originally posted by Jimmy1
No, you have quite clear. We just think you’re wrong. It really irritates me when people say, “Ooops, I’m not being clear enough, if I clarify my statement you’ll agree.” Sorry, pet peeve there.
Hazel,
The GPA thing. GPA is an average of all your grades. Normally your GPA is max 4.0 (all A’s). At some point, someone decided that harder classes (like Calculus or advance English) should be “weighted”. In such classes, if you receieve an “A”, it is worth 5 points instead of 4.
So, lets take some hypothetical classes for two students.
Student one takes: AP History (weighted), Calculous (weighted), Advanced English (weighted), and PE (not weighted). They recieve all A’s. Their average, or GPA is: 5+5+5+4/4 or 4.75
Student two takes: AP History (weighted), Calculous (weighted), and Advanced English (weighted). They recieve all A’s. Their average, or GPA is: 5+5+5/3 or 5.0
So, because they didn’t take PE (or have to) they have a higher GPA.
As for your questions about taking multiple PE’s, my senior years, most of the football team was takeing 5-6 PE’s a day. Were is not for horrendous scores in their non-PE classes, they would have uniformly had 4.0 GPA’s. I had several students above me in the “top ten%” of my class who were taking all basic classes and shop. I realized after High School, they I would have been better off GPA-wise to just take basic classes and get straigh A’s than take harder classes where I sometimes got B’s and C’s.
Our acedemic system puts too much emphasis on grades, and not enough on what students actually learn.
That is a possible interpretation and but is not what I intended simply because this interpretation of “middle of the game” is untenable. The school can of course change the rules after students begin their freshman year. They can stipulate two honor classes are needed to graduate as opposed to one honor class and under the old rule as Freshman all they needed one honor class but now between their Sophmore year and the time they graduate they must take two honor classes. The school nor the state cannot be said to be wrong for espousing such a rule UNLESS they attempted to apply such a rule to last semester graduating seniors. In the middle of the game is not a reference to the four years they spent at school although they began competing after their freshman year. The middle of the game is a reference to while they were in session, while class is in normal session. The game is from the time school starts in one year to the commencement of that particular school year in May or June.
In all honesty middle of the game talk is irrelevant because in this instance the game was concluded.
First Amendment Problems, Policy, Cases, and Essays by Eugene Volokh.
Any book on torts will also suffice. My first year torts book, and my first year torts Professor, as my First Amendment book and First Amendment Professor, all agree common law libel does not require a showing of actual harm but harm/damages can be and are presumed.
I disagree. The rules did not create this expectation. The rules, unfortunately, created the expectation that some would have weights on their ankles while others would not by virtue of a loophole in the rules. This is unfortunate but true.
How about finding either an online cite or quoting the book? And what exactly does "presumed " mean. Does it mean that if I go around saying that Sally is a child molester (when I know it’s not true) then the harm to her reputation can be presumed? In which case it means that there is actual damage to her reputation that can be presumed to have occured based on the false statement I made. It doesn’t necessarily mean that any lie is presumed to have caused damages simply because it is a lie. If you lie and tell someone I’m 40 when I’m really 39, or that I live in NJ when I really live in NY, will I win a libel claim just because you knew it was a lie?
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/local/5937862.htm
Sorry for the lengthy extract, but this smells.
Hey, I’m “unable to make it through a full day without resting.” Most of us probably are. Nothing I’m seeing here is making me think the school’s acceptance of her “disability” was motivated by medical science, as opposed to completely caving in in the face of Daddy’s vulgar Machiavellian plan to spawn his second little valedictorian, all ad majorem Hornstine Gloriam.
And what’s the “privacy concern” that would prevent them from even naming the disorder? Doesn’t refusing to name it just make people more curious about the nature and extent of her symptoms (notwithstanding her heroic efforts in the gym and at Disney World)? Why not identify a single symptom that would be objectively falsifiable (as opposed to the self-fulfilling and self-reported “inability to make it through the day without resting”)?
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/local/5937862.htm
Sorry for the lengthy extract, but this smells.
Hey, I’m “unable to make it through a full day without resting.” Most of us probably are. Nothing I’m seeing here is making me think the school’s acceptance of her “disability” was motivated by medical science, as opposed to completely caving in in the face of Daddy’s vulgar Machiavellian plan to spawn his second little valedictorian, all ad majorem Hornstine Gloriam.
And what’s the “privacy concern” that would prevent them from even naming the disorder? Doesn’t refusing to name it just make people more curious about the nature and extent of her symptoms (notwithstanding her heroic efforts in the gym and at Disney World)? Why not identify a single symptom that would be objectively falsifiable (as opposed to the self-fulfilling and self-reported “inability to make it through the day without resting”)?
Sorry. I liked my last post so much I made it twice. Mea culpa.
Seems from that article that the superintendent started investigating the situation and planning to change the rules well befor the end of Hornstine’s senior year. And according to the superintendent, the change was an issue with Hornstine’s father as far back as September of this year.
make that September of last year
There’s some good stuff out there.
