Wednesday, April 26, 2017

Average IQ of college graduates by decade of graduation

The mean IQ scores, converted from GSS wordsum results, assuming a national average of 98 and a standard deviation of 15, of those who attended college for at least four years by the decade they graduated in* (n = 5,124, though n for 2010s is only 49 and should be seen as merely suggestive--the trend is clear regardless):

Graduated inIQ

The change in the intelligence of the average college graduate over the last fifty years approaches the IQ gap separating whites and blacks.

This is an inevitable consequence of increasing the share of the population that attends college. In the sixties, 10% of American adults had college degrees. Since then that figure has more than tripled, to 33% today.

To say we're well into the territory of diminishing returns is to understate the problem--we're past the point of negative returns. Most Americans in college today are not benefiting from being there. They're foregoing work to accrue debt for degrees that, if they increase earning power at all, do so only marginally and they're picking up an unhelpful sense of entitlement in the process.

GSS variables used: COHORT(1940-1949)(1950-1959)(1960-1969)(1970-1979)(1980-1989)(1990-1999), EDUC(16-20), WORDSUM, BORN(1)

* Values for each decade come from those born two decades prior, so the time of actual graduation is approximate. For example, the result for the 1960s comes from the wordsum scores of those born in the 1940s; the result for the 1970s from those born in the 1950s, and so on. The approach isn't perfect--some people graduate later in life and a few while still in their teens--but it is an improvement on previous approaches.

**Update** Restricting the age of those evaluated only very marginally lowers the mean wordsum for the earlier cohorts (less than half of 1 IQ point on average).

Also, to reiterate, this measures respondents by total number of years spent in school. There are some--more now than in the past, presumably--who spend eight years in college without ever actually getting a degree.


Random Dude on the Internet said...

At this point anyone who can pay for tuition can get in somewhere. Anything else is probably considered discriminatory at this point.

The same is starting to happen with graduate school as well. Just as long as you can pay (or borrow), some college will take you.

The problem isn't going to get much better either because that would involve telling parents that their children aren't college material. The education system and academia at this point just plays a giant game of hot potato where they toss the potato students onto the next guy. They will fail eventually but they don't want to be the ones to fail them.

People bring up the trades but I see a lot of students who I wouldn't trust to do my electrical wiring or plumbing. There's a large cohort of people who seem designed to work at a Walmart or a Costco their whole lives stocking shelves: they're just smart enough to know where to stock the toilet paper but that's about it.

Pwyll said...

Devin Helton's recent post on which occupations actually have intrinsic need for college study is apropos:

Feryl said...

This is one of those measures that perfectly tracks striving. Elites off-shored many jobs, devalued many of the remaining jobs, imported tons of foreign cheap labor, etc. The masses feel greater pressure to show off their qualifications for increasingly scarce "good" jobs, with the pressure growing in each passing decade. If you don't get a degree to promote, what kind of loser must you be?

College used to be reserved for a relatively small class of people who had the mental horsepower to succeed as professionals.

The mediocrity of the last several decades of students means that many of them can't effectively perform many professional/intellectual duties, with some lucking into intellectually mismatched work via connections/nepotism, the casting couch, and affirmative action. Of course, much of the actual heavy lifting is shifted to people who actually deserve to be there.

Anonymous said...

I have taught at the college level for close to 20 years. While students at the lower levels of academia have never been that great (where I teach), and there has been a slow decline in their aptitude, this year the floor dropped out.

Enrollment is down across the board and so universities are scraping the bottom of the barrel in order to put warm bodies in a seats. Unsurprisingly the behavior of the students has changed as well. Classrooms now have the feel of not just high schools, but alternative high schools.

I was about to conduct a little research to see if what I am witnessing can be buttressed empirically, when I happened to see your post. Thank you. You saved me a great deal of time.

The Z Blog said...

I blame smoking:

Joshua Sinistar said...

College is the credential that idiot minorities use as a ticket to steal White jobs. Negros don't know ANYTHING, they're monosyllabic buffoons with a bad attitude. Give these negros a degree, and you can seemingly justify in having an angry anthropoid stealing a White job, and dese fools beez all happy and sheeit about their fake-ass negro grievance license they got from screwl.

