Friday assorted links


3. "The blunt fact is that the majority of people who scored below a 1200 on the verbal and math sections of the SAT would have found it difficult or impossible to handle a curriculum like that required to earn a state-school engineering degree or comparable certification."

This is off. A 1200 SAT correlates to a 125 I.Q. An 1100 correlates to a 117.

The average I.Q. of those who take the GRE is by major:

physics 133
math 130
philosophy 129
economics 128
comp. sci. 128
elect. eng. 126
mech. eng. 126
humanities/history/arts/languages/ poli. sci. 117

It is not representative. There is no way Physics major can be more intelligent than Engineering majors.

Ever watch The Big Bang Theory? Sheldon says how it is.

Oh, an I.Q. of 117 is at the upper 13% level; a 125 is at the upper 95% level, and an I.Q. of 133 is at the upper 98.5% level.

That should be a 120 for humanities and poli sci

I mean, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez earned an economics degree from Boston University.

So maybe there is something wrong with the grading system of our universities....

Haha! Because she's so stupid! Nailed it.


No, it's not. Engineers are more intelligent.

Only in Brazil, where the mean IQ is below the world average (a mere 87) and declining. Soon Brazil will be totally reliant on Chinese engineers.

It is not true at all. The Brazilian IQ is very hard, and Brazil doesn't need foreign engineers. Quite the opposite, actually.

Yes, the Brazilian IQ is "hard," which is why it is so difficult for Brazil to produce many engineers:

"Analyzing the numbers referring to course completion, we see that last year (2017) Brazil graduated 15,482 architects, 11,689 agronomist engineers and 88,549 engineers of all other specializations. These are very low numbers."

(Note that the Brazilian presenter/engineer, Edemar de Souza Amorim, delivered his presentation in Beijing, China!)

@Anon7, please stop picking on our little brown brother TR. It's well known Brazil is still a developing country and it's not fair to pick on them for low IQ, which is a function of childhood nutrition. Poor Brazilians barely have enough to eat.

Bonus trivia: I'm not surprised humanities majors have high IQs. In law school they did very well, better than us science types. I mean if you can understand, even incompletely, the theories of French philosopher Jacques Derrida, then the law would seem trivial and crystal clear. Can you deconstruct what I'm saying?

Not true at all. Brazil is known to be one of the biggest economies in the world. It descovered the pion, invented the radio, the airplane and the Walkman. It built two nudlear plants, had one of the cleanest mixes of energy sources, is one of the biggest airplane builders in the world and has the biggest meat seller company in the world.

@TW/TR - so you are conceding that Brazil did NOT event the aeroplane? That's quite the come-down from last year, citing Durante? the Parisian loving Brazilian air pioneer.

I said it invented the airplane.

Brazil invented the shithole but forgot to invent the toilet paper.

You are a liar.

The US graduates 237,826 engineers per year and is a 19 trillion dollar economy while Brazil graduates about 100,000 engineers per year and it is a 3.4 trillion dollar economy. Although the US's economy is rather light on manufacturing, Brazil's economy is also similarly not manufacturing driven (both countries manufacturing is around 11% of GDP) overall it appears Brazil produces enough engineers.

The top students in law schools are generally engineering grads. In any case apparently you misread the above table which shows humanities majors to have the lowest IQ

@anonymous - no I didn't misread, I'm surprised the IQ spread was only 6 points between the lit and engr majors (adjusted, see the comments).

Captain President Bolsanaro has implemented a massive tree planting program on the moon for future Brazilians to prosper.

Stop impersonating Mr. Ribeiro.

It's physics and engineering majors who plan to attend grad school. That may not be the same sample in each major.

Still, it is way off.

No offense but your link is straight up internet garbage BS. Richard Feyman's IQ was 125. There's no way the average physics major is smarter than the guy who pioneer whole subfields and won a Nobel prize. Either IQ is bunk (quite likely), or IQ testing is bunk (also likely). I'm a physics major BTW in case you think I'm some salty liberal arts major.

If Feynman's IQ was really 125, then mine is 2. He was a wild and unpredictable character and probably blew off the test or submitted joke answers.

Feynman got the highest score on the killer Putnman math test the year he took it. If you can do that, there is no need to take a silly I.Q. test.

