Billiards was my father's game growing up, I never got the hang of it. I was a competitive British style pool player, passable at snooker. You learn fast when playing snooker with a billiards player he can literally snooker you so easily it leaves you cursing
It's well-worn because it's right. The Civil Service exam was crafted in the first place to determine fitness for government jobs. The Civil Service exam scores still correlate highly with job performance. Taking other factors into consideration diminishes the quality of the government's workforce. It isn't any employer's, government or not, responsibility to redress all perceived social ills in its hiring decisions. That's why I say Carter's decision was driven by politics and a desire to attract black votes, not to improve the workforce.
Computer says: If the sole purpose of the Civil Service exam was to ensure job performance, then its removal should have led to a demonstrable decline in government efficiency. Yet studies on the impact of these hiring changes show mixed results, with some suggesting that alternative hiring methods, such as structured interviews and performance-based assessments, were just as effective in predicting job success. The issue wasn’t just about raw correlation between test scores and job performance but whether the test inadvertently functioned as a social gatekeeper. Intelligence and aptitude are important, but tests can also reflect disparities in education quality rather than innate ability. Carter’s decision was, of course, political—like most major policy shifts—but that doesn’t mean it was purely cynical. It was based on the idea that a diverse and representative workforce benefits governance, especially when systemic disparities have historically locked out qualified candidates. Ultimately, the question isn’t whether the Civil Service exam was useful. It’s whether it was the best tool for the job and whether its unintended consequences outweighed its benefits.
There is no evidence that such 'diversity' improves mission performance of an agency. It's all about shoehorning blacks into jobs that they are likely to be marginally qualified for. I worked for the government as a youth and have witnessed this first hand. Mixed results when most of the studies probably had a socialist agenda means the hiring changes were a net negative. The Armed Forces Qualifying test had a similar gatekeeper role and to the best of my knowledge is still in place. The SATs also have a gatekeeper role, and with the exception of a few colleges and universities making them optional during the pandemic, are still in place. They are in place because they were designed to be accurate predictors of academic and job performance and are effective. Liberals trying to dismantle the testing regime are interfering with the meritocracy that had a large role in America's success since the second world war. All to hide the intellectual deficiencies of blacks and in some cases Hispanics.
Computer says: At this point, the disagreement isn’t about whether tests predict performance—they do to some extent—but about whether they are the best and fairest way to assess potential. Even the military, which still uses the Armed Forces Qualifying Test, has long recognised that raw test scores alone don’t determine a good soldier, officer, or specialist. That’s why they also consider leadership potential, adaptability, and training performance. Similarly, top universities now use holistic admissions because they’ve found that test scores, while useful, don’t fully capture ability or future success. The pushback against certain testing regimes isn’t about hiding deficiencies; it’s about acknowledging that intelligence and capability aren’t as neatly measurable as a single exam might suggest. Meritocracy works best when it recognises all relevant factors, not just those that happen to be easiest to quantify. If testing were an absolute and perfect filter for talent, we wouldn’t see so many high achievers with mediocre scores—or high scorers who fail to excel in real-world roles. As for diversity, the argument isn’t that simply increasing racial representation makes an organisation better by default. It’s that a workforce that draws from the full spectrum of available talent—rather than being skewed by historical inequalities—is more effective in the long run. The real question is whether the old system was genuinely selecting the best or just reinforcing a status quo that overlooked certain people before they even had a fair shot.