Anonymous said...

This is Anonymous from the earlier post. I forgot that I included the GSS vocab words in a study I conducted last year. I don't recall how to estimate IQ based on the number correct, but with an N = 62 the mean was 5.58 with a standard deviation of 1.48.

These are undergraduate students who are required to participate in research. The university advertises that it has an average ACT score of 21 (which is roughly average for those taking the test). While the sample size is small it may supply some indicator of IQ and extend your findings to the present. Oh, but the sample has an over representation of males (51.6%) and Blacks (34%). Also these are current students and, thus they have yet to secure a degree.

But nonetheless I was wondering if you could estimate IQ based on the mean supplied.

Audacious Epigone said...

Random Dude,

The standards are virtually non-existence. To get into the state universities in Kansas requires a HS diploma and a GPA of, IIRC, 2.5. A GPA of 2.5, in an environment where a B+ is seen as failing, doesn't happen unless students don't even show up for class. Fill out the paperwork, get the funding, have a pulse, and you're in.

Because colleges are not on the hook for unpaid loans while those unpaid loans cannot (generally) be discharged in bankruptcy court, there is zero monetary incentive for colleges to do anything other than wave in as many people as they can get away with. The top-tier schools like the Ivies make their money endowments, so keeping quality (of students) is important, but as schools expand outward from farther down, that disappears (and 'quality', to the extent that it is measured at all, is measured in the competitiveness of men's sports teams).


A bachelor's degree is the new high school diploma. It's perceived as a prerequisite to show you're not a retard (something it's imperfect at, to put it mildly) but that's about it.

The student loan bubble, which will referred to as a crisis down the road, is going to be worse than a lot of people realize. The cream will do just fine, as always, but those who are saddled with debts a decade after graduating are mostly cognitive mediocrities. The value of those outstanding loans is pennies on the dollar. When we're talking pennies on the dollar for something measured in the trillions, well, this isn't going to end well.


How do you see it playing out down the road from your view on the front lines?


I've been thinking about that post for the last couple of days. The GSS clearly shows that those who smoke are less intelligent than those who don't. That doesn't mean anything wrt to your post, but caffeine is another cognitive enhancement and our world is flush with it, far more so than a generation or two ago I imagine. Top selling energy drinks have 160 and 240ml of caffeine. That's way more than a cup of coffee. Is nicotine just a stronger cognitive enhancer than caffeine?


Come on, be fair. Who's the last white person you met with six syllables in her name?


That's lower than any of the figures here. I'm not by the spreadsheet atm but I'll take a look in a bit. Guessing around 96 (which isn't that surprising if one-third of the sample is black).

Dan said...

This doesn't seem like it can be correct. I checked and even among the youngest cohorts that are past "college age" (e.g. 25-29) only 34% have a bachelors and another 10% have only an associates.

So still it is only a minority graduating from college. Does this mean that the average IQ of non-college-grads is something like 90? Because I feel certain that the average IQ of college graduates is significantly higher than the average. Is national average IQ already now down to, say 95?

Here is my view, with the hope that things aren't already as bad as that: Wordsum is not a great IQ test in terms of comparing people of different ages. Vocabulary is crystalized knowledge and vocabulary can increase throughout one's life. Probably people who have been around longer have simply been exposed to more words.

Audacious Epigone said...


There is no difference by age for the 1950-1959 cohort (the 70s grads) and virtually none for the 1960-1969 (80s grads)--those aged 20-35 at the time blow the 00s and 2010s graduate cohorts out of the water. There is a tendency for wordsum to increase through the late 50s and then begin declining into old age.

Vocabulary has mostly gone untouched by the Flynn effect. The ACT/SAT vocab/analogy prep high schoolers go through now is more intensive than I imagine anyone went through fifty years ago, but I'm not sure. This method probably overstates the difference modestly, but not by that much. As for the 2010s, the n is only 49 so it's suggestive at best.

Stefan Molyneux tweeted the post, so I've spent some time on twitter addressing the current IQ question, and my guess is yes, it probably is about 95 for those under 30 years old. That cohort is less than 60% n-H white. Put NAM IQ at ~90 (for blacks and Hispanics combined) and we should expect an average of about 96 for those under 30. If ~40% have been in school for 4+ years (not necessarily ever graduating) and their average is 100, that means the average of non-graduates would be 93 or 94. That seems plausible to me.

