Texas higher education officials have officially decided that predictive data is wildly overrated. Higher Education Commissioner Wynn Rosser signaled to university leaders that public campuses can immediately start using the conservative-favored Classic Learning Test (CLT) for admissions decisions outside the automatic top-10% rule, with plans to fully cement it into state rules by fall 2028. Never mind that an independent review by Texas A&M’s Public Policy Research Institute warned the state that the CLT scored a pathetic 1.4 out of 4 when it comes to actually predicting whether a student will succeed in college—compared to a 3.8 for the ACT and a 4.0 for the SAT.
Instead of asking students to solve algebra problems or read contemporary articles with a calculator, the CLT bans calculators entirely and fills its exam with Christian philosophical texts, Plato, and ancient epics. Backed by conservative culture warriors, PragerU, and Hillsdale College, the exam’s founder touted the test as a way to cultivate “truth, goodness, and beauty”. Because obviously, what a future Texas Tech engineering major desperately needs isn’t math competency, but rather a deep, soul-searching critique of Aristotle while sitting in traffic on 19th Street.
Naturally, state leadership looked at a study showing the test had barely any track record—drawing data from a whopping 259 students at five private schools compared to the College Board’s 117,000 students—and did what Texas state agencies do best: ignored the facts entirely. Rosser’s letter to university presidents skipped over the test’s abysmal 1.4 score and casually declared that all three exams demonstrate “sufficient rigor and reliability”.
If we’re already throwing out statistical validity to award college admissions based purely on ideological vibes, why stop at ancient literature—why not just let kids qualify for a Texas Tech degree with a game of Washers, a 40-yard dash, or a speed-eating contest at Spanky’s?
Source:
