# Having a 1600 on your SATs and a lawyer doesn't make you God. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 21, 2003, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-a-1600-on-your-sats-and-a-lawyer-doesnt-make-you-god/196727 "2003-08-21T17:35:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![mic84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/977dab/32.png) [@mic84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mic84)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2003, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-a-1600-on-your-sats-and-a-lawyer-doesnt-make-you-god/196727/81 "2003-08-23T00:32:44Z")
“shouldn’t”, I mean. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2003, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-a-1600-on-your-sats-and-a-lawyer-doesnt-make-you-god/196727/82 "2003-08-23T00:44:51Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![mic84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/977dab/32.png) [@mic84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mic84)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2003, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-a-1600-on-your-sats-and-a-lawyer-doesnt-make-you-god/196727/83 "2003-08-23T00:57:54Z")
> [@](#): > > _ **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. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2003, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-a-1600-on-your-sats-and-a-lawyer-doesnt-make-you-god/196727/84 "2003-08-23T01:01:50Z")
> [@](#): > > mic84 wrote: > > It’s hard to say whether you’re being sarcastic or not You’re apparently such a bright kid but you are _not sure_ whether or not she’s being sarcastic?!? :smack: ---
**Author:** ![mic84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/977dab/32.png) [@mic84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mic84)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2003, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-a-1600-on-your-sats-and-a-lawyer-doesnt-make-you-god/196727/85 "2003-08-23T01:06:53Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2003, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-a-1600-on-your-sats-and-a-lawyer-doesnt-make-you-god/196727/86 "2003-08-23T01:20:51Z")
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._) ---
**Author:** ![mic84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/977dab/32.png) [@mic84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mic84)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2003, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-a-1600-on-your-sats-and-a-lawyer-doesnt-make-you-god/196727/87 "2003-08-23T01:38:31Z")
yb, I genuinly don’t know if you’re just an idiot or are trying to start a fight. Possibly both. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2003, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-a-1600-on-your-sats-and-a-lawyer-doesnt-make-you-god/196727/88 "2003-08-23T02:08:38Z")
mic84: What’s with your comment to me about contempt? ---
**Author:** ![TeaElle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8491ac/32.png) [@TeaElle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TeaElle)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2003, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-a-1600-on-your-sats-and-a-lawyer-doesnt-make-you-god/196727/89 "2003-08-23T03:08:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. ---
**Author:** ![mic84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/977dab/32.png) [@mic84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mic84)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2003, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-a-1600-on-your-sats-and-a-lawyer-doesnt-make-you-god/196727/90 "2003-08-23T03:11:55Z")
> [@](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2003, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-a-1600-on-your-sats-and-a-lawyer-doesnt-make-you-god/196727/91 "2003-08-23T03:22:47Z")
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?” ---
**Author:** ![mic84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/977dab/32.png) [@mic84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mic84)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2003, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-a-1600-on-your-sats-and-a-lawyer-doesnt-make-you-god/196727/92 "2003-08-23T03:49:32Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2003, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-a-1600-on-your-sats-and-a-lawyer-doesnt-make-you-god/196727/93 "2003-08-23T16:55:24Z")
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?” ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2003, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-a-1600-on-your-sats-and-a-lawyer-doesnt-make-you-god/196727/94 "2003-08-23T17:36:14Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![lezlers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@lezlers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lezlers)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2003, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-a-1600-on-your-sats-and-a-lawyer-doesnt-make-you-god/196727/95 "2003-08-23T18:21:33Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![CrazyCatLady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dfb087/32.png) [@CrazyCatLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrazyCatLady)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2003, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-a-1600-on-your-sats-and-a-lawyer-doesnt-make-you-god/196727/96 "2003-08-23T20:21:49Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![mic84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/977dab/32.png) [@mic84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mic84)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2003, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-a-1600-on-your-sats-and-a-lawyer-doesnt-make-you-god/196727/97 "2003-08-23T20:23:56Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![mic84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/977dab/32.png) [@mic84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mic84)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2003, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-a-1600-on-your-sats-and-a-lawyer-doesnt-make-you-god/196727/98 "2003-08-23T20:35:09Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2003, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-a-1600-on-your-sats-and-a-lawyer-doesnt-make-you-god/196727/99 "2003-08-23T20:38:04Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![mic84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/977dab/32.png) [@mic84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mic84)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2003, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-a-1600-on-your-sats-and-a-lawyer-doesnt-make-you-god/196727/100 "2003-08-23T21:10:45Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-a-1600-on-your-sats-and-a-lawyer-doesnt-make-you-god/196727.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/having-a-1600-on-your-sats-and-a-lawyer-doesnt-make-you-god/196727.md?page=6)