As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Deleted

Andrew_JayAndrew_Jay Registered User regular
edited May 2021 in Debate and/or Discourse
-

Andrew_Jay on
«13

Posts

  • ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Clarification of the 10% rule: are public Texas universities required to limit their admits from each high school to the top 10%, or simply required to admit that amount?

    Zalbinion on
  • JastJast Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    wrote:
    Students who are in the top 10 percent of their graduating class are eligible for automatic admission to any public university in Texas.


    Got that off the college for texans website. Basically, if you're in the top 10% of your graduating class, you automatically get into any state run university regardless of your SAT scores or anything else.

    Jast on
    Jast39.png
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Clarification of the 10% rule: are public Texas universities required to limit their admits from each high school to the top 10%, or simply required to admit that amount?
    The top 10% are automatically admitted into Texas public universities. The universities are free to do whatever they want to beyond that.

    Thanatos on
  • JastJast Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    For what it's worth, I hate the idea of the SATs and ECs. If I worked hard all through high school, did what I had to do, and passed my classes, it shouldn't matter that I got a low SAT score or that I volunteered at the homeless shelter when I was five.

    The top 10% rule sounds like a good idea, it gurantees that the smartest and brightest are able to get into a state college, but it's not perfect. It makes it really hard for out of state people to get into colleges for one thing, though the way some colleges are set up, it's like they don't want you if you're not paying state taxes. I'm kind of split, I mean I sure wouldn't mind going to some small school, being in the top 10% by taking a whole bunch of AP classes and easily passing them, then going to a state college of my choice, but on the other hand, I would hate if I was an out of state guy who worked hard to get my scores but got rejected in favor of a guy who had a 3.1 gpa but was in the top 10% of his class because of class size.

    Basically, if I was a small town high school guy, I would love it. If I was big city high school guy, or out of stater, I would hate it. North Carolina as far as I know doesn't have a 10% rule and neither does Virginia, even though Virginia state colleges have to accept at 65% of their applicants from in state if I remember correctly. May be wrong though.

    Jast on
    Jast39.png
  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Clarification of the 10% rule: are public Texas universities required to limit their admits from each high school to the top 10%, or simply required to admit that amount?
    The top 10% are automatically admitted into Texas public universities. The universities are free to do whatever they want to beyond that.
    Exactly -- so those "poor" kids who didn't get their guaranteed spot with a 3.8 are still free to apply and (what I can only assume is very likely) be accepted. It mainly just benefits the people from smaller schools without actually harming anyone at all.

    The Green Eyed Monster on
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    But why should rural students from disadvantaged parts of a state be given preferential treatment in admissions?

    If this question does not answer itself, then something is wrong.

    Why should students with disadvantages not related to their personal aptitude be given preferential treatment in admissions to educational facilities?

    Because they have disadvantages not related to their personal aptitude. This means that they look worse than they really are.

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited June 2007
    ARe those 10%ers often below the public universities' standards? Because that seems very unlikely to me.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • RaggaholicRaggaholic Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Jast wrote: »
    The top 10% rule sounds like a good idea, it gurantees that the smartest and brightest are able to get into a state college, but it's not perfect.
    There's a flip side to this that I don't think many people are looking at, and it's grade inflation/weaker curriculum at schools. Back when I was in high school, I did three years at a private school and finished out my last year at a city run public school (long story). No one at the private school graduated with a 4.0. The curriculum was killer, the competition was insane, and there was a weighted system. It wasn't 90-100% A. An A meant your grade was better than 90% of the class. The school I graduated from? Well, let's just say you got a C+ for showing up. The average SAT score at the first school was 1040. At the public school, it was 710.

    The top 10% across the board doesn't mean you get the smartest or the brightest.

    Raggaholic on
  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Raggaholic wrote: »
    Jast wrote: »
    The top 10% rule sounds like a good idea, it gurantees that the smartest and brightest are able to get into a state college, but it's not perfect.
    There's a flip side to this that I don't think many people are looking at, and it's grade inflation/weaker curriculum at schools. Back when I was in high school, I did three years at a private school and finished out my last year at a city run public school (long story). No one at the private school graduated with a 4.0. The curriculum was killer, the competition was insane, and there was a weighted system. It wasn't 90-100% A. An A meant your grade was better than 90% of the class. The school I graduated from? Well, let's just say you got a C+ for showing up. The average SAT score at the first school was 1040. At the public school, it was 710.

