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.
Who the fuck does this kid think he is? I mean, it’s not like he is an athlete or something.
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.
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?
Don’t tense up.
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?
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.
OK, ArrMatey answers Q2, thanks 
county,
Do you actually have something relevant to this thread or did you just feel like dropping by and spouting some nonsensical b.s?
It’s not nosensical lezlers! It’s bigotted and ignorant, HUGE difference!
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:
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:
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.
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!”"
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.
I had to send a transcript to the colleges I wanted to attend, and then another to my school once I graduated.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.