Having a 1600 on your SATs and a lawyer doesn't make you God.

[Fretful Porpentine]

Student whose admission was rescinded due to poor senior grades sues UNC (http://news-observer.com/front/story/2800082p-2588649c.html)

He sounds like a charming young man. The frightening part is that if he wins his case, he could be sitting in my freshman English class six days from now. I suspect that he will become "disillusioned with the college experience" rather quickly when he discovers that neither I, nor any other instructor for the required freshman courses, will pass a student who misses eighteen days of class -- even if the student in question is trying to start a software company. If you'd rather work than go to school, fine, but don't enroll in school. (Although I must point out that the working world tends to be less congenial to pompous twits than academia, especially if they never show up for work -- which might explain why this kid only "tried" to start a software company.)

Oh, and I love the quote from his lawyer:
This is about bureaucratic arrogance ... They can brag at their next cocktail party that they turned down a student with a 1600 SAT because he wasn't "good enough" -- and I put that in sarcastic quotes.
Screw the sarcastic quotes -- no student is good enough if he doesn't do his work, and someone who expects to be handed a BA on a silver platter on the strength of his SAT score has no business talking about arrogance. The sense of entitlement here is just staggering.

Grrr. I so hope that I don't have to deal with this person, this semester or ever.

[Zoff]

This kid sounds like a real piece of work.

But you might want to reconsider this thread. If this (obviously litigious) kid gets into UNC, gets you as a professor, and gets a poor grade I wouldn’t be too surprised to see this come up and bite you.

[World Eater]

Saw this earlier on FARK.

Fuck him.

I agree with Zoff.

[Lord Ashtar]

Having a 1600 on your SATs and a lawyer doesn't make you God.

Oh yeah? Oh yeah? Well, I'm gonna sue you for defamation of character in a class action suit involving all lawyers and the creators of this year's SAT. We'll be asking for $100 million billion quadrillion. But I'm willing to settle for a ham sandwich and a nice shoulder massage.

[Fretful Porpentine]

I'm not too worried, Zoff; the chances that he'll see the thread are small, and I trust that if he is smart enough to figure out my identity, he will also be smart enough to drop the class. Besides, I grade fairly (well, sometimes generously) and document the reasoning behind the grades.

Anyway, I'm a grad student, not a prof, and I don't have any money to be sued for :)

[auntie em]

I am consistently amazed at the latest batch of kids who have decided that they reserve the sole power of deciding where they'll attend college.

Back in my day, it was a four-way decision between:

a) The kid

b) The school

c) The parent(s) and

d) The available funding

This is just nuts. Let me ask you, though, Fretful Porpentine--as an instructor, do you think this sort of attitude has resulted from the fact that colleges now have more stringent requirements for admission?

I went off to college in 1988. I didn't apply to any Ivy Leagues, but got into fairly good schools (Scripps, Trinity Univ., and Spelman) with less-than-perfect grades and no extracurriculars to speak of (I was in the marching band, on the prom committee, and helped build the French Club homecoming float every year, but that was it). I was a good essay writer, had good test scores, and am enough of a narcissist to actually enjoy interviews, which helped.

Nowadays, WOW--kids are developing frighteningly packed "college resumes". I don't think I'd stand a chance at getting into college these days! I didn't even play a sport!

So I wonder--is it just that kids are SO FOCUSED on that (apparently) 100-page "checklist" of Stuff That Will Get You Into College that they lose sight of the fact that all this time they're also supposed to be developing character and personality?

And unfortunately, when they get rejected from a school despite having completed The Checklist, they haven't developed enough character and personality to realize that a lawsuit is just going to make them look assy.

I wish you the best of luck, Fretful, if you run into this guy.

[romansperson]

This, from his lawyer, is interesting:

"We want the judge to require the university to live up to its obligation," Hurley said Wednesday during a telephone interview. "We want him, in plain Southern English, to let [Edmonson] start classes on Tuesday."

Sounds like kiddo had an obligation too, and he didn't live up to his part of the agreement. Too bad, so sad.

I work at UNC, too, and I fear that if he is allowed to attend it will compromise the integrity of the admissions process, and let kids think they can screw off all they like once that acceptance letter is in hand.

[SPOOFE]

It's just another case of people believing that the ends justify the means. His half-assed schoolery happened to culminate in a 1600 SAT score, so therefore, half-assed schoolery is the proper means of going through school.

Fuck that. I was a lazy piece-of-shit student, too, but I never demanded that a school give me so much as the time of day.

[Jerrybear]

Wow, so there is at least another one of these spoiled young brats? Before I clicked on this I thought it was about the girl who sued her high school because they wanted her to share the valedictorian title with another student.

[Eonwe]

You know, as a student who was going into college with a damned fine transcript and test scores and ultimately chose (with a little help from the admissions departments at the ivy leagues) a local state school, I get really pissed when I see shit like this.

1600 on your SATs entitles you to something? Think again, dickhead.


By my senior year, I had become so disillusioned with the high school experience that I fell short in my scholarly obligations.


Riiiight. Let me translate. You're a smart kid who never really had to do much work. Your senior year, you decided that the work didn't really matter so just didn't do it. Now that you find you're mistaken, you're trying to weasel your way into a school that doesn't want you. Good luck.

[SpazCat]

This is why I pray for the day that all universities stop accepting SAT scores and base their acceptances on who actually did the work in high school.

Oh look, a flying pig.

[romansperson]

Here's a link from the other paper in town, which has an excerpt of the letter from admissions telling this student what their expectations were for his acceptance to remain in force:

http://www.heraldsun.com/orange/10-383195.html

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

Good god.

Senior year grade review is a part of admissions. Colleges don't want kids to slack off and stop making an effort and blow off what they're supposed to learn in their final year because they "already got in" somewhere.

U-M always does grade review, for every candidate, and it doesn't matter how great the kid looked when he applied.

This suit might have made the papers, but I'll bet it doesn't get much further than that.

[Fretful Porpentine]

auntie em -- Interesting question. As it happens, the "checklist phenomenon" is one of the issues I've been planning to discuss in the first two weeks of my freshman class -- not with reference to this particular student, of course. In fact, the essay I plan to use as a springboard for class discussion dates from my own college-application days ten years ago. I'm not sure things have changed all that much; I get the sense that it's always been a small but obnoxious minority of students from exceptionally privileged backgrounds who get caught up in the Quest for the Perfect Application, while us mere mortals are content to muddle along with our many imperfections and often get into decent colleges anyway. The ten students from the entering class with whom I had the pleasure of working this summer certainly seemed normal enough. (Well, except for the young woman who decided to do a spontaneous ten-minute oral report on the dangers of the Illuminati, but at least she was not-normal in a characterful way :) )

[december]

As far as I can see, the SATs are irrelevant. He's suing to get a contract enforced. The contract was the university's letter of acceptance, which he agreed to.

The letter said...your enrollment will depend upon your successful completion of your current academic year. We expect you to continue to achieve at the level that enabled us to provide this offer of admission; we also expect you to graduate on time.There are two ambiguities that I can see.

1. What's a "successful" graduation?
2. Does the phrase, "We expect" mean that these things are required for the contract to be enforcible?

IMHO the student has pretty good grounds on point #2. The letter just isn't clear. Saying that it expects something is different from saying that it's a requirement. This is a contract of adhesion, meaning that that the wording was written by the stronger party and imposed on the weaker party. Therefore, by law, ambiguities must be resolved in favor of the party who didn't write the contract.

On point #1, I think the student will lose. Getting a combination of C's, D's, and F's isn't "successful" completion. In fact, I would argue that that the sentence, "We expect you to continue to achieve at the level that enabled us to provide this offer of admission..." defines what the University meant by "successful graduation."

However, I think the student has real chance to prevail because it's a contract of adhesion. Clearly, the University could have written a form letter that was more clear.

[Cosmopolitan]

Eh, just another whinefest in a series of whinefests from people who think that they're owed something but forget that they also owe something. If good SATs were all that's required to get into the school of ones choice, then why would we have compulsory schooling at all? Point is, he knew that he had to maintain his GPA, he didn't do it, & now he's trying to weasel out of it. In this litigious society, I'm not shocked.

I'm also irritated that his parents apparently didn't say to him, "Now [name], you didn't hold up your end of the bargain, didja? Go to another school for a year, regain your GPA and reapply to this one then". The kid should know this, being 18 years old, but I can't help but be irritated at the idea that his folks think that litigation is the proper course of action.

[Finagle]

Meh. I'm slightly on the kid's side. At least enough so that I'd give him a hearing before deciding that he's a spoiler brat. Sure, he screwed up big time in his senior year, but still pulled off a 3.5 GPA. Add in the SAT score and the starting a company thing, and a claim of some health problems and I'm not sure I'm developing the picture of a total loser here.

Couldn't they just put him on double-secret probation for his first semester rather than pulling the rug out from under him?

[World Eater]

He has ADD, supposedly.

[JerH]

If you're smart enough to be scoring 1600 on your SAT's, then you've got to really go out of your way to let your grades slide that much. You pretty much have to stop showing up for tests or turning in assignments.

I would actually say, if he's not getting financial aid that would otherwise go to a student who cares to learn, let him in probationally and then kick him out at the end of the term after he blows off all his classes and gets D's.

[Ferret Herder]

Originally posted by Finagle
Meh. I'm slightly on the kid's side. At least enough so that I'd give him a hearing before deciding that he's a spoiler brat.
Sounds like they gave him a hearing.

From the second link:
Reached Tuesday, Davis declined to comment. However, in one of four affidavits from UNC admissions officers filed in superior court Tuesday, Davis said Edmonson had plenty of time to explain the grade decline but didn't address it specifically.

"He looked at his [grade] transcript and responded to my question of what happened to him with philosophical quotes but nothing directly related to my questions," Davis wrote in his affidavit.

From the first link:
Edmonson met with UNC-CH admissions officers in July to try to convince them that he deserved to be in the 2003 freshman class. In an e-mail message outlining the meeting to the recruitment staff, Davis described Edmonson as a "kid who came in thinking he was in charge."

Davis said Edmonson told him his grades were "what they were" and his teacher didn't like him because he was "too much like him."

[lezlers]

Gee, no ego there.

:rolleyes:

This kid should get together with the girl that sued for the sole validictorian title, they'd make a lovely couple.

[county]

Who the fuck does this kid think he is? I mean, it's not like he is an athlete or something.

[county]

Hey, what color is his skin?

[GaWd]

Hey, what color is his skin?

It's our favorite Union rep, back again with his rendition of "White man's burden" in B flat...

Good to see you're still around, tightass.

Sam

P.S.- Bite me.

[Magickly Delicious]

Well, I don't know. I always got the impression that in grades, all that matters is what you end up with. Since he still ended up with a 3.5, a very good grade, I would have thought the school still would have taken him. I have already done the whole college song-and-dance, and I didn't know until I read this thread that schools look at grades after the acceptance letters have been sent. Is it a common practice?

[county]

Originally posted by GaWd
It's our favorite Union rep, back again with his rendition of "White man's burden" in B flat...

Good to see you're still around, tightass.

Sam

P.S.- Bite me.


Don't tense up.

[ArrMatey!]

Jebus. Read this and almost had a flashback. I remember one of the -constant- reminders we got in my senior year of high school was, "Even though you got an acceptance letter, slacking off can still get you booted!" Heck, one guy in my class -did- get booted from his school-o-choice. Now, granted, he went to another school later and did fine, but c'mon. How much sense does this take?

[Shade]

OK, he's probably a bit of an arrogant piece of work who needs to learn how to get ahead in the real world. Working hard is at least as important as intellegence sooner or later.

OTOH, why couldn't the college be specific? In england universities give you a conditional offer, contingent on getting certain grades in your A-levels.

It does seem a bit of a blow to give someone an acceptance letter and say "Oh, sorry. Never mind," later, with the condition looking rather like generic verbeige. How does it normally work in USA? If you got that letter would you read it as requiring you to do well? For that matter, how good is 3.5? Would that normally be sufficient or not?

As for skipping school, yeah, it's a stupid thing to do. OTOH, there's been times when I felt I learned nothing all day, and thought I could do something productive to much better utility.

[Shade]

OK, ArrMatey answers Q2, thanks :)

[lezlers]

county,

Do you actually have something relevant to this thread or did you just feel like dropping by and spouting some nonsensical b.s?

[GaWd]

It's not nosensical lezlers! It's bigotted and ignorant, HUGE difference! :)

[Rysto]

On the one hand, this kid is obviously a whiny bitch, and the university probably saved him from wasting one semester's worth of tuition. On the other, he might have a point. If the news story romansperson gave a link to contained all of the relevant portions of the offer of admission, then it's worded very vaguely. All it says is:

. . . . your enrollment will depend upon your successful completion of your current academic year. We expect you to continue to achieve at the level that enabled us to provide this offer of admission; we also expect you to graduate on time.

I just pulled out all of the offers of admission I recieved this year, and they are much more clear on what you must achieve:

Queen's University:
. . . . this offer is conditional. It will remain valid provided your final average remains and you obtain the O.S.S.D. Your final average will be calculated using the program prerequisites and three additional courses . . . .
University of Ottawa:
-this is a conditional offer of admission
-your must obtain the OSSD and successfully complete 6 OAC/4U/4M courses(including all prerequisites)
University of Waterloo
Applicants . . . must complete the Ontario Secondary School Diploma(OSSD) and have a minimum of 6 OACs and/or grade 12 U and M courses including courses specifically required for the program of admission . . . A minimum final average of 70% based on the best 6 OACs and/or grade 12 U and M courses including required courses must be attained. The University of Waterloo reserves the right to withdraw offers of admission, residence, scholarship, or bursaries if these requirements . . . are not met.

Obviously they're worded this way so that this type of situation cannot occur. Common sense tells me that this kid should not be allowed to go to university, but I'm not sure how firm the university's footing is legally.

[Mearl Dox]

If he's smart enough to get a 1600 on the SATs, I bet he was bored out of his mind in high school and felt it was mostly a waste of time. I know I did at his age, and I'm not that much smarter than average.

On the other hand, the school said he'd have to keep his grades up, he didn't, and thus they have every right to tell him sorry, but no. Being bright in high school sometimes has the unfortunate side effect of breeding serious arrogance in a kid. (Once again, it sure did with me.) He'll have to suck it up and try someplace else, like any other person. I bet someday he'll look back on this and think "Man, what a jerk I was!""

[TeaElle]

Am I the only one who took Edmondson's answer of his grades "were what they were" to mean that he couldn't argue that they were unfair, he conceded that the grades were what they appeared to be on face value? It could come across as arrogant out on context, but if it was part of a larger answer to the question of "Can you explain these senior year grades?" then that's not problematic to me.

As for going into the meeting as if he was "in charge" that's a personality issue. A lot of people have forceful personalities and have taken (perhaps too much) to heart the advice "Go in there and be a force to be reckoned with. Don't let anyone push you around, stand behind your principles." The fact that Mr. Davis felt the need to characterize Edmondson in that fashion makes it seem like he (Davis) is making this personal, and it's not. Why not stick to the facts, instead of perceptions about someone's attitude or personality? It was an irrelevant jab.

As December pointed out, this was a contract of adhesion and it was vague vague vague. They've got Edmonson over a barrel, and if I were him, I'd be pushing all my weight around to the extent that I could, just because one person vs. a huge university isn't a fair fight. He's got to, in the common lingo, "bring it" if he expects to get anywhere. Sounds to me like Davis and co. at UNC didn't expect it to be brought and didn't appreciate it when it was. That's definitely to their detriment.

It will be interesting to see how a court interprets "successful completion" of the senior year. A liberal read on that could certainly take it as "maintaining sufficient grades and attendance to graduate unconditionally within the school district's policies." If UNC wanted more than that, such as maintenance of a specific senior-year GPA or an appropriately rigorous courseload (as opposed to a schedule with barebones requirements and then lots of study hall and "easy" electives) why couldn't they just say so?

This will be a fun one to track.

[Doomtrain]

Originally posted by Magickly Delicious
I didn't know until I read this thread that schools look at grades after the acceptance letters have been sent. Is it a common practice?

I had to send a transcript to the colleges I wanted to attend, and then another to my school once I graduated.

[Nightime]

I'm with the kid on this one.

I find a lot of the personal attacks on this kid disturbing. So he missed a bunch of days senior year. So what? I skipped more days than him my senior year. Why? Because there was no point in going! I could ace every test just by skimming through the book. Why should I go to class to hear math problems explained when they were already obvious? Why should I go hear a teacher basically read a chapter of a history book that I could read faster? And it looks like this kid was even more disillusioned with high school by that point.

So he skips a pointless day of school and instead works on trying to start a software company. And for that you accuse him of thinking he is God?

Sadly, this is consistent with the new culture of education. Many school districts have each day planned out for their teachers - a certain number of minutes for this, then that, and so on. The teachers and students both hate it. It leaves no room for originality, for tailoring material for a class, for fun, for anything. Yet supervisors will come to classes silently and make sure the teacher is following their assigned schedule. The message? Learning is secondary. The most important thing is falling in line.

And that's just what this student didn't do. Fall in line. So he must think he is God, right? He is fighting to go to the college he was accepted to, and he is deperate, so he thinks he is God.

I don't know if he will get to go to college. I think that since he was already accepted, and he graduated with a 3.5 GPA, that he should get to go.

But even if he doesn't get to go, I think it is shameful to make personal attacks on him for skipping school when you really have no clue what it was like. It is very probable that he learned more working on his software company idea than he would have in those days of class.

This student was already accepted to college. He thought all he had to do was keep his GPA up, and he did. Because of this, it was probably very hard for him to go to a pointless and possibly hostile place each day. Now he gets the rug pulled from under him. I think it is wrong, and I hope he wins.

[county]

Originally posted by lezlers
Gee, no ego there.

:rolleyes:

This kid should get together with the girl that sued for the sole validictorian title, they'd make a lovely couple.

Now there's insightful commentary. Damn good contribution.


The questions still remain, what color is he?, is he an athlete?
How much more is there to this story than what these opinions are based on?

I see valid arguments for both positions I have read - the courts will apparently decide.

[furlibusea]

originally posted by Nightime
I'm with the kid on this one.

I find a lot of the personal attacks on this kid disturbing. So he missed a bunch of days senior year. So what? I skipped more days than him my senior year. Why? Because there was no point in going! I could ace every test just by skimming through the book. Why should I go to class to hear math problems explained when they were already obvious? Why should I go hear a teacher basically read a chapter of a history book that I could read faster? And it looks like this kid was even more disillusioned with high school by that point.

The point was he supposedly had his heart set on going to this one particular school and was told how to do so. He didn't do it. Maybe he could have Aced the tests but he didn't he flunked them or skipped them. If he is that burnt out on school he needs to take some time off and go back when he is ready to learn. He doesn't need to waste his parent's money and his teacher's time.

I don't buy that the language was fuzzy. It said you need to keep doing what you did to get you accepted. It does not say You need to keep your GPA within our acceptance standards. See the difference? I think he is stretching to try to make it mean anything other than keep your grades to the level they are. To me that says you do not get to bring in a semester of 1.3 gpa.

They gave him a chance to explain himself and he went in and pulled attitude. I am almost willing to bet if he had gone in and said "I extended myself too far and i was having problems with my meds" the interviewer could have put him on accademic probation and the kid would be shopping for lofts for his dorm room as we type.

It is unfortunate that his parents and concilers were not warning him all semester that he was blowing it. This really should not have come as a suprise to him. Someone should smack his parents up side the head for paying for this lawyer.

If this kid is really lucky he might get to learn a really valuable lesson this semester. That lesson is that you are responsible for your actions.

[county]

Originally posted by lezlers
Gee, no ego there.

:rolleyes:

This kid should get together with the girl that sued for the sole validictorian title, they'd make a lovely couple.

Now there's insightful commentary. Damn good contribution.


The questions still remain, what color is he?, is he an athlete?
How much more is there to this story than what these opinions are based on?

I see valid arguments for both positions I have read - the courts will apparently decide.

[October]

Schools place so much importance on test scores, but they are not necessarily good indicators of how a kid will do in college. I knew plenty of kids who made really high SAT scores, never had to work in high school, got into really good colleges, and then tanked their freshman year.

My mother is a librarian, and has been working in schools for 25 years. This week she attended her orientation seminars, and was put in a group of other teachers and asked a question. If a kid doesn't do his daily work (worth 40% of the grade), but passes the course tests (60%) of the grade, should he pass the class? The teachers and my mother discussed it and came to the consensus that no, the kid should not pass simply for doing well on the test, if he did not work. This was the wrong answer, apparently, and now my mother is on her principal's shit list (the woman is a little crazy; my mother used to be her golden child. Since she gave the Wrong Answer in public, the principal has been riding her ass and cutting her bonuses, but that's beside the point).

