The burden of proof lies with the person making a claim.

OP's point was "This sucks, they're doing away with objective criteria."

Child comment's points was "They are indeed doing away with objective criteria. These criteria are not valuable though "

The only claim made there was the child comment's claim that these (admittedly objective) criteria are not valuable. That claim was not backed up.

Actually, standardized testing does not represent objective criteria for a number of reasons, so that's an incorrect assumption.

But, my point was why do we also just assume that it "sucks" to do away with it? Where's the evidence that they are effective criteria?

If we're demanding proof that they are not effective, then it's fair to question how we established they are effective in the first place. Else, it's really just a default assumption that represents a positive assertion (i.e. an unsubstantiated claim).

I've been on HN for several years. The quality was once much higher than it is now, but HNers have always been willing to call out posturing and logical holes.

>You have absolutely nothing to contribute but useless rhetoric. I asked for sources to whomever I responded to,..

Right. And if you already agreed with SquishyPanda's statement, you would not have requested a source. So, I just asked you to source why you believe what you believe. Why is that any different? In fact, that answer would add more to the thread.

I mean, if you believe standardized tests are valid for the stated purposes, then that's the positive assertion. Have you questioned it?

If not, then why not? If so, then what did you conclude and on what evidence? Please share.

>Just don't waste my time with these pointless comments of yours.

To be fair, I asked you for a source, just as you did of someone else. You wasted your own time with your unsolicited rant.