When "B" sent along the following article about a state in the USSA calling for an end to standardized testing on its college entrance requirements, I thought "finally!" with a sigh of relief. "Three cheers for them!" I thought.

My joy was soon clouded over with grief and despair when I read that the state in question was California. My "three cheers" were thus reduced to 1/32nd of a cheer:

So long, standardized testing: University of California regents unanimously vote to drop SAT and ACT admissions requirements

And here's the part that reduced my three cheers  to 1/32nd of a cheer:

The University of California Board of Regents unanimously voted to suspend the SAT and ACT testing requirements for freshman applicants through 2024 and eliminate them for California students after that – a plan proposed by Janet Napolitano, the university's system's president.

“Today’s decision by the Board marks a significant change for the University’s undergraduate admissions,” Napolitano said.

Instead, the UC system – which includes about 280,000 students across the University of California, Los Angeles, the University of California, Berkeley, and seven other undergraduate schools – will focus on creating its own test "that better aligns with the content the University expects students to have mastered for college readiness" and its values, according to a news release.

In the book Rotten to the (Common) Core, my co-author Gary Lawrence and I outlined a case against standardized tests not only by looking into the rather loose practices of that "industry" not only in scoring such tests, but in the questions that were actually found on some of those standardized tests like the SAT. Referring to a little-known late 1950s and early 1960s controversy between mathematician Banesh Hoffmann (a friend of Albert Einstein), and the Education Testing Service in Princeton, which owns and administers the SAT.  One of the actual questions that appeared in the physics portion of an SAT test became a target for Hoffman in an article that appeared in Harper's Magazine, and which was later included in Hoffmann's book, The Tyranny of Testing. The question was this:
65. Potassium metal loses electrons when struck by light (the photoelectric effect) more readily than lithium metal because
(A) the potassium atom contains more protons than does that of lithium
(B) the valence electron of potassium is farther from the nucleus than is that of lithium
(C) potassium occurs above lithium in the electro-chemical series
(D) the potassium atom contains more electrons than does that of lithium
(E) the potassium nucleus is larger than that of lithium.
As we stated in the book, Hoffmann noted that the "correct" answer that the Educational Testing Service wanted was answer "B." And there, Hoffmann pointed out that a well-informed student would be punished by the test, because a process of reasoning could be advanced for all the answers being correct. This individual will immediately see that answer B is possible.
"But he then sees that answer D accurately (if ungrammatically) states the reason why this is so, namely that "the potassium atom contains more electrons than does that of lithium." Thus, the student may sensibly conclude that while B is a correct answer, D is a correct answer too. And D is a more profound answer than B.
     But out student is not finished. For he realizes that the reason why there are more electrons in the potassium atom than in the lithium atom is to be found in answer A: the atom of potassium "contains more protons than does that of lithium." Thus, if D is a correct answer, so is A. And A cuts deeper than D.
     Finally, he hesitates to dismiss E, knowing that the nucleus of potassium "is larger than that of lithium" because it contains more neutrons and protons. Thus, if A is a correct answer, so also is E.
     In view of the above, most of us would agree with the College Board that the question is 'difficult.' But with us this is merely a matter of opinion. With the test experts it is an 0bjective, scientific, no-nonsense fact based on statistics. Of course, the statistics do not reveal that the wording of the question is vague. Nor that, if the wanted answer is a correct one, so are three others. Nor that the examiners have chosen the most immediate and superficial answer, thus penalizing candidates with more probing minds as they so often do. Can we be complacent  when we know that such questions are used by so many of our colleges to assess scientific talent?" (Rotten to the [Common]Core, pp. 45-46.)
We then commented on this as follows:
By pointing out the ambiguity and superficiality of the question and its "correct" answer, Hoffmann is once again throwing light on the value and validity of the appeal to statistics, for if statistics are compiled on the basis of faulty questions, what is their value for the claim that such tests are scientific and objective, and measure anything but the incompetence of the test-makers? (Ibid)
But we lack any such reasons or argumentation here, for Hoffmann's critique of standardized testing was a philosophical one. California's regents' objections cite no such reasons, but rather, advance the idea that they will come up with their own standardized tests that are reflective of the university system's and state's "values", which moreover reflect the "content" that the state expects its students to "master." We get a clue of what's coming down the pike from these statements:

The UC system's vote could be a turning point in the long-running debate about the equality of standardized testing, which critics have argued are biased against low-income and minority students and favor wealthier students whose families can afford to spend thousands of dollars on preparatory courses.