-
http://www.unlearnedhand.com/archives/000306.html
http://www.homestead.com/swygert/files/archive/2003_04_27_archive.html
(and the comments thereto). Obviously the parts purporting to be from Moorestown students are unverifiable, but some at least seem circumstantially convincing. -
http://www.congressionalaward.org/congress/netscape/events_ceremonies_gold.htm
I like the part about 200 hours of physical fitness activities. -
http://www.studentrewards.com/scholarships/discover.html
What’s best about this one? The heroic grueling trip to darkest China (“immune” and “fatigue” conditions notwithstanding)? Sprinting down the street with the Olympic torch (fatigue be gone!)? Quote: “My parents always told my brother and I **[emphasis supplied – ed.] ** it’s important to give back to the community, and help others who are less fortunate than we are.” I have to think there’s at least one senior in Moorestown who could figure out the difference between nominative and subjective case – but it ain’t the valedictorian. -
Anyone seen a copy of the Judge’s Order? Doesn’t seem to be online. Maybe there’s a little more detail on the immune disorder. Of course, it’s always possible the federal judge (motivated perhaps by professional courtesy to His Honor Judge Hornstine?) simply punted and took the school district’s “disability” determination as conclusive, rather than requiring any actual proof herself.
Here’s another telling quote from the studentrewards.com page:
Putting aside whether she’ll be happy (or whether anyone should care), this says an awful lot about her selfish, and self-centered, personality. Think about it: This girl has (or her parents have) been mapping out her college career for years. Her brother went to Harvard. She’s ending up at Harvard, and no doubt thinks it’s the “best” school out there. So . . . having had all this time to think it through, and knowing that as a “disabled,” female, valedictorianoid, relentlessly self-promoting resume-padder, she is a mortal lock to get into any school she wants – why does she have to apply to “a wide variety” of schools? We’ll agree she can’t simultaneously go to Harvard and Princeton, and Stanford; we’ll agree someone as credential-mad as she (or, to phrase it as grammar-challenged lil’ Blair would do, “as her”) probably has a pretty clear hierarchy of where she wants to go; and we’ll agree that there’s no real chance of this snob par excellence soiling herself by ever actually attending, say, Dickinson (no offense, Red Devils).
So what does her maniacal application to all these schools, each of which is almost certain to accept her, accomplish? Almost certainly, it serves no end other than (a) boosting her ego/ameliorating her insecurity by ensuring that she gets twenty acceptances to U.S. News top-20 schools, is furiously courted by all of them, then turns them down regretfully/gleefully to pursue her intellectual destiny with the Crimson; and (b) most likely, depriving some other student in her school/district/quota category of the spot that, say, Stanford offered her. Think about it: Stanford isn’t likely going to accept multiple students from the same school on the opposite coast; so every acceptance that lil’ Blair gets means an acceptance that some other slightly-less-“qualified” student (perhaps one with far fewer options or acceptances in hand) will get. Yes, things might sort themselves partway out through the wait-list process (assuming Blair got early acceptance at Harvard and was prompt in notifying all the other schools she was turning down their offers); and possibly Duke, say, would be willing to spend two of its spots on two kids from the same school/district in N.J. – but there’s an excellent chance that Blair’s neurotic drive to gather acceptances like Mardi Gras beads means tough luck for some less-pushy kid in Moorestown or elsewhere who otherwise could have taken the slot that Blair (eventually) blew off.
It’s the same as with her insane emphasis on being sole, vs. co-, valedictorian: Once you know, to a moral certainty, that you will get into Harvard (and always assuming you believe that to be a consummation devoutly to be wished, for whatever reason) what good does the extra honor, or the twenty extra, and spurned, admission offers, do you? None; but it may do your “rivals” significant harm.
An ugly piece of work, indeed.
This article seems very germane to the current discussion. Certainly as concerns the preoccupation with getting into college, getting the best grades, titles, etc. I don’t always agree with Kohn, but I think he’s on to something.
Kohn strikes me as a bit unrealistic. If the system of grade-grubbing didn’t work for so many, people wouldn’t do it. The problem is an arbitrary college admissions system that keeps moving the bar on the “objective” and “subjective” factors that matter, and for whom they matter. Test scores/GPAs have been the golden ticket in the past. Even now, when “subjective” factors are supposedly more important, what about the student who doesn’t have ‘favored’ subjectives (i.e., I have a strong suspicion that colleges are likely, all else being equal, to be more likely to give effect to the rousing essay of the Hmong girl describing her efforts tutoring the elderly than to the equally-well written and enthusiastic essay by the Sons of the Confederacy member describing the joy he takes in re-enactments of the Battle Of Fredricksburg, or reading Robert Heinlein, or doing whatever else it is that isn’t the flavor of the month). So maybe there is some rational basis for the stress on grades or scores, though it would be less reasonable for some than for others.