I think it boils down to whether the kid has a record of acing tests and doing well, or actually working hard for his grades. The latter is what will determine if he does well in college or blows off his freshman year.

[Shade]

What do you mean by 'doing the daily work'? If it's 40% of the work, I assume it's actually producing something gradabe, in which case it's reasonable to require someone to do it.

But some places just require everyone to turn up. If I've learnt all about x in my spare time because it was interesting, and can ace the test, then sitting in a class every day for 2 hours listening to someone reading out of a textbook I've read doesn't teach me anything but that the system can suck.

OTOH, some pounding in is necessary. I taught myself half of a maths A-level, and did fine, but if I'd been forced to do more examples I'd remember it better now. But before that I had to sit through GCSE where a far as I can remember I learnt precisely nothing.

[Cerri]

Always nice to see another member of the younger generation try to escape all personal responsibility with mommy and daddy's money/help. :rolleyes:

[elf6c]

Originally posted by december
As far as I can see, the SATs are irrelevant. He's suing to get a contract enforced. The contract was the university's letter of acceptance, which he agreed to.

This is a contract of adhesion, meaning that that the wording was written by the stronger party and imposed on the weaker party. Therefore, by law, ambiguities must be resolved in favor of the party who didn't write the contract.

. . .

However, I think the student has real chance to prevail because it's a contract of adhesion. Clearly, the University could have written a form letter that was more clear.

Stick to the political mis-analysis. Your legal conclusions are way off. Although attending law school would help with the excess of free time and citation issues repeatedly presented.

The letter is most likely not a "unenforceable" contract of adhesion. Further not every contract between parties of unequal bargining power is a contract of adhesion. The courts will very rarely find a contract to be unenforcable under these grounds- usually only under exception circumstances with implict or explict public policy concerns will it do so.

Cite (suitability plain english):

http://www.ssrn.com/update/lsn/cyberspace/lessons/contr03.html


Generally speaking, adhesion contracts *are* legally enforceable. Indeed, we enter into contracts like this all the time -- e.g., when we buy something from the supermarket (without any chance to negotiate about the price of the item), or order some item from a restaurant, or park our car in a commercial lot, or undertake any of the other innumerable transactions where we agree, in effect, to pay the asking price for some good or service by virtue of some act of availing ourselves of the good or service.



Other cites which are publically available which touch on this issue:

http://www.gtlaw.com/pub/alerts/2003/scharlatr_01.asp

http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=2325&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C

http://subscript.bna.com/SAMPLES/ctl.nsf/0/e7ad8bcb5cf1a6f685256ce10076ebc8?OpenDocument

[Fretful Porpentine]

The latest word is that he will not be attending UNC, at least not this semester:

http://newsobserver.com/front/story/2802786p-2590865c.html

Nightime -- I actually agree with some of your points. It's entirely possible that the guy may have learned more starting up his software company than he would have sitting in class -- but that doesn't change the fact that he made his choices and then refused to accept the consequences. If he wants formal educational qualifications, he has the responsibility to play by the formal education rules, which are fairly clear in this case: show up for class and keep your grades up like everybody else. If he doesn't, he can blow off school as much as he likes and more power to him. But he can't have it both ways.

[World Eater]

I swear we live in a nation of victims.

[snac]

Mr. Raftery, aka Fierce English Teacher, January 4 or so, 1977: "Around this time every year I hear a lot about 'senior slump.' I don't know what that is; some posture problem I suppose [pause for laughter from the assembled senior students, which doesn't come]. I had a student three or four years back who thought he was pretty hot stuff. He'd gotten into Princeton and didn't think he had to work in my class. [Pause for effect.] He got a C- in my class. And Princeton said no, thanks, to him."

So if Mr. Raftery was correct, and sorry but I have no further cites, there's a history of this sort of thing dating back to the middle 1970s at least.

[Tezmac]

Originally posted by county

The questions still remain, what color is he?, is he an athlete?
How much more is there to this story than what these opinions are based on?


He's white. You happy now? Do I get to feel disenfranchised now cause hes white? Put your race card back in the deck so you can deal it out later and stop being an ass. :rolleyes:

[lezlers]

Originally posted by county
Now there's insightful commentary. Damn good contribution.


The questions still remain, what color is he?, is he an athlete?
How much more is there to this story than what these opinions are based on?

I see valid arguments for both positions I have read - the courts will apparently decide.

What's your damage county? Why does his color or athletic ability matter? If you've got some sort of backwoods logic to add to the situation, come out and say it, don't lurk around the thread throwing out little gems that somehow, someone is actually supposed to care about and take seriously.

[Rysler]

I totally disagree with having to spend hours on busy work that is a waste of my time and existence, when I know the material and do well on tests.

Busy work is intended to reinforce material that one needs to learn. If its learned, what's the problem?

I'm wasn't a good student. I'm wasn't a good essay writer or project speaker. Never did a lick of homework. But I learned the material and was a good TEST taker. That's what works best with my brain. Why should I be punished for learning faster than other students and needing to put less effort into it? Being punished for being too smart just sucks.

I wasn't a good athlete and I wasn't into the social aspects of school because I was picked on. All I had was my intellect to get me through until I could blossom in college.

I am proud of getting a good, solid public education in an advanced program (International Baccalaureate). I am (yes, snidely) pleased to have shocked teachers that gave me Cs for my lack of interest by receiving high IB test scores.

But I resent people who want to take away test scores as a measure. That's all I had to show for myself, and I think it DID show something positive.

Well, to be honest, I had 150 hours of community service and very high achievement in the art program... But in most schools, that's no match for athletic ability or being president of a club.

I got through a college (Guilford) in three years, I went through grad school right after (UNC! ::waves::), both as a B student, and got the job I wanted (librarian), and am a very happy contributing member of society.

Don't take that away from me just because I didn't "fit in" to what a good student is supposed to be. Everyone learns differently.

That said...the student in the OP made a huge mistake. I knew damn well the burden of what I was doing and how it could hurt me. He should have learned that lesson before this happened, it sure sucks to be learning it now.

[World Eater]

Originally posted by Rysler
I'm wasn't a good student. I'm wasn't a good essay writer or project speaker.

Must..........resist.............urge........to......make............fun.....of.......typo.........

[lezlers]

Rysler,

The thing people are forgetting is that if he hadn't gone to class and merely showed up and aced tests, his GPA would've been fine, for the most part. Unless a teacher is a stickler for attendance, if the kid is really that smart and doesn't need to "waste his time" in class, it would've been reflected on his test scores.

Now. If his grades suffered due to his teacher's strict attendance policies, then he deserved to fail, if those policies were outlined in the beginning of class, which they most likely were. He failed to live up to his end of the bargain, therefore he doesn't deserve what he would've gotten out of it, had he (a decent grade).

If his poor grades were due to skipping tests and assigments, then he also deserves the poor grade, because he didn't live up to his half of the bargain in that respect. It's a pretty shitty attitude to have to think you're "above" school, and if you have that sort of attitude, frankly, you don't deserve to go to college.

I think it's pretty common knowledge that a college can revoke your acceptance if you tank your senior year. Anyone who seriously applies for college knows this. So this kid knowingly renigged on his end of the bargain between himself and the college and is trying to weasle his way out of the mess he made through litigations. The school gave him a chance to explain himself, he copped an attitude.

What the hell is happening to the concept of "personal responsibility"?

[Tezmac]

Originally posted by Rysler
I totally disagree with having to spend hours on busy work that is a waste of my time and existence, when I know the material and do well on tests.

Busy work is intended to reinforce material that one needs to learn. If its learned, what's the problem?

I'm wasn't a good student. I'm wasn't a good essay writer or project speaker. Never did a lick of homework. But I learned the material and was a good TEST taker. That's what works best with my brain. Why should I be punished for learning faster than other students and needing to put less effort into it? Being punished for being too smart just sucks.


That's the biggest load of crap I've heard all day. There's this thing called WORK ETHIC. You know, where it's your job to show up everyday and give 100%? Maybe you haven't heard of that, and that kid probably hasn't either. If UNC doesn't want a person who can't do the one job you HAVE to do from 5-18 years of age then screw the little whiney bastard. All he had to do was show up to class and do his "trivial" homework and he couldn't do it.

[Ceejaytee]

Hey Rysler, I went to Guilford! (Class of '86). What, was the patented Guilford 5-year plan not good enough for you?

As for the kid in the OP, I'm feeling sorry for him. But he should have known he needed to do actual work senior year. I don't think the problem is how he learns. Obviously, he did well enough in his first 3 years to manage to graduate with a 3.5, even though he slacked off in his senior year. If he could do that, then I don't think it's his learning style that's the problem. It seems more like he decided he was in at UNC so why bother.

[Rysler]

OOoooo, hey Ceejaytee! Fight, fight, inner light! I'm class of '00.

I just agreed with lezlers. And found her post reasonably presented. I feel faint.

And "Work Ethic" is bullshit. To me, "Work Ethic" means doing a good job. I do a damn good job. I excel. That has nothing to do with the amount of time I put into something.

I've been working consistently since I was 16. I do well at work. I don't do well at school. Its a painful chore that prevents me from working.

I agree that the kid must have tried really really hard to fail high school classes, if he's that smart. He should be punished. Yes. Totally.

But don't punish him by devaluing his SAT scores. They're, apparently, all he's got going in his favor.

[Tezmac]

Originally posted by Rysler


And "Work Ethic" is bullshit. To me, "Work Ethic" means doing a good job. I do a damn good job. I excel. That has nothing to do with the amount of time I put into something.


Dictionary.com

work ethic
n.
A set of values based on the moral virtues of hard work and diligence.

That isn't just doing a "good job." A good work ethic is reflective of a persons personality. Almost anyone can go through high school and do a "good job" but a work ethic is something that you learn and discipline yourself to have. I'd much rather have an employee that had a 3.0 with a strong work ethic than a person with a 4.0 that just gets the job done and shows up when they feel like it.

[Shade]

Originally posted by Tezmac
That's the biggest load of crap I've heard all day. There's this thing called WORK ETHIC. You know, where it's your job to show up everyday and give 100%? Maybe you haven't heard of that, and that kid probably hasn't either. If UNC doesn't want a person who can't do the one job you HAVE to do from 5-18 years of age then screw the little whiney bastard. All he had to do was show up to class and do his "trivial" homework and he couldn't do it. That's not an entirely fair comparison. If I'm being paid to do something, then it's good to do it to the best of my ability. But if I've done it, and no-one'll let me do something else, then showing up everyday for appearances is so much crap. Yeah, often you have to play that game, but it's not like very vertuous.

OK, this kid didn't work as hard as he could have done if his GPA dropped like that. Maybe he should be punished for that. But you can't say everyone should work hard even if it doesn't do them or anyone else any good.

[lezlers]

Originally posted by Rysler


I just agreed with lezlers. And found her post reasonably presented. I feel faint.



Uh, thanks. I think. :dubious:

[Oy!]

What puzzles me is that I find it hard to believe the kid wouldn't have been accepted had he applied with 1600 SATs and a 3.5 GPA in the first place. Does UNC have that many really good applicants that they're turning down a B+ student with 1600 SATs? And if they would have taken him with those qualifications to begin with, on what basis are they turning him down now?

Don't get me wrong. The kid sounds a bit arrogant, and all he has to do is put in one year at another school and transfer in to UNC, so the lawsuit is rather silly. But it does seem strange to me that they denied admittance to him at all.

BTW, on the other issue, I'm sorry, but I don't see the point of mandatory attendance requirements. Schools are there to put information into minds. If the kid ends up with that information (and with 1600 SATs, it's a good bet that in this case he did! Calling SATs meaningless is silly - they don't test everything, but they're as good an indicator of academic knowledge as we've got, and yes, I understand that some people do badly on tests. Sorry about that, but what do you suggest instead?) why do we care whether he was in class or not?

[Tezmac]

AvhHines
"What puzzles me is that I find it hard to believe the kid wouldn't have been accepted had he applied with 1600 SATs and a 3.5 GPA in the first place. Does UNC have that many really good applicants that they're turning down a B+ student with 1600 SATs? And if they would have taken him with those qualifications to begin with, on what basis are they turning him down now?"

He was a 3.8 student. He had to keep his grades around the same level according to UNC to be accepted. Doing the math, he got a 1.4 his last semester. A 1.4!!!! If he took 5 classes, thats 3 D's and 2 C's. Sounds to me like he flat out didnt meet the requirement.

AvhHines
"BTW, on the other issue, I'm sorry, but I don't see the point of mandatory attendance requirements. Schools are there to put information into minds. If the kid ends up with that information (and with 1600 SATs, it's a good bet that in this case he did!"

We must have vastly different opinions on what school is for. If all you got out of high school is what you read out of your books then I feel extremely sorry for you. School is so much more than learning from a book. People like you feeling that kids should be able to do whatever they want when they want is probably why we have such a problem of irresponsible, undiciplined, disrespectful kids these days. From age whatever to 18 it is their JOB to go to school. You let your kid do whatever the hell he/she wants, and I'll make damn sure my kid is at school everyday, and we'll see how each turns out. :)

[Incubus]

Originally posted by JerH
If you're smart enough to be scoring 1600 on your SAT's, then you've got to really go out of your way to let your grades slide that much. You pretty much have to stop showing up for tests or turning in assignments.

I would actually say, if he's not getting financial aid that would otherwise go to a student who cares to learn, let him in probationally and then kick him out at the end of the term after he blows off all his classes and gets D's.

I disagree with your first statement. Getting a 1600 on the SAT's means he's very good at taking the SAT's. It does not make him a good student, or hard worker. What I really hate about the SAT's is that it does NOT cover material you are working on in High School, after all if it did, you wouldn't have to waste a rediculous amount of time studying for it, taking special classes to prepare, and getting books about it. I don't think its a reflection of a person's academic skills- if it were, we wouldn't need to STUDY for it.

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

I bounced this story around the lunchroom and was reminded that my boss's boss's daughter had this same thing happen to her. She slacked off her senior year, and in July she got a letter from the U.

She wrote a letter and then went in person. She took full responsibility for it, admitted she got senioritis and screwed up. She apologized, and begged them to give her a chance. She said that if they'd still permit her to come, she'd work hard and be the kind of student they were expecting. And they let her in.

I don't know what his reasons were or how he handled his own meeting. But I wonder. Maybe that's all it would have taken from this kid: humility and accountability. I used to work in admissions, and you wouldn't believe how refreshing honesty and forthrightness is. When someone had some weak grades in their past I was far, far more impressed with the kid who said "I fooled around and messed up, and it cost me; I've learned my lesson" than the kid who had a strong of excuses (even if some of the reasons sounded valid) for why she didn't do well. I know there are many things that can interfere with a high-potential student's learning and grades, and I'm not unsympathetic. But there are people who seem to jump on any excuse they can find, and it gets tiresome.

As for those of you who think HS is a waste of time: well, yeah, I wasn't stimulated every minute either. But I don't think slacking off is a legitimate way to fix the problem. If you really think attending class is that goddamned detrimental to your education, than you ought to formally withdraw and develop a solid plan to be homeschooled and work towads a diploma or GED.

Also realize that if you want a college education, you need to find one that will accept that philosophy and/or accept you based on your potential, not your high school performance. If you're that damned brilliant, surely you can devise an effective plan to get yourself the education you deserve. It doesn't seem that smart to me to just fail to meet expectations and then whine about how colleges just don't understand how to measure you.

[Fretful Porpentine]

I don't see the point of mandatory attendance requirements. Schools are there to put information into minds.
Nope. Students aren't empty vessels. School is about interaction; that's why we still have schools instead of sitting students down at individual computers and giving them a CD-ROM with all they need to know. If a student isn't there to debate public issues in civics class or participate in a writing workshop in English or present a skit in Spanish, he's shortchanging his classmates as well as himself.

BTW, while there are a number of colleges and universities in the US that don't have mandatory attendance policies, UNC is not one of them. If this particular student is looking for an environment where he will be free to skip class, he should apply somewhere else.

[Monty]

Incubus: I was under the impression that the SAT was a measure of one's academic potential, not skill.

[seal_cleaner]

<<By my senior year, I had become so disillusioned with the high school experience that I fell short in my scholarly obligations.>>
Interesting. My younger son felt the same way during his junior year. Smart kid, bad grades. We talked to the HS counselor who recommended a GED. He got it, now in tech school, doing well.
Hating high school is one thing, but, I'm sorry, being "disillusioned with the high school experience" = being a horse's ass.
BTW I had pretty good SAT's, bad senior slump. Got a VERY DIRECT letter from the college where I had been accepted. I shaped right up, yessir.

[Rysler]

No one's arguing that he shouldn't have attended classes. No one's arguing that he shouldn't have gotten As, because it could have been damn easy for him. He deserves the boot. As seal_clubber and Cranky have put forth.

But anyone who thinks high school is for the interaction sure had a lot more fun than I did. I was picked on by my classmates, did not get along for my teachers, made unimpressive grades. You all might have had more pleasant, life-affirming experiences there, kudos! That does not mean everyone does or should.

To concede Cranky's pointIf you're that damned brilliant, surely you can devise an effective plan to get yourself the education you deserve.

Damn straight. Keep your head down, suffer through, and make sure your pieces are in place to do what you really want. Jumping through hoops is a very effective means of getting what you want sometimes. Kid didn't get the memo.

[mic84]

If the posters who think that the guy's attitude is a fault, I find the whole situation ridiculous. So, some official, after a (I guess) 5 minutes' conversation decides that the guy is "snotty" and has no "work ethic", and that's why he can't attend the college? Someone thinks they're God, all right.

Anyway, high school is effectively a coercive institution, on evidence of colleges not willing to accept someone who doesn't attend(and, having been to school, I dispute the idea that it's about interaction etc. No, it isn't. Not in my experience. And I'm doing all right in university, as I did in HS, thank you very much). You don't get money for being there, and there's a threat that if you quit, it's hard to develop a good career. Would you expect a slave(not a perfect analogy, but you get the idea) to have a "work ethic"?

That said, given that he applied to MIT also, he likely intended to major in science or engineering. Given that he had "difficulties with calculus"(and since that's the only subject that's mentioned in the news article, I bet that's the "F"), he might not have been prepared for college, snotty or not. What woud save him, in this case, is not a heartfelt promise to improve his "work ethic", but an explanation that he knows calculus, but had a headache every time he had to write a calculus test.

[seal_cleaner]

Originally posted by mic84
If the posters who think that the guy's attitude is a fault, I find the whole situation ridiculous. So, some official, after a (I guess) 5 minutes' conversation decides that the guy is "snotty" and has no "work ethic", and that's why he can't attend the college? Someone thinks they're God, all right.
I don't get that at all. It wasn't his attitude, it was his NON-PERFORMANCE. His attitude wasn't an issue 'til he was called on it. If you're too fuckin' "disillusioned" to show up for class, fuck you. I'd rather his University slot went to a kid with average SAT scores but good grades achieved through hard work.
Fuck being "disillusioned." I get that way too, but there are bills to pay. I should try that on my boss - "I'm too disillusioned to make it in before 10:00."

[mic84]

Originally posted by seal_clubber
I don't get that at all. It wasn't his attitude, it was his NON-PERFORMANCE. His attitude wasn't an issue 'til he was called on it. If you're too fuckin' "disillusioned" to show up for class, fuck you. I'd rather his University slot went to a kid with average SAT scores but good grades achieved through hard work.
Fuck being "disillusioned." I get that way too, but there are bills to pay. I should try that on my boss - "I'm too disillusioned to make it in before 10:00."

Yes. BUT, he was invited to talk to an admission officer, which implies that he could have been admitted regardless of his poor performance. Some people were speculating that the reason he didn't "pass" the interview was either a snotty attitude, or lack of regret that he has no "work ethic". This was a respone to these posters. Judging by the first article cited, I wouldn't say that this is an unreasonable speculation.

[mic84]

Also,

I'd rather his University slot went to a kid with average SAT scores but good grades achieved through hard work

My impression is that the universities look at your intellectual potential rather than how hard you tried, hence the SATs.
I understand the point that a student with good study habits is more likely to succeed in university. However, study habits is something that doesn't require time to acquire. As opposed to ability to do well on SATs.


Fuck being "disillusioned." I get that way too, but there are bills to pay. I should try that on my boss - "I'm too disillusioned to make it in before 10:00."

You are paid money for showing up for work.

A HS student who doesn't like HS gets to play an involved and silly social game they've been playing for 12 years. And if they quit, there goes their career. Do you notice the difference?

