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.
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.
Oh yeah, I’m pretty sure I’m not braindamaged but would I necessarily even know if I was.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Good points, Manda.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
yosemitebabe –
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
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.
He though he did the bare minimum that was required. Apparently, he was wrong.
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.
Because mindless obedience isn’t a virtue. Also, see above.
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.
That’s a bit far fetched.
Some people don’t care so much about societal approval.
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 –
Of course he was wrong - he now isn’t in university because of it.
He does “deserve” to face the consequences of whatever he does. The consequence of not doing busywork shouldn’t be withdrwal of admission.
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.
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.
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:
Again, I see nothing wrong with the guy.
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
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.
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.
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.
means “cool thoughts”.
Sorry for the multiple posting.
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.
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.