Date: May 13th, 2005 4:53 PM Author: Hyperventilating Address
That is a very subjective way of seeing it. Pensive houtdoes Joe, other than the fact of small disparities which he has asserted being mistaken, yet they keep pressing the issue beating the dead horse.
Not really, but if you want to dedicate a thread to thinking that, go ahead.
I don't see what Joe gets out of his senseless personal attacks. This aspect of his personality degrades the prestige of the otherwise pristine Rhodes Scholarship for everyone who has it.
Sure, they're clever over on the law board. I do post there sometimes (more during football season). But they're also pretty self-obsessed. A lot of discussion time is devoted to junk about the interactions of the posters themselves.
If they went to TTT undergrad schools, then how did they get into top law programs? If they were able to get into top law programs, they easily could have gotten into top undergraduate programs.
Also, at my college (which may not be representative) IR is a rigorous major. One of the toughest profs in the whole college (now visiting at Middlebury, I believe) was in the IR department. He assigned 6 7-page papers (1.5 spaced) per term and is probably the only arts/humanities/SS prof to give Ds and Fs for completed work.
These are analogous to undergraduate GPA in LS admissions.
3. SATs.
A standardized test, analogous to the LSAT.
4. Letters of recommendation. (Which matter for about 3%).
LS also has LORs, no big difference there.
5. Notable accomplishments (of which even most HYP admits don't have any; this isn't a criticism since only exceptional 18-year-olds do.)
As above, few HS students have truly notable accomplishments, so this factor isn't enough (except for certain individuals) to be considered as a major admissions factor.
6. Resume-padding, soft-batch garbage like "Assistant Treasurer of the Dogshit-Clean-Up Club".
Puh-lease. The fact that LS and GS admissions don't consider factors like that reflects well upon them in comparison to UG admissions.
Date: May 13th, 2005 2:53 PM Author: lascivious son of senegal
High school GPA doesn't matter, what matters is class rank and, if no rank is reported, the quality of the school. Law schools care very little, if at all, about class rank or courseload or any of that stuff. Similarly, they don't care much about LORs, whereas LORs are a lot more important for college. Similarly, notable accomplishments matter extremely little for law, unless the accomplishment is a Pulitzer Prize or something insane like that. And, of course, ECs are virtually meaningless in law admissions while they are critical in college admissions.
Not to mention that the LSAT matters *far* more for law admissions than the SAT matters for college admissions.
In other words, there are virtually no similarities between them.
Resume-padding "accomplishments" aren't impressive; a lot of those kids did the minimum work to be able to list it (10 hours for most community service clubs; 50 for officers). Also, many HS clubs create unnecessary sinecure positions just to boost people's ECs.
Date: May 13th, 2005 3:17 PM Author: lascivious son of senegal
You might not find them impressive, but undergrad adcomms do. In contrast, law schools don't give a fuck, whether the accomplishment is impressive or not (with the exception of truly earth shattering accomplishments, like a Rhodes Scholarship)
Bush is worse. He's all that and less intelligent. Of course, he didn't get an RS to tarnish it; he just brought down Yale and HBS by a fair measure.
Why would Clinton tarnish the Rhodes Scholarship? His behavior was certainly not admirable, but he didn't make unwarranted personal attacks against other people on the Internet. (Though I must say: you've been very good today at sticking to the issues, which I appreciate.)
By all accounts Bush has always been a very faithful husband. You are obsessed with male-female relations, and Clinton fits EXACTLY your profile of the guy you hate. Bush doesn't.
"Why would Clinton tarnish the Rhodes Scholarship? His behavior was certainly not admirable, but he didn't make unwarranted personal attacks against other people on the Internet."
That gets the award for Most Petty Sounding Post of the Day, I think.
If Clinton were a college student I knew, acted like a jerk, and succeeded with women because of it, I'd probably have a very negative opinion of him. I don't know Clinton personally; what I know about his personal life is heavily spun by the media and hence I don't trust it as I would if I actually know him.
I actually agree that Bush's sexual behavior, post-marriage, has been by all accounts I've read admirable. (His behavior in college is another story altogether.) However, starting an oil war that leaves 100,000 dead is one of those things that seems to trump being a good husband.
