At Matteland, the one you've been waiting for is here.

The big sale is now even bigger, with up to 70% off in the final reductions. It's your chance to say big across women's men's kids and home. Shopping store now or online at mateland.co.uk. Season C's Apply Folks, my new book, Not Sick of Winning, a history of President Trump's first Saturdays, is available now. Just head over to NotSickOfWinning.com to buy it on Amazon. I mean, you just get to get inside. I mean, you just get to get inside. I mean, you just get to get inside. I mean, you just get to get inside. Good afternoon, Michael Malice here. Let that be your welcome for the next hour. We have with us a special guest. Are you making your podcast like big shot podcast debut here? Outing yourself? No, I actually made one. I'm Charlie Kirk a few weeks ago. Okay. We got Jay Lasker here. He writes under the name, Cremue.xyz C R E M I E UX will have the links in the show description. You write about all sorts of statistics that people aren't supposed

to know about and supposed to look at. This is something that I think drives the progressive mindset crazy. And we're going to get into that in a bit. But the main issue I want to have you on the show to discuss besides your incest need to rock back and forth for some reason is you were were the one who got Zan Mamdani's outed by the New York Times as having lied about being African-American on his college application to Colombia, which he still didn't get in, which is somehow, I can't even wrap my head around that, we'll discuss that in a second. And I wanted to talk about this step by step because I think this is a very big deal because 20, 25 years ago, the idea that some rando with a newsletter could force the high in mighty New York Times to cover something would have been not just impossible but an absurdity. And now we're at the point where their attempts to gay keep facts and truth have fallen. I think it's not just falling. I think it's collapsing. And I think this is a good example of that, especially because, and you were talking a lot a little bit before we recorded, you weren't the story, although there were hit pieces, of course, we're going to get in five second, but they kept the story to the actual story. And think they had to walk it back and apologize a bit, but this is I think a big C change from 2024. So welcome to the show and let's just start this step by step because I think this is also blueprint for how to get corporate media entities to heal and to get them to discuss things that they desperately otherwise would not want to do. So before we get to that, can you tell us the story of how you got this information and how you were the person to discuss this? Yeah, so the story actually starts a few months ago. There was another hack of another university. My colleague, I should say, the hacker who obtained the data, hacked their website, NYU's website, and put up the racial differences in test scores, GPAs, SAT, ACT, all that stuff on there, and made it so that the world was aware, NYU is clearly still engaging in affirmative action, even though it was banned in 2023 in the SFV the horror case. Well, hold on. The affirmative, but people say affirmative action. They say, okay, everything, all things being equal, you should err on the side of letting in people who are disadvantaged minorities. Not Asians or Indians because they would attempt, they don't exist, but people who are black and let's you know. Now data showed, this isn't like, all right, it's on the margins. The test scores were significantly different, correct? Can you talk about about that? There's an incredibly large gap. It was nearly a standard deviation in the population level, and that's after selection into schools. So that's effectively pretty extreme discrimination is what you need to get to that point. There's no other way than doing something really, really inviolation to the law to get to where they actually got, which is crazy. Wait, can we talk about this? Because this is very interesting to me. So it is very rare when an entity as malevolent as the university system acknowledges in any way wrongdoing or we messed up, especially if it's in the favor of some kind of progressive ideology. So they admit publicly that this was a mistake or do they do it quietly? How did you know that they did this?

Yeah, so it's interesting.

A lot of schools decided to get rid of these tests

in the early pandemic.

They thought it was easier to do admissions that way

when people weren't able to go to the testing centers.

It was hard to get around.

A lot of cities were basically shut down.

