[pieceofthepuzzle]

“Keep in mind that “post-education ‘show me what you learned’ aptitude tests” can become as compromised as the current higher education system. Measuring the level of indoctrination instead of level of education remains a pitfall, and is wholly dependent on who writes and grades the tests.”

I agree, but I strongly believe this type of testing is necessary. Higher education has become incredibly expensive, but there is no standard analysis of the final ‘product’. ‘Name’ schools purport to be ‘the best’, but never have to prove anything head to head. There's no question that a highly motivated person with ability can perform as well or better educating themselves with alternative resources than students in traditional venues. They deserve to be able to prove it in an irrefutable way. It's the most egalitarian, affordable, and non-elitist approach possible.

For the sciences, math, engineering etc. keeping bias out of the tests would not be as difficult as in social sciences, journalism etc., but even for the later it could be done. It would be necessary to have an independent testing agency that was monitored for content and wasn't controlled by university faculty. In many instances questions could be submitted by people actually working in the particular fields being tested.

Wouldn't be perfect, but it could be a game changer.

[Smokin' Joe]

For the sciences, math, engineering etc. keeping bias out of the tests would not be as difficult as in social sciences, journalism etc., but even for the later it could be done.

To a point.

FOr example, the tests would have to be carefully vetted--and which experts would do so?

Issues which creep into the sciences:

Anthropogenic Global Warming,

Effects of Atmospheric CO2 levels,

the composition of diet vs. health and "wellness",

the correlation between abortion and breast cancer, vaccine risks (autism, allergies produced by squalene exposure, thimoserol) vs. benefits,

Joe McCarthy (saint or demon?),

History of Western Civilization in general, but especially the last century,

and it gets worse with the 'fuzzy' sciences (psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc.)

So much of what is taught in universities today is polluted by the Liberal agendae, whether those are State Universities or IV League, that it would be difficult to come up with tests which would survive (corrupted) peer review and not reflect the Liberal/Marxist bias present in what we call higher education.

While I agree in principle that standardized testing might be good for fundamentals, when you get to the level of even the GRE in specific subject areas, the potential for bias could negate the purpose of indicating the quality of the student and instead only measure the level of indoctrination.