Last year, a coalition of civil rights groups filed a lawsuit against the UC system because of its use of testing scores for admission. The group said that its SAT and ACT requirement discriminates against students who can't afford testing preparation.

“These tests are incredibly sensitive to socioeconomic status and race and have nothing to say about the individual,” said Alisa Hartz, an attorney with Public Counsel, the Los Angeles-based pro bono firm that filed the suit on behalf of students and advocacy groups.

In other words, we can expect more social engineering in the form of "new tests," and more bias against students that actually know something and are able to think, and more bias for students willing to memorize and regurgitate California's "values." We'll find more "advocacy," and precious little academic discipline. Tests will "adapt" to the student.

Gee, that sounds a lot like the whole Common Core scam, and its "adaptive tests."

Isn't it amazing what you can accomplish if you're a corrupt billionaire busybody, heavily invested in the overpopulation narrative, and vaccines of all types, computerized and otherwise, with the Fauci-Lieber virus narrative?

See you on the flip side...


  1. Maybe it is due to my crappy english, but if the question would be on me, I would guess none of the answers is true, because no electron is actually “lost”, just change it’s place with another one, creating what we call electricity, if the circuit is closed. If the electron is lost, ion is created, but that’s probably not the case.

  2. Such a look (the photo) and where it begins, too.

    Alas! The race to the bottom emerges and why. And it’s a four-way tie.

    The test preparers who thought they knew; the test administrators’ who follow the rule; the test educator who think they still know; and the student who’s been along for the entire ride of the failing experiment. Far too much myopic-short-sighted-tunnel vision from those who still think they know better from each aforementioned group.

    If only it were so-oo-oo easy, eh?

    In one’s humble opinion, neither group has adequately prepared for change. Aside from the students, the others seem bent on flawed paradigms being enforced. Another indicator why it hasn’t worked well.

    They all seem to suffer from a confabulation of neural networks and subsequently altered synapses not knowing who’s best at test taking instead of what’s the root cause(s) of such disparities or why they haven’t worked very well generally applied. Bribing one’s way through the university archways has limitations after all, but at least those few et well or seemingly enough, anyway. Nutrient poor foods just aren’t what they’re propped up to be despite all the artwork on the screens and packages.

    And then there are those socio-economic and environmental factors hinted. They DO play a significant role on learning and testing outcomes, too. One knows firsthand about how such differences impact a susceptible student.

    Back in the day one was privy to taking two complete five-part sets of those IQ tests held in early high school years. Moved from one foster home to another during that freshman year and took testing in each. Two whopping different results, too. Go figure. Had a severe car wreck in one’s senior year effecting visual and auditory sensory systems and their related components and still graduated despite not being [all there] from the cradle to graduation. The science behind the rational work is still guess work.

  3. I wouldn’t cheer too much about this because the agenda behind it is to push diversity and basically exempt nonwhite and non asian kids from competency of any kind. They want to remove ANY testing mechanism that shows reflects knowledge, learning, or intelligence. That was been the agenda all along.

    1. The goal set up long ago for the education institutes was supposedly to produce workers, not thinkers. Having thinkers among the workers makes managing them more difficult and no one wants a difficult job.
      The thinkers come from a different strata and have their own selection criteria and process.
      Currently with the roll out of robots and AI, there is an over abundance of both, workers and thinkers. Solution, give them something to do that looks important but really isn’t, yet doesn’t interfere with anything deemed important.

  4. Agreed, and further–this gives the State of CA a means of peppering the test’s slant with more extreme “progressive” ideologies (gender studies, Marxism and activism leap to mind…) eliminating undesirable centrists and conservatives from the universities.

  5. I taught chemistry for 30 years. I coached students for three different national chemistry exams. Each exam had a different emphasis. One had more emphasis on math, another on conceptual knowledge, or some topics were emphasized on different tests. In my experience, the ACT and SAT emphasize different skills. Teachers use different strategies to help students with the ACT as opposed to the SAT. This news seems like more evidence that the leaders of California are moving away from mainstream America ( whatever that is in this time of change). The standardized test will influence the topics that are taught, the language used in the classroom, and teaching strategies. What values, knowledge, and skills do the leaders of CA want for their students that are so different from the rest of the USSA? Or is this just for the money ( which is understandable)?

    1. … and Jesuits wearing Apron concocted the constitution, transforming the papal slave colony into an empire.