And if you wanted to get in some place,

you would have to go out of your way to get your tests, everything. So what they discovered though, at a lot of universities, not all of them, there are think about eight major ones that still haven't gone back on test optional, but most of them have gone back. What they discovered is that these tests are really good for predicting student performance. MIT was one of the first major schools to actually come out and say that. They, and I quote, said, our ability to accurately predict student academic success at MIT is significantly improved by considering standardized testing, especially in mathematics alongside other factors. They said, some standardized exams besides the SAT slash ACT can help us evaluate readiness, but access to these other exams is generally more socio-economically restricted relative to the SAT slash ACT. And as a result of not having... Oh, wait, so they... So they masked it in Prague speak. They said, no, we're sticking with the SAT and SAT because not sticking with it is racist. Yeah. Yeah, or classist. They were saying that these socioeconomically disadvantaged kids who want to show out and can displace some of the legacy admits weren't able to show their skills without those tests being available. But with those tests, they were able to prove, oh, I'm a smart kid, I can go do that. I can go I can succeed at MIT.

Very smart of them. That's clever that they they they spoke the language. Yeah, and there have been several studies done on this now. Raj Chetty out of Harvard has done an incredible amount of work on this stuff and it's been very very helpful and good. He's gotten this data that allows him to look at people beyond school. It'll let like show predict their earnings and stuff in the the first couple of years of work. He gets to look at people without range restriction,

because he can see people who do and do not get admitted and their outcomes down the line. And he's just shown these tests they work really well. They are very crucial to admitting people. And frankly, they are our only unbiased way of vetting students. Everything else contains bias.

Whereas with these tests, we can go and we can look. We can go, hey, is this biased against black, Hispanics, Asians, women, men, trans people, whatever? And we can test that. Whereas with other things like essays, if you test for bias, you're gonna find a lot of it, but they very rarely ever test for bias. Even GPAs are biased. Even class ranks are, well, it's actually funny.

Class ranks used to be one of the ways that you, a school, would go and vet a GPA. If you have a 4.0 today, not clear what that means. Back in the 80s, that would have been great grades. But nowadays, it seems everyone gets a 4.0. The grades have been inflated and inflated and they keep going up and up.

And it's a bad problem.

And alongside grades getting inflated, schools have begun to remove class ranks entirely, so you can't see the relative standing of an individual within their grades often. So if somebody has a 4.0, but they're at the median for their grade, that's not super impressive. That means the school is easy. And this has kind of been intentional.

So like higher ranking, more expensive high schools

are more likely to omit the information needed for schools to actually vet that stuff, which is why they instead use SAT scores, ACT scores, all these standardized test scores that allow them to get a sort of absolute scale that's comparable between schools that gives us indications of where they really stand and where they would stand in a body of actual admitts to the university. Isn't the argument that these tests are self-profilling prophecies? So if I do poorly on this test, I'm going to be less ambitious later in life because the test told me I'm not as capable as someone who did better. Like they do have very good mental gymnastics to kind of maintain their preconceptions. As we all do, I think. And these ideas have been around for a very long time. They've been around and been tested for a very long time. There used to be something similar to that. The self-fulfilling prophecy in the classroom, the Pigmalion effect, which was, did not hold up at all. It actually didn't hold up in its initial study. When it was first introduced by I think Rosenthal, he, I think the book called Pigmalion in the classroom, the statistics in it were outrageous. There's a famous review of this book that ends with the quote, when the clock strikes 13, you need to throw out the clock. Just about how outrageous the stats are, they're impossible. And yet, it inspired a generation of teachers, of education leaders to actually go out and say, oh, if we don't believe in our students, then they will do worse and whatnot.

And it's just, no, it doesn't actually work the way. People are very resilient. People are a lot more resilient than people have given them credit for in the educational establishment for a very long time. And it's also learning isn't like a say on's. You don't need someone to believe in you to have it work. That's right. Yeah. people just don't get down like that.

They aren't so weak and pathetic and malleable. And if they were, I think we'd live in a very, very different world. We'd live in a world where educators have supreme power and they should probably be paid like five times what they're actually paid right now, but we don't really live in that world. There was a book that came out, I think, in 1920. Let me let me find it right here. I only learned

...