Dumbing it down and calling it success

Prediction: having embraced the “success is defined by female participation” metric, Harvard Business School will lose its elevated cachet within a decade:

Of all the ceremonies and receptions during graduation week, the most
venerated was the George F. Baker Scholar Luncheon, for the top 5
percent of the class, held in a sunny dining room crowded with parents
who looked alternately thrilled and intimidated by what their offspring
had achieved. 
In recent years, the glory of the luncheon had been dimmed by discomfort
at the low number of female honorees. But this year, almost 40 percent
of the Baker scholars were women. It was a remarkable rise that no one
could precisely explain. Had the professors rid themselves of
unconscious biases? Were the women performing better because of the
improved environment? Or was the faculty easing up in grading women
because they knew the desired outcome? 
“To my head, all three happened,” Professor Piskorski said. But Mr.
Nohria said he had no cause to think the professors had used the new
software, and the subjective participation scores, to avoid gender gaps.
“Sunshine is the best disinfectant,” he said, a phrase that he said had
guided him throughout his project.

Consider how fast the question of “is college worth it” has rapidly followed the rise of women with college degrees. Credentialists never understand that pieces of paper are only indicative of an ability to sit in class and follow orders and that no amount of degrees will ever be an adequate substitute for intellectual horsepower, curiosity, and testosterone-fueled risk-taking.

The primary female psychological objective is risk-reduction.  This is why societies with too much female influence rapidly become not only static, but anti-dynamic, and rapidly begin to decline. It’s also why an amount of female influence is a societal survival trait.