Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
We have a batch of photos, sans captions, from reader Roger Lambert, who does give an introduction (indented below). His words are indented:
We just had a bit of a heat wave this past week in Vermont, so I have some photos for your consideration of Vermont’s rivers and lakes to cool folks off.
Just to see how much ChatGPT knows about me, I gave it this task:
Draw a caricature of Jerry Coyne based on everything you know about him (including his love of ducks).
I also included a picture of myself. I have to say that it did a good job, though there are too many ducks (next time I’ll add cats). Grok is not nearly as good as Chat GPT for drawing, but I was still surprised at the amount of information about me that the bot can trawl from the Internet.
Welcome to another damn week: it’s Monday, June 15, 2025—the Ides of June and also National Megalodon Day, celebrating the largest shark that ever lived. We can only estimate their sixe, but here’s s0me info from Wikipedia:
While regarded as one of the largest and most powerful predators to have ever lived, megalodon is only known from fragmentary remains, and its appearance and maximum size are uncertain. Scientists have argued whether its body form was more stocky or elongated than the modern lamniform sharks. Maximum body length estimates between 16.1 and 24.3 metres (53 and 80 ft) based on various analyses have been proposed, though the modal lengths for individuals of all ontogenetic stages from juveniles to adults are estimated at 10.5 meters (34 ft). Their teeth were thick and robust, built for grabbing prey and breaking bone, and their large jaws could exert a bite force of up to 108,500 to 182,200 newtons (24,390 to 40,960 lbf).
Here from the article is a diagram of “Lateral view of an Otodus megalodon restoration based on Cretalamna and modern lamnids”
EvolutionIncarnate, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons
And here’s a fossil Megalodon tooth compared to two teeth from Great White Sharks. Look at the size of that thing! It’s a foot long!
Brocken InagloryBlueRuler_36cm.png: User:Kalanderivative work: Parzi, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Below is a photo of what Wikipedia says is “The Magna Carta (originally known as the Charter of Liberties) of 1215, written in iron gall ink on parchment in medieval Latin, using standard abbreviations of the period, authenticated with the Great Seal of King John. The original wax seal was lost over the centuries. This document is held at the British Library and is identified as “British Library Cotton MS Augustus II.106“. It’s also ” one of four surviving exemplifications of the 1215 text”. I’ve seen it!
The reproduction is in the public domain.
Readers are welcome to mark notable events, births, or deaths on this day by consulting the June 15 Wikipedia page.
The United States and Iran reached an agreement on Sunday that paved the way for further talks to ultimately end a monthslong war that has killed thousands of people, roiled the Middle East and rattled the global economy.
The announcement led to relief in Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East. It also sent oil prices tumbling, in part because the deal is expected to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway for the world’s energy supplies.
But critical issues — including the fate of Iran’s nuclear program, the linchpin of the U.S.-Israeli attacks that started the war — have been pushed back to a later round of negotiations. And the economic shock waves of a war that has crippled supply chains and sent inflation soaring will keep rippling through the global economy for months.
The text of the agreement, which is scheduled to be signed by leaders from the two countries on Friday in Geneva, was not immediately released.
American and Iranian officials previously said that the deal would include a 60-day cease-fire to give the two sides more time to discuss Iran’s nuclear program — which neither side has shown much willingness to compromise on — and the lifting of U.S. sanctions on Tehran.
My comments: if the Strait of Hormuz is reopened, then we’ve achieved only the situation that pertained before the war, i.e., no accomplishments. If Israel must stop attacking Hezbollah, then nothing has been achieved there, either, and terrorism persists. Iran will not agree to give up its aim of having nukes or, if it does, it will be lying, as always. And the Iranian people will still be oppressed by a hard-line theocratic government. In other words, the U.S. and Israel (and the world) are no better off than before the war started. This is just my guess of how things will play out, of course. But others have predicted the same outcome (see below).
*Japan tied the Netherlands 2-2 at the World Cup yesterday. Here are the highlights, with Japan tying it up at minute 88. Excellent goals.
President Trump rebuked Israel on Sunday after Israel struck Beirut in response to Hezbollah drone attacks, calling it a disproportionate response that threatened to scuttle a deal with Iran.
“This morning’s attack on Beirut should not have happened, particularly on a special day when we are so close to a Peace Deal with Iran,” Trump said in a post on social media. “Israel has the right to defend itself against threats, but the attack it was responding to was very small and meaningless, nobody was hurt, injured, or killed, and should not disrupt this important process.”
The Israeli military attacked what it said was a Hezbollah command center in the suburbs of Beirut after Hezbollah fired drones at Israeli territory. No injuries were reported as a result of the drone attacks. Three people were killed and 15 others were injured in the Beirut strike, according to Lebanese state media.
Iran threatened to walk out of talks with the U.S. and retaliate militarily after the Israeli strike, imperiling a deal that Trump had said he was close to signing with Tehran.
Iran’s parliamentary speaker, Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, responded by threatening to pull out of the negotiations. The strike “once again showed that America either has no will to fulfill its obligations or the ability to do so,” he said. “If you do not have the will and ability to fulfill your commitments, it is not possible to talk about continuing the path.”
The conflict between Israel and Hezbollah militants, backed by Iran, has become a persistent hurdle to ending the Iran war. Similar Israeli strikes have led to tense calls between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in recent weeks.
Israeli strikes on the militants in Beirut earlier this month led Iran to fire missiles at Israel for the first time since a ceasefire was struck in April. Trump had announced a new ceasefire in Lebanon last week.
“Israel won’t tolerate attacks on its territory,” Netanyahu said on Sunday. Israel has said it would respond to any Hezbollah attacks on its territory with strikes on Beirut.
A senior Iranian commander said Tehran would retaliate for the Israeli attack. The strike “will not be left unanswered,” said Mohammad Jafar Asadi, deputy head of Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, which oversees all military forces in the country. The Israeli military said on Sunday that it was preparing for strikes aimed at Israel.
No, Israel is not allowed to retaliate after Hezbollah fired drones at the country. This is what I mean when I say that “Israel is not allowed to win the war.” And here it’s not allowed to retaliate, because that might scupper the bad cease-fire that’s in the offing. In my view, the peace deal should not be connected to what Israel and Lebanon are doing. Iran is not Lebanon, though it clearly thinks that Lebanon is part of Iran. And it is, for it’s a terror proxy. Any deal that ties Lebanon in is an explicit recognition that Hezbollah and its terrorism should be allowed to continue.
It’s Sunday, June 14, and exactly one year and a day ago, more than 200 Israeli fighter jets tore through Iranian skies, striking over 100 military and nuclear sites and eliminating more than 20 of the regime’s most senior commanders in the first hour. What followed was twelve days of relentless, largely lopsided war, with Israeli air power systematically dismantling the Iranian nuclear apparatus. Yet all eyes stayed fixed on a single target: the deeply buried Fordow enrichment facility, beyond the reach of any Israeli bomb. Then came the Hollywood finish—seven American B-2 stealth bombers, “Flight of the Valkyries” all but playing in the background, dropped fourteen 30,000-pound GBU-57 bunker-busters from 50,000 feet, collapsing the underground fortress and ending the war in a single dramatic blow. Benjamin Netanyahu declared it a “historic victory, which will stand for generations.”
. . . . Now, on the first anniversary of that first campaign, and as we confront a deal that threatens to undo much of what was achieved, we must ask: are we in a better place than we were on June 13, 2025?
On the nuclear front, the answer is a definitive yes. Before the June 2025 strikes, Iran could produce enough weapons-grade uranium for 11 nuclear weapons within a month—and enough for another 11 over the following four. Following the operation, CIA Director John Ratcliffe said the strikes had set Iran back “by years,” while Israeli estimates placed the timeline at two to three. While Operation Roaring Lion focused largely on regime and missile targets, it is estimated to have delayed the nuclear program by a further few months. While the complete annihilation or surrender of the nuclear program would have been the best outcome, without the operations, we would be counting month 11 of a nuclear regime.
. . On ballistic missiles, the picture is similar. Across the 2025–2026 coalition campaigns, Iran’s missile program suffered unprecedented tactical destruction. Before the conflict, intelligence projected that Iran’s arsenal would swell to 8,000 missiles within four years—rendering its nuclear program untouchable behind a shield of air-defense-overwhelming firepower. The June 2025 strikes destroyed more than 70 percent of deployed launchers and cut the stockpile to roughly 1,500.
Before turning to the negatives, it is worth noting that, unlike the tangible gains, almost none of these liabilities emerge from material facts on the ground. The damage the region absorbed was relatively minor beside what was inflicted on Iran. The only thing that could make the negatives as concrete as the gains is a bad deal.
The same holds for the Strait of Hormuz. As its nuclear leverage collapsed, Iran’s ability to threaten a fifth of the world’s oil became its trump card—but the campaign degraded the naval and air assets that gave the threat teeth. The United States could restore freedom of navigation to a significant degree simply by escorting shipping, as it briefly did under Project Freedom. What keeps the strait contested is therefore not Iranian capability but American choice, compounded by the possibility of an agreement that formalizes Tehran’s hold. Here too, the outcome turns on the deal: a good one constrains and enforces, neutralizing the threat; a bad one ratifies Iran’s de facto control, returning a weapon already proven to be devastating against U.S. operations.
. . . That brings us to the underlying question: What is in the deal?
That remains unclear—seemingly even to the agreement’s parties themselves.
What both sides actually agree on amounts to little: a 60-day ceasefire and a commitment to negotiate over the nuclear file. Why they believe 60 days is sufficient, after 67 days of diplomatic stalemate yielding zero progress is beyond me. But other than the timeframe, it is hard to find a single point of genuine alignment. Washington expects the Strait of Hormuz to reopen immediately and toll-free—Trump insisting that “the strait must be open with no fees or Iranian management”—while Tehran has entirely different plans. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi rejected the term “tolls” but defended charging “service fees” for passage. The framework for the 60 days is just as discordant. Against the U.S. demand for the complete removal of Iran’s nuclear material and a 20-year enrichment ban, Iran is countering with a mere five-year pause. In fact, Iranian state media is openly casting the agreement as a “tactical pause in the war rather than a final settlement”—and Tehran is maneuvering to unlock at least some of its frozen assets early in the MOU process, easing U.S. leverage and securing vital economic relief before the core nuclear negotiations even begin.
And Segal always has a pessimistic ending (I’ve skipped a lot more), but what he says rings true:
What we are witnessing may become Trump’s version of withdrawing from Afghanistan. Afraid of domestic backlash, fixated on the agreement and visibly allergic to reentering combat, the U.S. has made itself a lame duck, handing its adversaries free rein. I suspect that if Trump goes through with this deal, the result will be the same: any progress achieved at the cost of American blood and treasure will be reversed, American prestige in the region will be weakened, and the president’s image will never recover.
Of course Trump’s image is already eroded by the war, though I think that if he makes a really bad deal, it will be even more eroded, and I’m hoping he senses that.
The problem with Steven Spielberg’s Disclosure Day? It just isn’t very good. Now, it is a Spielberg movie, and there are things to like about it: the lighting, the special effects, the action set pieces. The technical elements, in other words. Because Spielberg has always been a great technical filmmaker.
That’s not to knock the action-movie elements. Those work fine. What doesn’t work is that this is one of those movies where Spielberg is indulging his intellectual pretensions. Or, rather, the intellectual pretensions he believes a man of his stature ought to have. And it could be, as some have theorized over the decades, that Spielberg is a certain sort of idiot savant: that he lives entirely in his own head, without much of what lies beyond his head ever making its way in.
Disclosure Day lends fresh support to this hypothesis. The story of a committed team of whistleblowers who finally reveal that the U.S. government has been hiding encounters with intelligent life beyond the stars, it’s being billed as a spiritual successor to Spielberg’s 1977 classic Close Encounters of the Third Kind. And it arrives in your local metroplex with exquisite timing: just as members of Congress are talking about alien bodies and secret UFO retrieval programs and the Trump administration is releasing gossipy documents and blurry videos. We can’t say definitively that any of this footage shows anything extraterrestrial, but some of it’s been interesting nonetheless.
One would think then that Disclosure Day could become a true phenomenon, an encapsulation of the spirit of the age. But while it will probably make a boatload of money, it’s a limp, bloodless, going-through-the-motions film. Its big, heady idea is that humans, to paraphrase some of the movie’s trudging dialogue, have forgotten that empathy is our superpower—so much so that the aliens are arriving to force us to rediscover it. That’s as deep as it ever gets.
. . . Otherwise, it’s a dud. Even in its best moments, it comes nowhere near the magic of E.T.’s departure from Earth or the fighter pilots’ homecoming at the climax of Close Encounters, those big, mesmerizing, Spielbergian spectacles. If you manage to forget these classic comparisons and turn off your brain to let its visuals wash over you, you’ll still be disappointed. It’s not even particularly fun to look at. And the message about empathy and faith, such as it is, is silly and pretentious. (If you want a popcorn movie that looks at both aliens and faith in a way that’s at least visually lively, you’re much better off with M. Night Shyamalan’s Signs. It’s also a good deal more tense than Disclosure Day. As are numerous X-Files episodes.)
I doubt that I’ll watch this movie. Though reviews are generally good, there is limited time and money to watch movies. I’m not a big sci-fi movie fan anyway, but I tell you—I recently watched the movie Project Hail Mary and enjoyed the hell out of it–except for the lame ending. Otherwise I recommend it highly, especially to see the alien they’ve concocted. Here are the Rotten Tomato ratings for that movie, and they are very high. See it! You’ll love the alien!
*Jew Haters Corner: The NY Post and the Cornell Daily Sun reports that a Cornell student turned down a job interview at a startup because it was founded by Jews and he “wasn’t interested in working for a Jew.”
Here’s an excerpt from the Cornell paper:
The University reported Austin Franco ’28 to the Office of Civil Rights for a bias incident in which he responded to a job offer with “Not interested in working for a jew. Thanks.” on Handshake, according to a June 8 X post from Gabe Einhorn, co-founder and CEO of the company which Franco was accepted to. The Sun spoke to Franco and Einhorn following the incident.
Franco initially applied to a growth/sales role at Einhorn’s real estate startup, VrfyID, on May 26 through Handshake, a digital hiring platform, according to Einhorn. He was accepted in the first round and Gabe’s brother Aiden, who co-founded VrfyID, asked to set up a time for a meeting on May 29. Franco responded the same day with times he was available. Gabe told The Sun that both him and Aiden then offered two dates for students to attend, neither of which Franco went to. When Aiden followed up on June 8 to ask Franco about his attendance, Franco responded with “Not interested in working for a jew. Thanks.”
. . . Gabe, who describes himself as a “proud Jew” who always wears a kippah, and Aiden were both “taken aback” when they initially read the message and did not know how to react, Gabe told The Sun.
Franco found out Gabe and Aiden were Jewish based on their “first and last name, LinkedIn, and physiognomy,” according to a statement Franco wrote to The Sun.
Physiognomy is an 18th and 19th century practice of studying facial features to determine character and temperament. The practice is now regarded as pseudoscience.
Gabe’s post was shared on X on June 8 and amassed over two million views in less than a week. In the post, he attached a screenshot of his exchange with Franco and described the hiring process, ending his caption with “Sad world.”
Gabe had previously posted about facing antisemitism while attempting to film street interview content and faced many comments denying that antisemitism existed, he told The Sun.
Gabe posted the screenshot with Franco’s name crossed out, hoping to “prove a point to people that antisemitism exists” without causing personal damage to Franco, he said.
“He’s just a student, he might not know any better — it could be people in his environment, or on social media he saw something about Jewish people and he is just following the wave,” Gabe said.
However, comments on the post revealed Franco’s crossed out last name through a photo editing software, leading to his identity being revealed to the public.
Figure from Cornell Sun with attribution at bottom:
Since this is all public, and Franco has admitted it in am embarrassing X response, I don’t mind giving his name:
I was stating why I was not interested after you had asked to interview 3 times. I found out you were Jewish after the fact. My experiences with Jews have not been pleasant, both in person and online. This is not to say I havent had positive experiences, but on the aggregate that…
The main point here is not to demonize this guy (he did that to himself, and others have outed him), but to say that this is true antisemitism, having nothing to do with settlers, Israel, or Netanyahu. I wonder whether he’s always just met the “wrong kind of Jew”. There are a lot of us out there, and I can’t believe that the guy’s experience with Jews have been nearly uniformly unpleasant.
Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili asks the Biggest Questiion, and Andrzej answers it well:
Hili: What is life?
Andrzej: A conscious piece of eternity.
In Polish:
Hili: Czym jest życie?
Ja: Świadomym fragmentem wieczności.
Masih shows a number of Iranian women who have been partly or fully blinded by the Iranian security, and for protesting. What kind of monster would deliberately aim for the eyes?
If your someone behind you simply for showing your hair or wanting freedom, what would you do?
These women were blinded under
Islamic States in Afghanistan and Iran, where all the laws are against the women.
Two from my feed. First a very brave dog and a wuss of a bear:
A bear broke into a house to steal food, but ended up getting completely humbled by a 3-pound Pomeranian. He was seriously out of touch with reality pic.twitter.com/ZRiNgvJaJY
The famous Russian “Berezka” dance, performed with tiny, almost invisible steps that create the illusion of floating across the stage. Truly amazing… 💃✨❤️ pic.twitter.com/TqtHdxbhXx
— Auschwitz Memorial (@AuschwitzMuseum) June 15, 2026
Two from Matthew, a rare “split lobster” for National Lobster Day. Click on arrow to go to video:
Blue lobsters are very rare: 1 in 2 million by some estimates.But SPLIT COLOR LOBSTERS are 1 in *50* million.This lobster is a chimera of two fertilized eggs that fused together, with two distinct genomes: male on one side, female on the other.(📷: Woods Hole Science Aquarium/NOAA Fisheries)
I mention this because she is distressed at the very low math performance of entering students in Berkeley (and other schools in the University of California [UC] system), but did some calculations to show, as Governor Gavin Newsom intended with his 2024 California Education Compact, that the chances of a student getting admitted to a University of California branch are higher the worse the student’s high school is! Newsom and some “progressive” educators are against using standardized tests like the SAT for students applying for college, because they believe standardized tests discriminate against minority students. Grade-point averages (GPAs) are one predictor of college and post-college success, but grade inflation is eliminating the inter-student variation that made GPAs useful, and data show that standardized tests add substantial predictive value to success (especially for highly selective schools like Berkeley), so it’s better that schools have both kinds of information for applicants. Nevertheless, in an attempt to achieve “equity,” UC schools have completely barred the use of standardized tests, and that was against the recommendations of both a UC faculty task force and members of the Board of Regents.
At my own University, standardized tests are optional, but, weirdly, are used only when they can help a student get admitted, which seems to defeat the purpose of using a standardized benchmark. Here’s what Grok says about the University of Chicago’s standardized testing policy for admissions:
UChicago has maintained a test-optional policy since implementing it in 2018 as part of its UChicago Empower Initiative (initially focused on expanding access for first-generation and low-income students). This policy applies to all applicants, including domestic, international, and transfer students.
No Harm Testing Policy.In addition to being test-optional, UChicago uses a distinctive “No Harm” policy:
Submitting SAT or ACT scores is entirely your choice.
If you submit scores, they are only considered if they would positively affect your chance of admission.
Scores that could negatively impact your application are not used in the review process.
You can self-report scores on your application (via Common App or Coalition); official scores are only needed if you’re admitted and enroll.
This approach gives applicants flexibility—strong scores can help, but weaker ones (or not submitting) won’t hurt you.
Lana maintains that the omission of test requirements, (and I’d add the use of “no harm testing policies”) hurts everyone: reducing the chances of really good students getting into even moderately good schools, while harming students from poorer schools by eliminating the pressure for them to study the “right” way: not memorizing but actually learning the material and learning to think, which you need to get good SAT scores. (It also eliminates the pressure for teachers to teach that way.) If you’re poorly qualified for a college you attend, the chances of you either dropping out or going into a “gut” major are higher.
