Gravitymaster 0 #76 January 22, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteDidn't mean to ignore you Benny. Got distracted by Gary's latest anti-Anvil rant. Quite amusing. I'd support non-race based affirmative action if it were based upon parents'/guardians' tax returns or something of the like AND merit were still the primary factor. I think most other conservatives would as well. Most liberals too. I think billvon and I might have discussed something of the sort a while back - I forget. Quote How would you evaluate the relative merit of someone from a fancy private school who achieved a 1300 SAT score, with someone from an inner city ghetto school who received a 1250 SAT, if you were a college admission officer? Hmmm - no answer yet. Must have been a difficult question! If he was an Admissions Officer, would he be with a private or public college? I think these variables would make a difference. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites OATSF14 0 #77 January 22, 2004 Gary,.......if you will provide me with an address I will gladly send you a "BUSH/CHANEY" bumper sticker. How about a "RUSH IS RIGHT!" or a "CHOOSE LIFE". (don't pull a "Howard Dean" here...only kidding) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #78 January 22, 2004 1300 is 50 greater than 1250 - not a significant difference (?). Nowhere on the admissions form should be any statement of income. That way you avoid discrimination in 'either' direction. If the school wants to have an additional factor where students' performances are predictive based on which school they came from, then that is a different factor not relating to the SAT. But it could be used. But not for pity, but to ensure students with a high predictive chance of doing better should get higher consideration. Problem is our factors typically are used to make less qualified people eligible instead of more qualified people..... I know it's harsh. Fix the public schools or give vouchers it's too late to try to retroactively fix some perceived social issue at the college level. Would it be any more fair to reject that 1300 score without ever meeting the individual as it would to reject the 1250 without meeting them? The comment begs that interpretation. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #79 January 22, 2004 Another senario. Lets suppose you have someone from a "Fancy Private School who scored 1300. Someone from a middle class suburban school that scored 1250. Someone from an inner city public school who scored 1200. Now what do you do? You can easily infer an income based on the demographics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites goose491 0 #80 January 22, 2004 QuoteIf you criticized the racist agenda of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson with equal enthusiasm I might pay attention. I'm confused. Were Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson also installed by Preisdent Bush as Judges on a federal appeals court? I hadn't heard about it. I may agree with you that they have highly racist agendas but this thread seems to be about Charles Pickering. Let me check the thread title again.... yup "Bush INSTALLS Racist Judge" Al Sharpton? Jesse Jackson? Start a new thread and I'll hop in and watch... but just as two wrongs don't make a right, saying "These guys are racist too!" Doesn't really alleviate Mr. Pickering of Garys claims here. Just my $0.02CND, rant-over. Nick My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #81 January 22, 2004 Quote1300 is 50 greater than 1250 - not a significant difference (?). Nowhere on the admissions form should be any statement of income. That way you avoid discrimination in 'either' direction. Quote But it does say which school they attended, and admissions offices have the school performance data per "no child left behind" available to them. If the school wants to have an additional factor where students' performances are predictive based on which school they came from, then that is a different factor not relating to the SAT. But it could be used. But not for pity, but to ensure students with a high predictive chance of doing better should get higher consideration. Problem is our factors typically are used to make less qualified people eligible instead of more qualified people..... Quote They are? How do you know that? How do you know which of these two students is "more qualified"? More qualified for what? More likely to succeed? I know it's harsh. Fix the public schools or give vouchers it's too late to try to retroactively fix some perceived social issue at the college level. SO you'd say "Too bad" and take an upper class loser who happens to have been well coached over someone that's really motivated and smart? How does that benefit the country? Would it be any more fair to reject that 1300 score without ever meeting the individual as it would to reject the 1250 without meeting them? The comment begs that interpretation. Hardly any colleges interview applicants any more. Decisions are all based on the application form and the SAT/ACT and GPA. I have been on our admissions committee and seen applications from all over. Someone with a 1300 SAT from a fancy private school is basically mediocre or unmotivated, and generally won't do well in college. An inner city kid from a ghetto school with a 1250SAT is extraordinarily motivated.