    The top 10% across the board doesn't mean you get the smartest or the brightest.
    But measures like GPA and SAT scores don't correlate directly with aptitude, they tend to most strongly correlate with wealth, which is why systems like this are implemented to insure that all students, no matter their access to college prep facilities, are still given a chance to prove themselves in a college setting.

    The Green Eyed Monster on
  • HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited June 2007
    But why should rural students from disadvantaged parts of a state be given preferential treatment in admissions?
    Yes, why should students from disadvantaged backgrounds be given preference over kids who have every opportunity in the world, including a larger number of colleges they're likely to be accepted to? Why on Earth?

    Hacksaw on
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2007
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    But why should rural students from disadvantaged parts of a state be given preferential treatment in admissions?
    Yes, why should students from disadvantaged backgrounds be given preference over kids who have every opportunity in the world, including a larger number of colleges they're likely to be accepted to? Why on Earth?

    Uh, I don't see why universities should have lower standards for any group of people. When it comes to "disadvantaged" individuals, that's the gap education grants (and not admissions criteria) are supposed to fill.

    Basically: for what reasons should a person with a 3.0 GPA and a 1050 on the SATs be given preference over a person with a 3.5 and a 1250? Should employers take into consideration the same reasons?

    Doc on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Doc wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    But why should rural students from disadvantaged parts of a state be given preferential treatment in admissions?
    Yes, why should students from disadvantaged backgrounds be given preference over kids who have every opportunity in the world, including a larger number of colleges they're likely to be accepted to? Why on Earth?

    Uh, I don't see why universities should have lower standards for any group of people. When it comes to "disadvantaged" individuals, that's the gap education grants (and not admissions criteria) are supposed to fill.

    Basically: for what reasons should a person with a 3.0 GPA and a 1050 on the SATs be given preference over a person with a 3.5 and a 1250? Should employers take into consideration the same reasons?

    Richer schools have greater access to extracurricular activities, athletics, and advanced courses, including SAT prep courses. Students from richer schools already get preferential treatment, because admissions boards give weight to students who participate in the above activities. Students from poorer schools get passed over because their SAT scores are lower (SAT doesn't really test anything except how good your SAT prep was) and because they didn't participate in the band/orchestra/speech/Academic Decathlon team their school didn't have.

    By giving preferential treatment to the top 10% from each school, the admissions board is recognizing the students who performed the best they could with the tools and facilities they were given.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • FirstComradeStalinFirstComradeStalin Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    But why should rural students from disadvantaged parts of a state be given preferential treatment in admissions?
    Yes, why should students from disadvantaged backgrounds be given preference over kids who have every opportunity in the world, including a larger number of colleges they're likely to be accepted to? Why on Earth?

    You're assuming that all kids in rural towns are disadvantaged. That is absolutely not true.

    FirstComradeStalin on
    Picture1-4.png
  • FirstComradeStalinFirstComradeStalin Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Feral wrote: »
    Doc wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    But why should rural students from disadvantaged parts of a state be given preferential treatment in admissions?
    Yes, why should students from disadvantaged backgrounds be given preference over kids who have every opportunity in the world, including a larger number of colleges they're likely to be accepted to? Why on Earth?

    Uh, I don't see why universities should have lower standards for any group of people. When it comes to "disadvantaged" individuals, that's the gap education grants (and not admissions criteria) are supposed to fill.

    Basically: for what reasons should a person with a 3.0 GPA and a 1050 on the SATs be given preference over a person with a 3.5 and a 1250? Should employers take into consideration the same reasons?

    Richer schools have greater access to extracurricular activities, athletics, and advanced courses, including SAT prep courses. Students from richer schools already get preferential treatment, because admissions boards give weight to students who participate in the above activities. Students from poorer schools get passed over because their SAT scores are lower (SAT doesn't really test anything except how good your SAT prep was) and because they didn't participate in the band/orchestra/speech/Academic Decathlon team their school didn't have.

    By giving preferential treatment to the top 10% from each school, the admissions board is recognizing the students who performed the best they could with the tools and facilities they were given.