Feynman never understood engineering issues at a human "yeah I would give that guy an engineering job" level, never wrote a single sonnet worth reading, his bongo playing was a joke, and his prose style was, at best, around the level of an ordinary journalist - Ann Landers and poor Isaac Asimov come to mind.

Yes he was good at playing a game where people read physics results that are still fresh and they go ahead and try to improve on those results/ Wow! Wow!

Like playing chess or bridge of sudoku, or like being a "triumphant" Jeopardy winner, such intellectual pursuits are sad and trivial because one does not engage with one's entire mind with a problem that is worthy of a human being, and each human being has only one life to live.

Von Neumann avoided this trap by being smarter than poor Feynmnan but he ran out of steam in his late 40s. There are not many intelligent people in this world, feel free to think poor Feymnam, the little Buddha-like idol of Caltech, was one of them, but I can tell you that you are wrong.

The only thing he did right was mourn all his life for his first wife. That was poetic and noble.

in case English is not your native language:

"Wow! Wow!" was sarcastic

and Feymnam was purposely misspelled that way

Feynman was not a bully (I hate bullies) and not arrogant (I am disgusted by arrogant people) be he did attempt to be an idol of sorts. Hence the deliberate misspelling of his last name (a beautiful name, by the way, if you are interested in the lexical beauties of such names)

Engineers still get paid less than lawyers, doctors, and MBAs. I run a business and I always tell my workers that engineering is the easy part. Running the business is the hard part that's why I'm paid the most as CEO. What's the point of having a high IQ if your net worth is so small?

Because unlike you, the high IQ people understand Masterpiece Theater and Nova specials on black holes.

#3: Nye seems to argue for lower STEM/professional admissions rates.

Now, the rise of non-STEM, non-professional tertiary education has been mostly bad for Anglo cultures which have embraced it.

Non-STEM, non-professional graduates in general do not have a higher degree of income and living standards than expected from pre-existing characteristics.

Worse, to the extent they do, this is from a few schools only and probably largely reflects cronyistic network effects.

Worse yet again, non-STEM, non-professional graduates probably are actively disincentivized from taking up higher paying work by a the function of student loan repayment thresholds as an additional tax on high income! At least this is the case in the UK. In the US, it may simply present an extra burden.

Finally, and most damaging, college graduates experience a significant and mostly negative values transformation (towards a leftist view of history) and from migration to college a cutting of social ties from their communities of upbringing, never truly going to adulthood as a member of an established community (more damaging than employment driven migration tends to be). This is pretty damaging when college graduates come to represent a viable electoral constituency, rather than a minority that everyone else can tell to shut up because they don't matter in numbers.

So I'm all for limiting non-STEM, non-professional tert by "making college hard again" for these courses. Replace with higher quality and better funded humanities in secondary education and arts programming / community colleges that are accessible through life.

Limiting STEM and professional courses, per Nye, seems less of a good idea. How else does one slay Baumol as much as possible? And slaying Baumol as much as possible is vastly in the interests of the vast majority of people in developed countries, if not of small cliques of accredited engineers, doctors, lawyers, etc.

Nye's "striver from a low class background" situation is contradicted by information that this doesn't generally happen (no better outcomes for low class applicants all things equal), so his argument for preserving signal within STEM/professional by making courses harder doesn't really seem to bite.

Courses should only be as hard as need be to produce as many slayers of Baumol as we can a hold of. Artificial further difficulty in order to promote social mobility through some nebulous channel distinguishing between more and less hardworking applicants, as Nye seems to be arguing for, is probably a bad idea.

SAT scores haven't been well correlated with IQ since the mid-nineties, when they started adjusting methodology to try and keep the average score up around 1000. Then they changed the scoring entirely, and have continued fiddling with it since, but the point remains.

Something similar happened a few years later with the GRE, for that matter.

#2 For the millionth time, China does not have the upper hand in anything economically as it relates to the US. They play fast and loose with financial rules that have stood the test of time. They get away with gigantic fraud internationally because they have been allowed to. They need our market 10x as much as we need theirs. Since Brenton Woods we have been able to print money - ridiculous amounts of money - because we won a war in which 80 million people died...they can't. Their military strategy of 'access denial' is not the same as our ability to logistically position our capabilities across the globe AT WILL.

Time's up China. We - and Europe - are going to start making you play fair.

#3 Yeah but what about his 'sex junk'. The man's a joke. It's proven science.

