."
"Then when George Floyd died in May 2020, there was a rush to abolish test requirements forever because George would have wanted it that way. Or something. It all seemed to make sense at the time. You had to be there."
LMAO. As Nancy Pelosi said, thank you for dying George Floyd! Will be fascinating to see longitudinal studies on the college classes of 2020-2024. They endured the triple whammy of school closures, Maoist protests, and peak affirmative action.
So Substack is No Country For Old(er) Pundits?
No Substack For Old Men. Damn!... wish I'd thought of that title when I started mine aged 72. Or..... Substack For Pretty Old Horses maybe?
I suspect they’re mostly young. Just from the ones I subscribe to.
I’m just hoping the comment section doesn’t deteriorate too rapidly.
Funny that nearly every comment on this post got an SS black heart but this one. Are you the baddy?
I wonder if Substack supports subscriber blacklists, or if money always talks too much. Free speech champion Althouse has had problems for years keeping a couple of truly problem commenters off ancient Blogger.
I don’t know what the SS black heart means.
Liked by Steve Sailer. Don't they appear for you?
Will there be a "DISLIKED by Steve Sailer" button?
I’m generally on my phone, so no, I don’t see those.
> such as its new DEI hire president being discovered to be a **plagiarizer**
While this is a word, I think plagiarist is the more common way of expressing this
Civilizational decline in progress before our eyes.
But plaigiarist doesn’t have as many good rhymes …
Let no one else’s work evade your eyes
Remember why the good Lord made your eyes
Don’t shade your eyes
But
Plagiarize plagiarize plagiarize
https://youtu.be/UQHaGhC7C2E?feature=shared
Since I purchased the patrician edition of Noticing for a whopping $400, does that come with a free subscription to your substack?
I did the PE and the dinner and near as I can tell...no. But after all these years I feel like Steve deserves to catch up
I bought it as well. There was no mention of a free Substack subscription, but I do believe there was an invitation to one of Mr. Sailer’s meet and greets.
Biracial (white-black) students will usually ID as black. But their scores will be intermediate. Indeed, with assortative mating for intelligence (high IQ blacks, relative to other blacks and high IQ whites relative to other whites) some offspring’s IQs can get pretty high.
Lenny Kravitz is a half-Jewish half-black rock and roll singer who seems quite intelligent about playing the music industry game. He was smart enough to become famous without much of a following or huge hits but someone is a "rock star" that has lasted decades. He gets good radio play and name checks boomer music a lot, so maybe he's big with them, even though he's much younger.
I think Kravitz may one day get a Bond theme to his credit, if they are ever able to save the dead franchise.
but sir, the variation between paid and non-paid posts gives you the opportunity to notice things, which seems to suit you.
I'm trying to be random so nobody can figure out the pattern because there is none.
5% for blacks still suggests fairly aggressive racial preferences.
The class of 2024 in high school was 13% black. However, the same class was 26% Hispanic.
I enjoyed getting to I laughed at MIT admissions policies. Of course, a problem is that the administrators and a large % of the faculty believe in Affirmative Action and will never quit. It would help if governments stopped over-funding higher education and made philanthropic agencies pay income taxes. That would in turn cut back on the pseudo-intellectuals (non-creative intellectuals) and the pseudo-science that clogs scientific publications.
As to making a living.
I wish you would have kept the bitcoin people donated back in 2012 instead of instantly converting.
Woulda,, coulda, shoulda though.
Alum here from long before your tables begin, so this might no longer be true- the striking thing about MIT is how purely interested it was in smart, especially math-smart students; No place to hide. Economics was mathematically rigorous. The closest thing to a gut major was political science (which James Woods and my party oriented roommate chose). No division 1 sports. Consequently MIT students do very well on average first decade out of school, but always lagged in that Harvard/Stanford thing of (still mysterious to me) glad handing or whatever until you can make even more money off the efforts of others ;) MIT==pure nerd school. Harvard and Stanford saw greater value in diversity
MIT also has a higher suicide rate than Harvard or Princeton. It comes from half of the entering freshmen class going from being the smartest student in their high school to not being in the top half anymore.
That was in the back of my mind when I turned down Duke and didn't even apply to Princeton. Small ponds, please. Fortunately, I went to a fairly rigorous prep school, so I wasn't out of my depth.
How many parents and counsellors are knowledge enough to recommend a student not go for the reach school. Also, how many school counsellors or parents know about firewalls around certain departments, colleges, or programs where there are higher standards.
As a forum on education, I asked a high school principal from Texas whether, under the top 10% rule, a student from her high school would be better off going to UT-Austin and majoring in communications or sociology or attending Houston/Texas Tech while majoring in business. The principal was honest enough to admit the track into career degrees made more sense.
"recommend a student not go for the reach school"
It must happen enough that UT-A's enrolled SATs are respectable for a state school with a 10 or 6% rule and large black & Hispanic populations (and probably self-segregated HSs). Someone could compare the enrolled SAT distribution over the decades with diversity numbers and the changes in how they achieve them.
Of course, Texas probably loses many of its brightest prospective b/H students to the top schools in the country, while keeping more bright white ones denied by those schools. If they didn't reach down, they'd be almost all white/Asian like 60 years ago.
How many students in the top 5% of their high school class have bad SAT scores. However, with the top 10% rule, SAT scores are not that important.