    But college isn't a mandatory service. It's based around accepting the best students who have the best learning capabilities that you can find.

    FirstComradeStalin on
    Picture1-4.png
  • Andrew_JayAndrew_Jay Registered User regular
    edited May 2021
    -

    Andrew_Jay on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Feral wrote: »
    Doc wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    But why should rural students from disadvantaged parts of a state be given preferential treatment in admissions?
    Yes, why should students from disadvantaged backgrounds be given preference over kids who have every opportunity in the world, including a larger number of colleges they're likely to be accepted to? Why on Earth?

    Uh, I don't see why universities should have lower standards for any group of people. When it comes to "disadvantaged" individuals, that's the gap education grants (and not admissions criteria) are supposed to fill.

    Basically: for what reasons should a person with a 3.0 GPA and a 1050 on the SATs be given preference over a person with a 3.5 and a 1250? Should employers take into consideration the same reasons?

    Richer schools have greater access to extracurricular activities, athletics, and advanced courses, including SAT prep courses. Students from richer schools already get preferential treatment, because admissions boards give weight to students who participate in the above activities. Students from poorer schools get passed over because their SAT scores are lower (SAT doesn't really test anything except how good your SAT prep was) and because they didn't participate in the band/orchestra/speech/Academic Decathlon team their school didn't have.

    By giving preferential treatment to the top 10% from each school, the admissions board is recognizing the students who performed the best they could with the tools and facilities they were given.

    But college isn't a mandatory service. It's based around accepting the best students who have the best learning capabilities that you can find.

    Yes, and if a student's "learning capability" was such that they rose to the top of the learning environment they came from, then they should be given first shot at admission.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Andrew_JayAndrew_Jay Registered User regular
    edited May 2021
    -

    Andrew_Jay on
  • khainkhain Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    The best and the brightest kids that come out of poorer areas should not be shut-out of a post-secondary education just because wealthier urban districts can (surprise, surprise) produce more and brighter graduates.

    Do teachers in rural towns not curve grades? Admittedly I'm only slightly familiar with the school system in a rich city, but everyone I knew in high school commented on how teachers curved grades.

    khain on
  • FirstComradeStalinFirstComradeStalin Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Feral wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Doc wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    But why should rural students from disadvantaged parts of a state be given preferential treatment in admissions?
    Yes, why should students from disadvantaged backgrounds be given preference over kids who have every opportunity in the world, including a larger number of colleges they're likely to be accepted to? Why on Earth?

    Uh, I don't see why universities should have lower standards for any group of people. When it comes to "disadvantaged" individuals, that's the gap education grants (and not admissions criteria) are supposed to fill.

    Basically: for what reasons should a person with a 3.0 GPA and a 1050 on the SATs be given preference over a person with a 3.5 and a 1250? Should employers take into consideration the same reasons?

    Richer schools have greater access to extracurricular activities, athletics, and advanced courses, including SAT prep courses. Students from richer schools already get preferential treatment, because admissions boards give weight to students who participate in the above activities. Students from poorer schools get passed over because their SAT scores are lower (SAT doesn't really test anything except how good your SAT prep was) and because they didn't participate in the band/orchestra/speech/Academic Decathlon team their school didn't have.

    By giving preferential treatment to the top 10% from each school, the admissions board is recognizing the students who performed the best they could with the tools and facilities they were given.

    But college isn't a mandatory service. It's based around accepting the best students who have the best learning capabilities that you can find.

    Yes, and if a student's "learning capability" was such that they rose to the top of the learning environment they came from, then they should be given first shot at admission.

    But the argument involved here is that the gap in primary and secondary schools is so wide that someone in a better school in the 10-30% range may have a better learning capability and education than someone from a worse school in the top 10%. That's why I really don't think the SAT is that bad. A standardized test to judge those capabilities is the best option we have to make those calls practically.

    FirstComradeStalin on
    Picture1-4.png
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2007
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    Doc wrote: »
    Basically: for what reasons should a person with a 3.0 GPA and a 1050 on the SATs be given preference over a person with a 3.5 and a 1250? Should employers take into consideration the same reasons?
    Is the student with a 3.0 and a 1050 coming from an economically depressed part of the state? Is that student graduating out of a school system that is drastically underfunded compared to that in more affluent parts of the state?