[monstro]

[i]Originally posted by Rysler[/b]
I'm wasn't a good student. I'm wasn't a good essay writer or project speaker. Never did a lick of homework. But I learned the material and was a good TEST taker. That's what works best with my brain. Why should I be punished for learning faster than other students and needing to put less effort into it? Being punished for being too smart just sucks.

Why should a hard-working student who tests poorly be punished by a system that does not value hard work?

Essay writing is a skill. As an educator, I don't give a squat if you can regurgitate facts but can't put them together in a cogent argument. Public speaking is also a skill. You can be the most brilliant person in the world but if you can't convey ideas articulately, then no one cares how much you know.

I don't think a fast learner is someone who doesn't need to do homework (so humble yourself a little). There are skills learned by doing homework (like essay writing) that are independent of the material itself.

[seal_cleaner]

Originally posted by mic84
Yes. BUT, he was invited to talk to an admission officer, which implies that he could have been admitted regardless of his poor performance. Some people were speculating that the reason he didn't "pass" the interview was either a snotty attitude, or lack of regret that he has no "work ethic". This was a respone to these posters. Judging by the first article cited, I wouldn't say that this is an unreasonable speculation.
Speculated........in any event, he first got into trouble for being a fuckoff. If he hadn't been, he would have been safely in college before they discovered his true nature.


[i]A HS student who doesn't like HS gets to play an involved and silly social game they've been playing for 12 years. And if they quit, there goes their career. Do you notice the difference? [/B]
Haha, I get it, sarcasm.
If you can't be bothered to put up with the bullshit in school, you might have real trouble with real-world bullshit. If this kid doesn't get into college, maybe he wll have discovered a valuable lesson.
I always told my kids school was their job. The sooner they realize being "disillusioned" was no excuse for substandard performance, the more ready they were for real life.
Note my earlier post - my son hated HS. It was tough on him. Now he's on his way, a lot faster than he might have been, to the real world. Maybe he'll wish he had studied more. Maybe he'll go to college later when he's more motivated. Either way, he's not going to try to sue his way into the life he wants.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally posted by seal_clubber
Fuck being "disillusioned." I get that way too, but there are bills to pay. I should try that on my boss - "I'm too disillusioned to make it in before 10:00."

Alienation's for the rich
and I'm gettin' poorer every day
Uh hey hey hey
-They Might Be Giants

I feel sorry for the kid, in a "There but for the grace of God went I" way. High school suh-hucked; although I had a few good teachers, I had a few eygogglingly bad teachers as well, and a mass of mediocre brokenspirited teachers who were putting in time every bit as much as I was. I slogged through the tedium only through sheer inertia, occasionally intimidating teachers into giving me good grades -- not by threatening them, but by dressing scary, having a strong personality, being more eloquent than them, and demonstrating that I had a better grasp on the subject than any other student in the class.

Had things gone differently, I easily might have dropped out of school, might have decided there were more important things in life than demonstrating that I was a good little trained monkey.

That said, the kid has options. He can probably audit classes -- UNC is pretty good about allowing that, isn't it? He can work on starting his company. He can take a couple years off and work shitty dead-end jobs, to gain some real-world experience, and reapply to college in a couple of years. Suing the school doesn't seem like the right response to me.

I wish him the best, and hope that he's able to find an educational path that stimulates and involves him.

Daniel

[mic84]

Originally posted by seal_clubber
Speculated........in any event, he first got into trouble for being a fuckoff. If he hadn't been, he would have been safely in college before they discovered his true nature.

I don't think anyone would dispute this.



Haha, I get it, sarcasm.
If you can't be bothered to put up with the bullshit in school, you might have real trouble with real-world bullshit.
Probably. However, in my experience, you have to put up with much less bullshit in college. Then again, in my university, the only mandatory attendance is for tests and exams, the dates for which are announced at the beginning of the term.

If this kid doesn't get into college, maybe he wll have discovered a valuable lesson.
Yeah, maybe. The admission office isn't there to teach a random,(almost) adult applicant, a valuable lesson.


I always told my kids school was their job. The sooner they realize being "disillusioned" was no excuse for substandard performance, the more ready they were for real life.
I guess you're right. However, I think that school should be more than social conditioning.


Note my earlier post - my son hated HS. It was tough on him. Now he's on his way, a lot faster than he might have been, to the real world. Maybe he'll wish he had studied more. Maybe he'll go to college later when he's more motivated. Either way, he's not going to try to sue his way into the life he wants.
College is an opportunity to learn, it's not a career milestone. At any event, that's what the admission office should think, IMO.
The guy was denied the opportunity to learn. It shouldn't be an issue of "the life he wants", as far as admission is concerned.

[Monty]

mic84: Post-secondary institutions look at both your potential and your performance. The fact that someone has managed to get an impressive score on the SAT is merely one factor in the "who shall be admitted" equation. The individual concerned in the OP has shown that his performance is lacking. Think about a class in which the students must partner up for an assignment. What's going to happen to the other student when this individual decides at the last moment that the assignment's too hard or he's not interested in doing the assignment or he "has better things to do" than his school work.

Your assertion that study habits don't require time to acquire is, to be blunt, ludicrous. Just as any habit, especially one that takes time away from the "fun stuff" in life, studying requires discipline. The student at issue here obviously had some good study habits; however, he jettisoned them at an inopportune time. The consequences of that lack of self-discipline will do him well in the work-a-day world, provided he actually learned something from it.

One guess how I think he should be assisted in learning a lesson from his:
[list=1] Failure to complete assigned work
Failure to appear at his appointed place
Failure to learn required material
Failure to follow the institutional policies known to him in advance[/list=1]

The common word in this description of that student's (lack of) performance is failure. The school to which he had been admitted, no doubt, had already informed him that his admission was contingent upon him maintaining a certain academic standard. He was a failure at that.

The school did the right thing.

[Monty]

p.s. My university has classes taught by instructors. So far, all of my instructors have based a portion of the grade on attendance and participation.

p.p.s. University most certainly should be a career milestone. This milestone is the one in which you gain the basic knowledge for your chosen profession, in addition to being presented with other information to gain a rounded out education. University is not a place to mark time and get a diploma without working for it.

[Doomtrain]

Basic knowledge for your chosen profession? How many people actually go in to the field they majored in in school? I'd bet it's a minority.

[Nightime]

Oh please... yeah this kid is "evil" and showed his "true nature" because instead of going to a hostile and pointless place every day his senior year, he tried to start a software company.

I guess I'm even more evil, because I skipped more days than he did. Luckily my teachers did not grade based on attendance. So that makes it not evil?

I'm not even arguing that the school should be required to let him in. But letting him in would be the right thing to do. Put him on academic probation if necessary - at least give him a chance.

[Monty]

GM: Are you unaware of what the term "chosen" means? It means that which you choose. For example, at the moment I'm majoring in Linguistics and that is the profession in which I intend to labor. And so why'd you just flat out ignore the rest of that posting?

Nightime: He had a chance. He blew it.

[lokij]

I personally wonder what would have happened if this guy had decided in his junior or sophomore year that he was done with high school, dropped out and took the GED. He then spends the next year or so trying to start up his software company and in the process takes and aces the SAT. He applies to UNC. I bet you nearly anything they would have accepted him. A good work ethic is Very important, but I always was taught to work smarter.. not necessarily harder.

I dunno... he's a dumbass for slacking off in the home stretch, but I was similar in some ways in high school. It's very very hard to do what you think is pointless time consuming busywork every day and sit in class (and try to look interested) when you have long since grasped all of the concepts (sometimes long ago on your own study). If you add in other factors such as oh, I don't know... how wonderful the average high school treats the kind of student who can score a perfect SAT you might think about skipping a dozen or so days of class yourself.

[mic84]

Originally posted by Monty
mic84: Post-secondary institutions look at both your potential and your performance. The fact that someone has managed to get an impressive score on the SAT is merely one factor in the "who shall be admitted" equation.

By potential I mean the potential to actually learn something while in the university. Of course, high school performance is a good tool to estimate this. The contempt for HS "work" or lack thereof isn't.

The individual concerned in the OP has shown that his performance is lacking. Think about a class in which the students must partner up for an assignment. What's going to happen to the other student when this individual decides at the last moment that the assignment's too hard or he's not interested in doing the assignment or he "has better things to do" than his school work.

Generally, if people are paired up, partners feel some obligation to do the work. Anyhow, If he's interested in the school work, he'll do well. If not, he won't. If he's not interested but still "works hard", he'll pass, but will hardly learn anything. In my experience. The school, I think, should assume that all their assignments are interesting. That's what it probably says in their brochures.


Your assertion that study habits don't require time to acquire is, to be blunt, ludicrous. Just as any habit, especially one that takes time away from the "fun stuff" in life, studying requires discipline.
As does brushing your teeth twice a day. What I meant is, you can decide that you do have this habit, and start behaving accordingly. Takes a few seconds.


The student at issue here obviously had some good study habits; however, he jettisoned them at an inopportune time. The consequences of that lack of self-discipline will do him well in the work-a-day world, provided he actually learned something from it.
That's irrelevant.


One guess how I think he should be assisted in learning a lesson from his:
[list=1] Failure to complete assigned work
Failure to appear at his appointed place
Failure to learn required material
Failure to follow the institutional policies known to him in advance[/list=1]

The common word in this description of that student's (lack of) performance is failure. The school to which he had been admitted, no doubt, had already informed him that his admission was contingent upon him maintaining a certain academic standard. He was a failure at that.

The school did the right thing.

Depends. What was their goal? To teach him a lesson? Then maybe. If their goal was to increase the intellectual abilities of the citizens of NC(and he didn't fail calculus while intending to do a technical major), they did the wrong thing. Sure, he failed. If it didn't affect his ability to learn in the university, so what?
That is not to say that the school didn't have the right to withdraw the offer - he did fail to do what he was told. The lawsuit looks frivolous.


p.p.s. University most certainly should be a career milestone. This milestone is the one in which you gain the basic knowledge for your chosen profession, in addition to being presented with other information to gain a rounded out education. University is not a place to mark time and get a diploma without working for it.
By "university is not a career milestone" I meant that the purpose of a university in this context is teaching, not training individuals to cope with the real worldtm, and hence admissions should be based on skills needed in the real worldtm

[mic84]

"shouldn't", I mean.

[monstro]

If you score 1600 on the SAT and play hookey, that automatically means you're bored and disillusioned and you deserve leniency.

Why don't we make high school optional for the smart, easily-bored kids, easily disllusioned kids then?

I went to school with lazy kids. My "honors" and "AP" classes were chock full of them. Teachers would roll their eyes at their non-existant homework grades or crappily-done projects, but year after year I'd find them in my classes. They didn't make National Honor Society or win awards at the end of the school year, but they'd get accepted to Ivy Leagues or prestigious "institutes of technology". Why? Because they had convinced everyone of their superior intelligence. And some of them really were smart.

So...as someone who actually did homework everyday and occassionally scored poorly on exams through no fault of her own, I think it's only fair to the stupid and average kids to let the smart kids have free reign when it comes to going to school. It really pisses off those poor hard-working students to have their efforts devalued by slackers who already know everything. And we already know what stupid kids do to really smart kids: they disillusion them.

Let the smart kids start up their software businesses so that the normal kids can drool on themselves in peace.

[mic84]

Monstro writes:
If you score 1600 on the SAT and play hookey, that automatically means you're bored and disillusioned and you deserve leniency.
Disillusioned, I'm not sure. Bored, very likely.

Why don't we make high school optional for the smart, easily-bored kids, easily disllusioned kids then?
It's hard to say whether you're being sarcastic or not, but I do think that practically mandatory attendace for anybody at the high school level is unnecessary oppression of people who already can think for themselves. High school is not a daycare centre.

[yosemite]

mic84 wrote:

It's hard to say whether you're being sarcastic or notYou're apparently such a bright kid but you are not sure whether or not she's being sarcastic?!? :smack:

[mic84]

You're apparently such a bright
Thank you.

kid
I'm not of the age in which this is considered a compliment.

but you are not sure whether or not she's being sarcastic?!?
From the context, I think my point in saying what I say is pretty clear. :smack: yourself.

[yosemite]

Ah. So your sarcasm meter is malfunctioning, then?

And it's nice to see that you have such a well-developed sense of humor, too.

(Because I have a feeling you'll miss it, I feel obliged to explain that that was sarcasm.)

[mic84]

yb, I genuinly don't know if you're just an idiot or are trying to start a fight. Possibly both.

[Monty]

mic84: What's with your comment to me about contempt?

[TeaElle]

Originally posted by elf6c
The letter is most likely not a "unenforceable" contract of adhesion. Further not every contract between parties of unequal bargining power is a contract of adhesion. The courts will very rarely find a contract to be unenforcable under these grounds- usually only under exception circumstances with implict or explict public policy concerns will it do so.

You're right about the policy concerns, but whether or not the letter is an unenforceable contract -- of any sort -- seems to be exactly within the realm of a finding of fact for a judge/jury, no? We're engaging in a lot of speculation about what the letter says, but perhaps, just perhaps, as a result of this case, UNC (and perhaps other schools) will consider engaging a bit more specificity in delineating their expectations to their early admits.

And that, above all else, is why this situation is a good one. It never hurts to shake things up, and push for more precision and objectivity in all areas where such personally important matters are at stake.

Originally posted by seal_clubber
If you can't be bothered to put up with the bullshit in school, you might have real trouble with real-world bullshit.

Or, like young Mr. Edmondson, you'll take initiative to try to create your own space, where you're not forced to deal with other people's standards for how you spend your time and your failures mean something (much) more than someone's assignment of a letter or a number on a piece of paper.

The best entrepreneurs, the most successful and contributing, are often folks who were academic misfits. (I'm thinking most particularly of Michael Dell of Dell Computers.) Not that they are incapable of academic performance, obviously -- like Mr. Edmondson -- they are intelligent and can do the work when they feel that there is something really in it for them. They just don't always feel that someone else should dictate to them what is and is not to their benefit.

In adults, we often consider someone with these traits to be stubborn and hard-nosed, maybe even difficult, but we must also be fair by realizing that we also frequently consider them to be success stories worth emulating.

Originally posted by Monstro
Why don't we make high school optional for the smart, easily-bored kids, easily disllusioned kids then?

Well, in many cases we do, inasmuch as a lot of very bright kids who chafe at the strictures of traditional school end up being homeschooled, enrolled in alternative programs or doing the GED -> Work a While -> College Later thing. There are ways around feeling bored, disillusioned and ready to blow things off and ending up in young Mr. Edmondson's shoes. However, they all necessitate having parents and guidance counselors/school personnel who recognize that a kid whose thinking is outside the norm or the average needs an education solution which is similarly not average.

[mic84]

mic84: What's with your comment to me about contempt?

You said that admission decisions are/should be based on both potential and performance. I noted that if by performance you meant, for example, doing one's homework regularly, then perhaps performance shouldn't be a factor, since it measures the amount of tolerance an individual has for tasks they are assigned and for which they see no use. In other words, the amount of contempt the individual has for the assigned work. Might not be the best wording, I guess. Does this answer the question?

[Monty]

Kind of. AFAIK, admissions decisions are based on a number of things: academic performance (gauged by grades--the college has no way of knowing if you had a lot, or even any, homework for those classes), academic potential (SAT or similar testing), community involvement (volunteer work, community-service organizations, etc.). I'm completely unaware of any institution which has as part of its admissions process the question, "Which part of our academic expectations do you see as of no use to you?"

[mic84]

That's the beauty of it, they don't even need to ask! You see no use for your homework as far as your learning is concerned, so you do it poorly, so your teacher is pissed off, so they don't give you good grades and don't write good reference letters. As it were, your performance is worse because you realize that homework is useless. Your potential to learn in college, however, is not affected. Your potential to be admitted to one is.

[Monty]

And when someone shows up for work and does his job poorly, what then? The boss is supposed to ask, "Well, did you see any use for the task you were paid to do but didn't do?"

[monstro]

A school doesn't want someone who thinks they're above school. They want students who will participate in class, interact with professors and classmates, involve themselves in extra-curricular activities, and be loyal alumni. They want someone who will help foster the community spirit of the university.

Edmonson's behavior showed that he holds school as a chore. UNC might feel that someone who has shown loyalty and commitment to an institution is a safer investment than someone who has shown disloyalty.

[lezlers]

I totally agree Monstro.

One factor I think mic84 and tlw are missing is that one cannot pick and choose what tasks he or she will perform in life according to whether or not the individual feels it will be beneficial to them. Encouraging this kind of attitude in kids is frankly, not doing them any favors.

We all have to do things we don't necessarily feel are to our benefit in life. It's part of, well, life. To have the attitude that you don't have to do anything you don't feel like doing and still get anything you want (i.e. admission to the school of your choice) after childhood isn't a good thing. To go to the lengths Mr. Edmonson has gone to (litigations) to avoid taking personal responsibility for his actions is disgraceful.

[CrazyCatLady]

Cumulative GPA's aside, admissions committees tend to look at trending. Someone who got a slow start but has finished really strongly is more likely to get a chance than someone who came on like gangbusters and then just...fizzled out. The expectation is that you will continue in the trend you're currently in; if you've been improving up to this point, they expect you will continue to improve, and if you've been declining to this point, you're probably going to continue to decline. If there's no evidence that this downward trend is being broken (an interview in which the student is apologetic and vows to improve, say), they figure you're not going to be a successful student at their institution.

Why should they admit people who are going to flunk out or drop out and make the school look bad?

[mic84]

Monty:
And when someone shows up for work and does his job poorly, what then? The boss is supposed to ask, "Well, did you see any use for the task you were paid to do but didn't do?"
Work is voluntary; High school, to a degree, is not. The point of work is doing what the boss tells you(production is secondary); the point of high school is learning(obeying someone is not even secondary). The analogy is somewhat flawed.


Monstro:
Edmonson's behavior showed that he holds school as a chore. UNC might feel that someone who has shown loyalty and commitment to an institution is a safer investment than someone who has shown disloyalty.
Interesting point. However, preferring less smart conformists to smarter non-conformist in admission is somewhat contradictory to what I think is the primary function of a university, to wit to serve...as a center for scholarship and creative endeavor (http://www.unc.edu/about/mission.html). (bolding mine)
Anyhow, to a public university, a student is not an investment. It is an individual whose parents paid taxes so they can get an education. I think.


lezlers:
You don't like the individual's attitude, and feel he's better off without it? Fine. That's not a reason to withdraw admission.

[mic84]

CCL:
If there's no evidence that this downward trend is being broken (an interview in which the student is apologetic and vows to improve, say)
That's very weak evidence that the student is going to improve. It's rather evidence that the student is willing to humiliate themselves in order to achieve some goal.
If this was the criterion, I think they should have let him in.

Besides, he gave them the reason: he disliked high school. I think UNC likes to think that they don't have the characteristics that make high school unlikable.

[Monty]

Actually, mic84, I don't see the analogy as flawed. The work in high school or anywhere else is voluntary unless one is a slave. The student discussed in the OP voluntarily failed to do that which is expected of him. It was his voluntary decision and he is now "suffering" the consequences of that decision, just as he would be suffering the consequences of not doing his assigned work in another setting.

[mic84]

The work in high school or anywhere else is voluntary unless one is a slave.
Sort of, but while there are alternatives to a job(viz., another job), there are no alternatives to high school - they are all the same. In effect, the HS student is coerced into doing the schoolwork, because there are no alternatives other than give up one's career.

Now, I'm not saying this whole thing isn't legal, because, legally, he did have a choice. What I'm saying is that it's not right.

[monstro]

preferring less smart conformists to smarter non-conformist

You're setting up a false dichotomy. I don't think someone who scored 1100 on the SAT with a 3.8 GPA is necessarily "less smart" than someone scoring a 1600. And going to school every day does not make one a conformist. Just like wearing clothes every day does not make one a conformist. Most times being a conformist makes sense. And when you non-conform for selfish reasons, you need to accept the consequences like a mature adult.

A "less smart" student may have more to contribute to a university than a "smarter" student. A less smart student may have the wherewithal to sign up for undergrad research while a "smarter" student sits around pretending he's Mr. Spock with his role-playing friends. A less smart student may be inspired by his political science professor and decide to run for public office after graduation, while the "smarter" student aspires to wake up one morning without a hang-over. A high SAT score does not mean someone is going to be a good student or a good person.

Anyhow, to a public university, a student is not an investment.

Of course they are. A university gambles on every student they admit. Smart students attract smart professors, who put out smart research which then makes the university look "smart". Successful alumni make the school look successful. Successful alumni make generous donations. Drop-outs and flunkies takes spots from other applicants who could have gone on to be wonderful alumni. So hell yes, students are an invest to colleges and university. Both in terms of money and time.