Anonymous said...

Entering college in the 1960s or 70s and prior was an entirely different proposition than today.
Today, literally any idiot can enter a college and graduate with a 4 year degree, so the "sample," "college graduates," is not the same.

By the way, check out some old exams from the 1890s , early 1900s, that potential high school grads had to take. Most college grads today would miserably flunk them. You would be surprised what HS grads were expected to know.

The problem in comparing present day IQ test results with those of yesteryear it that the composition of any sample has dramatically changed. The average college grad in 2016 is an entirely different "sample" than that of, say, 1975 or so.

As an aside, I had the "misfortune" of meeting some college students majoring in "education" and other absolutely worthless majors. They are totally ignorant and incapable of reasoning through any sort of problem or issue. They will graduate from college and obtain a degree.
No need to give them an IQ test; it will be a waste of paper, ink and time.
Their degree is meaningless.

Anonymous said...

" To get into the state universities in Kansas requires a HS diploma and a GPA of, IIRC, 2.5. A GPA of 2.5, in an environment where a B+ is seen as failing, doesn't happen unless students don't even show up for class. Fill out the paperwork, get the funding, have a pulse, and you're in."

This is true, and it has been true for a long time, but I suspect something else has changed.

This was true of my school (also a Midwest state school) in the 1980's. But I had no sense that the cognitive dregs were getting into college. Perhaps unmotivated folks, but not people who genuinely couldn't hack it. In other words, there must have been a different filtering system in place back then (perhaps cost, perhaps motivation, perhaps high school grades actually meant something, perhaps even the need to go to college-you could get decent jobs without it? I don't know).

Furthermore, it was generally understood that the folks that didn't belong there basically dropped out after a year or so. Perhaps they got bad grades, or perhaps the lifestyle just revealed itself as not for them. The giant intro classes (300 in a lecture hall) for freshmen were just filters to get rid of the riff raff.

And, finally, the population at large was, in some sense, more 'white collar,' (or white) or proper, or well behaved, or something. Even with essentially open enrollment, collegiate behavior was still at a college level. This is what I was referring to, above. Even with open enrollment, you had the sense that you were at a college with college-capable people. The ones that dropped out did so due to drugs, money, motivation, pregnancy, and so on. Not that they were janitors-to-be in the wrong place. I'm not at universities any more, so I can't comment as to whether this has changed.

Incidently, even with that open enrollment, it was common (a common statement that I also heard from professors, so it wasn't entirely self-serving) that the best students were as good as any students anywhere (i.e. Harvard etc). But the average was much lower.

Back then, state colleges attracted a lot of talent-probably due to cost, fear of homesickness, and just loyalty to one's home state. Again, I don't know if that is still the case.


Audacious Epigone said...


Right. The takeaway from this post is that as the criteria for obtaining a degree have dropped through the floor, the value of that degree has commensurately (or more) fallen.

Anon with the college experiment,

94.2, wow. One caveat--I restricted respondents to those born in the US to avoid language confounds. Did your group include any foreign students for whom English isn't a first language? If so, that will underestimate their IQ.

Anonymous said...

Wonder what the data looks like disaggregated by race? My guess is that the was even greater for minorities with increasing pressure for "fair" admissions.

Anonymous said...

"At this point anyone who can pay for tuition can get in somewhere."

Hell, not even. Anyone willing to take out a huge non-dischargeable loan can get in somewhere.

Mil-Tech Bard said...


You are measuring returns incorrectly here. The demand for college degrees for a job is the only employment requirement that you can use to screen out low IQ NAM and not lose a suit in Federal courts.

Over education is all about finding a way to avoid legal liability underthe "disparate impact" doctrine

Legally, other than using a requirement for a college degree, any method of choosing -- including strict merit -- that results in fewer minority hires is considered racial discrimination by the courts under the "disparate impact," doctrine. Especially if it involves 'African Americans.'

The other practical exception is not hiring the long term unemployed. It is just a whole lot harder to prove "disparate impact" in federal court with the long term unemployed _right now_ because as a class they reflect lower working classes.