    The best and the brightest kids that come out of poorer areas should not be shut-out of a post-secondary education just because wealthier urban districts can (surprise, surprise) produce more and brighter graduates.

    So should employers have the same policy?

    Doc on
  • FirstComradeStalinFirstComradeStalin Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    You're assuming that all kids in rural towns are disadvantaged. That is absolutely not true.
    They pretty much are if they're all attending the same - rural - school system.
    But college isn't a mandatory service. It's based around accepting the best students who have the best learning capabilities that you can find.
    These are public, state schools. They're free to base them around whatever they decide is in the best interest of the state and society.

    Accepting kids who might not ordinarily make the cut and giving them a chance to prove themselves and move up in the world certainly is a worthwhile goal to pursue.

    Giving kids a chance is fine, but that doesn't mean you should be able to leave out other students who did go to better school and didn't do so well on their school's scale, because that's what ends up happening. Maybe the state university system needs a major overhaul in capacity, and should be able to fit in more students. But filling seats with kids who may be successful rather than kids who prove they are successful on a more competitive scale (i.e., the SAT), is not in the best interests of the state, and is a risky process at best.

    FirstComradeStalin on
    Picture1-4.png
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Doc wrote: »
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    Doc wrote: »
    Basically: for what reasons should a person with a 3.0 GPA and a 1050 on the SATs be given preference over a person with a 3.5 and a 1250? Should employers take into consideration the same reasons?
    Is the student with a 3.0 and a 1050 coming from an economically depressed part of the state? Is that student graduating out of a school system that is drastically underfunded compared to that in more affluent parts of the state?

    The best and the brightest kids that come out of poorer areas should not be shut-out of a post-secondary education just because wealthier urban districts can (surprise, surprise) produce more and brighter graduates.
    So should employers have the same policy?
    No, but neither should they have policies of helping the homeless, providing education for children, nor maintaining a military.

    These aren't private universities we're talking about, they're publically-run, taxpayer-maintained instutions, that should have goals beyond mere profitability.

    Thanatos on
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Doc wrote: »
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    Doc wrote: »
    Basically: for what reasons should a person with a 3.0 GPA and a 1050 on the SATs be given preference over a person with a 3.5 and a 1250? Should employers take into consideration the same reasons?
    Is the student with a 3.0 and a 1050 coming from an economically depressed part of the state? Is that student graduating out of a school system that is drastically underfunded compared to that in more affluent parts of the state?

    The best and the brightest kids that come out of poorer areas should not be shut-out of a post-secondary education just because wealthier urban districts can (surprise, surprise) produce more and brighter graduates.
    So should employers have the same policy?
    No, but neither should they have policies of helping the homeless, providing education for children, nor maintaining a military.

    These aren't private universities we're talking about, they're publically-run, taxpayer-maintained instutions, that should have goals beyond mere profitability.

    I agree, but Universities also aren't meant to be charities. Not the way they are run currently, anyway. The fact that they have admissions cut-offs at all shows that their criteria are primarily focused on the question of "will this person succeed in a university setting." I'm unsure of how going to a crummy school relates to that, aside from possibly making the student even less prepared to enter University-level classes.

    Doc on
  • GooeyGooey (\/)┌¶─¶┐(\/) pinch pinchRegistered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Doc wrote: »
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    Doc wrote: »
    Basically: for what reasons should a person with a 3.0 GPA and a 1050 on the SATs be given preference over a person with a 3.5 and a 1250? Should employers take into consideration the same reasons?
    Is the student with a 3.0 and a 1050 coming from an economically depressed part of the state? Is that student graduating out of a school system that is drastically underfunded compared to that in more affluent parts of the state?

    The best and the brightest kids that come out of poorer areas should not be shut-out of a post-secondary education just because wealthier urban districts can (surprise, surprise) produce more and brighter graduates.

    So should employers have the same policy?

    ***First of all, lets get something straight. People are associating "large schools" with "rich schools". I wish I knew the color for unlime, because I would unlime the hell out of that sentiment.***

    Obviously they should. Every warm body with a sob story should get a chance at everything. Because they have a sob story. Boo hoo.