That's very weak evidence that the student is going to improve. It's rather evidence that the student is willing to humiliate themselves in order to achieve some goal.

And suing the school like a spoiled brat is better?

[mic84]

Originally posted by monstro
You're setting up a false dichotomy. I don't think someone who scored 1100 on the SAT with a 3.8 GPA is necessarily "less smart" than someone scoring a 1600.
Not necessarily, but likely, especially if you know that that lower GPA is due to unwillingness to do boring work.


And going to school every day does not make one a conformist. Just like wearing clothes every day does not make one a conformist.
Most times being a conformist makes sense.
Does this mean that going to school doesn't make sense? ;)

Seriously, though, not liking school and still going to school because you are expected to by the people around you(this includes admission officers, who are a part of the "establishment") sounds pretty conformist to me.



And when you non-conform for selfish reasons, you need to accept the consequences like a mature adult.
Why?

(snip)
A high SAT score does not mean someone is going to be a good student or a good person
I never said anything about being a good person; I feel obligated to note that neither having a high GPA nor having a low high score mean someone is going to be a good person. As far as I understand(and I've never taken the SAT, so I know little about it), the SAT is the best datum to predict the college GPA.


Successful alumni make the school look successful. Successful alumni make generous donations. Drop-outs and flunkies takes spots from other applicants who could have gone on to be wonderful alumni. So hell yes, students are an invest to colleges and university. Both in terms of money and time.
Okay, I see. I don't argue that the university should admit the smarter students. For a state university, however, to admit people who are likely to donate money later is, well, not right.


And suing the school like a spoiled brat is better?
The withdrawal of admission decision wasn't made based on that, AFAIK.

[dangermom]

there are no alternatives to high schoolBut that's simply not true. Others have already listed a few alternatives to high school, and most of them can still get you into college. We can look at them again, if you like. Homeschooling, taking a few HS courses and some community college units, leaving school and working for awhile, enrolling in alternative-type schools....heck, that kid could have done an exchange abroad for his senior year. He had lots of possibilities, if he'd looked for them, but he just blew it off instead.

[monstro]

Not necessarily, but likely, especially if you know that that lower GPA is due to unwillingness to do boring work.

How is an admissions officer going to distinguish a low GPA due to laziness from a low GPA due to boredom from a low GPA due to stupidity?

A SAT score won't tell you any of these things.

Seriously, though, not liking school and still going to school because you are expected to by the people around you(this includes admission officers, who are a part of the "establishment") sounds pretty conformist to me.

You aren't looking at this thing from the POV of the university. If they see someone who ditches school, they aren't going to be charmed by his "non-conformity". They're going to think, "He may ditch us too."

And the kid isn't really a non-conformist. Senioritis isn't something he invented, and I'm sure he wasn't the only kid in his class to play hookey. He didn't do anything brave or bold. His motivations were selfish. However, universities do cherish non-conformity, like choosing community service over sports, or spending spring break at model UN instead of on the beach. Why should all non-conformists be valued similarly?


the SAT is the best datum to predict the college GPA.

It correlates well with first-year success, but weakly with overall success. The SAT + grades are a better predictor AFAIK.

For a state university, however, to admit people who are likely to donate money later is, well, not right.[/]

No, but that's not what they do. They admit people who are likely to be successful. There's a difference.

[quote]The withdrawal of admission decision wasn't made based on that, AFAIK.

No, it was based on his slackerdom. He's a spoiled brat who's a slacker. And we're supposed to respect him because he's a "non-conformist"? Ha!

[monstro]

Errr....coding!


Not necessarily, but likely, especially if you know that that lower GPA is due to unwillingness to do boring work.


How is an admissions officer going to distinguish a low GPA due to laziness from a low GPA due to boredom from a low GPA due to stupidity?

A SAT score won't tell you any of these things.


Seriously, though, not liking school and still going to school because you are expected to by the people around you(this includes admission officers, who are a part of the "establishment") sounds pretty conformist to me.

You aren't looking at this thing from the POV of the university. If they see someone who ditches school, they aren't going to be charmed by his "non-conformity". They're going to think, "He may ditch us too."

And the kid isn't really a non-conformist. Senioritis isn't something he invented, and I'm sure he wasn't the only kid in his class to play hookey. He didn't do anything brave or bold. His motivations were selfish. However, universities do cherish non-conformity, like choosing community service over sports, or spending spring break at model UN instead of on the beach. Why should all non-conformists be valued similarly?



the SAT is the best datum to predict the college GPA.



It correlates well with first-year success, but weakly with overall success. The SAT + grades are a better predictor AFAIK.


For a state university, however, to admit people who are likely to donate money later is, well, not right.

No, but that's not what they do. They admit people who are likely to be successful. There's a difference.

The withdrawal of admission decision wasn't made based on that, AFAIK.


No, it was based on his slackerdom. He's a spoiled brat who's a slacker. And we're supposed to respect him because he's a "non-conformist"? Ha!

[Fionn]

Originally posted by mic84
Not necessarily, but likely, especially if you know that that lower GPA is due to unwillingness to do boring work.


When pondering the question of how one defines a good student (or good worker, or what have you), one of factors that occured to me is how well someone does work that doesn't interest them.

Into every life some boredom must fall, even in college where you get to pick your own classes and classes. I have much more respect for someone who handles it by either finding a way to get interested in the boring topic/project or putting almost as much effort as they would something they cared about, rather than just saying "I don't do it because I don't care."

I'd hate to end up relying on a student or lab partner or coworker who has to enthralled every second in order to put forth some semblence of effort.

[mic84]

genie - all the options you presented are either not different from high school or require a non-trivial effort to choose. Aslo, some of the options might not be acceptable to the parents. And again, I'm not saying what happened wansn't legal, or just etc. I'm saying it isn't right.


monstro -
How is an admissions officer going to distinguish a low GPA due to laziness from a low GPA due to boredom from a low GPA due to stupidity?

A SAT score won't tell you any of these things.

Arguably, it would tell you that it's not entirely due to stupidiy. As for how to find out - well, I don't know, maybe schedule an interview and ask? Or, for that matter, open a newspaper?

re: non-conformity : I'm not suggesting non-comformity should be rewarded at all. I'm suggesting not to punish it.

No, but that's not what they do. They admit people who are likely to be successful. There's a difference.
My impression is that it's all semantics. FTR, I tihnk they should admit people based on who will learn the most at the university.

No, it was based on his slackerdom. He's a spoiled brat who's a slacker. And we're supposed to respect him because he's a "non-conformist"? Ha!
I never said that.

[Monty]

mic84: And exactly how is a newspaper a peer-reviewed publication proving that a lower score on the SAT is due to boredom?

[dangermom]

genie - all the options you presented are either not different from high school or require a non-trivial effort to choose. Aslo, some of the options might not be acceptable to the parents. And again, I'm not saying what happened wansn't legal, or just etc. I'm saying it isn't right.
The kid wants to go to a prestigious university, so presumably he isn't opposed to coursework. Community college and foreign exchange offer more challenging coursework and a different social setting than he might have at HS. Homeschooling (or becoming an autodidact) can be very, very different from HS--internships, serious focused study in a primary area, and business ventures are common for highschool homeschoolers. As for "non-trivial effort," if he wants to go to a prestigious university and doesn't want to do high school, then he'd better be willing to put in a little effort. He is certainly expending some effort now. And surely his parents could have approved one alternate course of study, especially since universities are often likely to be approving of them (that's how I got into a better place than my grades alone warranted).

So what if it takes a little effort to go a different route than the usual? Isn't that part of the point?

[Monty]

The kid's application for a foreign exchange might be entertaining. A lot of schools overseas use an additional method to screen applicants: the school's own college entrance examination!

[mic84]

Fion --
I don't think students need to be reliable, in general. As for lab partners, like I said, there's an extra incentive to be responsible, and it's a minor aspect of education anyhow(if at all).

genie --
So what if it takes a little effort to go a different route than the usual? Isn't that part of the point?
I don't think so

Monty --
mic84: And exactly how is a newspaper a peer-reviewed publication proving that a lower score on the SAT is due to boredom?
I meant the newspaper that contains the information on this particular case.

[monstro]

non-conformity : I'm not suggesting non-comformity should be rewarded at all. I'm suggesting not to punish it.

It's non-conformist to jab a knife through someone's back.

It's non-conformist to tell someone to fuck themselves.

It's non-conformist to wear a sandwich board in the middle of Harlem that says, "I hate niggers."

All of these have likely consequences attached to them. Reasonable people know this and choose their behaviors accordingly. Edmondson, being the bright kid he is, should have been more reasonable.

Arguably, it would tell you that it's not entirely due to stupidiy.

It may be. I went to a school full of engineering nerds. Funny, even though all of them had faboo SAT scores, not so many of them made the dean's list every quarter like I did. Were these poor souls bored? Or did their SAT scores belie their intelligence and/or work ethic?

As for how to find out - well, I don't know, maybe schedule an interview and ask?

I can just see it:

Interviewer: Your SAT scores are fabulous, young man, but I'm concerned about your low GPA. What happened?

Prospective student: You see, sir, I was bored throughout high school. I could have done my calculus homework in five minutes since I'm so smart, but I chose instead to play computer games all day and night.

Interviewer: That's what I thought! I was just talking to a student with a SAT of 1000 who said the same thing, but how could such a dummy be bored? Lazy is more like it. What do you think?

Student: I'm sorry. What did you say? I got bored listening and tuned you out.

:rolleyes:

My impression is that it's all semantics. FTR, I tihnk they should admit people based on who will learn the most at the university.

I applied to college without having taken calculus. All I could remember from chemistry was that a "mole" isn't just a black speck on your skin. I took more music classes in high school than math and science classes combined. I don't know why I was even admitted. Perhaps an admissions officer saw my application and said, "Wow. She'll definitely learn more than Mr. Smarty-Pants simply because she has a longer way to go!"

Universities don't just care about learning. Most have "service" somewhere in their mission statements. And mission statements don't just apply to faculty. They want students to become servants of their communities, as well as good citizens. That's why they stock their student bodies with more than just uber-nerds.

[monstro]

As for lab partners, like I said, there's an extra incentive to be responsible, and it's a minor aspect of education anyhow(if at all).

The fact that he's suing an institution for following its own policy shows he has no concept of personal responsibility. Why should we believe he wouldn't screw over his classmates, citing boredom with a group project or lab assignment, and then eschew responsibility all over again?

Furthermore, everything--education, research, etc.--is becoming more and more collaborative. Working with partners is not a minor aspect of education nowadays. He may very well be a trustworthy person when it comes to the needs of others. He may be a great teamplayer. But as a school administrator, I would worry that he is too "non-conformist" in a world where working together is very important.

[Fretful Porpentine]

As for lab partners, like I said, there's an extra incentive to be responsible, and it's a minor aspect of education anyhow(if at all).
Cooperative work is not a minor aspect of education. The entire freshman English program at UNC revolves around writing workshops and other group activities. If a student is frequently absent, it places an unfair burden on the rest of the students in the group. Foreign language classes are similar -- virtually every class will involve some sort of partnered or group activity. Upper-level classes in the humanities usually consist of class discussion; while it's not absolutely crucial that all students be present all the time, they are all expected to contribute ideas on a regular basis. I can't speak for the sciences and social sciences, but I'd assume that any course involving lab work or research would have a cooperative aspect, and that a student who didn't show up would be letting his classmates down.

[Monty]

monstro: I'm glad you mentioned Calculus. For those who think the college is being unfair, what should they do to get him up to speed to handle the courses he's expected to take there? Should they just trust him that he's really okay and that his low grades were from boredom. Or should they go with what seems to have been working for colleges for quite some time now?

[Fionn]

When I used the example, what I had in mind were the upper-division classes I took where students collaborated on research projects and the undergraduate research assistantships all serious psych students took at my university. Library research and entering data into a spreadsheet isn't as interesting as, say, interviewing a five-year-old, but they hadda be done.

Taking it for granted that the guy is as smart as he appears to be, and that his software endeavor indicated a geniune interest in self-directed activity, I would assume he would want to stretch himself beyond four-hundred-to-a-room lecture classes where no one notices or cares who attends.

[dangermom]

Goodness, mic84. First you say that there is no alternative to high school. When I point out that there are alternatives, you discount them because they take some effort. Well, of course they do; if they didn't, they'd be the mainstream and everyone would be bored and disillusioned with them. Life isn't effortless, and most of the neat things take some work.

I think the university was completely fair. They told him what was expected, and they gave him a chance to explain himself. I would bet that they came to the conclusion that he was yet another kid who had never learned to work at anything, and would flunk out in the first year because he was so used to effortless grades. I knew so many of them at my school; they were completely flummoxed by an enviroment where they were no longer always the smartest person around. Having never learned any study habits, they quickly crashed and burned after spending all their scholarship money on video games and cars.

[dangermom]

Oh, and lab partners may have an extra incentive to be reliable, but all too many of them expect to ride on their partners' efforts and get the grade for free. A selfish person is still selfish, even when others are relying on him.

[Rysto]

Originally posted by mic84Originally posted by monstro
And when you non-conform for selfish reasons, you need to accept the consequences like a mature adult.
Why?
Are you being serious here? Why should he have to accept the consequences for his actions? This is ridiculous - you can't possibly be asking this.

[Monty]

genie: In short what you're saying is, "College isn't high school grades 13 through 16." I'm fully in agreement with you on that.

[county]

Well, I got a niece who quit high school and went to Bethel College in TN for a year then transferred to Bryn Mawr and graduated a couple of years ago. I also got a nephew who quit high school and enrolled in and graduated from St. John's our in New Mexico.

Listening to you (some of) guys is begining to make me side with the kid.

[Monty]

There's a huge difference between skipping a grade and just skipping the work, county.

[Nightime]

One factor I think mic84 and tlw are missing is that one cannot pick and choose what tasks he or she will perform in life according to whether or not the individual feels it will be beneficial to them. Encouraging this kind of attitude in kids is frankly, not doing them any favors.

Are you serious? That's one sad world you live in. I just wish you wouldn't try to force everyone else to live there too.

By the way, all these strawman caricatures of this student are pretty amusing. He obviously *did* work in high school - for the first three years. The fourth year of high school, for him and many, many others, including myself, is pointless. I had already done as much as high school could provide. I skipped more days than this guy, and only didn't fail because my teachers didn't grade on attendance, and I forged a lot of notes.

At least try to be accurate, people. He worked very well for three years, he was a very bright kid, and because his senior year was pointless, and he stayed home to work on software instead of sleeping through classes (yes, even when I went to school I would just sleep) you are demonizing him. Nice. Apparently you have an axe to grind, so go ahead. Just know that you are being very unfair, and pretty mean.

[county]

Originally posted by Monty
There's a huge difference between skipping a grade and just skipping the work, county.

Oh yeah Monty, what's that? They were (niece and nephew) bored. Sounds like this kid was too.

[Monty]

Your niece and nephew, apparently according to the synopsis you provided, immediately went onto college. This guy didn't.

[mic84]

monstro --

It's non-conformist to jab a knife through someone's back.

It's non-conformist to tell someone to fuck themselves.

It's non-conformist to wear a sandwich board in the middle of Harlem that says, "I hate niggers."

:rolleyes:

All of these have likely consequences attached to them. Reasonable people know this and choose their behaviors accordingly. Edmondson, being the bright kid he is, should have been more reasonable.
No argument here. It doesn't mean, however, that the unversity should have done what it did.

It may be. I went to a school full of engineering nerds. Funny, even though all of them had faboo SAT scores, not so many of them made the dean's list every quarter like I did. Were these poor souls bored? Or did their SAT scores belie their intelligence and/or work ethic?
Hard to say. If they were in engineering, they were competing with engineering nerds, and not everybody can get on the dean's list. Maybe they picked the wrong major. Maybe they weren't good enough for their major.



Interviewer: Your SAT scores are fabulous, young man, but I'm concerned about your low GPA. What happened?

Prospective student: You see, sir, I was bored throughout high school. I could have done my calculus homework in five minutes since I'm so smart, but I chose instead to play computer games all day and night.

Interviewer: That's what I thought! I was just talking to a student with a SAT of 1000 who said the same thing, but how could such a dummy be bored? Lazy is more like it. What do you think?

Student: I'm sorry. What did you say? I got bored listening and tuned you out.

1. On evidence of what we've seen in the articles cited, it wasn't quite this way

2. It doesn't matter if you're lazy or bored. One isn't more virtuous than the other. What matters is whether you can or can't do each individual question on the calculus hw in 5 minutes. If you can - there's no point doing them. If you're punished just because you don't want to do them even though you can - and it happens a lot in school - this is just silly.

(snip)
That's why they stock their student bodies with more than just uber-nerds.
"Mr. Smarty-pants"? Nerds obviously don't do anything for the community(I suppose you think it's boring?) ? They think everybody else is dumb?
WTF? I lurked around quite a bit lately, and on this board, milder things have been called rather harsh names.

The fact that he's suing an institution for following its own policy shows he has no concept of personal responsibility.
:dubious:

Why should we believe he wouldn't screw over his classmates, citing boredom with a group project or lab assignment, and then eschew responsibility all over again?
We have no evidence one way or the other that he is selfish.

FP --

If a student is frequently absent, it places an unfair burden on the rest of the students in the group
We have no evidence one way or the other that he is selfish.


Upper-level classes in the humanities usually consist of class discussion; while it's not absolutely crucial that all students be present all the time, they are all expected to contribute ideas on a regular basis.
If he's interested in the subject matter, he'll come. If not, it doesn't make a difference.


Monty --
monstro: I'm glad you mentioned Calculus. For those who think the college is being unfair, what should they do to get him up to speed to handle the courses he's expected to take there? Should they just trust him that he's really okay and that his low grades were from boredom. Or should they go with what seems to have been working for colleges for quite some time now?
Like I said on page 2 in reference to calculus, if he isn't prepared to take the classes he needs at the university, there's absolutely no reason for him to be there. My impression, though, is that calc might not be the reason the admission was withdrawn after the interview, and is surely not the reason most posters here cite.


Fionn --
Library research and entering data into a spreadsheet isn't as interesting as, say, interviewing a five-year-old, but they hadda be done.
I don't think the potential willingness to perform these tasks should be considered at admission, since it has little to do with the student's potential to learn.


genie --
Life isn't effortless, and most of the neat things take some work.
Right. The fact that it is so doesn't make it right to make someone else's life less effortless than it could be.


would bet that they came to the conclusion that he was yet another kid who had never learned to work at anything, and would flunk out in the first year because he was so used to effortless grades
Given that he didn't get any good efortless grades, this conclusion would be far-fetched.


Rysto --
Are you being serious here? Why should he have to accept the consequences for his actions? This is ridiculous - you can't possibly be asking this.
Care to enlighten me?
(I can see two interpretations of the original statement. One is a meaningless tautology, another is false)

[lokij]

Originally posted by monstro
How is an admissions officer going to distinguish a low GPA due to laziness from a low GPA due to boredom from a low GPA due to stupidity?


How about this? He asks him. Which UNC apparently did, perhaps it went something like this.

Mr. College Entrance Guy - "Well, Mr. Prospective College Student, I see you scored a perfect 1600 on your SAT so you're either very bright or exceedingly lucky.. mind explaining the drop off in your GPA your last semester?"

Mr. Prospective College Student- "Well, Mr. College Entrance Guy, my grades are what they are. After I received your letter stating that I had been approved to attend your fine University I found attending class and doing busywork rather boring and pointless as I had seemingly acheived my desired goal. So instead of wasting my time doing these nonconstructive tasks I applied myself in starting my own software company. To this end I created and marketed this software program, which I am happy to show you, on which I worked X number of months, weeks and days. I look forward to attending the more challenging atmosphere of your University and can assure you that I will put forth every effort to acheive my desired goal of a degree."


Now, arrogant know-it-all slacker or aggressive go-getter? It seems that UNC came to one conclusion and I and others see another.

[yosemite]

lokij wrote:

"So instead of wasting my time doing these nonconstructive tasks I applied myself in starting my own software company."I would think that the College Entrance Guy would be wondering what parts of the college courses would this kid also consider "nonconstructive tasks." I would think that the College Entrace Guy would be concerned that this student would start examining some the things expected of him in that college and he'd deem some "nonconstructive" as well.Now, arrogant know-it-all slacker or aggressive go-getter?Arrogant know-it-all slacker.

Definitely.

[mic84]

Originally posted by yosemitebabe
I would think that the College Entrance Guy would be wondering what parts of the college courses would this kid also consider "nonconstructive tasks." I would think that the College Entrace Guy would be concerned that this student would start examining some the things expected of him in that college and he'd deem some "nonconstructive" as well.