IOW, if there are enough white victims of long term unemployment with the African Americans & Latinos, those conducting that kind of job screening are safe...until Dem judges or a Dem plus RINO majority in the House get gulled into making "long term unemployed" a protected hiring class.

The key point is that once a plaintiff member of a protected class proves disparate impact against his/her class, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant, here an employer, to prove that the challenged policy is reasonable on grounds other than unlawful discrimination against the protected class.

This is not easy to do, and costs horrendously in legal fees even if the defendant wins.

Plus we have all those leftie NGO's and charitable foundations which will fund class action litigation with little or no merit, so employers really are in deep trouble here.

It gets worse, this is the whole object of Title IX litigation against schools about purported discrimination against females. It doesn't matter that females want to participate in competitive athletics at only 10% the rate of males. Giving male sports programs more funding than female programs makes schools automatically in the wrong unless they get lucky, and they have to eat all their defense attorney fees even if they win.

Plus they can be sued over and over again for each different sport, and the plaintiffs' bar only has to win once. This is why school competitive athletic programs are being cut entirely.

Males who want to play competitive academic athletics are being discriminated against because females are far less interested in participating in those.

The disparate impact doctrine is wrecking the country in all sorts of ways.

Mil-Tech Bard said...


Disparate Impact rules laws and regulations are having a huge impact on general compliance with Fedral law over all in the wider economy.

Point blank, those who believe the disparate impact discrimination laws are illegal, game them for non-compliance.

"Catch me if you can" has become representative behavior of a class, specifically the productive -- AKA jobs creating -- small business class.

There are too many small businesses in red states -- the most economically productive -- that believe 'disparate impact' is a scam.

They are too small for any money to be made if they are sued and create anywhere from 40% to 66% of the new jobs depending on the wider economic environment.

Plus, there are not enough Feds to force people to do what they say in places where the majority of jurors agree with the business people about discrimination laws.

Defacto, racial discrimination as defined by the disparate impact doctrine is now destroying compliance with all racial discrimination/Diversity in hiring laws.

We are heading for a prohibition style lack of compliance situation to federal law and the courts that is highly destructive of both economic growth and racial harmony.

Steve Sailer said...

What are the scores for those who didn't graduate from college (i.e., were roughly 22) in each decade?

Feryl said...

You are measuring returns incorrectly here. The demand for college degrees for a job is the only employment requirement that you can use to screen out low IQ NAM and not lose a suit in Federal courts.

Over education is all about finding a way to avoid legal liability under the "disparate impact" doctrine

Correlation isn't causation, in the sense that cynical legal harassment and striving by all (or, most) go hand in hand.

Besides, nobody literally has to go to college. Right now, there are tons of Millennials who were told that they'd be losers unless they went to college....and yet...They've got mountains of debt piled up that will take decades to take care of if they manage to ever do it, while having a mediocre intellect or temperament isn't offset by the mere possession of a degree. Neither free college for all nor a mass debt cancellation (in effect, both are nearly identical in removing accountability) are the solution, as either (or worse, both) ideas do nothing to diminish striving which is at the heart of virtually all of our problems.

Silents and Boomers started the mania for over-education/dumbing down of standards (Strauss and Howe discovered that the Silent Gen was fetishizing "expertise" as early as the 60's). X-ers and Millennials should've known better than to suspend any sense of appraising the elite arms race for what it was.

Insidiously, the overdose of striving has actually made those under 50 MORE poor and thus, liberal, in the process. For the last 40 odd years, people have been asked to work harder and harder in return for increasingly crappy wages and benefits. Due to off-shoring, lawfare, and high immigration levels, it's become difficult to even get a job in the first place. A lot of X-ers and Millennials are very shit-libby (and thus, incapable of identifying the real problem and in turn the real solution) precisely because they've struggled to advance to the milestones of a stable life (affording a home, starting a family, having the means to plan for retirement, etc.)