    Why is a blanket rule like the 10% rule grossly unfair? The point is if you come from a large school, where the margin of the top 10% will be inevitably smaller than a small school due to more competition, and make decent grades, you're not guaranteed college. As in, it's hard to get in. Why is it hard to get in? Because the spots are filled up with the 10% rule. Everyone who is in the top 10% clamors to get into one of the major 3 public uni's in Texas (UT, Texas A&M, Texas Tech - ugh) leaving no (read: few) spots left for otherwise deserving students. I had friends with 3.7's, 1300 SATs, and 30 ACTs that had to go to a community college for a year in order to get into a major state university. Community college. For someone who made great marks. Not that there's anything wrong with going to a community college, mind you. But, shit.

    Spots in higher education should go to the best and brightest, period. Half the population is on the ass end of the bell curve, wether you like it or not.

    Gooey on
    919UOwT.png
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Doc wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Doc wrote: »
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    Doc wrote: »
    Basically: for what reasons should a person with a 3.0 GPA and a 1050 on the SATs be given preference over a person with a 3.5 and a 1250? Should employers take into consideration the same reasons?
    Is the student with a 3.0 and a 1050 coming from an economically depressed part of the state? Is that student graduating out of a school system that is drastically underfunded compared to that in more affluent parts of the state?

    The best and the brightest kids that come out of poorer areas should not be shut-out of a post-secondary education just because wealthier urban districts can (surprise, surprise) produce more and brighter graduates.
    So should employers have the same policy?
    No, but neither should they have policies of helping the homeless, providing education for children, nor maintaining a military.

    These aren't private universities we're talking about, they're publically-run, taxpayer-maintained instutions, that should have goals beyond mere profitability.
    I agree, but Universities also aren't meant to be charities. Not the way they are run currently, anyway. The fact that they have admissions cut-offs at all shows that their criteria are primarily focused on the question of "will this person succeed in a university setting." I'm unsure of how going to a crummy school relates to that, aside from possibly making the student even less prepared to enter University-level classes.
    I don't think saying "if you're in the top 10% of your class, you can go to a public university" is really "charity." I don't think it's anything close to charity. I think it helps to mitigate the huge advantage that students going to large, well-funded school districts have over those going to small, poorly-funded school districts. I think it reduces that advantage from "enormous" to merely "really, really big." Forgive me if I don't see that as some sort of horrible tragedy.

    Thanatos on
  • FirstComradeStalinFirstComradeStalin Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Gooey wrote: »
    Doc wrote: »
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    Doc wrote: »
    Basically: for what reasons should a person with a 3.0 GPA and a 1050 on the SATs be given preference over a person with a 3.5 and a 1250? Should employers take into consideration the same reasons?
    Is the student with a 3.0 and a 1050 coming from an economically depressed part of the state? Is that student graduating out of a school system that is drastically underfunded compared to that in more affluent parts of the state?

    The best and the brightest kids that come out of poorer areas should not be shut-out of a post-secondary education just because wealthier urban districts can (surprise, surprise) produce more and brighter graduates.

    So should employers have the same policy?

    ***First of all, lets get something straight. People are associating "large schools" with "rich schools". I wish I knew the color for unlime, because I would unlime the hell out of that sentiment.***

    Obviously they should. Every warm body with a sob story should get a chance at everything. Because they have a sob story. Boo hoo.

    Why is a blanket rule like the 10% rule grossly unfair? The point is if you come from a large school, where the margin of the top 10% will be inevitably smaller than a small school due to more competition, and make decent grades, you're not guaranteed college. As in, it's hard to get in. Why is it hard to get in? Because the spots are filled up with the 10% rule. Everyone who is in the top 10% clamors to get into one of the major 3 public uni's in Texas (UT, Texas A&M, Texas Tech - ugh) leaving no (read: few) spots left for otherwise deserving students. I had friends with 3.7's, 1300 SATs, and 30 ACTs that had to go to a community college for a year in order to get into a major state university. Community college. For someone who made great marks. Not that there's anything wrong with going to a community college, mind you. But, shit.

    Spots in higher education should go to the best and brightest, period. Half the population is on the ass end of the bell curve, wether you like it or not.

    Consider this me liming you.