#6 I'm among the few who saw video of the senior party officials executed last year by 'heavy' anti-aircraft machine guns. They felt nothing. If I was a Nork I would do everything I could to leave. If they catch you, it won't hurt.

Yet, Red China was able to hollow America's economy out. There was a time when Americans built things.

Red China could not do it (hollow out America's economy) alone.

That's only one of the reasons Trump is president.

Trump 2020!

Someone with a sensible plan, 2020.

(You may have noticed that the word 'Mexico' does not appear on this page. What a curious choice for an economics policy page. Anyway, I think Trump is flailing with new tariffs because he'll do anything to get eyes off Mueller, even if that means risking the economy as a whole. Demand better.)

What better way to help MAGA 2020 than for Dems to waste their time talking about Mueller and impeachment and crowd out everything else. Keep it up!

Have you read the Report? Have you even read this week's Statement?

Yes. Typical Mueller nonsense. He didn't propose charges because he knew they wouldn't get anywhere so he is following Comey into the political realm. You can't obstruct a political inquiry. By definition.

You did not read the report, and do not understand American Justice Department policy. Elizabeth Warren is willing to fill you in:

No president should be above the law. So why does this Justice Department act like he is? Because in the 1970s Richard Nixon’s Justice Department wrote a memo saying so (yes, really) and DOJ has continued to stand by that view.

I believe the whole thread is solid history, policy, and law.

Sartre wrote about discussing anti-Semitism with an anti-Semite:

Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

This guy gets it ^^^^^^

There was no collusion, so there is no underlying crime for any claim of obstruction, and even then, the president's underlings for all practical purposes ignored his rants. Pelosi knows it's a losing political cause given the polls, but the idiotic TDS twitter mob like you is going to keep it up and help MAGA 2020.

I've read a fair amount of the Report, skipping around a bit, and the Statement, and so I know why your reply is wrong in law.

Anyone who has read the Report knows this, but if you want a quick thumbnail, based on my reading of the whole, this summary is accurate.

Being a bubbling criminal has never been a legal defense.

Impeachment is ultimately a political matter, and the polls don't support it. So keep it up, fools!

The polls have been interesting, and I can see how a certain type of Trump doubter could prefer to "let things ride" until the election.

But .. is that course really looking so good? The USS John S. McCain incident shows that adults have left the White House, and what we used to call "the authoritarianism" is finding traction in the military. They were willing to hide the ship for the dear leader. That's bad. In a constitutional democracy that kind of thing is not supposed to happen.

Not to mention, as I say, these crazy and for no good purpose tariffs. The madman isn't sitting there quietly waiting for November.

The madman is going to ramp up the crazy to bait the Democrats into impeaching him (which he won't actually be convicted of, due to the Republican senate) and helping him win another term.

Don't fall for it.

It is extremely bad for the future of the country that we expect the Republican Senate to have no moral responsibility.

Tyler still hasn't linked in his "moral cosmopolitan" piece, but it makes the same tragic assumption .. that only one "side" has that kind of responsibility.

That's how it is. That's what's expected.

The mouse scurries back and forth in a panic while the nation thrives.

The economy is strong, unemployment is at record lows, and there is a Republican Senate.

Ignore Pelosi! Go ahead and impeach! Make my day!

If you want to see some world-class scurrying, here it is:

No, Trump does not want impeachment. He relies too much on keeping his base in a news silo:

Perhaps there is a risk to Democrats as well, but they certainly have a stronger story to tell. (Now with more pardon dangling obstruction.)

TDS, more desperate TDS ...

51 members of the House ready to impeach! Who's desperate now, mouse?

Oh mouse, there you go again!

Think Senate! Remember when President Bill Clinton ( HRC's husband) perjured himself, was impeached by the house, and then the Senate voted along party lines?

It's deja vu all over again.

And oh, the morality thingy. Your side is not in possession of the high moral ground - HRC, who you would have elected, referred to Bill's victims as a "bimbo explosion" and hired a sleazy law firm to slander those poor rape and assault victims.

So, no, you are not honorable party in this dispute.

You have a very bad case of TDS.

You lost the election - be a big boy and get over it.

Though what's the legal situation: Does there actually have to be a crime to obstruct justice?