The argument and the crucial graph is included in Lana’s new article in the Free Press, “Bring Back the SAT”. You can read it if you’re a subscriber by clicking below, but I’ll reproduce some of her arguments plus the graph:
Lana gives several extended anecdotes about great students, once destined for Berkeley or UC San Diego, not getting in and having to go to community colleges, as well as students who got high grades by memorizing but did poorly in schools because they didn’t really learn to think. Many of those students, due to the negative correlation, get into places like UC Berkeley and UC San Diego. I’ll mostly summarize the assertions about educational policy. (Quotes from Lana’s article are indented.)
What does an A grade in AP Calculus mean when it is paired with a score of 1 on the national exam? Exactly what a recent UC San Diego report revealed: In too many public schools, grades have become completely decoupled from learning.
None of this was Diego’s fault [his name is changed]. But now, he would face the reality of a world-class university. He would be required to retake calculus at Berkeley before moving on to the grueling upper-division requirements of mechanical engineering. With his immense drive and determination, common sense says he would catch up. Right?
“Getting into calculus in 11th grade is impressive,” I told him during the interview. “How and when did you realize you were good at math?”
“Math was always very difficult for me,” Diego replied. “But I worked hard and memorized all the formulas.”
This is the last thing a math professor wants to hear. Mathematics is not about rote memorization—it’s about conceptual understanding and logical reasoning, and Diego was never taught the difference. Like countless students at schools where teachers don’t understand mathematics themselves, he was instead taught what my colleague Hung-Hsi Wu calls anti-mathematics: a confusing, disconnected collection of unexplained procedures to be memorized for a test—and then immediately forgotten.
On the UC system’s abolition of SATs in 2020 and what it means for students like Diego:
To succeed now, Diego will need to unlearn these habits and rebuild his mathematical foundation from scratch, with much of what he has already learned not helping but standing in the way.
I desperately hope he manages to do so. But statistically, the chances are dangerously low. With the foundational deficiencies Diego demonstrated in his interview, the probability that he will survive his first Berkeley calculus course, even with a barely passing grade, is 50-50. He will spend his entire college career in a frantic, exhausting game of catch-up, and it is far more likely that he will be forced to change his major—leaving a hardworking young man’s confidence badly shaken, his engineering dreams derailed, and significant public resources wasted.
None of this would be as likely if the UC system still used a standardized test benchmark. The SAT was completely abolished for UC admissions by a Board of Regents decision in 2020, driven by concerns that standardized tests disadvantage minority and low-income students. This decision went against the unanimous, data-driven recommendation of the UC faculty task force—and against many of the Board of Regents’ own stated convictions. The SAT, imperfect as it is, measures knowledge of the absolute basics and the ability to reason clearly under a time constraint. An SAT score would have told us—and Diego himself—the truth about his preparation before it was too late.
Even more importantly, preparing for the test is itself a powerful intervention. If Diego knew that the SAT stood between him and a Berkeley engineering degree, his drive would have led him to use free, high-quality resources away from rote memorization and toward real mathematical reasoning. The preparation itself would have rewired his foundation. We failed Diego once by not providing him a decent math education. We should not fail students like him again by removing the incentive to build one themselves.
This is why my UC colleagues and I wrote an open letter to the Regents demanding a return to standardized testing. Within days, it garnered over 1,400 signatures, including those of 60 department chairs across the UC system. This unprecedented consensus is significant because STEM faculty aren’t political activists—they are the ones shaping California’s next generation of mathematicians and engineers.
That is indeed a powerful consensus!
According to Lana, the disconnect between grades and merit involves schools infusing courses with ideology:
Many of my colleagues teaching introductory gateway courses are not so lucky. They report a feeling of the bottom falling out of the classroom. “In my second-year engineering class, a student asked me to explain why 1/2 + 1/3 = 5/6,” one professor said. “The lecture had to stop while I explained fractions.”
The root cause of this bifurcation is California’s broken K-12 education. Teachers are trapped in systems that prioritize ideology over subject mastery, pressured by administrators to inflate grades, lower standards, and pass unprepared students along. The state has spent tens of billions of dollars on a high-speed rail line that has yielded zero benefit. It has spent far more, and done far worse, inflicting immense generational damage on California’s youth by failing to provide them a quality K-12 math education.