He had an extramarital affair. This is in no way admirable behavior. I wouldn't accept it from myself and I would condemn such behavior in others around me.
In a President, however, my standards are different. I don't have any decent knowledge of Clinton's personal life because everything I've heard about it has been spun like the press. What I do know is that he was a decent President, and that's the metrestick by which I judge him. Clinton > Bush as President, that's what matters. Probably Bush > Clinton in terms of how he conducts his marital life, but we don't elect a moral role model, we elect a President.
But in college, Clinton was the man you love to hate--the popular guy who comes on to the ladies in lewd ways and succeeds, wanting only sex, not love. And he hasn't changed a bit since then.
Just pointing this out.
Maybe one of those "bottom feeders," I think you called them, at Carleton, might end up being a President whose policies you greatly admire, like Clinton's? Just a thought.
"Undergraduate admissions are easy compared to law, and especially medical and graduate, admissions."
It's not so much that they're "easy" as that they look for completely different things. Law schools want a good GPA and an LSAT. That's IT. Virtually NOTHING ELSE matters.
Not so for undergrad.
I think you could make a strong case, actually, for law school admissions being a lot easier.
Exactly, and more straightforward. You know precisely what you have to do to get into law school. Meanwhile, you'll knock yourself silly in high school trying to get into Harvard.
"I think you could make a strong case, actually, for law school admissions being a lot easier."
Read above, where I broke down UG admissions rather cleanly.
Most of UG admissions is based on grades, class rank, and SAT scores. Which is no different from LS admissions being based on GPA + LSAT.
One difference, which is notable, is that UG admissions care a lot more about course selection: AP vs. honors vs. mid-level. Which hits on the allegation that some law students took soft-batch courses to pad their GPAs. However, that's the only notable difference between UG and LS which is actually useful. And as for GS, they care a lot about course selections, ostensibly.
"If they went to TTT undergrad schools, then how did they get into top law programs?"
Because "getting into a top law program" consists of achieving a high GPA in ANY major (so, easier is better) and then doing well on a standardized test. It doesn't matter a bit what undergrad you went to, and not very much how your recs are, and even less what your extracurriculars are.
That aspect is unfortunate, but don't they correct for grade-inflation? My understanding is that Carleton graduates get about a +0.3 GPA bump because of the lack of grade-inflation. I would assume they could also factor in quality of the school (in that, despite Harvard's grade-inflation, the fact remains that it still draws top-quality students and this should be considered).
Date: May 13th, 2005 3:11 PM Author: maize big-titted business firm double fault
Not true, Joe. A 3.6 from MIT is always ranked higher than a 4.0 from Chico St. Law adcoms assign a co-efficient based on the UG school that they multiple to your GPA. They add this number to your LSAT score for an index. The difference b/w a 3.8 from UW and from UT may be negligent but an avergae student at Williams will always be regarded higher than a great student from Umass.
Date: May 13th, 2005 3:25 PM Author: maize big-titted business firm double fault
No that's untrue. It's known that adcoms assign an UG co-efficient. UVA's law school mentioned it on their admissions website. Penn also weighs those factors. That makes law school even more number based. Note, the co-efficient isn't related to majors or difficulty of classes, rather the ranking given to your undergrad by the law school adcoms.
Date: May 13th, 2005 3:32 PM Author: maize big-titted business firm double fault
I won't post it there, but these are facts you can research. This week I finished LS at arguably the most "prestigious" school. There were people from say Claremont with 4.0 and Princeton with 3.7 But nobody is there with under a 3.8 (excluding AA) from a non top 25 undergrad.
Why not post it there and let THEM refute you? I'm not going to take the time, on this thread, to argue that down, particularly since LS admissions aren't my area of expertise at all, but I KNOW that the people who I consider to be the "experts" on this subject (over on the Law Board side) definitely disagree with you, and that's good enough for me, so you're not going to convince me unless you can convince them, sorry.
Date: May 13th, 2005 3:37 PM Author: maize big-titted business firm double fault
Very few people on that board attend my school in actuality. Not many more actually know a thing about admissions. Those that do would agree with me. Look at UVA's website, which is arguably a very good law school. It tells you about the co-efficients.