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #82 January 22, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteDidn't mean to ignore you Benny. Got distracted by Gary's latest anti-Anvil rant. Quite amusing. I'd support non-race based affirmative action if it were based upon parents'/guardians' tax returns or something of the like AND merit were still the primary factor. I think most other conservatives would as well. Most liberals too. I think billvon and I might have discussed something of the sort a while back - I forget. Quote How would you evaluate the relative merit of someone from a fancy private school who achieved a 1300 SAT score, with someone from an inner city ghetto school who received a 1250 SAT, if you were a college admission officer? Hmmm - no answer yet. Must have been a difficult question! If he was an Admissions Officer, would he be with a private or public college? I think these variables would make a difference. Why? The mission of any admissions office is to admit the students most likely to succeed.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Paige 0 #83 January 22, 2004 Quote Un-Fucking-Believable. More uniting, not dividing! More to make the Republican party proud! Unfortunately, the left is just as badTunnel Pink Mafia Delegate www.TunnelPinkMafia.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites gary350 0 #84 January 22, 2004 >You've mistaken me for the sorry dumbass who actually respects your arrogance. How silly of you. What can I say? That's quite an assumption, but I will admit to sometimes being a silly guy. . . >I'm sorry Gary No reason to be sorry - from my view, you are only embarrassing yourself more and more, at my considerable amusement, though I'm sure all the good little dittoheads will cheer you on no matter what. Old saying - when you are in a hole, first thing to do is stop digging. So many changes of subject, so much labeling, so much smugness, so much belligerence, so much bullying, so LITTLE of actually arguing reasonable points or countering mine (and even the few times you do, it's always laced with some or a lot of the above). Can't you do better? You clearly have gotten your inspiration from Bill O'Reilly - I just loved the Terri Gross interview and especially the time he wasn't in the safety of his own show and couldn't defend himself against Al Franken's arguments. So he ends up screaming at Franken, "SHUT UP! SHUT UP!" Oh, Vincent, is that next for you? Let's ignore most of the ugly stuff and the different-subject stuff and look at what you actually did say about Charles Pickering: >And it is YOU who ignore the fact at hand: both Lee and Pickering were recess appointments (Actually, this doesn't even count, since it has nothing to do with the merit or lack of merit of Pickering - it is just more of the same tired tactic of comparing to some other wrong, real or perceived. . . 'But your guy did it FIRST! And WORSE!' I'll say AGAIN - Lee was appointed to an assistant attorney general position, NOT A LIFETIME JUDGESHIP ON A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. Maybe in your book, it's just a conveniently insignificant detail, but I think it is an important point. Apples and oranges, just like comparing with Roger Gregory (qualified, non-controversial, almost complete bipartisan support. . . ) And let me ask again, what does Bill Lann Lee have to do with installing a judge with a "...record that is replete with examples of bad judging, littered with cases that demonstrate a misunderstanding of the law in many crucial and sensitive areas, a record that shows a judge inserting his personal views into his judicial opinions, and putting his personal preferences above the law."? (Leahy) Bursting a vein still about Lee? Start another thread! >Brown and Pickering have WHAT in common? Did they hear the same # of cases? Same type of cases? Did they sit together en banc somewhere? Go to law school together perhaps? What, exactly, makes your presented comparison statistically relevant? NOTHING. Nada. Zilch. Zero. Live with it. Apples and oranges would be extremely appropriate here. Yeah - great point - I have to admit I made an incredible leap of logic there. You know, what a bonehead assumption that just because they were appointed by the SAME man, to the SAME (almost) position for about the SAME amount of time, that it was in any way fair to compare their records of receiving unpublished reversals ("ignoring or violating well established principles of law" ), fifteen vs. zero. Yup, musta been drunk. . . I will say that I am aware of Hatch's assertions that Pickering's record isn't really so bad (a reasonable retort - gee, why couldn't you bring that up instead of ranting about my education or whether or not I'm drunk or how vague my facts from a "hate site" are - though you still haven't refuted any. . .), but I'll go with Leahy again on that: "Whatever these numbers purport to represent about the quantity of Judge Pickering's reversals -- and I