Defining virtue signaling as the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue.
The tone and substance of this article is not to illuminate the practices of the past in a relevant historical context, but rather to denigrate them and celebrate our own era. "Look how far we've come."
On the contrary, this article gives plenty of historical context: its entire purpose is to place the entry test in the context, first, of the tests which preceded it, and second, of the ideologies (eugenicist) which it reflected.
If all reflection on how far society has come are mere "virtue signaling," how can you have historical discussions on moral issues at all? You'd have to start with the premise that moral progress is impossible.
I'm not throwing around the word "nihilism," I'm using it because I think it's clear that the implication of your style of argument is the destruction of any kind of moral progress. Any society that is to progress morally must be able to define what it is progressing from.
What changes would you make to this article to make it "illuminate the practices of the past in a relevant historical context" instead of denigrating those practices? I also don't see any reference to the modern era, could you point out some quotes celebrating "how far we've come"?
The tone and substance of this article is not to illuminate the practices of the past in a relevant historical context, but rather to denigrate them and celebrate our own era. "Look how far we've come."