Date: May 13th, 2005 3:43 PM Author: maize big-titted business firm double fault
You made the point. I'm disputing it. Provide evidence other than "people on the law board agree with me." I post there, and I disagree. I'm telling you that you can visit UVA's website or use google and find your answers.
LS admissions are very number-based, but part of that numer includes an UG quality co-efficient.
Date: May 13th, 2005 3:42 PM Author: lascivious son of senegal
So you're saying Anna Ivey, former dean of admissions of Chicago Law, is lying? Even though everything else she says in her book matches up with common law board lore?
Date: May 13th, 2005 3:50 PM Author: lascivious son of senegal
From Anna Ivey's book:
"They don't distinguish between a 3.5 in Interior Design from Chico State and a 3.5 from Astrophysics from Caltech" (p.21)
Gary Clinton isn't the dean of admissions and doesn't make admissions decisions, so I don't know why you're citing him as an authority here. As for the UVA website, from the same page in the book:
"You'll never hear an admissions officer tell you that you don't stand a chance, or that you shouldn't apply.... They'll tell you that even if your numbers stink, you can basically still write your way into law school.... The numbers matter much more than admissions officers let on. Applicants sugarcoat themselves in their applications -- that's the nature of the beast -- but don't forget that law schools sugarcoat the application process, too."
Look, I'm not saying that some people with 3.6s from MIT aren't admitted to Harvard -- it's just that that is definitely NOT the norm. For every guy like that they take they probably ding at least ten others.
Date: May 13th, 2005 4:03 PM Author: lascivious son of senegal
"Applicants are sorted in the first instance by LSAT scores, undergraduate grades, and a numerical index that takes account of the success in law school of students from the same undergraduate institution."
Date: May 13th, 2005 4:08 PM Author: lascivious son of senegal
How does that prove that 4.00 at Chico State = 3.6 at MIT? Or even that 3.7 at Chico State = 3.6 at MIT?
No one is claiming that strength of UG school isn't used as a tiebreaker. What people are disputing is your ridiculous claims about large GPA boosts for MIT/Caltech/etc.
Date: May 13th, 2005 4:12 PM Author: maize big-titted business firm double fault
I've seen some forumlas used. Don't worry about it. The law board concurs with me and I've presented proof showing the weighing. I don't have proof to show the exact weight, but seeing you previously said they weren't weighed at all (which is disproved) you ought to just agree with me so that you can become correct on this issue.
Date: May 13th, 2005 4:16 PM Author: lascivious son of senegal
You didn't prove anything. Just because they're sorted by undergrad doesn't mean that undergrad is treated as anything other than a tiebreaker, ie. admit a 3.5/170 from MIT over a 3.5/170 from Chico State, but 3.6/170 from Chico trumps both 3.5/170 from Chico and 3.5/170 from MIT.
You still haven't explained to me why Anna Ivey, who actually *was* dean of admissions at a prestigious law school, would lie in her book about something like this.
Date: May 13th, 2005 4:18 PM Author: maize big-titted business firm double fault
To get people to apply there. Opposite reason UC routinely rejects people who easily get into HYS. In the former case, they want money, and in the latter, they want to protect their yield %.
Date: May 13th, 2005 4:24 PM Author: lascivious son of senegal
Anna Ivey isn't a dean of admissions anymore, she has absolutely no incentive to lie to increase applications. And fyi, she did address yield protection as well.
Of course, UVA and other schools *do* have that incentive -- hence why they're not going to tell someone with a 3.5 from MIT that they are at a disadvantage relative to someone with a 3.6 from Chico. She says as much in the book -- schools aren't going to give the real deal on admissions to applicants on their websites.
People work their asses off here. The average Carleton student spends about 25 hours per week on homework. I doubt it's the same at HYP, especially not at the 3.35 level, which takes a lot less.
Date: May 13th, 2005 2:55 PM Author: bat-shit-crazy balding lay marketing idea
You know this from your extensive experience at HYP?
The hardest part is getting in simply because admissions guidelines are somewhat vague. But to conclude from that statement that getting good grades is easy is foolish.
Date: May 13th, 2005 2:59 PM Author: wonderful dun nibblets
So basically, you think LACs have high average GPA because they're filled with hard working students, whereas HYP has a high average GPA because of grade inflation?
