Friday, February 13, 2026

The Economic Roots Of Student Loan Debt Start With Student Evaluations And Grade Inflation

 

                         Loyola U. physics student, 1967 - all out study to get A's

The depressing 2010   study 'Grading in American Colleges and Universities', by Stuart Rojstaczer and Christopher Healy, and published in the prestigious Teachers College Record was enough to make any educator shake his or her head in despondent resignation. Their finding: About three-fourths of all grades awarded at university level are “A”s or “B”s.


Of course, this makes those As and Bs next to useless precisely because of their very commonality. An 'A' used to stand for academic excellence, but it can't if so many are getting them! It also renders the achievements of truly exceptional students ho-hum. How in the world can they truly stand out if middling or loser students get the same grades they do? It's preposterous!

There is NO way in a real universe, there can be such a preponderance of high grades! Go back now to the 1960s, before the emergence of the surreptitious blackmail device known as "teacher evaluations". What did one find, say at Loyola University, or the University of South Florida?  Well, the As were at about 10 percent, with Bs at 20 percent, and 'gentleman's Cs' right at around 40 percent where they ought to be - if conforming to the standard Gaussian distribution or normal curve. Similarly, at the other end of the curve Ds would make up 20 percent and Fs 10 percent. But what do we find today? Nearly three-fourths A's the rest B's.

Essentially, college teachers today - tenured profs as well as adjuncts- have given away the grade store and sold out.  And it's irrespective of whether we're talking about State U. or Harvard. Intimidated by little wet behind -the -ears punks delivering solemn, negative judgments via student teacher evaluations.

The corrosive effects of college grade inflation were particularly highlighted in The Wall Street Journal's 2025 coverage, is driven by the transformation of students into "revenue-producing customers" and the adoption of student evaluations, which incentivize instructors to boost grades for better reviews. This trend reflects a market-driven approach to education, prioritizing student satisfaction and retention over rigorous academic standards.  But the mission can backfire badly with many questioning the worth of the 4-year degree in the end.  Bear with me.

Joseph Epstein (somewhat) humorously noted in a Dec. 18, WSJ piece (‘The Economic Roots of Grade Inflation’, p. A13) the extent to which student evaluations became economic judgments of professors and then gradually the “economic roots of grade inflation” itself.

 Epstein who noted how the initial incursion of student evaluation (the key element in the grade inflation disease) led to “many young professors ceasing to present themselves as authority figures but rather contemporaries of their students.”  Epstein observed it got so ludicrous that many began showing up in sneakers and jeans.  But the yucks ceased when it was realized that: “The real effect of student evaluations was to make many professors change how they issued grades.”  And “Soon A’s were flying about the place and became less a sign of intellectual superiority than a common grade.”

So, for the few curmudgeons who continued to demand standards as opposed to giving out A and B freebies, it was game over. For those profs who insisted that their students EARN their A’s instead of expecting them gratis - for just showing up -  well, it was 'hasta la vista'. The college administration had to inform the uncooperative fool that this was the end of the line. The student had now become a “customer” and y9ou had damned well treat him/her with absolute deference – meaning giving A’s when demanded. Or else get sent packing into the unemployment line.

The problem, as the President of Dartmouth College (Sian Leah Beilock) noted in a recent WSJ op-ed (‘Is a Four Year Degree Worth It?, Jan. 26, p. A7)  is that an end result of an A being the default is that equal outcomes get substituted for equal opportunity. Employers notice and savvy students do too. 

The tragic effect – when employers notice this misalignment – is that top jobs become difficult to come by. Then the 4-year college experience itself comes into question and whether it’s worth it. Minus quality, decent paying jobs the students who participated in the evaluations binge are now the ones to suffer.. With massive years of debt piling up and nothing but loan delinquencies in their sad futures.  

Student debt is now so bad that many could see their wages garnished in the coming months, i.e.

Student Loan Borrowers in Default Could See Wages Garnished in Early 2026

See Also:


And:
 

Trump's Power Expanded Under A Belief He Has "A Genius" IQ - Shooting That Trope Down Is No 'Biggie'

 

                                  "My IQ is at least 195 unlike the low IQ Dems!"

