Listen to the podcast at YouTube, Bitchute, or Gab.
One thing we should know about models by now is that those that make good, skillful predictions should be trusted at least more than those that make predictions that never come true.
Yes?
Here are two models making predictions about the same thing. Let’s look at both and see which one should be accorded more trust.
Model A: Equality. All people are really equal in capability and potential, but differ in material and cultural circumstance. These differences lead to inequalities in outcome, particularly in the outcomes of Diversity, which is variously defined as all “minorities” to mostly “minorities” in some area, and Equity, in which all but rulers and elites are made equal in material circumstance.
Equality predicts that if inequalities in circumstance and culture are removed or eliminated early, Equity and Diversity will obtain, and social harmony will result.
Model B: Inequality. No two people are equal in capability and potentiality, and that even if material and cultural circumstances are made perfectly equal, inequity would still result because of innate differences which can be never be removed.
Inequality predicts that if people come to understand their own always-limited-by-circumstance-and-cultural strengths and weaknesses, we will come closer to, but never achieve, social harmony.
Those in thrall to Model A do their best to enforce Equity in material and cultural circumstances, and even introduce stark inequities to benefit designated Victims.
One way to equalize circumstance is to weaken or remove standards. We saw previously that many medical schools allow Victims to score far below non-Victims on the standardized test (like the MCAT and Step exams), and still be admitted or passed. At least one med school eliminated the MCAT. The rest are requiring oaths to DIE, and making classes easier.
You have heard the Equality litany more times than I can remember, but it goes like this:
Diversity is desired. It is promised standards will not be lowered to achieve it. Standards are then lowered or dropped to achieve it. A spokeswoman announces the standards were not lowered. Soon after, the spokeswoman will announce the standards were never really needed in the first place.
Diversity is still not achieved. Model A’s predictions have failed. It is concluded that we didn’t Model A hard enough, and the litany begins again with standards lowered more.
Even worse, social disharmony increases. The people who notice and point this out are blamed for the lack of Diversity. These people are canceled and called anti-Victim.
At no point is it ever acknowledged Model A has failed. Or that Model B has merit. Because neither the theory of Equality, which drives Model A, and the desire for its “solution”, which is to say Equity, cannot be abandoned.
This long and pedantic introduction is to bring you the news that yet more major standards are being lowered because of Diversity.
The headline reads: “Law School Accrediting Panel Votes to Make LSAT Optional“. The real meat is in the subheadline: “Legal-education community has been divided over testing requirement and its impact on diversity in admissions”.
Every activity is a “community” these days. Legal-education community forsooth. Let that pass.
Anyway, there it is: the standards were having an “impact” on Diversity (they can’t say “influence”?). And that cannot be allowed. The foolish goal of Diversity for the sake of Diversity was not dropped, but the standards were.
Model B’s prediction: disharmony will result.
Which is to say, I warrant the predictions of Model B would have turned out better than the predictions of Model A. And that the contest wouldn’t even be close. We can also guess that the proponents of Model A will not acknowledge this, and will pretend not to see the results.
Of course, my warrant is counterfactual, because Model B is not allowed in the door.
It is not historically counterfactual, though. Just take any city run under Model A that was once run under Model B. Compare and contrast. Baltimore, Detroit, now Seattle, now St Louis, now Seattle, now Portland. Which had more harmony in each case?
Lessons learned?
None. Not even one. The proof of that is in the opening sentence to the WSJ article:
An American Bar Association panel voted Friday to drop a requirement that law school applicants take the LSAT or another standardized admissions test, amid debate about whether the tests help or hurt diversity in admissions.
Debate. What’s to debate? What isn’t known at this late date?
Buy my new book and learn to argue against the regime: Everything You Believe Is Wrong.
Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. For Zelle, use my email: matt@wmbriggs.com.
”What isn’t known at this late date?
The name of the enemy and how to fight him.
HB
The name of the enemy and how to fight him.