      Empire feeds and breeds, by inducing Stockholm syndrome. It is a monstrosity of collective brainwash.

      Icelanders are forced to crawl on earth, licking American boot, believing their idol is made of chocolate.

      Tolkien’s Orcs are from Swampington.


  6. A little off subject but what is the youngest age a student could be taught the Constitution, Bill Of Rights, Articles Of Confederation. I was never taught while in school about those documents.

    1. I read them in high-school. Some of them were assigned in civics class as a senior, and my teacher was very thorough. Others were assigned as extra-curricular assignments in my two US history courses. Since I had the same teacher for both, and I was one of his favorites because of our open discussions of many common interests, he was a real mentor and friend. Honestly, these documents should be taught in conjunction with a very serious course in US history—beginning in the 9th grade at the latest. For those students who were his favorites these were assigned readings without testing—but discussed in private conversations.

    2. I was exposed to the history of the United States in elementary school, grade 5. That was long ago in the fall of the 1964 school year. The year before I was exposed to the history of my home state, Wyoming. Nowadays. I have no idea.
      I had a year of Civics in 9th grade and in my 11th year a required class of a more in depth history of the United States which really got into the Constitution and the founding. Political Science was offered and encouraged for those who excelled in the US history class. I was asked but chose to go to the local community college in the afternoon to learn about that hot new field of computers…all expenses paid. Helped me get well paying jobs for several years after high school.
      Majored in PoliSci when I finally went to college.

  7. At some point, during the Middle Ages, a woodcut alphabet got impregnated, with Megalithic astronomy, that gave birth to the Irish mission on the continent.

    Megalithic astronomy, i.e. Ryne-Stafas, are a linguistic superstructure, that allows manipulation of language. It is the Holy Grail of linguistics.

    The Synod of Whitby was a Tower of Babel moment, when Satanic papal empire took control of Britain, where after Irish scholars were hunted down, and killed on sight.

    Neither can live, while the other survives.

  8. My first thought was: cash is king once again.
    Second thought: our common core AI has already plotted your life’s course; we don’t need your stinking SATs/ACTs.
    Holy Profiteers Batman!
    the schools themselves are getting in the test biz.
    There’s Big Data in these virgin virtual fountains of youth/students/innocents.
    The questions don’t actually care about correct answers; they’re seeking to gold mine very specialized data for their customers[advertisers/the Gates of Hell brethren].
    The tests have up-teen-gillion questions, that depend upon previous answers, in to further winnow down a psychological profile; which in turn will be further sculptured at university.
    It’s AI testing, for Ai schooling; all for their paying products to become assimilated, en masse, into/within the cloud[aka, the Borg].

    1. Or, perhaps the solution is more like the soviet model. The state determines how many slots are required to fill objective C from various disciplines, then the incoming class is randomly assigned to the disciplines based on an AI assessment of their abilities based after a DNA analysis. All anomalies are collected, collated and tested to determine their genuine IQ component, after which a decision is made to determine whether they are permitted to advance into the aristocracy or be terminated as a threat. All terminations are permanent. In other words, the solution would be the education equivalent to the movie Jupiter Rising. Only, this form of eugenics is very scientific—and precisely defined with only certain bloodlines benefiting. AI is no benefit to them without a proper genetic component.

      1. If the filters on the data base are designed as needed and in place, the selection process should allow any special needed worker or thinker…just use Amazon to order them.

  9. If one absorbs the idea of creating values one chooses, what is to be disputed? Out with the old ones, in with the new ones…
    During the 19th century, an important contribution came from post-Kantian German idealists like Fichte, Schelling and Hegel,[19] as well from Søren Kierkegaard.[citation needed]

    Philosophical anthropology as independent discipline Edit
    Since its development in the 1920s, in the milieu of Germany Weimar culture, philosophical anthropology has been turned into a philosophical discipline, competing with the other traditional sub-disciplines of epistemology, ethics, metaphysics, aesthetics.[23] It is the attempt to unify disparate ways of understanding behaviour of humans as both creatures of their social environments and creators of their own values. Although the majority of philosophers throughout the history of philosophy can be said to have a distinctive “anthropology” that undergirds their thought, philosophical anthropology itself, as a specific discipline in philosophy, arose within the later modern period as an outgrowth from developing methods in philosophy, such as phenomenology and existentialism. The former, which draws its energy from methodical reflection on human experience (first person perspective) as from the philosopher’s own personal experience, naturally aided the emergence of philosophical explorations of human nature and the human condition.

Comments are closed.