LACs don't have the same high average GPAs as HYP.
And yes, LAC students work a lot harder, at least on the arts/humanities side. Reading assignments at LACs are longer, and the grading is much tougher. It's harder to bullshit your way to an A when your professor is a teaching prof., grading 20 papers, than when she's a busy research professor, grading 150 of them.
Date: May 13th, 2005 5:00 PM Author: Hyperventilating Address
It is all relatives. If you take a look at the science degree seekers in those LACs, you will see a GPA deflation just like in other tech/geek schools.
If you were to compare laterally (e.g. 50th percentile against 50th percentile; or the same with 75th) you might find that to be true: HYP are a lot more selective on account of supply and demand. Most coastal kids have never heard of Carleton, aren't enthusiastic about coming to the Midwest, and that softens the demand side of the equation considerably. I won't argue with you there.
A 90th-percentile Carleton kid would pwn a 50th-percentile HYP, any day of the week. I'd say 75%C against 50%HYP is probably an even match.
I'm almost positive that the 75th percentile Carleton GPA is lower than the 50th percentile HYP GPA.
The only subjects at HYP with tough grading curves are the sciences. There might be sporadic, renegade profs. who still give B-s or Cs in the humanities, but they're rare and wouldn't get tenure; at Carleton, there are actually a fair number of them.
The median is below 3.25 since less than half of all students get cum laude honors (about 40% do) but I believe the mean is around 3.3. It's not a normal distribution. Dean's List (90th percentile) is around 3.75-3.80.
I'd guess that the 75th percentile is around 3.45.
Also, where am I supposed to get a GPA-distribution table? I don't think Carleton wants that information to be public, since they discourage obsessing over GPAs and class ranks.
I know that: Summa cum laude (3.90) is given to about 1% of students each year, Dean's List (top 10%) is normally around 3.78. Phi Beta Kappa (top 15%) is about 3.65. About a quarter of all students get magna, which is 3.5, and less than half get cum laude, which is 3.25.
Get a graduation program or something. I don't know. But I think it's pretty clear you're not going to be believed here without some sort of proof, now.
People won't respond to you for this reason: they're afraid that you'll dig up ancient, dubious trash ("outside sources" in the other thread) or out-of-context stuff from other threads, and use it as a basis for personal attacks. Most collegeboarders are afraid of you, your big bad Rhodes Scholarship and your loud mouth. I'm not.
Date: May 13th, 2005 4:38 PM Author: lascivious son of senegal
Yeah, I cried myself to sleep last night because big bad Joe is so frightening. :(
My God, can't you accept responsibility for *anything*? You were proven wrong multiple times in this thread by multiple people, yet all you do is make up excuse after excuse. This one is just pathetic ("You guys don't REALLY think I'm wrong, you're just scared of Big Bad Joe being mean to you over the internet!")
If Harvard's median GPA is 3.4, then it's probably because they have a greater proportion of people majoring in the sciences. A B+ in a humanities class is considered akin to a C- over there, and a C+ is, de facto, failing.
Date: May 13th, 2005 3:17 PM Author: bat-shit-crazy balding lay marketing idea
"If Harvard's median GPA is 3.4, then it's probably because they have a greater proportion of people majoring in the sciences. A B+ in a humanities class is considered akin to a C- over there, and a C+ is, de facto, failing."
Imagine this: people who go to rural LACs have friends at HYP, and have the capacity to follow educational issues such as grade inflation. Some of them even read periodicals like The Atlantic and Utne. I know this surprises you to no end.
Read Privilege, by Ross Douthat. He talks about the "ironic" grading at Harvard at length. My friends at HYP have told me (and several, in different circles) that an A- or B+ (sometimes even an A) in an arts/humanities/SS class doesn't mean much. At Carleton it does; you just don't hear "I bullshitted this 7-page paper in 2 hours, and got an A", except around a few teachers with softbatch reputations.
Date: May 13th, 2005 4:26 PM Author: lascivious son of senegal
Ever consider that the 7 page A paper written in 2 hours by the HYP student was better than the 7 page B paper written by a Carleton student in 2 weeks? Perhaps because the average students at HYP are smarter and more efficient with their time than the average Carleton students?