Purely in terms of public optics though, at the end of the day, if members of Trump's team knew that Russians were going to leak information which was in any case true anyway - basically whistleblowing - and which the American people were probably happier to know than not know, with the aim of influencing the American people to support a candidate by perhaps 0.5% more than he would have got otherwise, with no back of recompense/payment from that candidate (and who indeed hasn't been particularly easy going on Russia subsequently or particularly useful to them), and there's no evidence enough to posit any sort of conspiracy....

Then you're going to have a great deal of people questioning whether "obstructing" investigation of that is grounds to charge him or remove him from office, even if they regard it as an ethical lapse or legal slip by an inexperienced operator.

What are the Russians going to do next time, release more true information that Americans would like to know, about a candidate that has no huge bearing anyway on that candidate's support, for the benefit of another candidate that won't particularly be politically useful to them?

Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby both went to jail for "obstruction" where no underlying crime was charged.

Also, if Podesta had volunteered his emails, that would be "whistleblowing," someone else stealing them was a crime.

In civilized countries, someone accused of a crime can lie as much as he wants to about this crime, even to the police or before a court, without fear of any legal consequence. He has the right to hide or destroy evidences, of to try to escape, to insult his alleged victims or the prosecutor or the lawyers including his own (though not the judge, in general), and many other rights.

As a protection for the accused, the fifth amendment is ridiculously weak in regard of this. And America has a long tradition of accusing someone of a very serious crime, and, even when the prosecution is utterly incapable of proving the crime, even when the accused is in fact innocent, and even when legally what the accused is accused of is not even a crime. Then the accused is harassed until he makes a mistake (a lie, a visit to a friend or family member he was forbidden to meet, a remark that can be interpreted as self-accusatory), and convict them, with an heavy sentence, for this derived crime. The prosecutors at the trials of the witches of Salem, the Senator McCarthy, and now Elizabeth Warren and Anonymous are men and women who illustrate well this tradition.

This may be the law of this land, but it is not justice in any sense of the term.

Trump too illustrates this illustration. He started his campaign with wild accusations about Obama that were easily refuted and continued with chants of jailing Hillary. Now its Comey and Mueller. At some point his lack of discipline will come home to roost. He brought this upon himself.

And the impeachment against Clinton was also of the same type. Accused of a very serious crime (sexual assault), finally impeached for an unrelated lie on something that should have stayed Clinton's privacy.

But the parallelism between the attacks against Trump and the McCarthyism should have democrats think twice. Same extremely serious accusation (being an agent of Russia) in both cases, same judicial and congressional harassment, and now, like the ten of Hollywood, trying to get the accused punished for a minor crime they have committed *during the inquiry*.

(Incidentally, what Russia is accused of having done (releasing information
stolen from Podesta about the attitude of the DNC during the primary and about what Clinton said at those big events with executives of big firms, informations that the Sanders side had repeatedly demanded to be released) was good for the American democracy. This information was political, important, and if the big media (like the NYT and the WP) had been neutral, they would have sought and found and released these informations earlier in the campaign.)

Personal ownership of information is not necessary to be a "whistleblower" - most acknowledged whistleblowing is done by employees of large organisations on information which they do not actually own and is not in any way personal to them.

Even Assange, after all, was heralded as a whistleblower initially, with shift against this definition being mainly political in origin rather than any change in the facts of his role with respect to the organizations he facilitated leaks from.

(“Any prosecution by the United States of Mr. Assange for Wikileaks’ publishing operations would be unprecedented and unconstitutional, and would open the door to criminal investigations of other news organizations,” warned the American Civil Liberties Union after Assange’s arrest.")

It's important for Americans to remember that this is all about information being released which is, as Joel states, generally the sort of information that's in the democratic interest and which journalists can uncontroversially share, factually true, and has no impact on the US's national security and involves no state secrets.

It's merely "embarrassing" for the Democratic Party to have their sausagemaking brought into the public eye, but ultimately very much in the public interest, and to the degree which Trump campaign members knew of this in advance, they are not complicit to release of any false or secret information which put the US at risk. It's investigation into that which is being "obstructed" if anything.

Do the American people want that sort of level of federal criminality, going forward, to be grounds for investigation and removal of office of leaders? In which case that will be the new rules under which Democratic party officials, and any Presidents they get, will be playing.

Re: tariffs. I thought your nitwits love higher taxes.

Mueller! Mueller! Mueller!

That's the extent and summation of your low-IQ side's twaddle.

Mueller! Mueller! Mueller! Mueller!

Give me your "sensible plan."

