More than 50 universities under investigation after warning over DEI practices WASHINGTON (TNND) — More than 50 universities are being investigated by the Department of Education for "allegedly engaging in race-exclusionary practices," the department announced Friday. The investigation comes nearly one month after public schools and colleges were warned to end diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies or risk federal funding. "The Department is working to reorient civil rights enforcement to ensure all students are protected from illegal discrimination," Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. "Students must be assessed according to merit and accomplishment, not prejudged by the color of their skin. We will not yield on this commitment." 45 colleges facing scrutiny for using the PhD Project include universities such as Arizona State, Ohio State and Rutgers, along with prestigious private schools like Yale, Cornell, Duke and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
If universities are forced to rely only on “merit and accomplishment” without considering context, then kids from wealthier backgrounds, who had access to elite prep schools, private tutors, and networking opportunities, will naturally dominate. Meanwhile, students who showed exceptional promise despite disadvantaged beginnings might be overlooked because their starting point limited the traditional markers of success. Meritocracy sounds fair in theory, but in practice, it often rewards privilege disguised as talent. Raw potential and resilience matters.
What makes you think that people with lower test scores have more raw potential or resilience? The tests exist to identify raw potential.
Standardized tests don’t measure raw potential, they measure preparation. Kids with private tutors and better-funded schools will almost always outperform those who had to self-teach or overcome major obstacles just to get to the same test. Resilience isn’t about how well you fill in bubbles, it’s about how far you’ve come despite challenges. If the tests truly measured ‘raw potential,’ we wouldn’t see such a strong correlation between scores and parental income. A kid who scores 1300 on the SAT despite having to work after school to support their family likely has far more raw potential than a wealthy kid who scored 1450 with private tutoring. Test scores reflect both ability and opportunity, they don’t exist in a vacuum.
They're g-loaded, so they measure potential. I never had private tutors or SAT preparation courses, and I did quite well. These colleges are shoehorning blacks in irrespective of the challenges they have faced. That happens because there is a correlation between IQ and income.
I'm going to bring you back to the reality that standardized tests capture a mix of intelligence and opportunity, not pure merit. I am called to an appointment just now. Will be a little while.
I'm surprised no one cites this: Racial unrest continues on Rutgers U. campus That president stayed on but I believe they opened up more spots for minority students who really didn't belong there.
"They're g-loaded, so they measure potential." They measure a component of cognitive ability, but they’re also shaped by preparation, environment, and test familiarity. A truly ‘pure’ intelligence test wouldn’t show such a strong link to wealth and access to prep resources. If standardised tests purely measured innate ability, expensive prep courses wouldn’t provide such a significant advantage. The fact that test scores rise with better preparation suggests they measure more than just intelligence, they also reflect access and training. "I never had private tutors or SAT preparation courses, and I did quite well." Anecdotal experience doesn’t disprove systemic trends. Plenty of people succeed despite obstacles, but that doesn’t mean those obstacles don’t exist or don’t impact outcomes for most students. These colleges are shoehorning blacks in irrespective of the challenges they have faced. That’s a strawman (which I guess you will continue to repeat?). Holistic admissions aren’t about “shoehorning” anyone in, they recognize that a 1300 SAT from a student in an underfunded school may reflect more raw potential than a 1450 from someone with every advantage. If two students have equal scores, but one had to climb mountains to get there, who’s likely the higher performer in the long run? "That happens because there is a correlation between IQ and income." IQ and income correlate, but correlation is not causation. Wealth creates conditions that enhance cognitive development, better nutrition, stability, enriched learning, exposure to complex problem-solving. I could as easily suggest that wealthier men marry pretty women in preference to IQ, causing a reversion to the mean. The point is whether the test measures inherent ability or the benefits of privilege. If IQ were purely genetic, we wouldn’t see test score gains simply from better schooling or tutoring and yet we do. I must drive home, another day passing when the doctor does not say I need my first prostate exam is a good day
Your AI coach fails to realize that the driving factor in reducing reliance on standardized tests is increasing the number of black and Hispanic college admits.
AI does not realize anything, there is always a human architect, however, if you use it too much an equivalent of Satnav brain where you lose your sense of direction is inevitable. That intellectual laziness defines your entire approach to this discussion, as if because you have held these beliefs a long time, then you are entitled to take shortcuts / wallow in intellectual rigidity. I'm on some brain drugs lately, pulling my ADHD focus together, and, I have been using Grammarly to weed out my British English for my part time marketing job (just a bit of fun being a MAD man). Your response is a lazy, reductive and cynical interpretation of why standardized tests were being deemphasized, rather than engaging with the nuances of my argument. It seems a deflection because you could not figure out why I called that a strawman. You are arguing from a mostly idealogical base where you see it as just racial engineering. Considering the extreme mix of white and black genes in the average African Amercian, how does your gene deterministic viewpoint of race in America make much sense anyway?