SkipOliva.com

Let's consider two cases. In the first case, a driver with an elevated blood-alcohol level accidentally strikes and kills a pedestrian who was jaywalking. The driver enters a guilty plea for manslaughter and receives a sentence of 30 days in jail, two years house arrest, 1,000 hours of community service, eight years probation, and permanent revocation of his driver's license. The driver also reaches a financial settlement with the victim's family.

In the second case, a driver is intentionally speeding well beyond the posted limit when he strikes another vehicle, killing two sisters inside of it. The driver here is acquitted of vehicular homicide and is only fined a few hundred dollars for minor traffic violations. Since the driver was using his employer's vehicle, the employer reaches a financial settlement with the victims' family.

Both cases receive media coverage. In the second case, coverage is muted and the press is generally sympathetic to the driver. In the first case, coverage is disproportionately higher and uniformly negative towards the driver. The coverage is so extensive that the first driver's employer suspends him without pay for an indefinite period – even though, unlike the second driver, the accident had no relation to the first driver's employment.

There have been some media reports about Bryce Harper, a 16-year old prodigy who will leave high school early to pursue his vocation at the college - and ultimately, professional - level. This wouldn't be terribly controversial except for the fact that Harper is a baseball prodigy, so naturally there's a lot of hand-wringing from the nation's sports commentariat. One writer said Harper's decision to forego two years of high school eligibility to play junior college baseball "makes a mockery of our educational system."

Thomas DiLorenzo, an Austrian School economist and professor at Maryland's Loyola College, insists that universities and colleges that abandon SAT and ACT mandates are saying "studying, learning, and educating yourself is for suckers." His own Loyola College recently decided that SAT and ACT scores would be optional for applicants:

Why study when grade inflation and affirmative action will get you into Harvard, where even more grade inflation will guarantee that you graduate?

Some alumni are understandably unappy about this, for they correctly anticipate that the dumbing down of their alma mater will devalue their hard-earned degrees.  (They don’t understand that in today’s world of higher education “diversity,” i.e., institutionalized discrimination against white males,  trumps everything.  How naive of those privileged white males (to borrow the language of the university diversity bureaucracy).

I'm unconvinced by DiLorenzo's premise that the SAT and ACT provide "objective" evidence that is superior to "subjective" high school grades. Many of the arguments against using grades apply to standardized test scores. High school GPA vary among school districts -- not just because of "grade inflation," as DiLorenzo suggests -- but SAT/ACT scores are also influenced by geography and socioeconomic standing. Students from wealthier families can devote the time and resources to specialized training for standardized tests. Nothing wrong with this, of course. But it's fallacy to conflate one's ability to complete college-level coursework with performance on a single test administered under non-collegiate conditions.

Whenever something goes wrong with a government program, it's never the fault of the political leaders who created the program; blame is cast on "unscrupulous" low-level bureaucrats who failed to "honestly" implement the state's crazy scheme. Our scapegoat du jour is Bradley J. Hansen, who resigned six years ago from his job as superintendent of a Michigan school district. The Justice Department's Antitrust Division announced a two-count indictment against Hansen this week, citing an alleged bribe he received in connection with a federally-subsidized school contract.