I do not always agree with PG's essays, but this one is spot on. Identifying BS is the major task we all face, and having children is a big help - this has been supremely true in my own life. Granted, this does not solve specific problems, but it gives a sense of direction. Without it we are cannot see the forest for the trees.

If someone comes up with a better system, it will be adopted. It is very hard to determine who has the capacity to be a Professor. The current system works fine most of the time. It is true that crackpots get through on occasion, but the vast majority of professorial appointments are reasonable.

"If someone comes up with a better system, it will be adopted."

Academia moves very, very slowly. Stuff remains unchanged for centuries, just because that's the way it's always been done.

For instance, the lecture model was adopted when books were hand-written and very expensive -- basically the lecturer (in some institutions, actually called "reader") would read the text very slowly and distinctly, while the students would copy it down verbatim. At the end of the term the students would have their own copy of the text.

We've had printing presses for quite some time now, but the lecture lives on.

Law and religion are similar. Note that those institutions also still retain many medieval trappings, both intellectual and physical (robes, funny hats, etc.)

Thanks for enlightenment. I used to wonder about the title "Reader" in commonwealth countries. Now your elucidation makes sense.

i LIKE my funny hat, thank you very much.

> If someone comes up with a better system, it will be adopted.

No. New, better systems are automatically adopted only if they help the establishment. Anything that question the privileges of those currently in power will meet heavy resistance (or inertia).

Furthermore, as the article itself notes, grade inflation and acceptance of cheating make the value of even the science degrees somewhat dubious. The general atmosphere of political correctness (often motivated by extreme leftist ideology) make this problem very acute.

No. Great ideas are truly great. However: morons without imagination, who blabber on repeating stuff they heard somewhere - yes, they suck.

The last tsar of Russia and his lot also practiced denial. The ensuing tragedy not only wiped them out, but also caused misery to countless people for almost a 100 years. Lets hope history won't repeat itself.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, you can apply that argument to just about anything.

I wonder if this will get as much media attention as the original assertion ...

When you solve that one, you can try to figure out why people still listen to Chopin's music, or read Shakespeare.

Dawkins isn't what one might call a deep thinker ...

He's pretty consistent about arguing when he disagrees, rather than just throwing around insults. Hint, hint.

Could you please explain?

A good article, but the trend aiming at redefining admissions criteria to steer away from academic merit appears to have started somewhat earlier than mid 20th century. Already in the second decade of the 20th century measures were being put in place to reduce the rising proportion of Jews at top colleges. Of course not everyone wanted to look antisemitic, so various diversifying tactics were invented to somehow deal with the the fact that Jews seemed to be smarter.