Not school newspapers, precisely. I'd say that The Crimson is probably slightly better than our school newspaper. I'm comparing THC to people in creative writing classes I've taken. While this may seem like an unfair comparison (the best against the exposed) I justify it as follows: because of the career opportunities that follow from THC, one would only suspect that it should represent Harvard's best writers.
Anyway, even if we take it at face value, the difference between Harvard writing (Crimson) and Carleton writing (Carletonian) is pretty miniscule, especially considering that H is three times as large.
The other claim is that The Harvard Crimson ought to represent Harvard's best writers because of the career opportunities that result from it; the Atlantic, for example, recruits from THC. One would think that this should make it pretty competitive to get into.
That sounds very good, but I really don't think an extrapolation like that is enough to hang your hat on in this.
Isn't WRITING quality a rather squishy and dubious proposition to evaluate anyway? Particularly when all of the evaluation is being carried out by one math major at one of the schools in question?
I think there are some serious weaknesses in your methodology, to say the least.
Maybe. I concede that I haven't been to Harvard, don't know for sure that there aren't better writers not on the THC, and therefore my claim that it "should" represent the best writing is speculative.
There is no "ultimate arbiter" of writing quality, but I can tell when one writing sample is signifcantly superior, inferior, or approximately equal to another. Harvard's best writers, if we use THC as our basis, are approximately equal to Carleton's best writers.
Counterexample: I declared quite openly that I was wrong with my implicit assertion that there was a significant difference between Carleton and Harvard GPAs, when confronted with facts that suggested otherwise.
Maybe you should admit that you're wrong about me.
One thing you're forgetting is that the Harvard crimson is basically open to any shmo who completes the comp (training) process. This may not be true with the newspaper at Carleton.
Several college publications (college newspaper, political publications, literary magazines).
The Games Journal, an online periodical about boardgaming and game design. Ambition, my card game, is also published various places online.
The Scholastic Writing Anthology of the best work, nationwide. (National Gold Key) Three pieces out of thousands were selected from my division for publication.
It's an SAT book. I'm frankly, not very impressed. I haven't read Joe's, but many of the SAT and GRE books are quite TTT; several I threw out because I knew I could do better. The test-prep industry is flooded, some of the books are great (and Joe's might be) and many are not.
Date: May 13th, 2005 5:17 PM Author: lascivious son of senegal
Yeah, because getting published in your school newspaper or an "online gaming periodical" is far more prestigious than publishing an actual book that sold so well that there were three printings.
Hey, if we're counting school newspapers, put me down for that too. I had a column in the Caltech paper for awhile, and wrote other articles besides.
Oh wait, actually, I forgot this, I actually have written a number of articles for my local "real" newspaper (if college newspapers count, this should too, right?). Some of them were picked up by the AP wire and showed up in other papers, even.
Admittedly, the only highly prestigious publication I've earned was in the Scholastic Anthology (which, by the way, was judged by a panel of professional writers). The others I included to establish that I'm not some kind of "one-hit wonder" who never accomplished anything after 18.
The entry-bar for college publications and online gaming journals is, indeed, lower than that for publishing a book, which is far lower than that for getting into the Scholastic Anthology. I haven't published a book yet, haven't written one, but I definitely could... and not through some TTT vanity press, either.
(Normally I think of myself as being the one who's too defensive.)
I wasn't calling Workman a vanity press; I know nothing about it. I was merely qualifying that, not only could I publish a book if I wanted to, I could do so through a reasonably reputable publisher, since nowadays it's not that hard to get "published" via vanity presses.
"I was merely qualifying that, not only could I publish a book if I wanted to, I could do so through a reasonably reputable publisher..."
I invite you to do so, then, if you'd like to continue to tout your writing resume in disputes and have any credibility (arguing by resume, as I've told you several times before, is a TTT way to argue anyway).
Anyway, you probably are way more knowledgeable about SAT Prep than I am. I concede that I couldn't, at present, write the book you've already written.
My Scholastic Anthology * publication is still more prestigious. If you'd published a decent novel or poetry volume, you'd have me beaten hands-down.
"My Scholastic Analogy [sic] publication is still more prestigious."
