Big whoop.
WTF are you talking about? Where TF did I say “words words words?”
I’ve been in the “real world.” So I’m asking you, lezlers: WTF are you talking about?
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.
I’m eloquent! Thank you, lezlers, you’re very eloquent also :).
Replying to mic84
If 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.
Huh?
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.)
I’ll just let that speak for itself.
On preview:
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)
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.
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.
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.
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?
A habit? Well, you just decide you have it.
The try, yes. In my experience, they don’t succeed. YMMV.
I said specific skills need to be reinforced. Like integration by parts, or finding a “thesis statement” or whatnont.
Perhaps.
(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.
Like I said, this is very easily forgotten within a few months. That’s what I meant by:
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
, I guess.
Evidently.
WTF?
The stawmen factory calling - they’re running out of strawmen.
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.
He is the only one involved. Abiding by a stupid rule is hurting him. Draw your own conclusions.
I’m not sure about the second part.
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.
Hey! Threats aren’t allowed here. 
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.
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?
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.
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.
Yes, but this individual is trying to avoid unpleasant consequences, by demanding that the college admit him.
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?
Okay… this argument has been driving me nuts, so let’s try something else. From the cite on the first page of this thread (bolding mine):
Advanced Placement classes are intended to be an introduction to college-level education, and many Universities (UNC included) 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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.