Question: The University of California regents voted to stop requiring high school students to submit an SAT or ACT score for admission. The most significant blow to the traditional standardized tests, as leaders of public system attempt to address fairness concerns. Some people argue that high SAT scores indicate success at university and using the system of submitting SAT scores is an objective way to determine who to admit to a university. Was removing SAT or ACT scores for entry into the University System inspired by the ascended masters, or is it a step in the right direction to help making entry into a university system less elitist and more humanitarian?
Answer from the Ascended Master Mother Mary through Kim Michaels. This answer was given at the 2020 Webinar for the Liberation of Women.
Well, if you have ever taken a so-called IQ test, you might have realized that the outcome of this test does not necessarily give an objective view of your intelligence. It only exposes whether you have the same kind of intelligence as the people who created the test—what was their definition of intelligence. And if you have some of the same tendencies such as a very linear, rational, analytical, logical mindset, then you will do well in the test they have created. But this doesn’t really say anything about your real-life intelligence, your intuitive abilities and so on. It is the same with the ACT and SAT. The scores really say something about whether the students have the same mindset as the people who created the test.
The reason why it is traditionally said that, if you do well in the test you will do well at university is of course because there is a correspondence. The people who create the tests are often from the university environment, so they have the same definition of intelligence as is prevalent in a university environment. And that means that if a student can do well in the test, then he or she is also likely to do well in the university environment, because it can fulfill the requirements of that environment, which are often defined based on a very intellectual, rational, linear mindset.
This of course, does not mean that people who cannot do well in that environment, who cannot get a university degree are not intelligent and do not have a valuable contribution to make to society. What I will say is that it is a step forward from the ascendant perspective, that you allow a broader group of students to enter the university environment. You will actually see in several other nations where they have opened up for a broader access to higher education. And this has had certain beneficial effects. Some students do find it very difficult to get along in the university environment and some drop out, but there are some that stay in it. And that will gradually, over time contribute to changing the university environment away from this very intellectual, rational mindset. And this can also, in a little bit longer run, help to shift the university environment away from being so focused on materialism, because as more intuitive people enter the environment, they will gradually change the equation, so that the environment becomes more open to other forms of intelligence, first of all intuitive abilities.
So yes, in general, we consider it at least potentially positive step. Of course, there is still tremendous opposition and resistance in many academic environments around the world to any real change. And there are many materialists, many rational people who will cling to their doctrines and their dogmas for as long as they can, which in some cases means for as long as they are in the system. But still, as we move further into the golden age, the field of higher education will of course change dramatically and be focused on much more than just educating the rational mind.
Copyright © 2020 Kim Michaels