Oh really? I guess they sure are good about keeping that a secret, then! Googling "Scholastic Anthology" brings up 24 hits, NONE of which appear to be about your thing. Googling "Scholastic Writing Anthology" brings up ZERO hits.
Scholastic Writing competition, 2000. Entries were submitted in December 1999. Regional judging (central PA) was in February 2000; Gold (top ~1%) and Silver Key (~3%) winners were forwarded to Washington, DC, for the national competition. I found out that spring (May? I don't quite remember) that I got a Gold Award, of which I believe 15 were given, nationwide, in my division. This was somewhat surprising since I only went from a local Silver to a national Gold, which is uncommon. (Twice.) The ceremony was on Saturday, June 17, 2000 in the KENNEDY CENTER (ah! I'm turning into you with the OBNOXIOUS capitalization!) Mine was one of THREE (it feels SO good to use all caps!) entries nationwide selected for publication in the anthology. Not only that, but if any copies of the 2000 anthology are still for sale, I will buy you one. Otherwise, I will gladly send you a photocopy when I get home this summer.
It's one thing in a high school writing anthology. Get over it, man. You know, I never, ever pull out that "I'm a published writer" shit you started. You know why? Because it makes the person who does sound like an arrogant asshole. And if it turns out to be based upon some anthology, a college newspaper, and of course "online gaming periodicals," then it makes that person sound like a self-inflating bastard, too.
Do you try that shit on girls? God, I hope not--but every bone in my body is saying "Yes, yes he does."
Strange that you mention June 17, 2000. I was at the Kennedy Center for an awards program myself that week in June 2000.
1. You're a Rhodes Scholar. You're obviously a very accomplished individual-- I won't deny that. You went to CalTech. This means that you're going to have connections. Your 100,000+ copies probably has more to do with your promotional support (which follows from connections) than with the quality of the book. I know how the publishing industry works. With enough promotional support, one could easily push 500,000 copies of drivel before anyone figured out that it wasn't any good. Which is not to call your SAT-prep book "drivel" since I've never read it. I'm merely unimpressed by your six-digit sales figure because I know how easy it is to manufacture a TTT bestseller.
2. Secondly, while I acknowledge that I couldn't write your book, with two or three years of consulting in the field, I certainly could. With decent promotional support, it would probably sell about as well. Now, I'm not going to waste 3 years of my life helping rich kids get into college, that's just me. (I'm not saying you did waste your life by founding a test-prep company; we just have different values.) If I take three years out of my life for a book, it'll have to be something more like a novel.
3. Yes, Scholastic Writing was a high school competition. If that made any point whatsoever, we would have to throw everyone's HS accomplishments out the window. Having known some IMO-invitees (I was not one, but attended the MOP program in 1999, which invites the IMO team + top-16 nonsenior finishers on USAMO) and Intel winners, I can tell you that these are very promising individuals and I expect every one to make great contributions to mathematics. You do make a valid point that high-school and undergraduate accolades indicate precocity more than actual accomplishment. I'll readily admit that, neither in math nor in writing have I achieved anything on the world scale, yet. My single world-scale is in game-design (a field you seem to consider inherently TTT, and I won't waste time trying to convince you otherwise). It's a still semiobscure but well-respected card game at which your grandkids will pwn you.
4. Pop-quiz: If I inserted just one comma into item #2, at a certain place, it would give one sentence a completely different, and distinctively snobby tone. Which sentence and where, Mr. Bookwriter?
1) The book came BEFORE the test-prep company. There were no "connections" involved, either.
2) It took on the order of months, not years.
3) I have not devoted "years of my life" to PrepMe. Hello, I was in college and doing many other things as well. I maintain it's a more worthwhile pursuit than making up words to submit to urbandictionary.com and then trying with all your might to force them into the cultural lexicon.
4) Nobody plays your game. I heard it couldn't even get a Wikipedia entry. I LOVE card games, and I'd never even heard of it.
1. I believe the first sentence. As for the second, I still suspect that you're pretty damn lifted on this one, it's just my hunch.