And God forbid that he should question authority and actually decide for himself what is constructive and what isn't.

yosemitebabe, are you aware that a lot of what is going on in high school is actually nonconstructive?

[yosemite]

Originally posted by mic84
And God forbid that he should question authority and actually decide for himself what is constructive and what isn't. He can decide, and he can have opinions, but if he wants that degree, he'd better go ahead and do the "nonconstructive" things anyway.

And I guess he should have done the "nonconstructive" things in high school too. But he didn't. And now he's been rejected by his college.

So obviously those "nonconstructive" things had some merit. If he'd done them, he'd be going to that college.
yosemitebabe, are you aware that a lot of what is going on in high school is actually nonconstructive? Oh, hell yeah. But then again, I know that there were times when I just thought they were nonconstructive, but years later, I realized that there was a point.

But even though I didn't think they were constructive, I didn't ditch classes and then whine later when I had to face the obvious consequences.

[Monty]

mic84: I was using Calc as just one example to introduce the rest of the question and it was quite obvious from the rest of that posting that the question was not limited to that particular school subject. You are tossing up essentially invalid argument after invalid argument in support of this guy getting into a school solely because he wants to although he did not meet the conditions of enrollment.

[mic84]

Originally posted by yosemitebabe
He can decide, and he can have opinions, but if he wants that degree, he'd better go ahead and do the "nonconstructive" things anyway.

I don't think the college thinks that the work they require can be deemed nonconstructive.


And I guess he should have done the "nonconstructive" things in high school too. But he didn't. And now he's been rejected by his college.

So obviously those "nonconstructive" things had some merit. If he'd done them, he'd be going to that college.


That's circular reasoning: Busywork is constructive because the college requires it, and the college requires it because(presumably) it is constructive.
Now, I'm not saying he shouldn't have done the busywork anyway, I'm saying that the college shouldn't require it(or at least not punish him if all his fault is not appreciating the value of the busywork)



Oh, hell yeah. But then again, I know that there were times when I just thought they were nonconstructive, but years later, I realized that there was a point.
Surely you don't think that everybody should do everything they are told because years later, they might realize that there was a point?


But even though I didn't think they were constructive, I didn't ditch classes and then whine later when I had to face the obvious consequences.
I doubt he thought the consequences were obvious. He doesn't whine, he tries to get into college. By frivoulous means, granted, but he has very little to lose, so why not?

[mic84]

Originally posted by Monty
I was using Calc as just one example to introduce the rest of the question and it was quite obvious from the rest of that posting that the question was not limited to that particular school subject.
I'll repeat: if he's not prepared to take the classes that he is expected to take in college, knowledge-wise, he shouldn't be in college.


You are tossing up essentially invalid argument after invalid argument in support of this guy getting into a school solely because he wants to although he did not meet the conditions of enrollment.
I don't recall tossing any invalid arguments. I do happen to think that people should have access to education solely because they want to, but I didn't argue this in this particular thread; I do think the school should've let him in, but I don't think that it is obligated to let him in.
I hope this clears things up.

[yosemite]

Originally posted by mic84
I don't think the college thinks that the work they require can be deemed nonconstructive.You completely missed my point.

Of course the college doesn't think the tasks they require are "nonconstructive."

Neither did this boy's high school.

But this boy deemed the high school's expectations as "nonconstructive" and didn't do them.

So why should the college believe that the boy won't do the same thing with them? Why should they not be concerned that he'll disagree with their standards of "constructive" and proceed to cherry-pick which tasks he will or will not do?
That's circular reasoning: Busywork is constructive because the college requires it, and the college requires it because(presumably) it is constructive.So what if it's circular thinking?

Because he didn't do it, he's not in college. End of story. No sympathy for him.
I'm saying that the college shouldn't require it(or at least not punish him if all his fault is not appreciating the value of the busywork)Why should they take a chance on him? Why shouldn't they expect their students to have a history of doing what was expected of them, rather then cherry-picking tasks?
Surely you don't think that everybody should do everything they are told because years later, they might realize that there was a point?This is not "everything they are told," this is school, and he wanted to get into a college that expected him to do what the school had laid out for him to do.

He doesn't have to do what the school expected of him, and the college didn't have to admit him.

And they didn't.

The college is under no obligation to cut him a break, and they didn't. They figured he knew the score, didn't abide by it, so they assumed he didn't care enough.

Boo hoo. Too bad. No sympathy.
I doubt he thought the consequences were obvious. Well, then he's pretty stupid and he's obviously too thick-headed to fit in at that college anyway.He doesn't whine, he tries to get into college. By frivoulous means, granted, but he has very little to lose, so why not? He's now an object of derision and contempt. So much for "nothing to lose."

And yes, by definition, filing a frivolous lawsuit against the college that had every right to reject you (and did) is pretty much akin to whining.

[Monty]

yosemitebabe: Thank you for addressing mic84's last posting.

[county]

Originally posted by Monty
Your niece and nephew, apparently according to the synopsis you provided, immediately went onto college. This guy didn't.

Now there is a reason to refuse admittance - timeliness. What's the difference? Now or later, the more I listen to you guys the more you convince me that the kid got fucked.

[monstro]

mic, everyone is entitled to an education who wants one. That's why we have libraries and open-admission colleges. UNC's decision does not keep kiddo from advancing his studies. He may have to wait a year, but he still has a lot of options.

You seem to think this guy was in the wrong (at least a little bit) for ditching school. Yet you don't think he deserves to face any consequences. Why? Does his perfect SAT score absolve his responsibility? If we were talking about someone with average marks and scores, would we be having this conversation? For some reason, folks think he deserve leniency because he's smart. But like I said before, colleges and university don't just want kids who know a lot of stuff. They want students who have good character traits as well.

Nerds obviously don't do anything for the community(I suppose you think it's boring?) ? They think everybody else is dumb?

By definition, a nerd is a person who is socially retarded with esoteric interests. Nothing wrong with nerds per se, but if I had my choice between a nerd and someone who was smart and yet more balanced and well-rounded, I would choose the latter. Even if the nerd had a 1600 SAT and the other candidate had a score much less perfect.

I'm not saying the kid is a nerd. My point is that schools care more about grades and scores.

[monstro]

county, the kid got fucked because he fucked himself. He could have lasted through the tedium for another year if it was that important to him to go to college, but he didn't.

Further, he has fucked himself by not being repetentant. He could have fixed the situation by simply humbling himself. But no. Not only does he thinks he's above school, he thinks he's above policy. Just because he's "smart".

[county]

Originally posted by monstro
county, the kid got fucked because he fucked himself. He could have lasted through the tedium for another year if it was that important to him to go to college, but he didn't.

Further, he has fucked himself by not being repetentant. He could have fixed the situation by simply humbling himself. But no. Not only does he thinks he's above school, he thinks he's above policy. Just because he's "smart".

He did what he wanted to do. He is as eligible as he was when admission was granted.

What the fuck is this, college admissions or 101 Humility. What does UNC lose the first year, 30%, 40%. Well I doubt this kid will be in that loss percentage.

You want to see this kid punished because you don't think he lives up to your standards.

[monstro]

He did what he wanted to do.

And UNC did what it wanted to do.

He is as eligible as he was when admission was granted.

No he isn't. Before he had a GPA of 3.8. Now he has a GPA of 3.5. The difference seems pretty minor but in the dog-eat-dog world of college admissions it could be the difference between rejection and acceptance.

What the fuck is this, college admissions or 101 Humility.

It's a university following its policy. You know, doing what it wants to do.

What does UNC lose the first year, 30%, 40%. Well I doubt this kid will be in that loss percentage.

Why? I knew a lot of supposedly bright kids who dropped out after their first year. I knew a "bright" kid who had a whopping 1.4 GPA at the end of his first year. How does the school know that the bad behavior during his senior year isn't the beginning of a trend that will continue through college? Should they just take his word for it?

[quuote]You want to see this kid punished because you don't think he lives up to your standards.[/quote]

Punishment is a harsh word. I don't want to see him punished. I just happen to agree with UNC's decision. They have the right to decide who they want in their school. They have the right to look at students' behavior. I don't think whiny brats should be able to dictate what a school can and cannot do.

[lezlers]

Originally posted by Nightime
Are you serious? That's one sad world you live in. I just wish you wouldn't try to force everyone else to live there too.

By the way, all these strawman caricatures of this student are pretty amusing. He obviously *did* work in high school - for the first three years. The fourth year of high school, for him and many, many others, including myself, is pointless. I had already done as much as high school could provide. I skipped more days than this guy, and only didn't fail because my teachers didn't grade on attendance, and I forged a lot of notes.

At least try to be accurate, people. He worked very well for three years, he was a very bright kid, and because his senior year was pointless, and he stayed home to work on software instead of sleeping through classes (yes, even when I went to school I would just sleep) you are demonizing him. Nice. Apparently you have an axe to grind, so go ahead. Just know that you are being very unfair, and pretty mean.

So learning responsibility and that the world isn't one big funhouse is a sad world? Well, I suppose someone might feel that way if they never had to assume any responsibilities.

Few years in the real world ought to clear that childish sense of entitlement right on up.

;)

[lezlers]

And county, are you braindamaged or something? You never did answer my question about what the hell the kids color or athletic ability had to do with anything.

[county]

Originally posted by lezlers
And county, are you braindamaged or something? You never did answer my question about what the hell the kids color or athletic ability had to do with anything.

Well jeez, I'm sorry. Well as far as athletic ability -it would be interesting to see someone their athletic program was courting be turned down - I somehow don't think it would happen like this was presented. As far as skin color, well that would probably affect the lawsuit.

I think anytime you talk about college admissions policies/programs/procedures you need to at least look at those two factors, if for no other reason than to eliminate them as issues. Don't cha think.

[county]

Oh yeah, I'm pretty sure I'm not braindamaged but would I necessarily even know if I was.

[lezlers]

Not really, county. Contrary to what you may think, race is not an automatic issue in every situation. And most if not all, admission programs that employ racial balancing are very closely monitored.

Besides, the acceptance letter was a form of contract. The kid broke it, so his admission was reniged, for those reasons. I don't really like what you're implying. Race had nothing to do with it, no matter how hard you try to twist the situation into a racial thing, you can't. No school would be stupid enough to pull that kind of stunt anyway, they'd basically be filing the lawsuit themselves.

[county]

Originally posted by lezlers
Not really, county. Contrary to what you may think, race is not an automatic issue in every situation. And most if not all, admission programs that employ racial balancing are very closely monitored.

Besides, the acceptance letter was a form of contract. The kid broke it, so his admission was reniged, for those reasons. I don't really like what you're implying. Race had nothing to do with it, no matter how hard you try to twist the situation into a racial thing, you can't. No school would be stupid enough to pull that kind of stunt anyway, they'd basically be filing the lawsuit themselves.

I am not implying anything. I am saying it outright. You need to eliminate issues like this up front. I am not trying to twist anything into anything. You need to read the words and give them their face value. Moron.

[dangermom]

are you aware that a lot of what is going on in high school is actually nonconstructive?That's not the point at all. Look, the kid signed up for the classes he did badly on under his own free will. He didn't bother to do the work that he signed up for. If he hadn't wanted to take the classes or felt they weren't constructive, he could have done other things, but he didn't. He didn't keep up his end of the bargain, and so the university didn't have to keep its end, either.

It's quite possible in HS senior year to take about 3 classes if you've already done the required work and gotten into a college. He probably didn't even have to take a full load, and he could have gone elsewhere to do the work.

[lezlers]

Whatever, county. You've proved yourself, through this thread and others, to be a complete and utter moron. It's hard to take some random question, with no explanation given even when asked, tossed in at face value. Also, to deny that it was a loaded question is ridiculous.

Why don't you try actually reading about the situation before yanking out that overused race card, mmmkay?

[Manda JO]

One thing that I think that county and mic84 need to remember is the other, annonymous kid in this equation: the kid that got rejected because of this kid. They have a certain number of slots. Some other kid met most of the requirements but was told "We don't have room for you. However, if anyone dosen't come--because they go somewhere else or because they do poorly their senoir year--then you can come, because your application tells us you can do the work." Now, if that kid were to find out that some kid blew off their senoir year, failed or nearly failed all of his classes, skipped constantly, and still got to go to UNC while he was stuck at his second choice--well, that's not fair.

Two, looking for excuses only after the consequences have arrived makes you look whiney and as if you are only trying to justify something. IF the kid had gone to UNC admissions at Xmas and said "Look, I am bored out of my mind. I don't feel that my school has anything to offer me. I am very excited about this software company that I think I can get up and running. If I were to drop out, get my GED, and take calculus at my local community college, would UNC still honor their admission letter?" and UNC had said "no", I would by sympathetic to the kid, and understand his frustration., though I would still argue that if he wants to play UNC's game, he's gotta play be UNC's rules.

Three, there is always a fundamental divide on these questions between math and science types and liberal arts types. Let me try to explain:

In the hard sciences, what a credit means is that you have a certain amount of knowledge: you can solve a differential equation or understand the properties of 200 organic compunds. If what a credit means is having knowledge, then classroom attendence is irrelevant: test performance is what matters.

In the liberal arts, credits mean something very different. It dosen't just mean that you know something, because there is no universally agreed upon knowledge. It means that you have had certain experiences: that you have, through exposure to lots of different people, both in person and through their writtings, arrived at a deeper and fuller understanding of human nature and of the world. Assessment in the liberal arts--tests and papers--are a kluge, a stop gap measure because we have to do something and one can't really quantify the most important part of the course.

An example: if someone has a credit for a course on the American novel, what that credit means is that they read a great number of American novels and spent three hours a week for 15 weeks discussing them with others under the guidence of someone who has studied all the novles in depth. Their grade maybe, in it's entirelty, based on a paper on only one of the novels. But the credit stands for the discussions, not just the paper. So a student who never showed up for class but turned in a good paper on one novel shouldn't get credit, because they haven't had the experiences that the credit stands for.

This is fundamentally different from the science/math conception: there, if you pass the final, then you have the knowledge, and since the credit means "you have the knowledge", you ought to get the credit. Math and science types always have this arguement with liberal arts types but it is really apples and oranges. Both classes award "credits", but the credits stand for different things.

[monstro]

Good points, Manda.

[Rysto]

mic84, perhaps you can enlighten me. You asked why the kid should have to accept the consequences for his actions. I think that it's self evident that people have to accept the consequences for their actions. Are we disagreeing on this point, or am I missing something?

[Monty]

county: Yes, timeliness is important. How'd you feel if you, say, had paid FedEx to deliver something to you overnight and you didn't get it until the next year?

[furt]

Originally posted by Fretful Porpentine
The frightening part is that if he wins his case, he could be sitting in my freshman English class six days from now. Now this is the part I don't believe. Fret, are you saying you haven't already had him? I've only been teaching freshman comp for a year, and I've had him at least twice.

Expect to meet him again next week, too. ;)

[Fretful Porpentine]

Well, come to think of it, he does sound familiar, but last time he was a senior who was about to go into the Marines after graduation. I often wonder what they made of him.

[Evil Captor]

1600 on his SAT. 3.5 GPA. Guess they mean nothign to you guys. Tough standards, you betcha.

What's the point of even trying with people like you ready to knock a guy down on his first fuckup?

Sorry, I'm with the kid on this one. His grades argue for a lot of work in high school, his SAT argues for hard work and great ability. You just have an excuse to shoot the guy down, so you're doing it.

[mic84]

yosemitebabe --

Of course the college doesn't think the tasks they require are "nonconstructive."

Neither did this boy's high school.

Most anybody who has ever been to high school knows that it is mostly noncounstructive. High school teachers and administrators have been to high school. Therefore, the know it is nonconstructive. Some will admit it("Sure I think this is dumb, but that's what the ministry tells me to teach..." etc), some don't care if what they're doing is constructive or not as long as they get they pay

So why should the college believe that the boy won't do the same thing with them? Why should they not be concerned that he'll disagree with their standards of "constructive" and proceed to cherry-pick which tasks he will or will not do?
Because he is right about high school being nonconstuctive. Because college is really not like high school. Most importantly, because if he's not interested in the subject matter, it doesn't make a difference if he tries to force his way through or not - he will have learned very little either way.


But this boy deemed the high school's expectations as "nonconstructive" and didn't do them.
He though he did the bare minimum that was required. Apparently, he was wrong.

So what if it's circular thinking?
Because he didn't do it, he's not in college. End of story. No sympathy for him.
Since it circular thinking, the busy work wasn't shown to have any intrinsic value. I asserted it doesn't have one, and so the college shouldn't punish the student for not doing it. I wouldn't argue that if UNC were a military school. But it's not.

Why should they take a chance on him? Why shouldn't they expect their students to have a history of doing what was expected of them, rather then cherry-picking tasks?
Because mindless obedience isn't a virtue. Also, see above.

The college is under no obligation to cut him a break, and they didn't. They figured he knew the score, didn't abide by it, so they assumed he didn't care enough
UNC is under no obligation to admit him. I doubt they figured he knew that he will be denied admission. It is unreasonable to assume that.

Well, then he's pretty stupid and he's obviously too thick-headed to fit in at that college anyway.
That's a bit far fetched.

He's now an object of derision and contempt. So much for "nothing to lose."
Some people don't care so much about societal approval.

And yes, by definition, filing a frivolous lawsuit against the college that had every right to reject you (and did) is pretty much akin to whining.
Well, it's a matter of definition I suppose. I don't think that with the broad definition you use, "whining" retains its negative connotation, though.

monstro --

You seem to think this guy was in the wrong (at least a little bit) for ditching school.
Of course he was wrong - he now isn't in university because of it.

Yet you don't think he deserves to face any consequences.
He does "deserve" to face the consequences of whatever he does. The consequence of not doing busywork shouldn't be withdrwal of admission.

Why? Does his perfect SAT score absolve his responsibility? If we were talking about someone with average marks and scores, would we be having this conversation?
For some reason, folks think he deserve leniency because he's smart.
If we know he's smart, it is easier to assume that he was bored in high school be tedious and unnecessary(for him) work. If it weren't obvious that the student is pretty smart, it would be harder to argue that he could tell a tedious and unnecessary task. So perhaps we wouldn't have this conversation.


But like I said before, colleges and university don't just want kids who know a lot of stuff. They want students who have good character traits as well.
I don't think he displayed any bad traits other than some shortsightedness. Not "working hard" on high school work isn't a demonstration of bad character traits. Like county said, luck of humility during the particular interview isn't a demonstration of bad character traits.
I don't know why a lot of posters here have a mental image of the guy that is not supported by any evidence.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nerds obviously don't do anything for the community(I suppose you think it's boring?) ? They think everybody else is dumb?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By definition, a nerd is a person who is socially retarded with esoteric interests. Nothing wrong with nerds per se, but if I had my choice between a nerd and someone who was smart and yet more balanced and well-rounded, I would choose the latter. Even if the nerd had a 1600 SAT and the other candidate had a score much less perfect.

That's some image to have of the group of people who do well on the SAT, dislike high school, and are good with computers. :rolleyes:

I'm not saying the kid is a nerd. My point is that schools care more about grades and scores.
Again, I see nothing wrong with the guy.

[mic84]

genie --
My point is that the guy was required to make a non-trivial effort that resulted in nothing but him winning a silly game of college admission(unless it didn't, but we don't know that). I'm not saying he didn't lost the game, because he did; I'm saying the rules of the game should be changed.

Manda JO
Now, if that kid were to find out that some kid blew off their senoir year, failed or nearly failed all of his classes, skipped constantly, and still got to go to UNC while he was stuck at his second choice--well, that's not fair.
A fair point, but since the guy was given an interview, it implies that he had a chance of getting admitted. If something he could say could get him admitted - anything should have got him admitted. Admission is not about being fair or who does the most effort -- it's about who has the most potential to learn. Any decision between candidates who are close on the list can be said to unfair.

Three, there is always a fundamental divide on these questions between math and science types and liberal arts types. Let me try to explain:
Very interesting, I never thought of it this way.I kind of though that my mark in the humanities depends on the amount and eloquence of cool though(aka BS, depending on the mood) I could write in a given amount of time. Works pretty well as a predictor.

[mic84]

Originally posted by Rysto
mic84, perhaps you can enlighten me. You asked why the kid should have to accept the consequences for his actions. I think that it's self evident that people have to accept the consequences for their actions. Are we disagreeing on this point, or am I missing something?
I don't know. I guess it depends on what it means to accept. Let me illustrate:

Suppose Johnny, knowing full-well that he'll be in detention for being late to class(a policy in my HS, which was never applied to me), doesn't get out of the warm bed soon enough, and is late. Now, he thinks it's all stupid, so he jumps out the window and goes home. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
Suppose Johnny tells his Mom that he was being punished because the teacher is silly. I see nothing wrong with that either, because it is mostly true.
Suppose Johnny says that he couldn't help being punished - now this is just not true, and there's no reason for him to think that way.

