Recently, scandal has struck the Frontiers in Psychology journal. Following the acceptance of the paper ‘Meta-analysis: On average, undergraduate students’ intelligence is merely average’, debate broke out on X (formerly Twitter). Most controversially, the paper asserted this,
Might this be ultimately about the business model? Higher ed has built huge businesses by expanding the client pool and necessarily introducing subjects that less academically able (in the traditional sense) students will be interested to study. It sounds like a paper describing the consequences of that is too hot to print.
Wholesale rejection of academic rigor in public schools, dismissal of academic achievement testing for admissions, lowering of academic standards for grads, EEOC professors sporting skeezy CV’s, mass immigration of >90IQ populations from all the planet’s lowest achieving countries.
How could anyone be surprised by the results? This is not a fluke; it’s the culmination of a successful campaign.
Might this be ultimately about the business model? Higher ed has built huge businesses by expanding the client pool and necessarily introducing subjects that less academically able (in the traditional sense) students will be interested to study. It sounds like a paper describing the consequences of that is too hot to print.
Wholesale rejection of academic rigor in public schools, dismissal of academic achievement testing for admissions, lowering of academic standards for grads, EEOC professors sporting skeezy CV’s, mass immigration of >90IQ populations from all the planet’s lowest achieving countries.
How could anyone be surprised by the results? This is not a fluke; it’s the culmination of a successful campaign.