So many try to get to the top....but most end up on the bottom. Instead of being selfish assholes concerned entirely about achieving high status, perhaps we need to expend more effort into shaming wannabe elites and pushing for trade/immigration reform. And part of that shame has to be towards doofuses who go to college for no reason. When people stop needless college attendance, employers will no longer be able to demand a degree for employment clearance. BTW, employers began demanding degrees at exactly the same time that people began reaching for higher status, so there's not much reason to be angry at employers for such things though we should be pissed at business lobbies that destroyed unions, slashed benefits, off-shored jobs, etc.

Audacious Epigone said...


The GSS only allows us to look at whites (including Hispanics who identify as white instead of black or other) and blacks going that far back (detailed racial breakdowns don't begin until 2000). The samples for blacks are small (under 100 for most decades) among college graduates. The trend is clear even without looking at blacks though (see here).

Mil-Tech Bard,

Yes, Griggs v Duke Power means that for almost five decades now a college degree has been an incredibly expensive, inefficient proxy for some mix of intelligence and conscientiousness and it's becoming less and less useful even as a sloppy proxy each year.



Ha, thanks.

Feryl said...

The number of Hispanics who identify as Protestants is exceedingly small, while many identify as Catholics, so perhaps focusing on white Protestants (or at least excluding Catholics) is a way to keep Latins away from whites in pre-2000 GSS research. Of course, there's the caveat that atheists and Catholics make up a not trivial number of real American whites.

The ETHNIC variable isn't really useful, since it doesn't count all countries and doesn't even take into account regions that well, either. For example, Africa is listed, but Central/South America isn't. Is "other Spanish" supposed to mean Latin American countries? Which doesn't even make sense since not all of those countries speak Spanish. Mexico, West Indies, and non-Spanish speaking West Indies are listed. What about Portuguese speaking Brazil?

I guess you could just count as white those who report being of Euro or American origin on the ETHNIC variable, but then again, that's a pain in the ass because the variable includes so many options.

It looks like they really dropped the ball with this variable.

Anonymous said...

Hello. This is Anon with some data from my university.

- "94.2, wow. One caveat--I restricted respondents to those born in the US to avoid language confounds. Did your group include any foreign students for whom English isn't a first language? If so, that will underestimate their IQ."

I don't think that is much of an issue in this sample. The university mostly attracts rural Whites, a mix of races from the suburbs, and inner city Blacks with a very recent immense increase in Hispanics. There might be 1-2 foreign students in the sample, but they would have a negligible influence on the results.

These are mostly 1st and 2nd year students, so that is going to drag down the numbers in comparison to your analyses with college graduates. Additionally, although the sample is from general education classes in the Psychology Department, Psychology majors will be over represented. Psychology, of course, attracts fewer high ability and high achieving students.

-I have a bit more data I just remembered so I may rerun the analyses with an additional 20 or so participants. I don't think it will change much, but I have started to wonder how to test this trend further.

- I think there was a question directed toward me about how things are or will be playing out.

This issue is important to me not only because it is something I deal with through work, but also because I have teenage children who I am trying to guide. This morning I was going through yesterday's mail and noticed a postcard with one of those silver, scratch with a coin, hidden messages printed on a postcard. After I reflexively scratched it I noticed it was addressed to my son from some sort of college outfit. So colleges are racing to the bottom in the gimmicks they are using.

Not effective in our household (but it is hard for us as well-see below), but think of a kid from a broken home who gets the hard sell from a college and his parents or parent don't know any better. It is predatory. So I feel for these young people, but.... they are also very frustrating to deal with on the day-to-day level. I probably have 50% attendance in my classes on any given day and of the ones that attend probably 50% never look up from their cell phones. Of course, after I haven't seen them in a number of weeks they come to me perplexed as to why they failed a given exam and ask if they can still get an "A".

By the way I have a 17 year old son who has an IQ about 115-120 and is somewhat interested in computers. Is there some training that is more in demand for someone with that level of ability that I could guide him towards?

One can imagine where this will end up, but many are trying to make sure they have a paycheck coming in and counting the years to retirement. At the level of the university- I think (for multiple reasons) most universities are well passed being able to being reformed. Things will only get worse. But what do you do with a whole demographic for which there are no jobs? No alternative has yet stuck.

Audacious Epigone said...


You're raising the questions we're going to find the hard answers to down the road, but that I have no answers for now.