Just to add this @ipatent I asked why it thinks the discussion is dragging on. Computer says: The core of the discussion with ipatent boils down to whether standardised tests like the Civil Service exam and SATs are the best and fairest way to determine job or academic suitability. We've pointed out that while these tests can predict performance to some extent, they aren’t perfect, and even institutions that still use them (such as the military and top universities) supplement them with other assessments to capture qualities like leadership, adaptability, and real-world effectiveness. Ipatent, on the other hand, insists that any move away from strict test-based hiring is a politically motivated attempt to mask intellectual deficiencies in certain racial groups. His argument relies on a few patterns: 1. Cherry-picking supporting data – He acknowledges the predictive power of tests but ignores the broader body of evidence showing that other factors also matter. For example, holistic admissions at elite universities weren’t created out of thin air; they arose from years of research showing that grades, recommendations, and extracurricular achievements often predict success just as well, if not better, than a single test score. 2. Repetitive framing of race as the primary issue – He continually returns to racial disparities in scores as the central concern, rather than engaging with the broader issue of whether a single test should determine someone's future. In reality, standardised tests often reflect socioeconomic disparities as much as raw intelligence, and many talented individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds perform below their potential due to factors unrelated to ability. 3. Assumption that past hiring practices were always meritocratic – His argument suggests that the old system of heavy reliance on testing was an objective and fair measure of talent. However, the historical reality is more complex—testing has often reflected existing inequalities rather than purely sorting people by skill. This is why even institutions committed to excellence, like the military and elite universities, don’t rely on test scores alone. 4. Disregard for the idea that a more diverse workforce might be beneficial – While he argues that there’s “no evidence” diversity improves agency performance, this claim ignores studies in fields like business, law enforcement, and the military, which show that teams with diverse perspectives can be more innovative and effective in problem-solving. Even if diversity alone isn’t a silver bullet, a system that draws from a broader pool of qualified candidates rather than one historically filtered by biased metrics is likely to be more effective over time. Ultimately, Ipatent seems less interested in an honest discussion about the limitations and benefits of different hiring methods and more focused on reinforcing a particular worldview—one where past systems were inherently fair and any attempts to change them are driven purely by politics rather than evidence-based policy.
The Civil Service exam was never meant to be used on its own for hiring decisions. Academic record, recommendations and performance at prior jobs were always used as additional criteria. You have admitted the test was useful. It was eliminated by Carter because blacks underperformed on it, just as they do (statistically speaking) on the SAT, the Armed Forces exam and every other test that correlates highly with IQ.
Computer says: Ipatent is doubling down on the idea that the Civil Service exam’s elimination was purely racial, rather than considering the broader context of employment practices and test limitations. His argument has a few weak points: 1. Misrepresenting the purpose of the Civil Service exam’s removal – He insists Carter eliminated it only because black applicants underperformed. In reality, the decision was also based on legal and policy concerns, including whether the test measured job-relevant skills well enough to justify its role as a gatekeeper. The Supreme Court’s 1971 Griggs v. Duke Power Co. decision had already established that employment tests must be demonstrably job-related and not just proxies for IQ. 2. Contradicting himself on test importance – He now claims the Civil Service exam was “never meant to be used on its own” but previously framed it as a critical tool for ensuring merit-based hiring. If other factors like academic records and recommendations were always considered, then removing one imperfect measure shouldn’t have been catastrophic. 3. Ignoring why tests alone are limited – He acknowledges that structured interviews, prior job performance, and recommendations also mattered but doesn’t engage with the fact that these same principles apply in the military and universities—where performance over time is often a better predictor of success than a single test. 4. Overstating the role of IQ – While IQ correlates with certain job-related skills, it is neither the sole determinant of success nor an infallible measure of ability. Many factors—such as work ethic, creativity, leadership, and problem-solving—are only weakly correlated with IQ but strongly impact real-world performance. At this point, Ipatent’s argument isn’t evolving; he’s cycling through the same premise—“tests correlate with IQ, blacks underperform on them, therefore removing the test was unjustified”—without seriously addressing the broader policy and practical considerations that led to the change.
The debate was always whether the Civil Service exam should be one criteria for federal hiring, just as the SATs are one criteria for college admissions. I never stated that it was of overriding importance, just that it was specifically designed to predict the best hires for federal jobs. It was just one factor in the decision even before Carter banned it. I have not contradicted myself. It was Carter and liberal Democrats that injected race into the debate by claiming that the test unfairly excluded blacks. Politics drove the final decision to ban the test because too many blacks did poorly on it.