    FirstComradeStalin on
    Picture1-4.png
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Doc wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Doc wrote: »
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    Doc wrote: »
    Basically: for what reasons should a person with a 3.0 GPA and a 1050 on the SATs be given preference over a person with a 3.5 and a 1250? Should employers take into consideration the same reasons?
    Is the student with a 3.0 and a 1050 coming from an economically depressed part of the state? Is that student graduating out of a school system that is drastically underfunded compared to that in more affluent parts of the state?

    The best and the brightest kids that come out of poorer areas should not be shut-out of a post-secondary education just because wealthier urban districts can (surprise, surprise) produce more and brighter graduates.
    So should employers have the same policy?
    No, but neither should they have policies of helping the homeless, providing education for children, nor maintaining a military.

    These aren't private universities we're talking about, they're publically-run, taxpayer-maintained instutions, that should have goals beyond mere profitability.
    I agree, but Universities also aren't meant to be charities. Not the way they are run currently, anyway. The fact that they have admissions cut-offs at all shows that their criteria are primarily focused on the question of "will this person succeed in a university setting." I'm unsure of how going to a crummy school relates to that, aside from possibly making the student even less prepared to enter University-level classes.
    I don't think saying "if you're in the top 10% of your class, you can go to a public university" is really "charity." I don't think it's anything close to charity. I think it helps to mitigate the huge advantage that students going to large, well-funded school districts have over those going to small, poorly-funded school districts. I think it reduces that advantage from "enormous" to merely "really, really big." Forgive me if I don't see that as some sort of horrible tragedy.

    The "charities" comment was more in response to your comments about the government's role being to do things like feed the homeless, which may cause some people to see connections that don't exist.

    Doc on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Gooey wrote: »
    Why is a blanket rule like the 10% rule grossly unfair?

    All college admissions criteria are unfair. Some are less fair than others.

    If you don't have a 10% rule, it's unfair to students from poorer schools because they don't get the admissions brownie points from participating in extracurricular activities, weighted GPA from AP/IB courses, and higher SAT scores from better SAT prep courses.

    If you do have a 10% rule, it's unfair to students from more populous schools.

    The difference? The latter can still compete through the extracurricular activities I mentioned. They're not barred entirely, they're just not given first shot. The former, however, are completely fucked. It's a choice between giving one group a surmountable disadvantage versus giving another group an insurmountable disadvantage.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • FirstComradeStalinFirstComradeStalin Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    I think you're bringing up a good point about equality in basic education. There really isn't enough, because everything's paid for and run by individual communities, which is the perfect way to "justify" that gap. I brought this up in the AA thread a while back, but maybe what's really unfair is that these kids in rural schools aren't given the same quality of education (and in the case of my hometown, an utterly useless curriculum). The people manning school boards are mostly inept, and no one with any qualifications wants to take over because it pays next to nothing. This probably deserves it's own thread, but it's worth remembering.

    Still, you have to remember that extracurriculars are not limited to large schools (people in my tiny hometown were still very active in the community with boyscouts and Christian-oriented groups), you can take AP courses (and I'm pretty sure most states that are not Cali don't weight, at least Alabama doesn't), so that leaves us with only SAT prep courses, which are not as big of a factor as you may think.

    FirstComradeStalin on
    Picture1-4.png
  • GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited June 2007
    College admissions are pretty zero-sum. Yes, the 3.2 from Pissant gets guaranteed a spot, and the 3.8 loses one opportunity out of several. But the rural student is displacing much more than that. In order for this person to go to college, someone else must be left out.

    Look further down the line and you will also see a person who ALSO only has a few shots, who now has those few shots taken away and gets no college at all. The really smart kids are going to find a college no matter what. The problem becomes how to filter through everyone ELSE, the borderline guys who may or may not get into any college whatsoever.