The incentive structure for higher education is extremely perverse (or more charitably, is setup as though it is certain that spending time in college reliably increases earning power). Student loans are the most difficult types of loans to get discharged, so making a student loan is basically making a government-guaranteed loan. If, after a couple of years, interest on that loan is at 5% or 6%, for zero risk, that's easy money for lenders. The universities are getting the money from the lenders so they have no incentive to restrict student enrollment either (unless they're top-tier competing on restricted access). And the zeitgeist says "go to college or you're a loser", so lots of people do.

How is your hypothetical kid from the broken home, of middling ability, going to resist all that? Additionally, lots of kids from middle and upper middle class backgrounds are disguising--and their parents are disguising--their downward mobility by spending 6 and 8 and 10 years trying to allegedly find their callings.

Outstanding student loan debt in the US is now over $1 trillion, but a huge chunk of that is illusory value. Many of those loans aren't going to be paid back--the people holding them simply do not have the prospects or ability to ever pay them off. Lenders can go ahead and book them as assets, but they're not. Something will have to give.

Audacious Epigone said...


For HS grads without any college, by decade they would've been in their early/mid twenties:

60s -- 97.3
70s -- 94.5
80s -- 92.6
90s -- 92.0
00s -- 92.2
10s -- 89.3

As standards drop, the avg IQ at each level should drop as well since the bottom is moving up in educational prestige at each level, even if there is no change in the population average (ie for simplicity in the 60s, grads made up the top 10% of the population and HS the bottom 90%; in the 10s grads make up the top 35% and HS the bottom 65%).

It's worth pointing out that even though the standards have dropped, by this measure today's grads are still modestly more intelligent than HS grads of 50 years ago. It's not quite the case yet that today's BA is yesterday's diploma.

Audacious Epigone said...


Yeah, I've done that before to get at non-Hispanic whites, which is tedious but doable. The thrust isn't going to be much different though. If 10% of whites graduated from college fifty years ago and 40% do tomorrow, we're going to see a similar decrease in the average of the top 10% relative to the average of the top 40%.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

Feryl said --

>>Correlation isn't causation, in the sense that cynical legal harassment and striving by all (or, most) go hand in hand.

Look up J. Christian Anderson's reports on the DOJ's Civil Rights Division and the discipline complaints about the CR Division by federal judges.

The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division began significant civil prosecutions of civil rights cases during the Clinton administration. This continued during the Bush II administration and sky-rocketed during the Obama administration.

Federal judges began complaining during the Bush II administration about ethics violations by the Civil Rights Division.

Mil-Tech Bard said...


A lot of the reason for the demise of shop classes in high schools and the rise of 2-year "degreed" STEM degrees is due to the Federal "disparate impact doctrine" outlawing vocational aptitude testing on the grounds that they are discriminatory against African Americans.

As modern urban African-American culture leaves many unemployable in terms of job skills, a vocational aptitude test by a private employer that screened out people with low job skills is automatically discriminatory under federal civil rights laws for private and most government employment because of the statistically provable "disparate impact" on African-American job applicant new hires.

Thus two and four year higher education degrees thus became the only legal way that private employers could screen for job skills without running afoul Federal disparate impact doctrine litigation.

This was really important in fields that used a lot of math, hence the rise the education loans for a degree racket in STEM as well as the rest of the economy.

Mil-Tech Bard said...


The following has been my experience in modern business, YMMV.

I have not seen a small engineering/manufacturing firm that was really owned/operated by female/minority STEM educated management.

A large percentage of female/minority owned" small businesses I have dealt with that do local/state/federal government contracting usually have the female/minority part of the firm as "beards" for the real owners/operators who are generally white and usually are manager-engineers.

Or -- more often -- the female/minority part owners are middle men distributors from real private STEM firms that just don't want to deal with government paperwork.

The 500(+) person STEM companies or corporations, OTOH, are over run with bureaucratic kudzu usually hiding behind HR diversity hiring goals.

They can't do sh*t for less than a year, 10 million dollars, with 50 people, several major system design meeting and multiple graphic and sound intensive power point presentations.

When the corporate types really want things done fast, they get the design team of older guys, usually white, that hide out in a nasty office off a garage or plant floor with no/poor air conditioning away from higher corporate management -- it keeps away the predominantly female HR and/or diversity hire engineers -- and get things done.