[mic84]

cool though
means "cool thoughts".

Sorry for the multiple posting.

[Manda JO]

A fair point, but since the guy was given an interview, it implies that he had a chance of getting admitted. If something he could say could get him admitted - anything should have got him admitted. Admission is not about being fair or who does the most effort -- it's about who has the most potential to learn. Any decision between candidates who are close on the list can be said to unfair.

Right, and to minimize that unfairness, it's important to stick to the terms as they are set out. The interview was appropriate incase there were some truly extenuating circumstances--he or a parent had cancer or something. Barring something like that, his slot should have gone to someone who hadn't demonstrated a tendency to lose their momentum in the home stretch.

Very interesting, I never thought of it this way.I kind of though that my mark in the humanities depends on the amount and eloquence of cool though(aka BS, depending on the mood) I could write in a given amount of time. Works pretty well as a predictor.

There is a difference between your mark (or grade) and the credit. In the sciences, a grade can have a pretty strong coorelation to the percentage of the knowledge mastered. It's a great deal more nebulous in the liberal arts. What's at issue here is not what the grade means but what having the credit at all means: if you take a class on 18th C philosophy, you may only write papers on Voltaire, and your grade comes from the skill with which you wrote your paper on Voiltaire, but the credit says that you can converse intelligently about Voltaire and Hume and Kant and Mills, whether or not you even once touched on any of them in a written assignment.

[furt]

Originally posted by mic84
Most anybody who has ever been to high school knows that it is mostly noncounstructive. Yes. "Most everybody" knows this.
...some don't care if what they're doing is constructive or not as long as they get they payYep. They're in education for easy jobs with good money. You nailed 'em there, chief.

Because college is really not like high school. Most importantly, because if he's not interested in the subject matter, it doesn't make a difference if he tries to force his way through or not - he will have learned very little either way....

Since it circular thinking, the busy work wasn't shown to have any intrinsic value. I asserted it doesn't have one, and so the college shouldn't punish the student for not doing it. ... Because mindless obedience isn't a virtue. In many regards, it is like high school. I give assignments that some students don't see as helpful. Sometimes they're even right. I screw up. Or maybe I gave an assignment that helps some students but not others ... or maybe, just maybe, there is the crazy possibility that I know what I'm doing, and that even if you don't see the point of something immediately, it will come clear at some later point.

Hell, I'm in grad school, and I constantly have to read things and learn things I think are stupid and a waste of time, things that I would not learn or do if it was up to me. Sometimes I think they're stupid even after I've done them and sometimes a lightbulb goes on over my head.

It's called "education," and generally speaking, it only comes from that which is counter to what you already know or think.

[mic84]

Originally posted by Manda JO
Right, and to minimize that unfairness, it's important to stick to the terms as they are set out. The interview was appropriate incase there were some truly extenuating circumstances--he or a parent had cancer or something. Barring something like that, his slot should have gone to someone who hadn't demonstrated a tendency to lose their momentum in the home stretch.
What was suggested here, and what I objected to was the admittedly hypothetical theory that he was rejected because he was a "kid who came in thinking he was in charge" during the interview. This view is supported by the quote from the officer:
"His poor mother had to try to save him before I immediately bounced him out on his pious ear".

That said, I do think that potential is what's important, not ability to maintain momentum doing useless work.


There is a difference between your mark (or grade) and the credit. In the sciences, a grade can have a pretty strong coorelation to the percentage of the knowledge mastered. It's a great deal more nebulous in the liberal arts. What's at issue here is not what the grade means but what having the credit at all means: if you take a class on 18th C philosophy, you may only write papers on Voltaire, and your grade comes from the skill with which you wrote your paper on Voiltaire, but the credit says that you can converse intelligently about Voltaire and Hume and Kant and Mills, whether or not you even once touched on any of them in a written assignment.
Seems to me being able to converse on whomever is pretty testable. If you read and discussed them, and then forgot all about them, and you can't write well, what good is the credit?

[typhoon]

Hey, I got rejected by UNC too.

Somebody fetch me a lawyer.

[mic84]

Originally posted by furt
Yes. "Most everybody" knows this.

And here I am, still not sure if "most anybody" is incorrect. Anyway, FWIW, I only spent one year in an English language high school.

Yep. They're in education for easy jobs with good money. You nailed 'em there, chief.
Depending on the jurisdiction, the monet isn't bad at all. And I said "some".


In many regards, it is like high school.
(college, that is)
That's not my experience. Unlike high school, I see the point of virtually all assignements. If I don't, I can ask and get a meaningful answer(or read the syllabus which explains it).

Hell, I'm in grad school, and I constantly have to read things and learn things I think are stupid and a waste of time, things that I would not learn or do if it was up to me. Sometimes I think they're stupid even after I've done them and sometimes a lightbulb goes on over my head.
That's unfortunate

It's called "education," and generally speaking, it only comes from that which is counter to what you already know or think.
Not IME.

[mic84]

the monet isn't bad at all
I meant money with a "y", not Claude.

[mic84]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by furt
Yes. "Most everybody" knows this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And here I am, still not sure if "most anybody" is incorrect.

Hmmm. I just thought that you might not have beeb joking about how HS wasn't constructive to me, since I write poorly and all. Sorry about that.
Anyhow, by "most" I can only mean most of the teachers and students I know. And myself. I think that HS was largely nonconstructive. At this stage, I don't think this opinion will change.

[furt]

No, I wasn't picking on grammar; I was making the point that I highly doubt "most everybody" thinks HS is "nonconstructive." I strongly suspect that most teachers think that some things are getting done, and most adults think the same.

Which is not to say that it is ideal... but "mostly nonconstructive" is a bit much.

[mic84]

Originally posted by furt
No, I wasn't picking on grammar; I was making the point that I highly doubt "most everybody" thinks HS is "nonconstructive." I strongly suspect that most teachers think that some things are getting done, and most adults think the same.

Which is not to say that it is ideal... but "mostly nonconstructive" is a bit much.
I think things are getting done, too. What I meant by "high school is mostly nonconstructive" is that most of the time spent in class or doing homework is nonconstructive, especially to students who can learn the material faster than others.

In the calculus class, for example, folks learn about integration by parts. Now, it's a pretty tricky formula, so to remeber it everybody is assigned 2 hours' worth of exercizes, and then there's a test etc., on which you won't do well if you didn't do the exercizes, because you need to do it quick and at least remember the formula(at least in Ontario, they don't show you how to derive it, and, anyway, there's not enough time for this). After the exam, everybody gladly forgets the formula.

What was the point of all that? Either none, or else the point was to teach a certain vague skill, which could be as well learned by solving crossword puzzles.

I think that on whole, teaching integration by parts(not showing it, but actually training people to do it) is nonconstructive. But I wouldn't argue that some things are accomplished by teaching it.

[lezlers]

mic, just because you don't feel that high school is constructive, doesn't make it fact.

I found your take on personal accountability (the climbing out the window during detention) quite disturbing. You wouldn't happen to have been raised by TCS parents, would you?

[Super Gnat]

Y'know, getting a 1600 on the SAT doesn't necessarily mean hard work.

I got a 1500. I did no prep whatsoever. I took it cold 3 times, and the lowest score I got on one testing was a 1440.

Yeah, I work hard, but the evidence of that is in my high school GPA. I mean, I am a quick learner. But that didn't help me write an essay for English class or participate in a group project in French.

What I learned from these and similar activities was, first and foremost, good study skills. At some point (for me, that point was Chemistry), all the potential in the world won't help you. You will need to learn something that doesn't come naturally, and without any organized way of learning material you'll be stuck. Busy work, if done, forces you to take time out of your day to work on something not immediately rewarding. I would imagine it's one of the most useful lessons someone can learn.

Second, they taught me skills that I appreciate, or will appreciate later in life. If I hadn't participated in discussions and written essays in English class, I would not be able to analyze what makes great literature great. The reading experience is much more enjoyable when you can pick up on different themes and subtleties of the writer. I didn't care about that skill in 9th grade, but at this point I wouldn't trade it for the world.

Group projects and such are also useful. Whatever your field is, the chances are overwhelming that you will have to interact with others in a professional environment. If you put forth the effort, you can start learning the skills you'll need to work with others: how to divide up work, how to deal with people who don't want to pull their own weight, how to gracefully deal with your own ideas being put aside in favor of others, etc. Blowing off this kind of thing will only make it harder for you later in life.

Why am I going into all this? To impress upon you that work can be constructive whether or not you see it as such. And really, even if this young man's work consisted of punching holes for 8 hours each day, his unwillingness to do the work or negotiate it says something important about his character: "I am not willing to do things that do not interest me, and I will not seek other options." That does not bode well for his future college and professional career.

____________

BTW, integration by parts is difficult and nonconstructive?!?! First off, how hard is "int. of u dv = uv - int. of v du"? And second, integration is required for any sort of math, physics, engineering type work, and integration by parts makes many difficult equations much easier. Of course something is accomplished by teaching it: first, you know how to solve certain difficult-looking equations, and second if it's required in your career, then you most certainly accomplished something by learning it.

[Super Gnat]

Oh yeah, meant to say what lezlers said. Your willingness to champion those who refuse to take their medicine is rather disturbing.

[mic84]

lezlers --
mic, just because you don't feel that high school is constructive, doesn't make it fact.
You don't say! :eek:
BTW, this applies to you as well

I found your take on personal accountability (the climbing out the window during detention) quite disturbing.
Unless you elaborate, all I can say is that this is too bad.

You wouldn't happen to have been raised by TCS parents, would you?
"Taking Children Seriously", you mean? No, I don't think my parents are aware of this organization. They did, and do, on occasion, take me seriously, or so I am led to believe.


SG -- I see your post, will be back in an hour...

[lezlers]

Okay mic, you want me to elaborate? Fine.

Originally posted by mic84
I don't know. I guess it depends on what it means to accept. Let me illustrate:

Suppose Johnny, knowing full-well that he'll be in detention for being late to class(a policy in my HS, which was never applied to me), doesn't get out of the warm bed soon enough, and is late. Now, he thinks it's all stupid, so he jumps out the window and goes home. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
Suppose Johnny tells his Mom that he was being punished because the teacher is silly. I see nothing wrong with that either, because it is mostly true.
Suppose Johnny says that he couldn't help being punished - now this is just not true, and there's no reason for him to think that way.

I can't see how you can possibly think that Johnny shouldn't have to serve his due punishment because he thinks "it's stupid". You are championing (as Super Gnat so eloquently put it) for no personal accountability. Accountability doesn't stop at admitting you broke a rule. Accountability includes accepting whatever punishment goes with the breaking of that particular rule. Johnny broke the rules with full knowledge of the punishment he would recieve. Johnny did it anyway. Johnny needs to serve out his punishment.

Most people learn this in childhood. That's what led me to ask my TCS question. You seem to be the product of such upbringing.

Would you go one step further and say that prisoners should be able to walk out of prison if they feel their punishment is "stupid"?

[Monty]

mic: What exactly do you not understand about the proffered contract ol' Johnny accepted along with its attendant provisions?

When I applied to this university, I was a student at a community college a bit south of here. I got accepted as a transfer student provided I passed all of my courses for the following year and also maintained a specific GPA. I don't see any difference whatsoever in this individual's case. He applied for a school, got accepted, and was informed of the school's standards to maintain his place in the incoming class. He failed to abide by those conditions and therefore the school was under no obligation to extend to him the courtesy they did of asking him what was going on. They could've just informed him that his performance did not meet the conditions of the proffered & accepted agreement and cut loose.

I'm not sure if this has any bearing on your perception of the case; however, I feel the need to ask you: in what profession do you work? Have you been to college or university?

[lezlers]

I think he's in college.

[mic84]

Originally posted by Super Gnat
(snip)
Why am I going into all this? To impress upon you that work can be constructive whether or not you see it as such.

Of course. However, the skills you talk about are acquired, IME in middle school, not in senior year high school, especially by "quick learners". Some of these are habits. Habits are acquired at will in seconds, if you want to acquire them. If you don't, there's no sense acquiring them


And really, even if this young man's work consisted of punching holes for 8 hours each day, his unwillingness to do the work or negotiate it says something important about his character: "I am not willing to do things that do not interest me, and I will not seek other options." That does not bode well for his future college and professional career.
The professional career doesn't matter. I don't see how it's bad in college.

____________

BTW, integration by parts is difficult and nonconstructive?!?! First off, how hard is "int. of u dv = uv - int. of v du"?
Not hard at all, but it fades out after a couple of days. Not constructive at the least. The difficult part, of course, is recognize what's "u" and what's "v".

And second, integration is required for any sort of math, physics, engineering type work, and integration by parts makes many difficult equations much easier.
Sometimes... that's not the point. I learned the formula and the tricks (v = 1 etc) on 3 different occasions, and I don't think that I can integrate something difficult right now. There really is no point getting good at it if you aren't going to use it in the next month. Again, IME, YMMV.

Of course something is accomplished by teaching it: first, you know how to solve certain difficult-looking equations, and second if it's required in your career, then you most certainly accomplished something by learning it.
See above, and also the crossword puzzle comment.


Oh yeah, meant to say what lezlers said. Your willingness to champion those who refuse to take their medicine is rather disturbing.
Huh? :confused:

lezlers --

I can't see how you can possibly think that Johnny shouldn't have to serve his due punishment because he thinks "it's stupid". You are championing (as Super Gnat so eloquently put it) for no personal accountability.
Words, words, words...

Johnny broke the rules with full knowledge of the punishment he would recieve. Johnny did it anyway. Johnny needs to serve out his punishment.
You're forgetting that Johnny has little choice but to go to school(I know, I know, GED, work, take a year off, leave civilization and live in the woods, I don't buy it. Suppose for the sake of the argument that Johnny's in elementary school). Why would he "need" to do anything at all? Whom does it serve? And what do you mean by "need", anyway?

Most people learn this in childhood. That's what led me to ask my TCS question. You seem to be the product of such upbringing.
I actually just googled TCS, so I don't really know much about it, so I can't comment.

Would you go one step further and say that prisoners should be able to walk out of prison if they feel their punishment is "stupid"?
Non-sequitur. What do you mean by "should be able"?


He failed to abide by those conditions and therefore the school was under no obligation to extend to him the courtesy they did of asking him what was going on. They could've just informed him that his performance did not meet the conditions of the proffered & accepted agreement and cut loose.
Originally posted by me in reply to Monty
...I do think the school should've let him in, but I don't think that it is obligated to let him in.

I'm not sure if this has any bearing on your perception of the case; however, I feel the need to ask you: in what profession do you work? Have you been to college or university?
I'm a full-time undergraduate, and I have been (as in studied) to 2 universities.

[Monty]

I'm a full-time undergraduate studying at my 2nd university (the 1st was part-time undergraduate). I also was a full-time undergraduate at a community college. Prior to that I had a full-tiime job overseas, prior to that a full-time job in California, and prior to that I was on Active Duty with the Navy until retired. One thing all of those things have in common: expectation for me to comply with the terms to which I had agreed.

So, I ask you again: What exactly is it that you do not understand about the proffered & accepted contract (the admissions offer)?

[dangermom]

You're forgetting that Johnny has little choice but to go to school(I know, I know, GED, work, take a year off, leave civilization and live in the woods, I don't buy it. Suppose for the sake of the argument that Johnny's in elementary school). You don't buy that there are alternative routes, or you don't buy that they're realistic? Huh, I'll have to let the many people I know who are doing alternatives know that they aren't real. In elementary school particularly, there are a lot of things to do. In my small town alone, there are 2 independent study programs connected to public schools, 4-5 charter schools with various philosophies, a whole lotta homeschoolers and unschoolers, and several elementary programs that parents can apply to (bilingual, Academics Plus, artsy programs, freedom programs. and gifted programs), none of which require pricey private educations--we have a bunch of those, too, though, with varying degrees of discipline.

Sure, little Johnny has to get some sort of education, or he'll likely be sorry later on--though the unschoolers would disagree even with that. But the fact remains that he does have some choice in the matter, though he's subject to parents' approval in grade school. He can learn about his options and talk with his parents about what to do, even!

The universe has rules, and the sooner kids learn that, the happier and freer they will be. I can't jump off a roof and expect gravity to give me a break, I can't run a red light in traffic without risking injury, and I can't tell off a teacher and then skip detention without consequences. We all have to live together, so we also have to learn the rules. Once we know them, we can figure out which ones make sense and which ones ought to be changed--but skipping detention is not the way to get there. And gravity will probably always be around. :)

[lezlers]

Monty, it's all on you. I give up.

"Words words words"? What the fuck kind of refutal is that?

All I can say is, the Real World is going to give you a nice hard smack across the face when you finally find yourself in it.

[mic84]

Originally posted by Monty
So, I ask you again: What exactly is it that you do not understand about the proffered & accepted contract (the admissions offer)?
I don't think there is anything I don't understand about it. The school is not obligated admit the guy - so much is obvious. I repeat this for the third(fourth?) time now.

genie --

You don't buy that there are alternative routes, or you don't buy that they're realistic? Huh, I'll have to let the many people I know who are doing alternatives know that they aren't real
:rolleyes: nice pun. "realistic" - "real" - I get this.
What needs to be considered here is
1. The willingness of the parents to co-operate
2. The investment of time and effort required to switch systems
3. The significance of the dissatisfaction with the current system - there is the the possibility that the next won't be better.

What you are ignoring here is that school is something that society and the parents want the children to go through, and even when a choice is given, there isn't always a good choice, the existence of which this kind of argument requires.

And anyhow, there's no way to change systems while in detention, and I don't think anybody is obligated to follow stupid rules even if they can normally switch systems.

We all have to live together, so we also have to learn the rules.
I'm all for learning the rules. Abiding the rules when it only hurts everyone involved is useless - rules are created to serve individuals, not the other way around.

Once we know them, we can figure out which ones make sense and which ones ought to be changed--but skipping detention is not the way to get there.
Get where?

And gravity will probably always be around.
I understand this is a joke, but surely you do understand that there is no analogy here.

"Words words words"? What the fuck kind of refutal is that?
The kind you get when your argument consists of linguistic games and nothing more.
You say "personal accountability" and actually mean "willingness to serve punishment", as far as I can tell, but since you think the word "accountability" sounds good you don't feel you need to justify the that the concept is the ultimate virtue, even though that's the central question in the debate. So you name some concept a nice name, and consider it proven that the concept is nice.
In short, "Words, words, words".

You then procceed to analyze me and guess(wrongly, apparently) how I was raised. What am I supposed to say?



And now this :
All I can say is, the Real World is going to give you a nice hard smack across the face when you finally find yourself in it.
:rolleyes:

[Monty]

Originally posted by lezlers
Monty, it's all on you. I give up.

Big whoop.

"Words words words"? What the fuck kind of refutal is that?

WTF are you talking about? Where TF did I say "words words words?"

All I can say is, the Real World is going to give you a nice hard smack across the face when you finally find yourself in it.

I've been in the "real world." So I'm asking you, lezlers: WTF are you talking about?

[Monty]

Good grief. Don't mind me, lezlers. Just give a me a minute or an hour or so to just slap myself just completely silly!

My posting above is completely mistaken.

Actually, lezlers, I'm giving up on mic84 too. Some people are so in love with the dumbest damn thing ever said merely because they're the one who said it that there's no dissuading them from it.

[Super Gnat]

I'm eloquent! Thank you, lezlers, you're very eloquent also :).

Replying to mic84
Originally posted by mic84
Some of these are habits. Habits are acquired at will in seconds, if you want to acquire them. If you don't, there's no sense acquiring themIf you don't acquire it at the time, and find out it's important later, then what? High schools try to teach stuff that will benefit you in the real world, whether you know it at the time or not. And yes, those skills can be taught in middle school, but later on you say that you forget ideas that aren't constantly reinforced. Perhaps that's why activities such as group projects are done in both middle school and high school.

The professional career doesn't matter. I don't see how it's bad in college. Huh?

Not constructive at the least. Unless, of course, you ever have to integrate something by parts again. (I realize integration by parts isn't the crux of either of our arguments, but it seems to be a good hook to hang them on.)

There really is no point getting good at it if you aren't going to use it in the next month. I'll just let that speak for itself.


On preview:
mic84 said:
You say "personal accountability" and actually mean "willingness to serve punishment"...

YES!!! Part of personal accountability is willingness to accept the consequences of your actions. If the consequences are to serve punishment, then that's what you do. I don't see what your problem is with this.