There are a lot of high schools without high IQs in the country.
Someone attractive, sociable, and hardworking (IOW, not me) might still be better off with the other climbers at UT. MRS, Greeks, the old boy network, and all that.
One needs to read the book "Paying for the Party" by Armstrong and Hamilton. the idea of the MRS degrees is anachronistic given that age of first marriage for college educated white males is above 30 years old. The modern MRS degree is meant to put a woman on a pathway to be around successful male when she is in her late 20's.
I get a 404 when asking for MIT's Common Data Set archive. Could they still be worried about lawsuits?
https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-corruption-of-medicine-2
So what you’re telling me is that White women are not the biggest beneficiaries of Affirmative Action?
White women need to have higher grades than white men to have the same educational opportunity.
LOL Sure. Women right out of college have HIGHER pay than men. But they are not prepared to work as much overtime and, dare we say it, yes we dare, their brains don't function on the same logical level as those of men. Furthermore, they fill their studies with bullshit classes, as anyone who has been to college knows. The Obongo administration paid "women less than men!" How do you explain that? It was because the women with the same major didn't take classes that were actually useful, but instead socialist propaganda classes about how Whites are evil and, as we see from your leftist post, "women need higher grades than men to have the same opportunity!"
AS Richard Reeves points out, child rearing is what gets in the way of making partner at a law firm, getting on the tenure tract, or climbing the corporate ladder. That has nothing to do with their mental abilities.
And if one wants to see career fields where men and women are paid equally, look up pharmacy where the first hour worked has the same value as the last hour worked.
That’s true. That’s the main reason women earn less than men. They take time off for kids.
And the career fields with the biggest pay gaps are being a partner at a law firm where taking time off knocks on off the track.
Why so? I’m a woman who majored in a STEM field and worked in a STEM field until I retired 10 years ago. STEM is heavily male. Yet MIT is 50% female. They’ve really got the thumb on the scale there.
Stem is not that heavily male. Math majors have been 40% female for a long time. All of the biological sciences are majority female. The majority of chemistry majors are female. Medical school and dental school are majority female.
It is only engineering and physics are still heavily male at around 25% female.
I majored in physics but worked in computer programming, both he’s heavily male. Biology and medicine would be different.
MIT clearly has its thumb on the scale when it comes to admission by gender. When I looked at the data a few years back, admissions rate for women was 16% while that for men was 6%.
Steve Sailer says: "MIT tried to stock up on their precious stock of blackness last year." A characteristically Sailerian way of breezing, humorously, right past a point.
The question "breezed past" is: WHY would MIT want to vastly inflate its number of Blacks? Are they really run by hard-core, anti-white race-ideologues? Is there another explanation?
Christopher Caldwell thinks the explanation is less ideological than legalistic and with concern over endowments (i.e., financial viability of the 'business side' of the big-business that is Higher Education).
The below is an excerpt from his 2023 essay on the rise of "affirmative action" and Diversity mechanisms at colleges and universities since the 1970s.
From "Unfair Harvard," by Christopher Caldwell, Claremont Review of Books, Summer 2023:
.
_________________
.
Affirmative action was meant to be a liberty, something a university is allowed to do—but colleges everywhere treated it as something they were required to do. The expression that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson uses in her dissenting opinion in Students for Fair Admissions is striking: taking race into account in affirmative action programs, she says, is something that the law “permits, but does not require.” But this is false. If affirmative action is not a de facto requirement, then why has the Supreme Court spent 45 years agonizing over whether and how to eliminate it?
Civil rights laws do not work by banning this or that. They work by incentivizing certain acts and then confronting citizens with the investigative power of the federal government and the awesome suing power that the Civil Rights Act gives to government, activist foundations, and private parties. Once the concept of racial diversity is defined in a Supreme Court decision as something that anti-racist colleges want, it comes to seem racist not to want it. No one is requiring you to do anything. But no university board member who has his institution’s endowment at stake wants to be brought into a courtroom and told: “You had the freedom to act the right way concerning race—why didn’t you avail yourself of it?” Bad things might happen to your institution should your student body wind up less than 12% black.
The problem with affirmative action has not just been in this or that way of interpreting diversity, nor in this or that tradition of Supreme Court scrutiny. The problem has always been that it is armed with the terrible swift sword of civil rights law, which works to transform every area of American law into anti-discrimination law. It was thus that, in 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act, meant to discourage immigration from Mexico by punishing employers who hired illegals, was hedged with language stressing the illegality of discriminating on grounds of national origin—and thereby wound up encouraging immigration. And it was thus that, after the riots of 2020, every single major corporation in the U.S. came to have a Diversity-Equity-Inclusion apparatus. Civil rights arrived promising to make race less important to our national life but has wound up racializing everything it touches.
.
______________
.
https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/unfair-harvard/
I once heard a black student who went to a prestigious law school --top 10 law school, with some graduates on the Supreme Court -- argue that stock market fraud was a "crime of violence."
No, he wasn't being philosophical or musing idly. He simply didn't understand that "crime of violence" meant physical harm. He just thought because white/Jewish people stole lots of money and it hurt people that meant it should be in the same category as when his uncle Leroy mugged people uptown with a blackjack.
Affirmative action in action. One of the many data points I've used to discount the opinions of people with "outstanding academic pedigrees."