A recent Quora answer to a question caught my attention.  The question was:  'What is Donald Trump's actual IQ?'   with the person clearly skeptical of Dotard's 195 super genius claims.   The answer from the Quora expert was comprehensive and encompassed speech, vocabulary as well as assorted interview responses.  The expert's conclusion was 85, which is 'below average' but still functional in an 'explicit, hands on' way as the IQ and job potential distribution graph (from the same expert) shows;

Distribution of IQs and job potentials - Trump's (younger ) estimated IQ was not even Mensa level .

An earlier answer from a claimed Mensa member in Scotland was:

 My Mensa co-members and I estimate that it's likely in the 160-180 range.

Which elicited a rather different Quora response:

"If you believe that I rather doubt you’re in Mensa. At his peak he may have had an IQ in the 115–120 range. Today he’s deteriorated a lot so his effective IQ may be more like 90-100. He can’t even talk about the action of windmills with basic intelligence.

And I know he brags about attending Wharton (genius stuff you know) but what he fails to mention is that he attended the undergraduate program, not the prestigious graduate school. And in his day Wharton was not the selective school it is today. According to a former admissions officer they accepted some 40% of applicants as opposed to the 7% they accept today."

So which is it? The latter answer is especially important as Trump has constantly referenced his Wharton "achievements" as indicators of a "genius level" intellect. Which in turn has been used to spread the bunkum of a superlative public identity. Indeed, it has been used by his many MAGA cheerleaders to insist this proves he must be "error free" in whatever policies he advances. 

Then again, a Jimmy Kimmel revelation of his Wharton admission test scores tempers this severely, i.e.

Jimmy Kimmel Reveals Trump’s 1970 Wharton IQ Test — “Genius”? Think Again

The above Youtube video sheds further light, especially on how Trump has questioned others intelligence over decades, including that Obama's Harvard degree was "unearned", while simultaneously threatening legal action against anyone who'd dare to release Trump's own transcripts - whether earlier IQ scores or SATs - which can yield a comparison reference IQ.

The former are the IQ tests we all took in high school in the 1960s (mine in my sophomore year at Pace) and which Trump certainly took while at the New York Military Academy. Whether they admit it or not.

In the case of the Youtube video link above, Kimmel had claimed to have in his possession the results of Trump's Wharton admission exam results - that independent experts deemed genuine. (Which could be a proxy for IQ just as the SAT and GRE in earlier renditions served a proxies for IQ, and Mensa entrance, e.g.

Why So Many Past Aptitude Tests Are No Longer Accepted by Mensa

The results of the Wharton tests - which Kimmel read- were:

Verbal section: 92nd percentile (respectable)

Quantitative section: 87th percentile (respectable)

Composite score: 88th percentile.

Using the table of conversion of GRE scores to IQ at the time (from my Mensa Past Aptitude post), one finds:



Translated - the Wharton test results yield a comparative GRE (verbal + quantitative) score of 1090 (left column).  Which clocks in at just above the 88th percentile (right column).  The corresponding IQs to 15 and 16 standard deviations are 118.23 and 119.45, respectively. These results fall within the range of the 2nd Quora respondent's 115-120 range, and make the most sense.  

Is Trump then a "genius"? Nope, and he would not even make it into Mensa (98th percentile or at least 132 IQ).

For reference here, based on his extraordinary achievements in physics and posthumous brain analysis, Einstein's IQ is estimated to be around 160.  This is the dude who figured out relativity, and Trump- who can't even figure out how windmills work - is no Einstein.

Of course, if Trump wishes he can always just take the Mensa admissions test and prove he's at least a gifted intellect, if not an official genius (145 IQ). My bet is he will not go for it, especially given the level of his current cognitive decline.

See Also:

And:

And:

Free Mensa Practice Test | Instant Results | Test-Guide.com


Thursday, February 12, 2026

Solutions To Inertia of Energy (Relativity) Problems

 1)   A student proposes to compute the kinetic energy of a particle relativistically by using the expression  1/2  m v with the 'relativistic mass of the particle.   Would this be correct? Explain why or why not.