This is the fundamental reason why we cannot honestly satisfy the Newsom Compact’s goals. The onus for a decent math education has fallen entirely on parents. Those who can afford to move to a good school district or send their kids to after-school programs do so. Children of those who cannot are usually left trapped with subpar math instruction. Meanwhile, the schools that provide rigorous education become increasingly competitive. This is the engine behind the bifurcation we are seeing.
And here’s the critical and completely counterintuitive graph, the result of “progressive” thinking. Lana introduces it this way (bolding is mine)
An analysis of official California Department of Education data reveals that this is a systemic pattern. Over the last decade, the UC system has transitioned from a positive correlation between a high school’s math and English proficiency and its admissions success to a statistically significant negative correlation. Today, the more successful a public high school is at preparing its students, the lower its graduates’ chances of getting into top UC campuses like Berkeley and San Diego.
This is the kind of graph that only a mathematician could produce, as it summarizes a ton of data but to a layperson its point is not immediately grasp-able. (Thanks to Jay Tanzman, who put me onto the article and is a statistician, for explaining it to me.) It is a plot over time in which the Y-axis values represent correlations: the correlation in one year between the assessed quality of a high school itself (not of a student), and the probability of students from that school being accepted to two UC schools: Berkeley and San Diego. The points not only fall with time, but have gone below zero into negative territory, showing that the worse the school, the higher the chances of a its students getting into Berkeley and, especially, UC San Diego, where there’s a whopping -0.5 correlation between high school quality and probability of its students getting into UCSD. (If you’re statistically minded, you could say “how BAD a high school you went to is 25% of the reason you got admitted to UC San Diego.”)
This result is in fact what Newsom and other higher-ups had in mind, for high schools rated of lower quality also have a higher proportion of minority students. This negative correlation largely, says Lana, resulted from an ongoing attempt to achieve equity by upgrading the admission chances of students from poorer schools. I believe Lana’s point is not that this situation is the result of dropping SATs—for the correlation was already falling before 2020 when SATs were abolished—but that we now need the SATs to be able to assess how good students really are.
I’m told that nearly all high-school students in California get straight As now, so GPAs are a terrible predictor of success, even though I’m also told that “conventional wisdom” says that GPAs and standardized tests are roughly equally important in predicting success in college. That may be wrong, at least for California, but I’ll depend on diligent readers to look it up.
Whatever the case, it’s certainly true that if you go to a worse school, your chances of getting into the two best UC branches improve! Lana winds up for calling for the reinstatement of SATs, and I’m with her:
It is too late to reintroduce the SAT for the 2026 cycle, but we can still help thousands of students like Diego who will apply to the UC system in 2027. That is why a growing coalition of faculty members is rushing to force an emergency course correction. If a car full of your children is hurtling toward a cliff, it is not the time to create yet another subcommittee. You’ve got to slam on the brakes. The University of California must recognize this academic emergency for what it is and act to immediately restore objective standards to the admissions process.
Now if you’re a “progressive”, you’ll object to her characterizing SATs as “objective”, but that’s an argument for another day.
I wondered what Bill Maher thought about the sketchy Graham Platner and his run as a Democrat for the Senate seat from Maine. Well, see the video below. Maher realizes that Platner is a “broken person,” but we’re “always electing our reflection in the mirror.” And he thinks that Dems should still vote for Platner because they need the Senate and we should just get used to America being “a country full of a lot of “broken, horribly educated, phone-addicted sort of nutty people,” and Platner is simply one of those. Maher points out some of our representatives or candidates who are already plenty weird (e.g., Tom Kean Jr., who’s been missing for over 100 days, Maureen Galindo, a sex therapist who wants to put Zionists in concentration camps, and.Victor Marx, who does exorcisms over the phone).
Maher goes off further on Americans: “Everything people ‘know’ now is from social media and shitposting and whatever some other idiot send them or whatever the Chinese are feeding them on Tik Tok.” This leads to a new breed of voter “who is intensely political but somehow know[s] almost nothing about politics.” True, and also true for “encampers.”
Maher includes Trump as a primo example of brokenness, faulting him for not editing his stream of consciousness (the clips of the Prez are rich), though Maher misses a chance to mention Joyce’s Ulysses (the audience might not know what he meant, though).