    Gosling on
    I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Oprah had a great mini-documentary on her show called' American Schools in Crisis" and I can't get the dam video to stream on the Oprah website. Anyways, she looks at two public schools an hour apart from one another and compares them - no surprises but the black kids are getting screwed while the white kids have it all and score higher on standardized tests. Normally this wouldn't catch my attention but it was so shocking to see the contrast, I think it's relevant to this thread. If anyone can find the video for that episode, I'd appreciate it.

    http://www.oprah.com/about/press/releases/200604/press_releases_20060407.jhtml

    emnmnme on
  • FirstComradeStalinFirstComradeStalin Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    I know firsthand how drastically different schools are in quality. I grew up in a small-ass town of 3,000 where I just went in and raped every single class. I never got below a 98 on anything, skipped two grades, and was still taking classes 2~3 years ahead of me. I spent half the day playing Oregon Trail in 6th grade because I had nothing left to learn. Then in 8th grade I went to a private boarding school that's the best school in the state, and there I was a B student. It was traumatic at first, but I realized that I was still learning waaaaayyyy more than I would have if I had stayed back home. Every time I went back to see all the kids there who were A students it was like they just had no idea about anything.

    FirstComradeStalin on
    Picture1-4.png
  • GooeyGooey (\/)┌¶─¶┐(\/) pinch pinchRegistered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Feral wrote: »
    Gooey wrote: »
    Why is a blanket rule like the 10% rule grossly unfair?

    All college admissions criteria are unfair.

    It's a fact of life that any criteria you choose people on is unfair. Blanket rules like these are above-and-beyond in the spectrum of unfair not just because of the scenario I detailed in my post that you snipped, but that they also hurt the kids coming from smaller schools in the fact that they are less prepared.

    Why do you think everyone who had good grades but missed the 10% gets into a major state university thier second year? Dropouts.

    A lot of these kids coming from smaller schools simply aren't equipped to handle the rigors of a serious academic environment (much less one combined with the socially-rich atmosphere of most universities.) It hurts these students because it's the equivalent of throwing them in the deep end of the pool and saying "learn to swim." It sucks, but it's not thier fault. These kids need to go to a junior college to gear up for a large university, not go school for a year, flail around for a while, then decide "School's not for me" and sink.

    Gooey on
    919UOwT.png
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Gooey, that's a good point. I recognize that that may be an issue. But is there any evidence that students from poorer/rural schools are less equipped to succeed at state colleges? It sounds like it might be a stretch to me.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • CorlisCorlis Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Gooey wrote: »
    I wish I knew the color for unlime, because I would unlime the hell out of that sentiment.***
    'tis traditionally salmon.

    For schools, the problem with not giving some preferential treatment to the poorer areas is that if they do, then the people in the poorer areas will remain less educated, resulting in something of a ghetto of uneducation, where kids don't get into university because their parents aren't rich because they didn't get into university, sic ad nauseam. Having areas of deep uneducation is not only unfair, but also dangerous, as it divides the people pretty heavily, which isn't so good for democracy.

    Corlis on
    But I don't mind, as long as there's a bed beneath the stars that shine,
    I'll be fine, just give me a minute, a man's got a limit, I can't get a life if my heart's not in it.
  • FirstComradeStalinFirstComradeStalin Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Corlis wrote: »
    For schools, the problem with not giving some preferential treatment to the poorer areas is that if they do, then the people in the poorer areas will remain less educated, resulting in something of a ghetto of uneducation, where kids don't get into university because their parents aren't rich because they didn't get into university, sic ad nauseam. Having areas of deep uneducation is not only unfair, but also dangerous, as it divides the people pretty heavily, which isn't so good for democracy.

    The real problem with this is basic and secondary education, not universities. If you're not equipped to succeed academically at a high level by the time you're graduated from high school, there's not much of a chance you can just become so by just going to university. You need fundamentals, and college is the place where they finally just stop teaching you the fundamentals and dive into the real stuff.

    Obviously I can only offer my own, anecdotal experience, but the people from my hometown who go to college have a very difficult time adjusting to college in comparison to others, and fall very quickly into the "party hard, work soft" mentality, which may have gotten them by in high school, but won't work in a more competitive atmosphere. They deserve somewhere where they can go to college, though, and that's understandable, but not necessarily at the top universities in their state, which can be extremely difficult places to adjust.

    FirstComradeStalin on
    Picture1-4.png
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Gooey wrote: »
    Doc wrote: »
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    Doc wrote: »
    Basically: for what reasons should a person with a 3.0 GPA and a 1050 on the SATs be given preference over a person with a 3.5 and a 1250? Should employers take into consideration the same reasons?
    Is the student with a 3.0 and a 1050 coming from an economically depressed part of the state? Is that student graduating out of a school system that is drastically underfunded compared to that in more affluent parts of the state?