Then the systems management and HR kudzu shows up, shits on it to fit the budget, and usually downgrades the functionality.

Mil-Tech Bard said...


Regards Trump, Disparate Impact and the H1B and H2B programs --

Really big firms STEM talent are either Women/NAM American citizens to meet HR/Diversity set hiring asides on for government contracts or "Indentured Visa" talent brought in for slave wages for the big IT firms.

We are currently graduating more American citizen STEM students than their are jobs for them, thanks to the "Indentured Visa" programs.

The middle sized niche STEM firms in the high 40's to less than 199 souls are where a lot of the white male STEM talent winds up.

Part of the reason Trump is so popular on the Right is due to a generation and a half of built up white male anger at the "Indentured Visa" STEM programs.

Even after Trump's election the IT firms and their pet Chamber of Commerce lobbyists have no idea how badly they have poisoned the well on any further immigration, legal or illegal.

Mil-Tech Bard said...


Regards the 'degreed' education scam and STEM employment, machinists -- unless they are working computer controlled manufacturing and have a 2-year associates degree -- are not considered STEM in most of the literature I have seen.

This also applies to Welders, who for some reason, are not considered STEM because they are all practical training/experience as opposed to academic degrees.

The cut off for most STEM worker federal/state definitions involves either a 2-year associates or a 4-year undergraduate degree in either some form of engineering, higher math (think physics) or the computer sciences.

Cutting edge smaller STEM firms are now using retainers for high skilled temps/independent contractors they use for a swift projects.

This is a dodge around the "50 souls plus" mandatory HR diversity kudzu requirements for private civil engineering firms dealing projects with the Federal/State/Local government.

Effectively this lets these smaller firms hire "known good" workers -- usually late 30 to early 50-year old white male -- for projects without government oversight of their hiring practices.

This is important as the "know good" workers would trip off civil rights litigation, despite having a "minority beard" in the ownership papers.

Returning to welders/machinists...until the fracking revolution sheet metal workers and non-CNC machinists, who all live by geometry, trigonometry and algebra are who are not considered STEM were being screwed by the corporations as well as the politicians

Since the Fracking Revolution, both been doing very well in the energy sector.

North Texas machine shops servicing both private and government contracts could double their business load with the gov't sector if they could find the skilled machinists, welders and sheet metal guys to do the work. Their normal work force is made up of older married guys with kids and mortgages that are unwilling to work crazy long hours in the bad conditions of the Texas oil fields.

The issue for the wider economy is the lack of schools, awareness of opportunity and drive by 20-somethings to move into those "Near STEM" fields.

Shop classes -- the natural route for those interests in the education system -- have been dead in high schools for 25-to-30 years.

Also, there are lots of loans and state/Federal grants for 2-year and 4-year schools.

There are lots of school councilors pushing these near useless education and ethnic studies degrees.

There are no school counseling, loans or grants for places in the economy where you create blue collar self-employed or extremely independent contractors like machinists, sheet metal guys and welders.

Feryl said...

"A lot of the reason for the demise of shop classes in high schools and the rise of 2-year "degreed" STEM degrees is due to the Federal "disparate impact doctrine" outlawing vocational aptitude testing on the grounds that they are discriminatory against African Americans."

How has the rest of the West fared? The English speaking countries (Anglo disease) have thrown more and more eggs in the basket of FIRE while they hemorrhaged manufacturing jobs and looked down on such work as 3-D. Dirty, difficult, and dangerous.

The non-English speaking Western countries haven't necessarily done that much better, but they don't seem to be quite as nuts as we are. As AE warns, much of our superficial stability/security is a mirage. JH Kunstler has a lot of good metaphors to describe the elaborate series of ruses we've been pulling for 40 years to prolong the illusory nature of the modern Anglo "economy". I call it a "post-modern" economy, in the sense of the goofy academic horsecrap that started to appear in the later 80's. Kunstler often talks about the rise of rhetoric/ideology premised on degrading the notion that objective notions of truth and quality exist.

