Thread by @bronzeagemantis

Now that I've let this fester with a day of mostly bad guesses as to what I meant--time for a thread.

How "model minorities" and specifically the Han, and not Congoids, actually ended meritocracy in American universities:

A unity or common cause is supposed by some writers for more than a decade--maybe two--between whytes on one hand and "model minorities" on the other who both suffer because of affirmative action, or discrimination in job hiring and in college admissions.

They also say that whytes and "model minorities" are similar in that both are intelligent, hard-working, disciplined, lawful or orderly, able to compete peacefully in a modern economy, and so on. In my opinion the real undercurrent of this opinion is dislike and fear of Congoids.

Let's look at the "elite" schools or the schools ranked in top 20 or so by most measures etc.; in these places the Congoid population was always 8-10%; it was obviously a racial quota reserved for them, although it was always protested this was not a quota.

Aside from injustice of...in vast majority of that 8-10% an undeserving student was given a spot over a deserving one, their presence corrupted meritocracy in other ways. Most of these students were incapable of coherent writing or speech or thinking, but they could not be failed

I give examples I heard myself; if you were a right wing professor or similar, or suspected of having rightist sympathies by normie standards, if you consistently even gave low marks to Congoid students, let alone fail, you would come up for disciplinary hearings, etc.

Libtarded professors of course would feel bad to give them bad grades in the first place. The result went well beyond that though; if you're forced to give an undeserving student a B- who actually deserved an F or D you can't then give a whyte kid who deserved B- or B that grade

This led to grade inflation; actually libtarded professors were themselves mostly fair in this sense too from what I saw and heard. Regardless of race, they didn't feel right giving a B student a B because they had to give also a D or F student that B

I was briefly something in academia; I had complete contempt for concept of grades because it had all become meaningless, corrupted. So I never took attendance; I gave everyone an A or A-. I did my best to give great lectures in class, improve my speaking, and attend to students who showed interest

One thing I noticed was the reality of the athletes versus the prejudice and stereotypes against them. In "elite" skrewls the athletes are mostly whyte, and something like the hockey and lacrosse teams are almost 100% whyte. They are liked by some other students but by most professors, staff and almost 100% of grad students and most all leftist undergrads (minus the grils who bang them) they are deeply hated and resented. The reasons for this are a few you might guess: they veer center-right or apolitical, they're straight whyte males, they are comparatively good looking and there is also sexual jealousy. They are attacked for supposedly getting in because of sports, not grades or intellect--a kind of transference that people do because they can't mention who actually got in because of affirmative action. But in my experience, I found them to be some of the brightest, most curious and eager to learn of any students, and to engage with books or ideas, etc., so, the very opposite of the stereotype. I'm going on this tangent for a reason that will become clear soon, and also to give some context...

Although this is partly a personal account I've heard similar from others who are or were professors. Anyway my personal anecdotes here are just for general interest; the case as to why meritocracy ended in skrewls is very clear and not really disputable. I'll get to it in a moment.

It should be emphasized there are exceptional students of every race. Yes including Congoid. Universities are and should be one place where none of this matters. I agree with this thred from Dantes entirely.

That said, Congoids as a whole had the effects I mentioned, and although this thread isn't about this, femaels as a whole have had a terrible effect as well. In fact it's arguable most affirmative action has actually benefited femaels. Much more than just grade inflation--to which they too contributed--they've made the university as a place of serious investigation, dedication to reason, learning, or things beyond oneself, they've turned all of this into a total joke. I don't exaggerate when I say that femaels have corrupted the meaning of the university but also of scientific and technological enterprise in general and that their presence in these spaces amounts to indefinite mental stagnation. Most people would understand and agree here if I was talking about the military. But scientific and intellectual enterprise, so long as it's something done together and not alone, in general is only real and without bullshyte when it is similar to a military seriousness and organization.

That said, neither femaels nor Congoids had the concretely destructive effects on meritocracy in universities as much as the Han as a group have had, I mean in truly ending almost the principle of meritocratic admissions. Femaels and Congoids had quotas set aside for them but beyond that, didn't destroy the principle of meritocracy necessarily for the remaining spots.

Why are there meritocratic admissions in the first place? How did it happen? The reason the universities were opened up in the 1950's was specifically because cases like Feynman's. It was felt unjust that he shouldn't have had entry into school of choice, etc., because of quotas (at that time capping Jewish students) and Columbia eg felt dumb for having rejected him. The feeling was that schools should be opened up to students like him, WITH THE EXPECTATION that they would do great things with their degrees. Maybe not be Feynman or make great discoveries, but at least use that opportunity to try to, or to have notable achievements in other fields, or at least to become very rich, and so on.

The concrete reward for this opening up of universities was eventually expected to be ....money. Whether legacies, or students allowed in on purely merit, alumni who were or became rich donated to these skrewls. For those who became famous or notable in their fields wihout being rich, this also added to skrewl's reputation, bringing in more money or grants or so on by other avenues. In other words, the universities got or maintained something concrete from opened-up admissions, and the easiest measure of that was donations.