Solution:    The student's proposal  must be incorrect given the relativistic formulation for kinetic energy is:

K  =    mo  c2/ [(1 - u2/c2)½ ] -   mo c2


I.e. bearing a rest energy (o c2 ) which is non-zero.  On the other hand, for the non-relativistic case:

E ' K  =    1/2  ( m v2 )   -   1/2  ( m v  2 )

The rest energy (2nd) term is zero because the velocity is 0.  This also means the total energy is greater for the relativistic case, i.e.

K   +   mo c2    >    E ' K       1/2  m v2

2) Determine the energy required to accelerate a proton from 0.25c to 0.50c. 

Solution:  By the work -energy theorem:

W = K(f) - K(i)

K(i) = mc2/ [(1 - v 2/c2)½ ]

v1 = 0.25 c

K(f) = mc2/ [(1 - v 2/c2)½ ]

v 2 = 0.50c   (where: mo = 1.7  x 10 -27 kg )


Then:

K(f) - K(i) = mo c2/ [(1 - (0.50c)2/c2)½ ]    - mo c2/ [(1 - (0.25c)2/c2)½ ]

K(f) - K(i) = mo c2/[(1 - 0.25]½ - mo c2/[(1 - 0.0625]½

K(f) - K(i) =  1.15 mo c2 -    1. 03 mo c2     =  0.12 mo c2    


But the proton rest mass energy in MeV is:   mo  c2  =  938 MeV

So that:  0.12 mo c2      =  (0.12) 938 MeV  =   112 MeV

3) Protons emerge from a particle accelerator with a kinetic energy equal to 0.49 mc2.   What is the speed of these particles? Compare the result to that obtained from the non-relativistic relation between mass and energy.

Solution:  Because the kinetic energy is relativistic, the velocity must be as well, so we use the relativistic form for KE:

K  =    m  c2/ [(1 - u2/c2)½ ] -   m  c2

Whence:   

 0.49 m  c2   =   m  c2    /  [(1 - v 2/c2)½ ] -   m  c2


And:  1 .49  c2  =   m  c2/ [(1 - v 2/c2)½ ]


(1 - v 2/c2)½ =    m  c2/ 1 .49  c2         or:


(1  - v2/c2)   =     (1 / 1 .49) 2  

 And finally:   v     =  c Ö {1   -  (1 / 1 .49) 2 }   

v = 2.2 x  10 8 m/s

For non-relativistic equation, we get an erroneous   v' =   Ö {2K  /  m)  =   2.8 x  10 8 m/s

4)What is the speed of a particle whose kinetic energy is equal to its rest energy? What percentage error is made if the non-relativistic kinetic energy expression is used?

Solution:  Here we have in the KE equation:   K  =    m  c2


So that:    m  c2   =    m  c2/ [(1 - u2/c2)½ ] -   m  c2


Hence:    2 m  c2   =    m  c2/ (1 - u2/c2)½  

(1 - u2/c2)½    =    m  c/  2 m  c 2      =  1/2


u2/c2     =    ( 1   -  1/2 ) 2      =  (0.5) 2   


     u =  c Ö {1   -  (0.5)2 }=  c Ö (0.75) =  2.6 x  10 8 m/s


For the non-relativistic case, we have, by the work-energy theorem:


  K(f) - K(i)  = Wnet   =  1/2  m u' 2   -  0 

Then:   u' =   Ö (2 Wnet  / m) =  Ö {2K  /   m) 

u ' =   Ö {2 K  /   m)  =  Ö {2   c2  /  m }     =  4.3 x  10 8 m/s

Percentage error =   [(u' -  u)/ u ]  x 100%  = 63%


5) Show that the relativistic  kinetic energy equation: 

Ek   =   mo c2 / [(1 - v 2/c2)½]    -    mo c2

reduces approximately to 1/2  m v2   when  v << c.

Solution:

Apply binomial theorem to the relativistic factor, e.g.

(1 - v 2/c2-1/2    =    1  +    2/2 c2   +   (3 4/ 8c4  ) +    ....


Then, if we require v << c (non-relativistic case) all the terms containing v/c  or higher powers of this ratio can be neglected. Then we are left with (approximately) :

Ek   =  1/2  mo v 2