~Super Gnat (about this close to giving up too)

[Tezmac]

Ive been following this one since my posts early on. There's almost no point in arguing this anymore.

Some of us believe that the kid has no work ethic, no sense of responsibility and realize that he couldnt complete the given requirements of UNC to attend their university (i.e. getting a 1.4 his last semester).

The rest believe that this kid could skate through his last semester getting a 0.00 GPA and still get admitted because he is a non-conformist (but applied to a traditional college just like everyone else!??!?!) and a free thinker who should be able to do what he wants, when he wants, and how he wants just like all teenagers. Because he had a high SAT means that he does not have to take responsibilty for any of his actions or personal decisions.

[Monty]

Super Gnat: It's a lost cause. Evidently, the facts of the matter are irrelevant to someone in this thread. I guess the fact that there's various paths to the "real world" are irrelevant to that person also. I'm also stunned at the idea that the student at the crux of this issue should get admitted to the university just because he wants to be admitted. There's this thing called qualification. But, hey, apparently that's just another "linguistic game." And I don't see how requiring that student to abide by the same rules everyone else did is "hurting everyone involved." Guess I'm just stupid, and don't know jack about the "real world."

To sum it up: The school was right in what they did--and they even bent over backwards. The student was cavalier in his approach and now wants what he wants when he wants and damn everyone else. Especially damn the individual who would be admitted in his stead.

And lezlers: I'm really really really sorry that I thought you said you were giving up on me. I see the frustration in trying to explain something we folks who like to play "linguistic games" call "fact" to one particular poster. I completely sympathize with you.

[lezlers]

No worries Monty!

And Super Gnat, thank you for the compliment and for pointing out the obvious (to most) that accepting punishment is a part of personal accountability, I thought I was going to have a stroke when I read the comment that prompted it.

I stand by my previous assertation that someone here is going to get a hard smack across the face when they leave their private sanctuary of higher education.

[mic84]

Originally posted by Monty
Actually, lezlers, I'm giving up on mic84 too. Some people are so in love with the dumbest damn thing ever said merely because they're the one who said it that there's no dissuading them from it.
Right. They're in love with what they say so much, in fact, that they will repeat their witty questions over and over again without as much as changing the wording of the answer they were given a few hours ago. Because, you know, when you are in love with what you say so much, what point is there in actually reading what others say?

If you don't acquire it at the time, and find out it's important later, then what?
A habit? Well, you just decide you have it.

High schools try to teach stuff that will benefit you in the real world, whether you know it at the time or not.
The try, yes. In my experience, they don't succeed. YMMV.

And yes, those skills can be taught in middle school, but later on you say that you forget ideas that aren't constantly reinforced.
I said specific skills need to be reinforced. Like integration by parts, or finding a "thesis statement" or whatnont.

Perhaps that's why activities such as group projects are done in both middle school and high school.
Perhaps.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The professional career doesn't matter. I don't see how it's bad in college.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Huh?
(re: "I am not willing to do things that do not interest me, and I will not seek other options." )
This is not a disadvatage at college. In fact, investing your time in college in things you have no interest in and/or see no direct benefit from, is kind of silly - you're paying for it, after all. If you are willing to trust the college that it knows better then you, of course, that's fine too.

Whether or not this is character trait is good or not for a professional career is irrelevant to college admissions. I see now you were talking about the benefits of HS in general, so I retract this comment.Sorry about that.


Unless, of course, you ever have to integrate something by parts again. (I realize integration by parts isn't the crux of either of our arguments, but it seems to be a good hook to hang them on.)
Like I said, this is very easily forgotten within a few months. That's what I meant by:
There really is no point getting good at it if you aren't going to use it in the next month.


YES!!! Part of personal accountability is willingness to accept the consequences of your actions. If the consequences are to serve punishment, then that's what you do. I don't see what your problem is with this.
My problem is that this argument begs the question, What's so great about personal accountability, anyway? lezlers just introduced a new term to the discussion that is actually of no use - this is not an argument, this is playing linguistic games.


Tezmac -- the second position you mention is not representative of mine, FTR.

On preview - I really am running out of :rolleyes:'s


~Super Gnat (about this close to giving up too)
Actually, lezlers, I'm giving up on mic84 too
I give up.
:p , I guess.

[mic84]

Originally posted by Monty
Evidently, the facts of the matter are irrelevant to someone in this thread.
Evidently.

I guess the fact that there's various paths to the "real world" are irrelevant to that person also.
WTF?

I'm also stunned at the idea that the student at the crux of this issue should get admitted to the university just because he wants to be admitted.
The stawmen factory calling - they're running out of strawmen.


There's this thing called qualification. But, hey, apparently that's just another "linguistic game."
WTF? Do you read my post, or do you just figure out what I think on your own and than respond to that? I responded to this TWICE already.

Idon't see how requiring that student to abide by the same rules everyone else did is "hurting everyone involved."
He is the only one involved. Abiding by a stupid rule is hurting him. Draw your own conclusions.


Guess I'm just stupid, and don't know jack about the "real world."
I'm not sure about the second part.

[Nightime]

I can't see how you can possibly think that Johnny shouldn't have to serve his due punishment because he thinks "it's stupid". You are championing (as Super Gnat so eloquently put it) for no personal accountability.

No, I think the point is that high school is fundamentally different than a job, or even college for that matter. You don't choose to be required to go to high school. It is chosen for you. And again, he *did* work hard for 3 years. Don't try to act like he was a slacker to the core because for 1 out of 4 years (the most pointless of the years) he decided to stay home and do something else.

If you are required to go somewhere pointless, and possibly quite hostile, through no choice of your own, I don't see why you should be subject to her majesty Lezlers righteous anger because you don't go sometimes. Is it just that you have never chosen not to do something you didn't like, and you don't think anyone else should either?

And still, nobody has said the university should have been *required* to let him in. Just that it would have been better had they done so.

It's like what happened to me in high school. I made this guy look like an amateur in ditching classes, but I still ended up with a nearly 4.5 GPA. My teachers didn't mark me down for ditching. Should they have been *forced* not to mark me down? No. I wouldn't have ever argued they should have been. But given that I was getting no sleep because I had to catch the school bus at 5:30 am, and was sleeping through the classes anyway, I think it was the right thing to do.

I stand by my previous assertation that someone here is going to get a hard smack across the face when they leave their private sanctuary of higher education.

Hey! Threats aren't allowed here. ;)

[lezlers]

Originally posted by Nightime

If you are required to go somewhere pointless, and possibly quite hostile, through no choice of your own, I don't see why you should be subject to her majesty Lezlers righteous anger because you don't go sometimes. Is it just that you have never chosen not to do something you didn't like, and you don't think anyone else should either?



What the hell are you talking about? Subject to my righteous anger? I'm not arguing with the "her majesty" part of your attempted humor, but since when did this become an issue of dealing with me? Yes, I've not done something I didn't want to do. And you know what? I faced the consequences of that action. It's called "personal accountability". It's something adults have. You should look into it.

And mic, that term has everything to do with this situation. Part of the reason the school isn't letting the student in is because he showed no personal accountability. If he would've owned up to his mistakes and promised to do better, this thread wouldn't exist.

[Super Gnat]

Originally posted by mic84
What's so great about personal accountability, anyway? I honestly can't believe you just said this, but I'll attempt to answer it. If you are not held responsible for your own actions, then who will be held responsible?

[mic84]

lezlers writesAnd mic, that term has everything to do with this situation. Part of the reason the school isn't letting the student in is because he showed no personal accountability. If he would've owned up to his mistakes and promised to do better, this thread wouldn't exist
Yeah, it does. But it's just a rewording of your old argument. First you(the collective you) argue that he wasn't admitted because he's not responsible. That's not a good reason, I say. Oh, you say, but if you're not responsible you're not accountable, and surely we can't have that. Well, maybe, maybe not. What you did is just offer a synonym, not a justification for an argument.

A lot of people said a lot of other things, too. This is only part of the argument.

Originally posted by Super Gnat
I honestly can't believe you just said this, but I'll attempt to answer it. If you are not held responsible for your own actions, then who will be held responsible?
If by "held responsible" you mean "be deemed to have caused the consequences of one's actions", it's obvious you're right, by definition, but then it doesn't follow that one shouldn't try to avoid the consequences if they are unpleasant.

If by "held responsible" you mean "be punished", or "held accountable", then why do you suppose anyone should be held responsible? I, for one, see no reason to be vengeful.

[Super Gnat]

Originally posted by mic84
If by "held responsible" you mean "be deemed to have caused the consequences of one's actions", it's obvious you're right, by definition, but then it doesn't follow that one shouldn't try to avoid the consequences if they are unpleasant.Yes, but this individual is trying to avoid unpleasant consequences, by demanding that the college admit him.

If by "held responsible" you mean "be punished", or "held accountable", then why do you suppose anyone should be held responsible? I, for one, see no reason to be vengeful. How are you defining "responsible" and "accountable"? To me, in this context, they're interchangeable, but obviously they mean something different to you. And you re right, there is no reason to be vengeful. I don't think anyone suggested vengeance.

I think I see what you're saying with the "be punished" bit, but I disagree. If we do not introduce punishment for undesirable actions, then how do we keep people from doing undesirable actions?

[Enginerd]

Okay... this argument has been driving me nuts, so let's try something else. From the cite (http://newsobserver.com/front/story/2802786p-2590865c.html) on the first page of this thread (bolding mine):
But his mother said she did not think they were interested in listening to her son's explanation for the low grades he posted in the Advanced Placement classes.
Advanced Placement classes are intended to be an introduction to college-level education, and many Universities (UNC included (http://www.admissions.unc.edu/faq/advplac.html)) accept AP test scores as one way to avoid taking introductory classes. Blowing off an AP class isn't the result of being "disillusioned with the high school experience," because that class is taught at a college level.

From what I remember of my AP classes (and they were 11-12 years ago, so it's kind of hazy), the classes were taught much more like University classes. The burden of learning was placed on the students rather than on the instructors, and most of the students were happy to have that. It seems Edmonson was not.

But that's the way university classes are structured. It's the instructor's job to present the material, but the student's responsibility to learn. I don't think Edmonson proved that he was dissilusioned with high school as much as he proved that he was unable (or, more likely, unwilling) to do the work required to succeed at the next level. It's not that the school had nothing to offer him - he was offered a chance at college credit (which is obviously important to him, given the lawsuit), and he blew it off. I'd rescind his admission as well.

[lezlers]

Exactly, Super Gnat.

For the purposes of this argument, accountable and responsible are interchangable. And mic, I never said he wasn't admitted because he wasn't responsible, although that's certainly true. He wasn't admitted because he didn't fulfill his part of the agreement. If he had accounted for his actions, the college probably would've let his previous actions slide, and granted admittance.

And one most certainly should attempt to avoid the consequences if deemed undesirable. They do that by avoiding the action that they know will bring on the consequence. That's kinda the whole point of having undesirable consequences for certain actions.

I honestly don't understand why you're not getting this. It occurs to me that perhaps you're arguing for the sake of arguing?

[Nightime]

If he would've owned up to his mistakes and promised to do better, this thread wouldn't exist.

Are you sure? I thought he did admit his mistake (that he thought he would get into university anyway, and thus avoided a hostile and pointless environment) and I can't believe that he wouldn't promise to do better!

University: "Will you promise to do better?"

Student: "No."

This actually happened?

[lezlers]

I believe he said something to the effect of "my grades are what they are"

Hardly sounds like admitting a mistake. Sounds more like being defiant and expecting to be rewarded for that defiance.

[yosemite]

Anyone want to address Enginerd's comments?

It looks like the kid was given "college level" classes in high school and screwed up. It doesn't sound as if the classes in his senior year were "busy work" or "nonconstructive" by any stretch of the imagination.

But if the kid still thought they were, and that's why he didn't do very well with them, then why would he think the actual college's classes were any different? Why should the college take that chance on him, when they could (hopefully) get another student in there who didn't tank on his AP classes?

[Nightime]

You know, he finished with a 3.5, but he still got a 2.6 GPA in his senior year. That's bad, but since a C gives you a 2.0 his grades the last year aren't quite as bad as people are saying.

[Tezmac]

If the guy had a 3.8 through 7 semesters and ended up with a 3.5 after the 8th, my math says he got a 1.4 (equiv of 3 D's and 2 C's) that last semester.

[Nightime]

Ah, I thought it was his whole senior year he messed up on.

So it was only the last semester?

[Nightime]

Actually in the article it says "senior year" so your 1.4 is inaccurate.

He got a 2.6, which while obviously not good, is not nearly as bad as what everyone is saying.

[mic84]

Super Gnat --
Can I take this to be the restatement of your "who if not the individual should be responsible?". If so, forget the definitions. If not, please provide the definition yourself; after all, you asked the question and introduced the term, so it's only fair to use your definition.
I think I see what you're saying with the "be punished" bit, but I disagree. If we do not introduce punishment for undesirable actions, then how do we keep people from doing undesirable actions?
I'm not saying that, in principle, punishments are bad. However, if an individual does not think that the punishment is just, in no way should they be morally bligated to "accept" the punishment, ie, face it and not try to avoid it.

lezlers --

And mic, I never said he wasn't admitted because he wasn't responsible, although that's certainly true
Like I said numerous times, I'm not sure about this, but I take this as an assumption because numerous posters did, and because this is somewhat supported by the cite, in which the officer speaks very unfavourably of the guy's character.

He wasn't admitted because he didn't fulfill his part of the agreement. If he had accounted for his actions, the college probably would've let his previous actions slide, and granted admittance.
And this, others and I argued over 3 pages, shouldn't be.

And one most certainly should attempt to avoid the consequences if deemed undesirable. They do that by avoiding the action that they know will bring on the consequence.
Or by climbing out the window while in detention.

That's kinda the whole point of having undesirable consequences for certain actions.
There is a difference between the interests of the individual and the interests of society here, obviously.



lezlers writes
I give up
and a few hours and posts later, she writes
I honestly don't understand why you're not getting this. It occurs to me that perhaps you're arguing for the sake of arguing
Nice debate tactic, that.

Enginerd --
Like I said earlier, I (and apparently, others) are debating under the assuption that had the guy been more apologetic, he would have been admitted, so his actual qualifications are not really under debate, especially given that we haven't got enough information.

[Tezmac]

Ah!! My mistake!

[yosemite]

Enginerd --
Like I said earlier, I (and apparently, others) are debating under the assuption that had the guy been more apologetic, he would have been admitted, so his actual qualifications are not really under debate, especially given that we haven't got enough information.Nice dodge, there. But it won't wash.

Weren't you the one that was bleating about "nonconstructive"?

What is so "nonconstructive" about AP courses, pray tell? Was this kid so "bored" by his "nonconstructive" AP classes that he just couldn't...go....on? Poor little darling?

Please.

[lezlers]

Nightime, you keep changing your argument. First, he shouldn't have to go to school if he doesn't want to, even though his college acceptance rode on it. Then, he shouldn't have to answer to me (I'm still struggling to understand that one), then he did accept responsibility for his actions, now his grades aren't as bad as people are saying? Which is it?

[lezlers]

Well mic, considering that you're refusing to answer my questions and instead are completely engrossed in your own little circular logic game, I'll back out of the argument, because it really is pointless. I don't know how I let myself get dragged in it again.

Have fun.

[mic84]

Originally posted by yosemitebabe
Nice dodge, there. But it won't wash.

Weren't you the one that was bleating about "nonconstructive"?

What is so "nonconstructive" about AP courses, pray tell? Was this kid so "bored" by his "nonconstructive" AP classes that he just couldn't...go....on? Poor little darling?

Please.
Someone's been bleating in this thread, all right, but it wasn't me.
--------------------
I've never taken an AP course, I don't know,(other than nerdgineer's comment, but then some colleges are a lot like high school so it doesn't mean a lot) and it's obviously different from one school to another, anyway. I am honestly not sure if this significantly alters the situation. Maybe.

[Nightime]

Nightime, you keep changing your argument. First, he shouldn't have to go to school if he doesn't want to, even though his college acceptance rode on it. Then, he shouldn't have to answer to me (I'm still struggling to understand that one), then he did accept responsibility for his actions, now his grades aren't as bad as people are saying? Which is it?

I never said the school should have to admit him.

I said he did not deserve your (or anyone's) righteous anger because he occasionally avoided a hostile environment after 3 years of hard work, and instead worked on software.

I also said I couldn't believe he wouldn't promise to do better! Why would he not?

Just now doing the math for fun, I realized his grades weren't nearly so bad as suspected. A C gives a 2.0, so a 2.6 in your last year after 3 years of 3.8's isn't so horrendous. I can understand now why he was surprised to have the rug pulled out from under him.

[mic84]

Well mic, considering that you're refusing to answer my questions and instead are completely engrossed in your own little circular logic game, I'll back out of the argument, because it really is pointless. I don't know how I let myself get dragged in it again.
Backing out? For the third time, is it? See you soon.
Which questions?
What circular logic other than yours, which I'm not applying?

[yosemite]

Originally posted by mic84
I've never taken an AP course, I don't know,(other than nerdgineer's comment, but then some colleges are a lot like high school so it doesn't mean a lot) and it's obviously different from one school to another, anyway. I am honestly not sure if this significantly alters the situation. Maybe. Well, we get a "maybe" from you. How amazing.

Well, are we going to explore this aspect of the story any further, or are you going to pretend it never existed?

And what about you, Nightime? Does this change anything? After all, he (presumably) voluntarily enrolled in these AP classes, which were more challenging than "regular" high school classes—they were more like college level classes. And he screwed up on them. Is this not significant, or is he still some poor misunderstood victim?

[furlibusea]

I honestly do not understand why anyone is arguing in this kid's favor. As a teacher and as a parent, I know the best thing I can do for the children placed in my charge is to give them an understanding of consequences. I do not mind being held accountable, but the child has obligations as well.

Of course he was well within his rights to blow off the last year of classes. I am well within my rights to call my pricipal an idiot on television too. After that the school is well within their rights to fire me for insubordination, and in this case the school the kid had his heart set on is well within it's right to refuse him admitance.

Honestly. I do not understand parents who sue the school when their child gets caught cheating, or when he gets a bad grade, or doesn't get to be solo validictorian. Why would you participate bringing up someone you are not going to like in the end.

[Nightime]

I never said he was a victim, or that the school should have to admit him.

I just said that I thought they should have admitted him.

The AP courses do show that it was probably not the pointlessness of school that caused him not to go, thus making him less sympathetic. We don't really know why he decided to work on software to the detriment of his school work. Maybe school was a hostile environment.

But on the other hand, he didn't exactly "blow off" his classes. He still got a 2.6 his final year (for comparison, a C gives a 2.0). I can see why he thought graduating on time, with a 3.5 GPA and a 1600 SAT, would be enough.

[Monty]

Hah! That's a good question, furlibusea! Perhaps they see it as the best way to get them the heck out of their home?

What's even more amazing to me is the, "you're paying for it" view of the college education. There're so many more costs to the education than just the cash the student contributes!

[Nightime]

You know, since he failed a class, he must have had some good grades his last year to balance out to a 2.6.

Do we know which classes he did well in and which he did poorly? How do we know he did poorly in the AP classes?

[mic84]

Originally posted by yosemitebabe
Well, we get a "maybe" from you. How amazing.
Well, are we going to explore this aspect of the story any further, or are you going to pretend it never existed?

I have nothing to add. As I see it now, we can't really say more unless we're familiar with the guy's highschool/teachers. I'm not even familiar with AP courses.

furlibusea --
I honestly do not understand why anyone is arguing in this kid's favor
A good way to go around this is reading the thread. All the points that you raise have been raised already(most, more than once), aside from the point about the parents.

[mic84]

make that "raised and adressed".

[furlibusea]

originaly posted by mic84
A good way to go around this is reading the thread. All the points that you raise have been raised already(most, more than once), aside from the point about the parents.

No I read the whole thread. The majority of the arguments seem to be that he shouldn't be held accountable because school is boring and pointless, and there are better things he could be doing with his time. Some seem to think he is smart enough he shouldn't have to be held to the standards his lowly classmates are. One person says because he doesn't agree with the punishment he shouldn't have to withstand it. (Boy would my daughter love to win on that arguement.) All of it is Bull.

Rosa Parks expected to be punished when she didn't stand on that bus. The men who sat at the Woolworth lunch counter expected to be arrested. Courage is being willing to accept the results of your actions, not having mommy and daddy pony up for a lawyer to get you out of it.

[mic84]

Originally posted by furlibusea
(snip)
All of it is Bull.

Now that's insightful.