Azn alumni and especially Han don't donate. Thus although they were let in initially in high % because of grades, test scores, etc., it was eventually noted they don't donate. But even worse, they become notable or famous at rates far less than others.

Whereas the expectation was ideally a Feynman, what you got in the Han case was use of the degree to become an ophthalmologist in upstate NY etc.; obviously not always; just as in other groups not all came out Feynmans. But the tendency, pattern became very clear. In the vast majority of cases the degree was used for nothing but a comfortable middle class life and the feeling of status. No fame, no reputation coming to the skrewl, and no donations.

Thus you had a population that presented very good scores, grades, conscientiousness, etc., and so if allowed in purely on "merit" would make up a huge % of undergraduate class; but out the other end, they didn't deliver on the whole, and especially...didn't deliver money.

As an aside this matches the pattern of East Asia and especially Chyna as a whole. Tests well, but scientifically moribund for milennia and after decades of the introduction of Western science, the results are very bad. Please don't talk about "number of papers" published or citations; 99% of those are irrelevant corollaries, filler, and sometimes fraud. No significant scientific advance or tech has come out of Chyna, despite "high IQ." For those interested, this article I posted before is an excellent illustration of what Chynese "science" and high IQ result in (and that's even at its very highest levels):

To this can be added the behavior of Han students in classrooms. It was noticed they are taciturn and in general add nothing to class discussion. In campus social and intellectual life, they seemed absent or kept to themselves etc.; again you may have personal anecdotes to the contrary, I do also. I had very good Chynese students who I was glad to talk to, who were brilliant and got all A's (deserved in their case) and I have Chynese frends, etc. etc.; it matters nothing. As a group universities noticed these very clear patterns in the majority if not vast majority of cases.

Part of that behavior included mass cheating. Given the poor results of Chynese "science," I wonder also to what extent scores in Chyna are frauded also. Chynese students work in "generational groups," passing exams and problem sets from years past. These are studied and memorized by rote. This isn't just a simple study aid tool to give an edge in my opinion; in many if not most cases it is the actual content of Chynese "intellect." It can produce nothing and in universities leads to a lifeless grind.

In these ways and more, the Han made a mockery of the entire concept of meritocracy, whatever was left of it. It all went a step beyond the corruptions that the quotas for Congoids and femaels introduced. It was, again, a population that, if you applied simple "merit" in admissions, would end up forming maybe even a majority of the student body, but that produced nothing that was expected from holders of these degrees, most notably no donations, but also, no fame, no risk, no contributions, and during skrewltime, another lifeless parody of "study," memorization, cheating, sullen apartness. I've had brilliant genius level Chynese students (rare--genius is very rare in any race though); but the general run hasn't been like that. At times I've seen blatant and obvious cheating. Nothing could or would be done about it.

For all these reasons universities felt justified in discriminating against azn and Chynese students for admissions--and they were probably justified. But once they started to do this, libtarded professors and admissions committees felt it was necessary to discard almost entirely whatever was left of meritocracy. "This Johnny Cheung has very good test scores and grades and I'm discriminating against him...it's only fair that I don't pay attention to the fact that Johnny Walters also has good test scores and grades. Merit doesn't matter anymore, we had to get rid of it, so...let me invite this nice POC out of feelings of social justice, etc." Thus in a move similar to what justified grade inflation, merit-based admissions was also mostly discarded. I don't know the status of things at moment exactly now after Floyd, but even by 2015 or mid second term Obama's racial demagoguery and BLM craze, it was already starting to be very bad. Even by early 2010's maybe it was accelerating. Obviously there are still very good students who can get in, but it's much harder now.

Part of the reason I went on a tangent about athletes: despite the fact much of staff and campus pathics hating them, universities still like them because they donate well as alumni. Many also go on to become notable or successful in their careers, fields etc.; so universities are actually "justified" in admitting them because they "deliver" on the degrees and do with them as is expected, both during school and after. Again you have to see it from their point of view; there is no state central authority to train a national elite as in France ENS or such. Universities then need incentives to have "meritocracy." It mostly doesn't work anymore from what I can see, but hasn't really for a long time.

Thus although an alliance is posited on blogs between "high merit high IQ" groups on one side, and Congoids on the others, it was actually the experience with Han Mandarin parody of "education" that ended meritocracy at least in college admissions and that really gave venal libtarded collitches the license to engage in full-scale ethnic cleansing against native-stock Americans. It was a process already under way for some time, but this accelerated it beyond anything. And I did not exaggerate when on previous threads (I can't find now) I estimated that whyte, straight non-Ashk American born males who are not athletes, not legacies, are maybe 2-3% of student body of "elite" skrewls now. If that. That estimation isn't an exaggeration, and I can explain how you can come to that figure. That's insane. And it's mostly due to the cowardice of the libtarded professors (and few conservatives, who also never spoke up) who let basically ethnic cleansing take place, whereas they could have opposed it even on purely liberal antiracist grounds.