As we've now managed to inflict more and more damage on those under, oh, 60, many people no longer can stomach being told that some kind of recovery is happening. BTW, under Clinton, many econo. stats were corrupted to hide how bad some things were getting even back then. NYC and London can boast of being towering giants in the modern West, but what they have is what they've stolen from middle class people born after 1954. And more of us are starting to feel like we need to take it back.

Overall, we're suffering from decadence and too much striving. As was pointed at certain points above, blacks who would stand to benefit from practical skill training don't get it. We've developed a phobia about 3-D work.

Feryl said...


Reforming AA and other such rackets would a great way to:

- Goose the economy
- Free a lot of well-qualified white guys to be put to good use
- Heavily cut down on government excess (no more gubmint agencies full of leeches whose careers are based on shakedowns)

Killing the EEOC altogether would cost him nary a white vote in the regions in which he's already popular. Jared Taylor says that pro-diversity hiring mandates are one of the most consistently frustrating things to whites.

I find it odd, that in the Trump era, workplace diversity measures have actually taken less heat from conservative leaders/ideologues than they did in the 80's and 90's. Irony being that in most other respects Trump is giving the CoC nightmares.

Mil-Tech Bard said...


Simply provising that use of the armed forces vocational battery test to American businesses as an "approved exception" job skill screening tool to "Disparate impact" litigation would kill the college education inflation and the student debt scam.


Audacious Epigone said...

Mil-Tech Bard,

So what's the long-term best case scenario? A collapse of the collegiate scam and a corresponding collapse in credentialism?


Trump has stated on multiple occasions that he supports affirmative action. I'm not sure why so I assume he must genuinely believe in it.

Audacious Epigone said...

Mil-Tech Bard,

Hell, just allowing the Wonderlic test would obliterate the collegiate racket--find out in 12 minutes what college degrees can't even tell you after four years.

Feryl said...

"Trump has stated on multiple occasions that he supports affirmative action. I'm not sure why so I assume he must genuinely believe in it."

Le Pen had to backpedal from her dad's image as an anti-Jew loon to get by. She's focusing on the most common sense populist issues while avoiding taking a stance on certain things that regardless of their social/moral merit, don't have much utility any way

Whereas Trump is being a squish (DACA) or an outright cuck (AA) for presumably either sentimental reasons or because he's been sold a bill of goods about appealing to teh muhnorities. .

Cracking down on these things would go over well with the vast majority of Trump nation, reassuring them of progress, while demos unfavorable to Trump (immigrants, hardcore ID pol. Leftists, and AA recipients) might be further spooked but since when are they going to be on our side anyway?

I tend to lean in the direction of Trump being of his gut, pure of motive, as opposed to being cynical. His statements about Mexican rapists, far from being evidence of racism or ethnic awareness, were more motivated by a genuine sense of outrage that Mexico's worst were being sent our way.

Rather than being an ethnic nationalist, Trump is more of a citizenist, in the sense of believing that anyone who respects America and has something to offer should be protected. Trump, like most early Boomers, really wishes to take blacks off the HR scrap heap. Wants to make amends for the pre-civil rights era. As such, he'll promote certain policies that have long been the butt of jokes among many whites. I must say though, that per the GSS, Boomers actually tend to be more against AA than older and younger generations. That's in keeping with the libertarian bent shown by Boomers. It just sucks he's the exception to the rule, especially when guys like Sessions and Steve King who've shown greater HBD awareness, but still can't defeat all the diversity happy talk and goodies.

At least, so far, we haven't seen Kemp level delusion about "free-enterprise" zones in the ghetto, the legacy of which was later revived by Paul Ryan and his dream of bringing the Chicago School to Milwaukee blacks. Trump had the sense to focus on cleaning up crime and highlighting the Dems inept caretaking of cities.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

>>So what's the long-term best case scenario?

In right to work states you hire the ill equipped worker, give them a work related test and then fire them for lying on their job application when they fail.

This works for small businesses where statistical cases are impossible to prove. Especially since the number of people lying on their job application is such that the litigation in this area is impossible.

Tripply so if drug testing is involved.

This drives you to smaller more automated businesses of 49 or fewer people.

Bigger businesses are just hosed.

Anonymous said...

Try IBEW electrical trade. Smarter electricians get the work.