I don’t have to quote Walt Kelly, do I?
And this is why pedophilia will soon be legalized.
No, not just legalized… CELEBRATED!
The new generation of law-practictioners and legal Expurts will fumble their way there. Just as planned.
I saw it in college as far back as thirty years ago. Nearly illiterate black students, who probably couldn’t have made it through fourth grade in saner times, passing classes. I can imagine the shock they went through when they tried to enter the real job world with their participation-trophy degrees.
Something is up in the STEM labor market because my phone and email are absolutely blowing up with unsolicited recruiting traffic.
… amid debate about whether the tests help or hurt diversity in admissions.
They’re asking the wrong questions. They shouldn’t be asking if the tests help or hurt diversity; they should be asking if the tests help or hurt the profession. Any professional organization: ABA, AMA, IEEE or whatever, should be concerned with improvement of the profession, not what color the faces in the organization look like.
Admittedly, that’s far easier in a profession dominated by objective physics than by convincing juries and courts full of fallible humans, but they should still be trying to improve the legal profession to the best that it can be determined. Is it possible the LSAT is too weak to effectively screen for attributes of good lawyers? I assume it’s possible, but have no data. Are they confounding that variable? I wouldn’t doubt it.
Is diversity making the profession better in any measurable sense? That’s what matters.
John (B)
Bull’s eye.
But I prefer to blame the Esquimeaux.
All objective measures of ability must logically be eliminated in order for DIE to exist. This was the inevitable outcome of AA. Previous lowering admission standards for certain minorities on the LSAT exam left those admission tests as a record by which to judge the quality of the AA admission *before* the student completed the degree, and as such allowed comparison of degree holders after graduation and a work record. As has been shown, such a comparison of students is an embarrassment and shows that these AA admissions perform significantly worse in their studies and work record than those students not so favored. In short, we have a solid data set over many years proving the equality of the races is a myth. That can not be allowed.
I wonder if Abe Lincoln would have passed the LSAT?
Aaah – that would explain this song
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=son+don%27t+go+near+the+eskimos&&view=detail&mid=6C748C1E28BA35A5E3A56C748C1E28BA35A5E3A5&&FORM=VRDGAR
@Cary Cotterman: “Nearly illiterate black students, who probably couldn’t have made it through fourth grade in saner times, passing classes. ”
Baltimore High School student passes three classes in four years, grade point average of 0.13, ranks in top half of his class.
http://www.madnesshub.com/2022/10/baltimore-public-school-student-ranked.html?m=1
The horrifying truth: People with genetically limited IQs cannot function in a technological civilization, other than pets or jesters.
–>”amid debate about whether the tests help or hurt diversity in admissions.”
This is the sly way to end a debate–which cannot be held, as it will (likely) answer the question whether diversity in admission is hurt or helped. Only policies which help diversity can be allowed.
I’m actually surprised they didn’t say, “amid the controversy about whether the tests help or hurt diversity in admissions.” If you want to deep-six something, referring to it as controversial usually works.
SiG,
Is diversity making the profession better in any measurable sense? That’s what matters.
They are long past pretending to care about this question. DIE is the goal now, any advancement of the profession is just incidental.
At my institution we have a growing actuarial science program, but it’s not a major because of a lack of a few key courses. Having a major would be an obvious benefit to students preparing to be actuaries. However every step of the way we’ve been stopped by DIE requests. First on the new courses, then on the expansion of the major. Every complaint recognizes the mathematical and financial components of the program but then says that these are irrelevant if the program does not first serve DIE. Currently the people in charge of the program are trying to get it through with the promise that they will spend roughly 10% of the time analyzing things like hiring data vs. race to analyze for “structural racism.” There’s a good chance that this will still be rejected on the grounds that A.) That’s still not enough time and B.) if the data is merely analyzed, students might come to the conclusion that there isn’t structural racism if the data happens to not show evidence of structural racism.