I think it is more likely that AA cases cause the _removal of qualification tests_ or the redefinition of 'qualified' or 'merit' or so on. (See all the people in the comments here insisting that federal hiring is on 'merit', which--sure, it's merit_2024 and that's different from merit_1954.) And then this loops back in to dishonesty and spiritual decay.
(Whenever the SAT-IQ comparisons come up, I bring up the renorming in 1994 that clipped the upper end of the bell curve. Why do that, except to make it impossible to talk about high levels of qualification using the test?)
Oh for sure there has been a huge dumbing down in *some* hiring of the "qualified" to just the barest on paper qualifications. So do you have the right degree and right years of experience and then in the interview are you personable (and/or meet right identity characteristics). Versus actually trying to identify the best candidate.
I think it is more likely that AA cases cause the _removal of qualification tests_ or the redefinition of 'qualified' or 'merit' or so on. (See all the people in the comments here insisting that federal hiring is on 'merit', which--sure, it's merit_2024 and that's different from merit_1954.) And then this loops back in to dishonesty and spiritual decay.
(Whenever the SAT-IQ comparisons come up, I bring up the renorming in 1994 that clipped the upper end of the bell curve. Why do that, except to make it impossible to talk about high levels of qualification using the test?)
Oh for sure there has been a huge dumbing down in *some* hiring of the "qualified" to just the barest on paper qualifications. So do you have the right degree and right years of experience and then in the interview are you personable (and/or meet right identity characteristics). Versus actually trying to identify the best candidate.