But Kohn’s larger point has validity (I disagree with him only to the extent that he suggests that grade-chasing is not just wrong and ugly and unethical, but that it is generally ineffective as a practical matter, or that test scores or grades have no valid use in admissions, with the caveat that steps should be taken to minimize gaming of the testing process). If nothing else, his point about wasted effort ties in with my point about young Blair screwing it up for everyone by applying to gobs of schools when she really only needed to apply to Harvard plus a “safety” school or two (given that she had already gamed the system six ways to Sunday). Nothing in the conduct of the family Hornstine makes me think that they are particularly good or even intelligent people, and lots makes me think they’re devoting way to much psychic, financial, and societal bandwidth to a game that is hardly worth the candle. But, ugly people will be ugly people, and no matter what you set up as the touchstone of the college admissions process, someone will find a way to game the standard (which is my big problem with “total portfolio” evaluations and the schools who present them as a more effective “holistic” and, we infer, un-manipulable admissions approach).
We should probably just end this particular subset of the argument by agreeing to disagree, because I flatly don’t agree with this. The way the school went about rectifying it was completely just, right, and fair.
No, you again misunderstand and mis-state my position. I don’t give a rat’s ass about any legalese mumbo-jumbo about “derivatives”. I maintain the simple postion that Hornstine has not been harmed or hurt in any meaningful way. Meaningful, understand? She has not suffered physical or mental pain or anguish, she has not and will not be denied access to the school of her choice, nor will her future earning power be in any way impacted by sharing the title of high school valedictorian rather than having it exclusively. How many times have I and others repeated this? How many times have you ignored it?
You clearly have a difficult time distinguishing between “harm” in the sense that I and most everyone else on this thread mean it, and “harm” in the more abstract legal sense that you and Hornstine and her lawyers mean.
Again, the difference between us boils down to whether we care about legal requirements or justice. I don’t care what she may or may not need in order to prevail on a legal claim. While your definition of “justice” seems to be based on what the law says, my definition is not. I say there must be real, actual harm in a meaningful way in order for her to prevail on grounds of justice or fairness. If the law does not require meaningful harm (and I have every reason to believe, sadly, that you’re right on that point) then it points up a major problem in our legal system and illustrates my point that what comes about via the legal system does not necessarily have anything to do with justice or fairness. If someone can win a lawsuit and collect a large sum of money without having suffered any real harm in any meaningful way, then the system that allows that is deeply flawed.
No, you are still wrong, and switching to using “real harm” only weakens your case. Being denied the award is not any kind of real or actual harm. At best, it can be considered by some to be a “harm” in the narrow, legal sense that any injustice or unfairness is a “harm”. But if the term “real harm” is to have any meaningful definition and usage, it has to be distinguished by the inclusion of the word “real” to mean as I’ve described over and over: something that is real, actual, or tangible; an actual suffering, injury, or hurt.
Then you have done so without being aware of it.
I’m not presuming, I’m taking you at what you say. Your usage of “harm” is quite clearly in the more intangible legal sense while it is demonstrably true that most others on this thread take the word in the more tangible sense (see below).
I missed nothing; however you arrived at it, you clearly have a different definition of “harm” than I do. You have a concept, I have a different concept, even though we use the same word as shorthand for it. I have gone to great lengths, repeatedly, to expand and explain my concept, and you continue to ignore that and simply repeat your usage. You clearly have difficulty grasping that a single English word can have multiple meanings, and that while the word is a useful shorthand, it’s the underlying meaning that’s important.
The online Merriam-Webster makes it quite clear. “Harm” is:
“Injury” is:
“Wrong” is:
I have always on this thread used “harm” in the sense of harm-1 and injury-1a. You and Hornstine use “harm” more in the sense of injury-1b or wrong-1a,1b,2. I will grant (sadly) that she has probably been “harmed” in the sense of injury-1b, but only by definition: if she prevails in the lawsuit then it has been legally determined that her rights were violated, and hence she was “harmed” in that sense.
I still, however, steadfastly maintain that she has not been harmed or wronged in any other sense, even wrong-2; nothing wrong, immoral, or unethical results from her sharing the award; justice, goodness, and equity are served by her sharing it with another, equally deserving, student.
De minimis non curat lex. And this (i.e., some purely theoretical harm) is truly a trifle. Neither Lil’ Blair, her odious dad, or the District Court Judge has shown themselves to be much in the legal line.
Roadfood mentions another word Lil’ Blair ought to be, but clearly isn’t, acquainted with on her path to a glorious jurisprudential career: Equity. Those who seek it must do so with clean hands, say the scholars, and from the accounts available, neither Lil’ Blair nor daddy, in playing an unsubstantiated “disability” card to manipulate her into the valedictorian’s seat, has embodied equity.
She’s a Plagarist!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!! Awesome!
Can they check her schoolwork?
Plagiarists are always serial criminals.
<channeling Nelson from The Simpson’s>
Ha ha!
<channeling Nelson from The Simpson’s>
Ha ha!