2. I wouldn't spend months of my life to write an SAT-prep book, unless I were desperate.
3. Oh my, there must be something wrong with me! I use urbandictionary.com, for the same purpose as everyone else there!
4. Wikipedia: that was related to my socialist political views (which made me some serious enemies on WP) not the notability or quality of the game. It was actually ME who requested the deletion of the Ambition article (May 2004) after it was repeatedly vandalized. About 1000 to 3000 people play Ambition, worldwide and in ten countries. That's a far cry from it being "established", but it certainly refutes the "nobody" part of your claim. Oh, and a well-known Japanese magazine (Nikoli) cold-called (okay, emailed) me for permission to publish it in the winter of 2004.
5. Have you solved my riddle? Does your SAT prep course involve the diagramming of sentences?
Date: May 13th, 2005 4:36 PM Author: lascivious son of senegal
Yeah, and EVERYONE knows that acing social science research papers involves the same skills as writing about how many people attended the Sonic Youth concert, or writing about your spring break in Cancun. After all, professors don't give a shit about using citations to support your argument, all they care about is style!
Date: May 13th, 2005 4:57 PM Author: lascivious son of senegal
You don't need to put in significant time to consistently get As on social science research papers. It's not about the time you put in, it's about the quality of the research.
I didn't say that I didn't get a few As on papers I didn't put large amounts of time into. I said that I got good grades on everything I *did* put significant time into.
Date: May 13th, 2005 5:02 PM Author: lascivious son of senegal
Oh, so you've gotten As on papers you didn't put large amounts of time into, even at "grade deflated" Carleton?
So why do you find it hard to believe that some HYP students can consistently get As on papers that they only spent a few hours on, without it being grade inflation?
Because grade-inflation is very local. Some professors at Carleton (/any college) grade-inflate, others grade-deflate. Also, I'm pretty good at what I do.
Date: May 13th, 2005 5:08 PM Author: lascivious son of senegal
If you're very good at writing social science research papers you shouldn't have to put in significant amounts of time to get As, whether you go to Harvard or Carleton. You're clearly doing something wrong.
Certainly, I have. I even did so in this thread, on the comparison of mean GPAs.
I don't want to drop this topic because I got "owned". I want to drop it because it's stupid and we're finished with it. Fact: I have gotten As on research papers in the social sciences. You're done.
Then I'll now agree that you have refuted claims of general grade inflation at Harvard as opposed to Carleton. However, I maintain (and I've talked to several people familiar with both systems) that the liberal arts subjects grade significantly harder at Carleton, in that professors in those subjects actually give Bs for decent work, and Cs for completed work. The absence of grade inflation probably suggests that more HYP students take the more difficult majors.
I admitted that I was proven wrong regarding inflation of *mean* GPAs. However, grade inflation is predominantly observed in the arts and humanities subjects, not in the sciences. If more HYP students major in the sciences (which I would expect) then it would explain the absence of a GPA disparity.
I know little about the other LACs. It's probably less rigorous than Swarthmore, equal to Amherst, Williams, Reed, and somewhat more rigorous than a few of the others.
In math and the sciences, I know that they *do* work hard.
I'm sure that many people in other majors do work hard. It's much easier to slack at those places though. That may result more from the size of the school than average rigor of the classes; it's easier to slack and pick easy graders when there are more courses to choose from.
Date: May 13th, 2005 4:52 PM Author: lascivious son of senegal
Selectivity has nothing to do with it, it's about who ultimately enrolls.
Funny though that you don't mention class sizes -- particularly Harvard's. Harvard's class is significantly larger than Carleton, and yet it is *still* able to attract a student body that is on average smarter. One can only imagine how big the gap would be if Harvard had a class size as small as Carleton's!
Selectivity is based on supply and demand, not just class size (which is supply-side). There is much more demand for Harvard (northeastern location, international reputation, large research university) than for Carleton (midwestern, small LAC), no question about that.
You also can't use acceptance rates as indicators of "demand". There people applying to t14s are a different set of people than those who apply to CUNY Law.
My point was that selectivity is based on supply and demand, not just supply.
If we're going to hold this market analogy, consider that, in economics "demand" isn't just a function of how many people want to buy widgets, but also how much they're willing to pay for them. A top-dollar buyer contributes more to the demand curve than an average buyer, by his increased willingness to pay.
The admissions "market" is somewhat different. Some notion of "student quality" (mostly static at time-of-application, dynamic before as people can work harder in order to strive for their top schools) would be analogous to willingness-to-pay; the lower bound for what the college accepts would be analogous to "price", how hard it is to get in.