Mueller! Mueller! Mueller! Mueller! Mueller!

Have you read the report (which BTW "turns on their heads" US statute and jurisprudence), Spanky? I could detail it in three or four paragraphs, but it'd be beyond your low-information low-IQ capabilities.

Mueller! Mueller! Mueller! Mueller! Mueller! Mueller!!!!!

Isn't it funny that people can write things like this, while accusing the other guy of intemperance?

QED - I'm not going to "spell it out."

OK. It seems I must. I wasn't accusing you of intemperance. I was pointing to your (not-innate) stupidity.

Your stupid is not innate. It's brought out by irrational hatred of Trump.

I don't actually hate Trump, and if he'd stayed on TV I'd have essentially no interaction. I thought the Home Alone cameo was cut enough.

But I think as a citizen I may certainly care about the quality and character of my President. And if that character is bad, I may campaign (in my small way) against it.

Not a fan of his WWE work. Or his presidency. He really does seem to be baiting the Dems into a re-election guaranteeing impeachment fight.

I'm actually agnostic on whether impeachment is good or bad for the Democrats. There are arguments either way. We could split the difference, and hold hearings on things like self-dealing and obstruction and let that help voters decide.

After all, Trump's horrible, bad, terrible, week was in no small part driven by investigations which were done. There are more to do. For instance, what's this thing with Trump staff and appointees just saying that they don't care about the Hatch Act?

Is there a negative feedback for the brazen belief that Republicans in the Senate will protect them from anything?

If they try to impeach, it will be all the media talks about. His base will be fired up, and many people who don't like him or barely do will not appreciate the spectacle of the Democrats trying to overturn an election. Same thing happened when they tried it with Clinton. But in Clinton's case he was a 2nd termer already.

Also, there's no chance in hell the Republican senate will convict. So it's the purest virtue signalling to impeach him because it's all about the feels.

Just vote him out, the impeachment would last almost to the election anyway.

For what it's worth, the best argument for impeachment is that "it is the right thing to do, ignoring politics." Which means counter-arguments reduce to "we should inject politics into our justice system."

But as I say, I'm agnostic.

If a bit worried about how much worse things can get, without impeachment, between now and November 2020.

Impeachment is political, it's voted on by Congress. It only worked with Nixon because we had a less polarized country, and less cynical, and both sides agreed he had to go. That will never happen this time.

Also, how would impeachment prevent things from getting worse? Impeachment might be what makes him go even crazier.

I think that slogan, "impeachment is political" has gained a sudden importance as crimes were identified. It is a rather transparent way to forget the "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" starting point.

Think about it, if the Justice Department cannot indict crimes, and "Impeachment is political" then the Executive has no one looking at his crimes at all.

The Democrats are. The Republicans are, predictably, ignoring them. Thus, politics.

"cute" not "cut," my keyboard has a flaky "e"

I just fixed my "i" key with sticky putty. Unfortunately, it cost $10 when I used an amount the size of a pea.

Your keyboard has a flaky operator.

Let us be blunt: the only way to stop the Red Chinese Behemoth before it is too late is through war. If we keep feeding the crocodile, it will eat the West.

If you had been paying any attention to the comments you would know that Brazil could easily defeat China in an instant. Given Brazil's obvious brilliance it is clear it will soon dominate the world. It is clear Brazil is China and the US's real competition for world leadership and their only logical course of action is to unite against it. They have no hope of winning, but they may be able to delay the inevitable for a few years.

China can indeed create all the Yuan their central command so desires. I think the big difference is that the Yuan is not a global reserve, so few Yuan are out in the world. China has it more simple, having the Yuan to only service its own needs, not the world's.

The real exchange rate for the RMB to USD is 20:1. I'm not joking. China will not allow its currency to be bid on the international market because it and it's sycophants know this.

I have said all there is to be said. I say this as a fluent Mandarin speaker and Sinophile, but the truth is what matters. They know this. And they know we know they know it. Let's stop with all the Beijing Opera....

Wow, and I thought China was cheap when I changed money at the official rate...

That should be a 120 for humanities and poli sci

A young mind is a terrible thing to waste.

4. Funny that this article doesn’t mention what Gell-Mann is perhaps most known for to non-academics, namely Gell-Mann Amnesia. It makes me wonder what other New York Times articles are omitting important information.

I thought you wrote "non-alcoholic."