    The best and the brightest kids that come out of poorer areas should not be shut-out of a post-secondary education just because wealthier urban districts can (surprise, surprise) produce more and brighter graduates.

    So should employers have the same policy?

    ***First of all, lets get something straight. People are associating "large schools" with "rich schools". I wish I knew the color for unlime, because I would unlime the hell out of that sentiment.***

    Obviously they should. Every warm body with a sob story should get a chance at everything. Because they have a sob story. Boo hoo.

    Why is a blanket rule like the 10% rule grossly unfair? The point is if you come from a large school, where the margin of the top 10% will be inevitably smaller than a small school due to more competition, and make decent grades, you're not guaranteed college. As in, it's hard to get in. Why is it hard to get in? Because the spots are filled up with the 10% rule. Everyone who is in the top 10% clamors to get into one of the major 3 public uni's in Texas (UT, Texas A&M, Texas Tech - ugh) leaving no (read: few) spots left for otherwise deserving students. I had friends with 3.7's, 1300 SATs, and 30 ACTs that had to go to a community college for a year in order to get into a major state university. Community college. For someone who made great marks. Not that there's anything wrong with going to a community college, mind you. But, shit.

    Spots in higher education should go to the best and brightest, period. Half the population is on the ass end of the bell curve, wether you like it or not.

    You had friends who are liars. With a 3.2, 1350 SAT, no ACT and moderate extra curricular activities i got into WPI, which is a private university comparable to MIT in terms of educational quality. Grades haven't inflated that far since 2002

    I also love how you say that the margin at a large school will be larger than that at a small school. Do you have any statistical backing to find this? Once you are over a few hundred students, the rest is going to be irrelevant to the margin. Why? Because its a statistical sample over a population significantly large taking the same percentage off the top! Unless there were outside factors somehow making the students at the large school for some reason closer in intelligence and ability than those of small schools.


    When there are more people, there are also more spots

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • GooeyGooey (\/)┌¶─¶┐(\/) pinch pinchRegistered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Goumindong wrote: »
    You had friends who are liars. With a 3.2, 1350 SAT, no ACT and moderate extra curricular activities i got into WPI, which is a private university comparable to MIT in terms of educational quality.

    I also love how you say that the margin at a large school will be larger than that at a small school. Do you have any statistical backing to find this? Once you are over a few hundred students, the rest is going to be irrelevant to the margin. Why? Because its a statistical sample over a population significantly large taking the same percentage off the top! Unless there were outside factors somehow making the students at the large school for some reason closer in intelligence and ability than those of small schools.


    When there are more people, there are also more spots

    Wow, I must be a liar too. Although maybe just a truth-stretcher since my 3.9/1450/34 barely got me into the uni from out of state. Seriously though, I've seen the transcripts with my own two eyes thankyouverymuch.

    Also, private schools don't play by the same rules as public schools.

    So, if the admission standards are the same as a school at MIT's caliber, you're lucky. Or a liar.

    Furthermore, it doesn't take but a little common sense to understand that if there is a larger base of students there will be more competition to be at the top - the bell curve gets skewed with more people trying to get a piece of the pie. Simple mob mentality at work. If everyone tried exactly as hard as they normally would, sure it would work out fine. Too bad people see that only the top 150 in thier class get thier guaranteed admittance and decide to spend all 4 years of highschool buried in books.

    Finally, there aren't more spots. The university can not and does not want to accomodate everyone for several reasons. Cost, space, student/faculty ratio, etc. etc. etc. I can go on for hours.

    In closing, take your dickish attitude elsewhere.

    Gooey on
    919UOwT.png
  • Andrew_JayAndrew_Jay Registered User regular
    edited May 2021
    -

    Andrew_Jay on
  • GooeyGooey (\/)┌¶─¶┐(\/) pinch pinchRegistered User regular
    edited June 2007
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    Gooey wrote: »
    Finally, there aren't more spots.
    High school with 100 students - 10 guaranteed spots.
    High school with 1500 students - 150 guaranteed spots.

    ...colleges have a set number they want to admit into each class.

    Gooey on
    919UOwT.png
Sign In or Register to comment.