CUNY may have as more applications than some T14s, but if the applicants are weaker, then there's less "demand" in this market. Demand, therefore, doesn't necessarily have to do with acceptance rate.
There is more demand for a northeastern research university with an international reputation for all-around excellence, than for a midwestern LAC with a national reputation for great teaching (#1). Hence, Harvard gets many more apps than Carleton (higher demand) and can be more selective. No one, not even an ardent Carleton troll, would argue against this.
Date: May 13th, 2005 4:48 PM Author: lascivious son of senegal
You yourself said that the average HYP student is smarter than the average Carleton student. In fact, you said the 50th percentile HYP student is equivalent to the 75th percentile Carleton student.
Therefore, it shouldn't be a big surprise that the average HYP student can write an A paper in less time than the average Carleton student.
I said that, then realized that putting 75%C at 50%HYP was being way to generous to Harvard and revised the estimate in a later post to 65-70%.
That's about half a standard deviation, which is not meaningful enough to make the difference between 2 hours on an A paper vs. 2 weeks on a B paper, unless the B means significantly much more than an A.
Especially since getting good grades on academic papers is more a function of willingness to put time into them, than it is of intelligence, anyway. (Of course, both are factors.)
Date: May 13th, 2005 4:55 PM Author: lascivious son of senegal
"Especially since getting good grades on academic papers is more a function of willingness to put time into them, than it is of intelligence, anyway. (Of course, both are factors.)"
Sounds like someone who has never gotten an A on a social science research paper.
Even at Caltech I did know some people who seemed to get by and even excel on not nearly as much work (in terms of time) as others. Some people are just fortunate like that.
And yes, I'd expect more of them to be at Harvard than Carleton.
Date: May 13th, 2005 3:08 PM Author: lascivious son of senegal
"A 90th-percentile Carleton kid would pwn a 50th-percentile HYP, any day of the week. I'd say 75%C against 50%HYP is probably an even match."
Umm, doesn't that prove that HYP grades are not inflated, but are due to a stronger student body? If 75%C = 50%HYP, shouldn't it be expected that 50%HYP will get higher grades than 50%C simply because they are smarter (assuming there are no forced curves and the grade you earn is the grade you deserve)?
A 75/50 parity is not that big a difference in student quality. Furthermore, on revision, I think 75 is too high. Try 65 to 70, which is only half a standard dev.
Date: May 13th, 2005 4:41 PM Author: slimy lodge puppy
The posts need to be color-coded by team; there are way too many of them.
Also I think that the team-picker captain made an error because a 4 vs. 1 battle isn't very sporting, I would make up a ridiculous alias and start flaming but I can't work in the energy.
Date: May 13th, 2005 4:51 PM Author: slimy lodge puppy
Yep, I've always thought that the "Army of One" motto was completely bullshit. I don't want to be an "Army of One"-- I want to join an army of millions back by a platoon of Navy SEALS and an astonishing array of heavy artillery units!
To be fair to him, the writing quality of my posts is definitely not what I would expect in an essay for publication, either. My average XO post probably takes 30 seconds.
To be fair, while I destroyed Joe in wit and repartee, I do believe I lost more than I won in the grade-inflation debate that started this thread. I'd say that one resolved 30/70, not in my favor.
The reason I shouldn't be posting this is because, even though you have other, more important things be doing (as do I) tonight, you are absolutely addicted to having the last word. Feel free to leave another throwaway "Riiiight" in response to this message, and I'll let you have it. That'll make my point better than I can.
Ladies and gentleman, I am a "really sketchy douchebag". Straight from the source.
I'm not a fan of Joe's OBNOXIOUS capitalization and the smug, douchebaggy tone it gives his writing every time he uses it, but at least he knows how to use the shift key. HTH
Date: May 14th, 2005 6:20 PM Author: azure galvanic faggotry
What Is Ambition?
Ambition is an American card game derivative of "Hearts." Players need to work for different goals depending on their cards and also keep an eye on the other players so they don't end up getting most points (using chips or other visible tokens to count points during hands is probably mandatory). Ambition is all the rage at Carleton College.