This is a pretty good bit, but it’s also somewhat depressing because Maher, though appearing elitist here, does show us how nuts American politics has become.
The guests on Friday’s episode of Real Time were author David Sedaris, political scientist Ian Bremmer, and former National Security Council director Hagar Chemali. The last two appear in this segment.
I’ll put up some videos of the World Cup games or highlights that interest me. Here are 20 minutes of highlights between Brazil and Morocco, which was tied 1-1 at the end.
Vinicius Jr spared Brazil the embarrassment of defeat in an opening World Cup match for the first since 1934 as his spectacular solo goal earned a draw for the five-time winners against Morocco at the New York New Jersey Stadium.
Brazil fell behind in the 21st minute when Ismael Saibari lifted the ball over the onrushing Alisson Becker from outside the area following a lapse in communication between the Liverpool goalkeeper and his defenders, Gabriel and Marquinhos.
It was the first time the African champions had scored against South American opposition at the World Cup, having failed to do so against Peru in 1970 and Brazil in 1998.
Morocco continued to dominate and, by the 30th minute, had registered 12 shots – the most Brazil have faced in a World Cup match since their encounter with Mexico in 2018.
But as Mohamed Ouahbi’s side failed to capitalise on their advantage, Brazil drew level 13 minutes before the break through Vinicius.
Making his 50th appearance for the Selecao, he collected a ball from Bruno Guimaraes inside the area, cut inside, and unleashed a fierce strike past Yassine Bounou.
Former West Ham midfielder Lucas Paqueta almost put Brazil ahead in first-half stoppage time, but his acrobatic effort was tipped behind for a corner.
With several members of Brazil’s triumphant 2002 squad watching on in New Jersey – including Ronaldo, Kaka and Roberto Carlos – Carlo Ancelotti’s side began to move through the gears after the break.
And although chances were at a premium for both sides, Raphinha came closest to finding an elusive second when he narrowly failed to connect with Guimaraes’ low-driven cross across the face of goal.
The draw means Morocco’s wait to win their opening game at a World Cup goes on, while Brazil’s remarkable 92‑year unbeaten first-match record remains intact.
Again we have the last batch of wildlife photos on hand. Send yours in, please!
Today’s group of photos come from reader Ephraim Heller; it’s the second part of a two-part series (part 1 is here). Ephraim’s text is indented, and you can enlarge his photos by clicking on them.
Little St. Simons Island is an 11,000-acre barrier island on the coast of Georgia. Much of it is salt marsh, with a few islands in freshwater ponds for wading bird rookeries. I was lucky to spend a week there in April during the nesting season. My last post focused on the wading birds; this one focuses on other species.
A well camouflaged American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) lurking in the rookery pond:
American oystercatchers (Haematopus palliatus) are obligate specialists on intertidal invertebrates that feed in two ways: finding a mussel or oyster with its shell slightly ajar, the bird inserts the bill and severs the adductor muscle before the shell can close; alternatively, it hammers the shell directly to fracture it.
I took these photos on the shore where the oystercatchers were nesting. The sustained 40 mph winds whipped the beach into an abrasive sandstorm, which bothered me much more than it bothered the birds:
Royal terns (Thalasseus maximus) are among the larger terns on the Atlantic coast:
Boat-tailed grackles (Quiscalus major) have a mating system I have not previously encountered: females aggregate in colonial nesting groups while dominant males compete for access to the entire group. Although the dominant male at a colony performs the majority of observed copulations, genetic analysis shows he sires fewer than 40% of nestlings. Females regularly copulate with other males outside the colony and return to lay eggs that are not the dominant male’s offspring.
The long toes of the common gallinule (Gallinula galeata) allow it to walk atop floating vegetation.
Red-bellied woodpeckers (Melanerpes carolinus) drum on resonant surfaces to broadcast their territories and for mate attraction. The tree cavities they excavate and abandon become nests for other species, such as owls, bluebirds, and flying squirrels. They often cache food in bark crevices.
The common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis). Garter snakes are viviparous, giving birth to live young rather than laying eggs, with typical litters of 15–40 babies.