Pretty much every day, every sentence printed in the NYT omits important information. Not funny

Yeah I can just see a newspaper trying to explain how the more you know about something, the more you know they've got it all wrong

You probably know this, but for others, the Gel-Mann amnesia effect was coined/created by Michael Crichton. He gave it Gel-Mann's name to make it sound fancier. The whole easy that introduced the concept ("Why speculate") is great.

#5 was funny, TC. What a strange world.

here is some more funny postmodern b.s.

2 - "By purchasing fewer U.S. government bonds, in other words, Beijing would leave the United States either unchanged or better off, while doing so would also leave China either unchanged or worse off."

So the USA borrows money to make itself worse off and to make Red Chine better off?! Let's be blunt. This guy is either nuts or a Chinese lackey.

By law the USA creates Treasury debt, as opposed to simply creating new USD's out of thin air. China sells us stuff and we pay them using USD's. China can optionally buy Treasury debt with those USD's. The USA isn't worse off, neither is China. We both benefit from trade. We both benefit from Treasury debt.

Yet, we are told, if China doesn't buy them, it will be worse for China and better for America. Than why sell them? Why buy them?

"We both benefit from Treasury debt."

Then we would benefit more if we issued more?

MMT here we come!

America is getting crazier and crazier.

We sell them as dictated by our laws of money creation. They are bought as investments/holdings.

But we are told by the Chinese lackey that not being able to sell them would be better for America and not buying it would be worse for China. Is America hurting itself to favor Red China? Why?!

Thus our persistent Federal deficit spending. Our national debt number is bound to be larger in 10 and 100 years?

Yes, it is.

6. If we are lucky, Trump will execute John Bolton to show the world that Trump is tougher than Kim.

I think Steve Bannon would have gone first.

Theme is treason, so probably Comey ro Brennen.

3. Why grade inflation? Tuition inflation (and professor pay inflation?). Why would students pay ridiculous amounts of tuition to be badgered by some college professors who are dependent on the students tuition for their (excessive?) pay?

Trump should be impeached for violating the emoluments clause of the Constitution, the only president ever to even have it suggested that he had done so, but he has outright. This is so unknown people do not even want to process it, and somehow none of those Dem politicians running around calling for impeachment are bringing this up. But it is pretty obvious that the Founding Fathers took this very seriously and this is pretty clearly a high crime and misdemeanor worthy of impeachment.

The Republican senate will NEVER convict, so it's pointless and helps Trump get re-elected.

>so it's pointless

That depends on what your goal is. If your goals are keeping your names in the media and/or serving up red meat for the base, then it's successful.

If your goal is overturning the election or showing you are responsible leaders, then no. It's obviously pointless.

Quite a few Congresspersons and their families seem to be raking in the emoluments pretty nicely themselves, so they probably don't want to go in that direction with Trump

The emoluments clause it pretty clearly not much made for the world of modern international globalized business, but a world in which cross border flows are relatively rare.

How can a significant businessman with international holdings not receive payment from overseas governments? Pretty clearly they cannot.

So enforcing this clause is effectively the exclusion of international businessmen from state offices, at least the presidency. Is excluding this class of person proportionate to the aim of the clause? Which is to say excluding leaders from significantly being in the direct pay of foreign powers.

+1000. Time to impeach is now! Join the Dems and the Repubs that still have their backbones in impeaching the orange idiot!

#5 is like that classic clickbait -- You Won't Believe What [insert name of former B-List celeb] Looks Like Now!

6) Headfake:

3. No discussion of Princeton's failed attempt to combat grade inflation?

3. In many French universities and grandes écoles system, grades are generally rebased at the start of undergraduate school. Many students drop off college because of the psychological effect and it is a major issue. If top universities were to rebase grades harshly they will feel it harshly in their bottom line. There is no simple solution to this problem.

3, Once again we must face the fact that institutions don't do things, people do. It doesn't matter who is admitted to a college, a kid who might have been a jerk-off for the first 18 years of his life shouldn't necessarily be condemned to sweeping floors for the rest of it. In college he receives the opportunity to get serious or fail, provided his instructors give him realistic grades. Grade inflation is the fruit of teachers with a lack of integrity who want to make both the administration and the student body happy. They're not doing their job when they fail to winnow out the worst undergrads.

A very well written post. I can tell the NR has started to kick in.

Comments for this post are closed