Rosa Parks expected to be punished when she didn't stand on that bus. The men who sat at the Woolworth lunch counter expected to be arrested. Courage is being willing to accept the results of your actions, not having mommy and daddy pony up for a lawyer to get you out of it.
I don't recall anyone in the thread claiming that the guy was courageous. Nor, for that matter, was he protesting, so this analogy doesn't prove much.

[Nightime]

You are exaggerating how badly he did his senior year.

Since he failed one class, he had to average about a B in his other classes in order to keep his GPA at the point it ended at.

Haven't you ever had one horrible class, with a hostile teacher? If not, you are lucky.

[Morrigoon]

Chiming in here:

As one who also found high school (all of it, not just senior year) pointless and unstimulating (with two exceptions, which I'll cover later), I objected to busy work as well, and did as little homework as I could get away with, hoping to get by on my test grades.

But I did this will full knowledge that my grades would be "okay" instead of terrific. I knew I should have done homework and I didn't do it. I expected to get lower grades as a result. It's that whole cause and effect thing, you know?

The only worthwhile things I did in high school were my AP History class and my semester abroad. Perhaps I had an excellent teacher (I did), but I found the AP class to be extremely challenging and stimulating. Rather than have the students just answer every question in the chapter as homework, which my government teacher did the following year (totally pointless, as those questions can be answered by skimming the chapter for keywords, rather than actually reading it, causing you to miss material), the teacher handed out sheets of questions that picked out tiny details from the material. His policy was do them or not, it's up to you, but you're the one who has to take his tests, which were equally difficult, and which the questions would help prepare you for. Students in that class were not *required* to study per se, yet we all HAD to study. It's the ONLY class in high school I studied for. If he failed to pass a course at that level, it was because he'd always skated by on his own knowledge before, and couldn't bring himself to study the material. If he really was so smart that he didn't need to work at it, he should have had no trouble acing the tests without doing the homework. In my experience, if you score 100% on all the tests but do none of the homework, you'll still get a B (or b-). If that is, in fact, the case, then perhaps he should have brought copies of his tests or test scores to the interview to prove that the grading really was based on completion of pointless busy work. If he wasn't getting 100% on the tests... perhaps the busy work would have helped.
(For the record, I rarely did those questions in my AP class, but I knew my lack of studying resulted in lower grades. I didn't whine about low grades when I could have done something about it)

I think the school did the right thing in turning him away. It's not as if they said, "You'll never go to college....ever! BWAHAHAHAHAH!" They suggested he try again the following year after investing a year in proving that he was up to the challenge. There's nothing wrong with spending a year at a j.c. There are still courses that will challenge him there, and he can use those grades as proof of his ability to perform up to expectations. In the end, all that matters is which school's name is on the degree, not the amount of time you spent at that particular school. One year at a junior college will not materially affect his earning ability in the future. If he feels that the level of education at a j.c. does not match that which he would get at UNC, then he can choose to go the 5-year route, by doing a year at a j.c., then spending 4 years at UNC.

Besides, he really DOES need an indoctrination into the ways of the real world, before it's too late. Perhaps two semesters sitting next to pregnant 19-year old waitresses in junior college will remind him of the benefits of conforming. Being nonconformist is only interesting when there is some perceivable benefit to not conforming. Any other time it's just being a horse's ass.

The long and the short of it is, he is clearly capable of performing up to standard. Even if he wanted to slip off a bit, he could have easily held up a B average for the year by making the slightest attempt at an effort. To do as poorly as he did indicates he just wasn't trying. Having to wait one year to transfer into an institution which will probably take him if he shapes up just a bit is a perfectly reasonable punishment for blowing it off.

Great, he wanted to start a software company. He made it his priority. Well, when you set your priorities you know that the secondary one is likely to suffer. If getting into UNC was so bloody important, it would have been priority #1, and the software company priority #2. The real truth is that the software company was more FUN than school. He made his choice and he has to live with the results.

Oh, and because this is a thread about education, I simply cannot resist the urge to do this (sorry):

lezlers: renigged -- you mean reneged
Shade: vertuous -- virtuous
Incubus: rediculous -- ridiculous
mic84: genuinly -- genuinely
genie: enviroment -- environment
lezlers: reniged -- again, reneged
mic84: assignements (I should go easy on him, as English is apparently not his first language) -- assignments

[Nightime]

Even if he wanted to slip off a bit, he could have easily held up a B average for the year by making the slightest attempt at an effort.

He did have a B average, except for one class that he failed outright.

If he hadn't taken that class all would have been fine, apparently. And it obviously wasn't a necessary class for graduation, since he did graduate.

I think it is sad that he gets his acceptance revoked because he got signed up for one bad class.

[Morrigoon]

cite: from the article in the OP "In July, after seeing that Edmonson failed one class and got at least one D and several C's on his final grade report, the admissions office rescinded its offer."

That's not a B-average for the year. Yes, he had a B-average cumulatively, but that year, he most certainly did not. And I don't call one F, one D and several C's "signing up for one bad class". I can do better than that with only moderate effort, and I only had a 1250 SAT.

(Is it just me, or are SAT scores higher since they changed the test in 94? Seems like all the kids today have 1300+.... my 1250 used to be impressive)

[mic84]

First things first:

Originally posted by Morrigoon
I objected to busy work as well
::checks in the American Heritage Dictionary::
::checks in the OED::
:cool:
Perhaps you meant "busywork" (http://www.bartleby.com/61/70/B0577000.html) :p

About the rest of the post - an excellent analysis of HS word(though I would run from the History class you describe), but like I said, I don't think it's the admission office's business to punish or indoctrinate applicants about the ways of the real wordtm.

[mic84]

the HS work. Damn. And I did preview.

[furlibusea]

mic84
About the rest of the post - an excellent analysis of HS word(though I would run from the History class you describe), but like I said, I don't think it's the admission office's business to punish or indoctrinate applicants about the ways of the real wordtm.

No. It is their job to choose one person for several hundred applicants to fill highly desired and contested positions at their school. They want kids who will come and do the work and stay for four or five years and get good grades. Good students reflect well on the University and bring in more in the way of money for research and grants. That makes more positions available for other students. A kid that is so burnt out on school that he doesn't bother doing the work in the last semester, even knowing he could loose his chance at the university of his dreams is a bad bet. The kid from the waiting list who is phoning the recruiter daily to see if there is a slot yet winds up being a much better choice. There is now most certainly another kid packing for UNC because this kid didn't think it was important do do the work.

The really sad thing is that this law suit is really likely to screw him up for far longer than the year getting his act together would have. There were so many better choices. He could spend his time making up the class he failed at a local college. He could do another stab at making a company. The money being spent on the lawyer could have financed a nice trip to Europe. He can do comunity service. There are any number of things that can help him get ready for University that could get him in in the fall of 2004. As it is now, who is going to let a kid that is likely to sue if he doesn't get his way in their doors? Accadamia at that level is a small world, they all know each other. This kid has to be on the bullatin board of every admissions office in the country by now.

Even in the unlikely event the court overrules UNC, he is not going to last there. His name is out there. The proffessors know who he is. The other students know who he is. He will be watched, and his life will be made miserable. Someone someday will probably let him into a college now, but I am guessing we aren't on the one year plan, and it isn't UNC.

[county]

Well, if he had been non-white this wouldn't have happened.

[mic84]

is their job to choose one person for several hundred applicants to fill highly desired and contested positions at their school.
1 out of 3 (http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/profiles/admissions.asp?listing=1023944&LTID=1) is more like it. UNC isn't Princeton, and even Princeton isn't like this. Just FYI.


They want kids who will come and do the work and stay for four or five years and get good grades.
Good grades from the university don't matter to the university - it can hand out grades that are as good as it wants. Good students in the sense of students who learn a lot, do matter of course.

A kid that is so burnt out on school that he doesn't bother doing the work in the last semester, even knowing he could loose his chance at the university of his dreams is a bad bet.
I'd argue that he didn't realize that he is going to lose a spot. It's not like he thought, "Well, even if they withdraw my offer, I can sue them and get in, anyway". We don't know if he's a bad bet or not. To be burnt out with respect to busywork has nothing to do with being burnt out with respect to actual learning. Of course, we don't know much about his school, so we don't know if it actually was mostly about busywork. Possibly it wasn't, but a lot of schools are, in my experience.

The kid from the waiting list who is phoning the recruiter daily to see if there is a slot yet winds up being a much better choice.
As opposed to a kid who sues? Phoning the recruiter every day isn't quite as hard.

There is now most certainly another kid packing for UNC because this kid didn't think it was important do do the work.
Doing busywork because you have to isn't a virtue, IMHO, so if that's what it was about, I'm not convinced that it's they it should be.

Accadamia at that level is a small world, they all know each other. This kid has to be on the bullatin board of every admissions office in the country by now.
Even in the unlikely event the court overrules UNC, he is not going to last there. His name is out there. The proffessors know who he is. The other students know who he is. He will be watched, and his life will be made miserable. Someone someday will probably let him into a college now, but I am guessing we aren't on the one year plan, and it isn't UNC.
Last I checked, suing wasn't a deadly sin, and while I think the lawsuit has no merit, I see no problem with a person trying to get into university by suing. It's not like it's illegal.

[yosemite]

Originally posted by mic84
Good grades from the university don't matter to the universityDo you have a cite for this? - it can hand out grades that are as good as it wants.You mean it can just hand 'em out to undeserving, lazy students, "just because"? Good students in the sense of students who learn a lot, do matter of course. Why? If grades don't count, (a manifestation of the level of learning a student has accomplished), why should students who "learn a lot" count?
I'd argue that he didn't realize that he is going to lose a spot.If he's that clueless, then he's too stupid to get into the damned college anyway. We don't know if he's a bad bet or not.We know that the college obviously thought he was. And the college actually had contact with him.
As opposed to a kid who sues? Phoning the recruiter every day isn't quite as hard.You're kidding, right?

Are you really this naïve?
Doing busywork because you have to isn't a virtue, IMHO, so if that's what it was about, I'm not convinced that it's they it should be.Well, then you open a college and you allow students in who don't want to do busywork.

This college already has its policies, and it doesn't have to change them because some whining slackers think it's "unfair."
Last I checked, suing wasn't a deadly sin, and while I think the lawsuit has no merit, I see no problem with a person trying to get into university by suing. It's not like it's illegal. You really are naïve, aren't you? :eek:

[Monty]

Well, yosemite, I belive the UNC very well could hand out grades "just because." Of course, they'd endanger their accreditation, but then I guess they could go ahead and follow the lead of the student suing them!

Would someone be so kind as to:
Define busywork as it's been used in this thread?
Provide an example of the busywork that student was required to do?
Prove that said "busywork" had no intrinsic value to his learning?

[furlibusea]

For the most part no teacher is going to assign work just to assign work. They assign work because they believe there is some educational value to the exercise. They may be wrong but they have to grade the stuff.

[Monty]

That's my opinion also, furlibusea. I was making an oblique comment about the opinion of some poster(s) here on the value of some of the schoolwork assigned.

[mic84]

Originally posted by yosemitebabe
Do you have a cite for this?You mean it can just hand 'em out to undeserving, lazy students, "just because"?Why? If grades don't count, (a manifestation of the level of learning a student has accomplished), why should students who "learn a lot" count?
Because students who "learn a lot" are the goal. Grades are secondary to this. If they don't reflect learning well(for example, if, in addition to learning they measure willingness to do busywork), they don't matter as much.


If he's that clueless, then he's too stupid to get into the damned college anyway.
To get into college, obviously, on evidence of him not getting there. To learn in college - well, there's that, and there's 3.5GPA and a 1600 on the SAT. I'd not be inclined to say that he is acdemically inept.

We know that the college obviously thought he was. And the college actually had contact with him.

From the first cite, he might not have been accepted based on his attitude during the interview. I don't need to see him to tell that that's wrong.

You're kidding, right?

Are you really this naïve?
At the very least, he'd have to testify. Is it naive to assume that testifying is more stressful than asking about youy status on the waiting list on the phone? Well, to each their own.

Well, then you open a college and you allow students in who don't want to do busywork.
Now we're getting somewhere.

This college already has its policies, and it doesn't have to change them because some whining slackers think it's "unfair."
Do you understand the difference between "have to" and "should"? Anyway, it should change its policies not because someone thinks something of them, but because these policies are contrary to the goal of admitting the students who are likely to learn more while in college.


You really are naïve, aren't you? :eek:
Do you dispute what I said? Because I didn't say anything that's factually incorrect.

Oh, maybe you think that despite the fact that he didn't do much wrong by suing, he still will be remembered forever by all the profs at UNC and all the admission offices across the country?
Frankly, I'm just assuming the part about the admission offices. Hundreds of universities, hundreds of thousands of apllicants - it figures it's a pretty impersonal process.
About the profs - I happen to know a couple of them, and I attended classes of quite a few - and I am not inclined to believe that they would care, and even if they did, allow themselves to be prejudiced.
Is judging from my own experience naive? I don't know, but that's pretty much the only experience I have.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Define busywork as it's been used in this thread?
here (http://www.bartleby.com/61/70/B0577000.html)

Provide an example of the busywork that student was required to do?
Prove that said "busywork" had no intrinsic value to his learning?

No, I can't, I don't know him. I and others here rely on our personal HS experience, and on the student's account of why he didn't do well.
Earlier in the thread, I provided the integration by parts example.

For the most part no teacher is going to assign work just to assign work. They assign work because they believe there is some educational value to the exercise. They may be wrong but they have to grade the stuff.
I didnt argue otherwise

[mic84]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, then you open a college and you allow students in who don't want to do busywork.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now we're getting somewhere.

:smack: didn't quite read it...

[Nightime]

If he's that clueless, then he's too stupid to get into the damned college anyway.

You are being deliberately unfair, yosemitebabe.

He had a B AVERAGE his final year except for one class that he failed.

A class which was not required for graduation.


So here is what we have - a kid with a 1600 SAT, who had ONE BAD CLASS out of his whole high school career, a class in which the teacher was hostile to him, and STILL graduated with a 3.5, and because of that he gets his acceptance revoked?

And we should applaud that?


Do the math yourself. One failed class would have brought his GPA below 3.5, unless he averaged a B in this rest of his classes senior year.


I can definitely understand why he was surprised to get his acceptance revoked. I wonder what class he failed. It wasn't required, because he graduated. So if he had not taken that ONE CLASS he would have gotten in.

Yes, they should have accepted him.

[Monty]

Too cool, mic84; you may have finally admitted that it's you who's full of shit in this thread. You're pulling stuff out of your ass and calling it a bouquet of roses. You finally admit that you don't know what you're talking about.

[mic84]

Originally posted by Monty
Too cool, mic84; you may have finally admitted that it's you who's full of shit in this thread. You're pulling stuff out of your ass and calling it a bouquet of roses. You finally admit that you don't know what you're talking about.
:dubious:

[furlibusea]

Nightime said
So here is what we have - a kid with a 1600 SAT, who had ONE BAD CLASS out of his whole high school career, a class in which the teacher was hostile to him, and STILL graduated with a 3.5, and because of that he gets his acceptance revoked?
Um. No.
from the op article
In July, after seeing that Edmonson failed one class and got at least one D and several C's on his final grade report, the admissions office rescinded its offer.

He must have done spectacularly well the first semester to have counteracted that.

[lezlers]

Jeebus, nightime how many people have corrected you about his GPA? Why are you being deliberately obtuse?

[Nightime]

Jeebus, nightime how many people have corrected you about his GPA? Why are you being deliberately obtuse?

Nobody.

I was the one that corrected the mistaken GPA's that were being thrown around in this thread.

The fact remains that other than one failed class, he had a B average in his final year. If he got a C, he must have had an A to balance it out. C is a passing grade, by the way.

It is also true that the class he failed was not required for graduation, as he did graduate.

Would he have had his admission revoked if he had not taken that one hostile, non-required class? If he had not taken more classes than many of the people who *were* accepted?

I don't think so.

[Morrigoon]

Oh lordy :rolleyes:

cite (again):
From the article (http://news-observer.com/front/story/2800082p-2588649c.html) in the OP:
In July, after seeing that Edmonson failed one class and got at least one D and several C's on his final grade report, the admissions office rescinded its offer.


I don't call that a B average.

[Nightime]

I don't call that a B average.

Are you even reading my posts?

I said he had a B average in his final YEAR, other than the non-required class that he failed.

Your cite does nothing to contradict that.

[Nightime]

OK, maybe his high school was different than mine. We had each class for the entire year. I'll do the math again by semester.

Say he had 6 classes his senior year.

We know in his final semester he failed one. We don't know what he got in that same class the first semester.

He had a 2.6 GPA the final year, and 12 total grades.

2.6 x 12 = 31.2

Subtract the grade points from the class he failed, and then divide by 10, and you get his GPA other than the class he failed.

I will give the possible GPA's he could have had in classes other than the class he failed, based on the grade he got in that class the first semester:

A: 2.72

B: 2.82

C: 2.92

D: 3.02

F: 3.12


Now, we don't know what grade he got in the first semester for the class he failed in the second semester. If he failed, then in classes other than the class he failed he had a 3.12 GPA, which is not bad at all. I think it is likely he did poorly in the first semester in the class which he failed in the second semester. At best he may have gotten a C, which would mean a 2.92 GPA in the rest of his classes.

[Nightime]

Since the article says he failed a class, and does not say it was only the final semester he failed, the most likely conclusion is that he had a 3.12 GPA average in classes other than the failed class.

3.12 is not great, but I think it is very likely if not for the non-required failed class he would have been accepted.

[Monty]

You're discounting the non-required class he failed? ISTM that colleges are kind of fond of looking at all work completed.

[Monty]

Drat! Left off "or attempted" after "completed."

[furlibusea]

You don't get an F in a highschool class all of a sudden. There are several options that you can do before you fail. (btw these are concepts for how to get ahead in university.

1.) Get a Tutor. Clearly there was money in the household to pay for this. When the time came to explain why he flunked there would be a track record of having asked for help.

2.) Show up for the damn class. Hey here's a concept. The article says he missed 18 days of school that final semester. That is something like one day a week. I would also bet he was skipping individual classes on the days he actualy bothered to show up. If you want your transcripts to show you took calculus then maybe just maybe you should pass it.

3) Drop the class. If it has gone so far that it isn't possible to save it Get out. If it isn't required to graduate and the F won't be of value then drop it. In that Fs don't count toward graduation, it wasn't required in his credit numbers. Add another study hall and work on the company or maybe the class that is coming in a D during the time. Take music appriciation or another computer class.

There is a possiblity he didn't realise it was so bad till too late, if that is the case then see #1 and #2.

Maybe he would have gotten in without the F. I would also be willing to bet he would have gotten in with the F and the rest of the classes the A's and high B's he normaly got. Yes it is harsh but the options for life are alot tougher for Morrigoon's
19 year old pregnant waitress he may have to sit next to in comunity college, and she is actually doing her best to deal with the consequences of her actions, rather than making mommy and daddy fix it.

[carimwc]

This (http://www.news-record.com/news/local/gso/edmonson19rk.htmarticle) says he didn't have Bs his senior year, only Cs, Ds, and Fs and that his GPA would have been 1.3 for his senior year. That's a hell of a drop from a 3.8 cumulative average. Remember the 3.5 is his cumulative average. You can still have a horrendous year but do well in others and your cum GPA will be ok. A 1.3 senior year, or for any year, is a big difference. If you combine that with the letter from UNC stating "We expect you to continue to achieve at the same level that enabled us to provide this offer of admission; we also expect you to graduate on time.", then he did not keep up his end of the bargain? Not at all. A 1.3 is not continuing to achieve at the same level. That's slacking off a bit too much.

This (http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ%2FMGArticle%2FWSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031770623405&path=!frontpage&s=) article also mentions the 1.3 GPA.

I also feel that the SAT's don't mean much either. A 1600 means that you are just really good at taking multiple choice tests. That's about it. And a 1600 isn't quite a perfect score under the new system. He could have missed a few questions and still gotten a 1600. That's not perfect.

[lezlers]

I thought the 1.3 senior year GPA had been quoted from the article numerous times and that his graduating 3.5 was cumulative.

Nightime, do you know this kid or something? Your ferocious defense of him is causing you to (seemingly) intentionally misread black and white accounts of his senior year performance.

That's what I meant by "how many people have corrected you about his GPA?". It's stated in the article. You don't get a 1.3 senior year GPA by failing one class.

Maybe you shouldn't have skipped so many classes your senior year, eh?

;)

[lezlers]

and Nightime colleges don't just look at your cumulative. It's the most important thing, sure, but they're going to look at your entire transcript. Kind of hard to miss the plunge from 3.8 to 1.3.