cannot vouch for them one way or another, not knowing their source or meaning -- they do not in any way excuse the poor quality of his underlying opinions." On his record of unpublished reversals, let me say (again), ". . . I don't think it PROVES anything. I think it is another piece of evidence in a glaringly long list that seriously questions the man's commitment to racial equality and his fitness to serve." Let me add that for me, that list comes from far more places than just PFAW (see below). >Glaringly long list of vague accusations from a conservative hate sight? And you WONDER why I question it? LMFAO. Try again dude. More tired, angry labeling. Yeah, I did it too - one whole sentence - big deal - I got it out of my system and moved on to the actual argument. Vincent - if PFAW's information regarding Pickering is JUST "vague accusations from a conservative hate sight", if they are SUCH a "non-credible source", then shouldn't it be a piece of cake for a heavy thinker like you to shred their info to bits??? C'mon - you can do it! Piece of cake! Same with the arguments and facts from all those other wacko hate sights, liberal media outlets, and scumbag liberal law professors. Do it! Do it! ADDRESS THE "FACTS"! >...it's not even worthwhile to go through the morass. Shit, forgot that it just isn't worthwhile for you. Too easy, too pathetic, huh? More important things to do? I understand. Just in case you change your mind, here's a little more that I considered while forming my opinion, all from the god damned LIBERAL MEDIA (should be easy pickin's to tear apart). Also see separate posting with a legal analysis from some pinko law professors. . . Link to a compiled set of Pickering editorials and commentary: http://www.earthjustice.org/policy/judicial/pickering_commentary.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites gary350 0 #85 January 22, 2004 Lawrocket - these might help explain, in greater legal depth, why so many folks are so concerned about Charles Pickering. They are letters from well known law experts, written at the request of Senator Edwards, who wanted to cut through the rhetoric and get technical about WHY he is a bad judge, if he is, at least on certain issues. I'm not saying it PROVES anything - they are interpretations and opinions from highly qualified reviewers - that's all. I personally am fine trusting the conclusions drawn from these by Edwards, Leahy, etc., but I thought you might like to go to (and be capable of understanding!) some of the sources. http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=1270 http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=1271 http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=1272 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #86 January 22, 2004 QuoteSO you'd say "Too bad" and take an upper class loser who happens to have been well coached over someone that's really motivated and smart? How does that benefit the country? This is where we cross paths, you are willing to make a judgement call on a complete stranger based solely on putting him into a group. Good or bad. That kind of bias and generalization sucks and I think you are wrong and unfair. It's exactly the same basic thought as sexism, racism and all those other 'isms out there. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #87 January 22, 2004 I'll state a rule: There is a direct relationship between the length of a post and the odds that nobody will read it. You'll make no point with that post to Vinnie. Nobody will read it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,584 #88 January 22, 2004 QuoteThis is where we cross paths, you are willing to make a judgement call on a complete stranger based solely on putting him into a group No, he's evaluating a stranger based on educated knowledge about where he went to school. Someone who went to an inferior school is quite likely to have taught themselves as much as having been taught. If an early advantage doesn't matter, then why do people want their children to have a good education? Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #89 January 22, 2004 I'm not a fan of bunching up people into groups. It's the individual that counts. Still think the assumption sucks. That might be a great kid or really is a 'Loser'. You just DON'T know and can't be fair making that call no more than assume the 2nd kid is a crook because he's from a 'bad' school - it's the same thing. You don't have enough information. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #90 January 22, 2004 I don't think the opinions of those law professors mean as much as they are ballyhooed to mean. I'll put it to you this way - these professors have been hired to argue a viewpoint. They can just as easily argue the other side. It's what lawyers do when they are retained. A couple of my professors frequent the national news shows on Court TV and Network TV. Renowned law experts. Doesn't mean I don't think they're full of shit. I've never heard of those guys who sent the letters in. I have heard of Johnnie Cochran and Robert Shapiro from my beloved alma mater. They said OJ didn't do it. Why don't we all just agree with them? Could it be because they are advocating a position? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites gary350 0 #91 January 22, 2004 QuoteI'll state a rule: There is a direct relationship between the length of a post and the odds that nobody will read it. You'll make no point with that post to Vinnie. Nobody will read it. So right - fixed. Thanks - I'm new at this. P.S. I read about your ultrasound. Awesome! Tears in my eyes (memories). Very happy for you - congratulations and good luck. Enjoy it all! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #92 January 22, 2004 Thanks, man. It's amazing. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #93 January 22, 2004 QuoteI'm not a fan of bunching up people into groups. It's the individual that counts. Still think the assumption sucks. That might be a great kid or really is a 'Loser'. You just DON'T know and can't be fair making that call no more than assume the 2nd kid is a crook because he's from a 'bad' school - it's the same thing. You don't have enough information. Name me one college or university that gives a personal interview to all applicants. In the absence of a personal interview, all the admissions office can go on is the HS record and SAT/ACT results. PS, referring to a previous reply of yours, most colleges also require the parents to submit a FAFSA form, which identifies parental income. It's certainly mandatory if any scholarships or financial aid are requested.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #94 January 22, 2004 Princeton interviewed Joel in Risky Business. THERE! I named one. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #95 January 22, 2004 Kallend's Physics 101 - So you have two kids in your class and they take the same Physics 1 exam. One is from a private school and the other is from an inner city school. They both score 80% Do you give them different grades? Would you if you were allowed? If you knew one went and got a tutor to do better, would you dock his grade down as a result? It's the same thing. Financial aid is different than admissions requirement. Of course it's impractical to 100% interview - and it's still unethical to make judgement calls based on how much money someone's family has and use that to decide if a kid can go to school or if he's a 'loser' - rich or poor bias, both are wrong. Particularly if his test scores are satisfactory. If the test scores were switched around and someone argued to send the rich kid anyway even though his score was 50 lower it would be wrong. It's wrong either way. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #96 January 22, 2004 QuotePrinceton interviewed Joel in Risky Business. THERE! I named one. "...all applicants"... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #97 January 22, 2004 QuoteKallend's Physics 101 - So you have two kids in your class and they take the same Physics 1 exam. One is from a private school and the other is from an inner city school. They both score 80% Do you give them different grades? Would you if you were allowed? If you knew one went and got a tutor to do better, would you dock his grade down as a result? It's the same thing. Rubbish. The grade is no different than the SAT score - it is based on performance on a test. You don't manipulate the grade or the SAT score. It's how you interpret the grade that's different. If it came to deciding which student to give an internship to help me with my research, I would be looking for potential for success, which involves interpreting the grade in the context of prior experience. Quote Financial aid is different than admissions requirement. Quote The college still has the information. Of course it's impractical to 100% interview - and it's still unethical to make judgement calls based on how much money someone's family has and use that to decide if a kid can go to school or if he's a 'loser' - rich or poor bias, both are wrong. Particularly if his test scores are satisfactory. If the test scores were switched around and someone argued to send the rich kid anyway even though his score was 50 lower it would be wrong. It's wrong either way. It's not the "rich or poor", its how you got there. If a kid overcomes enormous obtacles and achieves a 1250, I have more respect for his motivation and ability than one who has everything handed to him on a plate and gets a 1300. And I know which one I'd want helping me in my lab. Which would you think the more promising athlete - one who runs a marathon and then immediately does 100 meters in 12.0, or one who is fresh and runs the 100 in 10.8?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites gary350 0 #98 January 22, 2004 QuoteGary,.......if you will provide me with an address I will gladly send you a "BUSH/CHANEY" bumper sticker. How about a "RUSH IS RIGHT!" or a "CHOOSE LIFE". (don't pull a "Howard Dean" here...only kidding) >"CHANEY" I think that speaks for itself. I'm not into bumper stickers, but I saw some that maybe you might like: George W Bush - Cocaine Free Since 1974! GW Bush - How Dumb Is Too Dumb? Regime Change Starts At Home GW Lies GIs Die Pro-Constitution Anti-Bush George Bush is a Corporate Whore! Bush's Deficits - Our Children's Debt Death, Debt, Deceit Bush - Cheney We're All Wearing The Blue Dress Now Hate Lies Greed The Republican Way Rush is Reich! Mission Accomplished! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jimbo 0 #99 January 22, 2004 QuoteSO you'd say "Too bad" and take an upper class loser who happens to have been well coached over someone that's really motivated and smart? How does that benefit the country? Until you find a better way to weight the score, yes. I'm sorry, but giving a kid preference because he's not a WASP is as much a load of crap as denying entrance for the same reason. QuoteSomeone with a 1300 SAT from a fancy private school is basically mediocre or unmotivated, and generally won't do well in college. An inner city kid from a ghetto school with a 1250SAT is extraordinarily motivated. You've got to be kidding me! Someone who does well at a fancy private school is unmotivated, or mediocre? What kind of crap is that? But a black, or hispanic kid who doesn't do as well on the SAT is a genius? Really, Professor, that just doesn't add up. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkydiverRick 0 #100 January 22, 2004 QuoteQuoteGary,.......if you will provide me with an address I will gladly send you a "BUSH/CHANEY" bumper sticker. How about a "RUSH IS RIGHT!" or a "CHOOSE LIFE". (don't pull a "Howard Dean" here...only kidding) >"CHANEY" I think that speaks for itself. I'm not into bumper stickers, but I saw some that maybe you might like: George W Bush - Cocaine Free Since 1974! GW Bush - How Dumb Is Too Dumb? Regime Change Starts At Home GW Lies GIs Die Pro-Constitution Anti-Bush George Bush is a Corporate Whore! Bush's Deficits - Our Children's Debt Death, Debt, Deceit Bush - Cheney We're All Wearing The Blue Dress Now Hate Lies Greed The Republican Way Rush is Reich! Mission Accomplished! A blond in every pond - Ted Kennedy never pull low......unless you are Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 4 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
OATSF14 0 #77 January 22, 2004 Gary,.......if you will provide me with an address I will gladly send you a "BUSH/CHANEY" bumper sticker. How about a "RUSH IS RIGHT!" or a "CHOOSE LIFE". (don't pull a "Howard Dean" here...only kidding) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #78 January 22, 2004 1300 is 50 greater than 1250 - not a significant difference (?). Nowhere on the admissions form should be any statement of income. That way you avoid discrimination in 'either' direction. If the school wants to have an additional factor where students' performances are predictive based on which school they came from, then that is a different factor not relating to the SAT. But it could be used. But not for pity, but to ensure students with a high predictive chance of doing better should get higher consideration. Problem is our factors typically are used to make less qualified people eligible instead of more qualified people..... I know it's harsh. Fix the public schools or give vouchers it's too late to try to retroactively fix some perceived social issue at the college level. Would it be any more fair to reject that 1300 score without ever meeting the individual as it would to reject the 1250 without meeting them? The comment begs that interpretation. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #79 January 22, 2004 Another senario. Lets suppose you have someone from a "Fancy Private School who scored 1300. Someone from a middle class suburban school that scored 1250. Someone from an inner city public school who scored 1200. Now what do you do? You can easily infer an income based on the demographics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites goose491 0 #80 January 22, 2004 QuoteIf you criticized the racist agenda of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson with equal enthusiasm I might pay attention. I'm confused. Were Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson also installed by Preisdent Bush as Judges on a federal appeals court? I hadn't heard about it. I may agree with you that they have highly racist agendas but this thread seems to be about Charles Pickering. Let me check the thread title again.... yup "Bush INSTALLS Racist Judge" Al Sharpton? Jesse Jackson? Start a new thread and I'll hop in and watch... but just as two wrongs don't make a right, saying "These guys are racist too!" Doesn't really alleviate Mr. Pickering of Garys claims here. Just my $0.02CND, rant-over. Nick My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #81 January 22, 2004 Quote1300 is 50 greater than 1250 - not a significant difference (?). Nowhere on the admissions form should be any statement of income. That way you avoid discrimination in 'either' direction. Quote But it does say which school they attended, and admissions offices have the school performance data per "no child left behind" available to them. If the school wants to have an additional factor where students' performances are predictive based on which school they came from, then that is a different factor not relating to the SAT. But it could be used. But not for pity, but to ensure students with a high predictive chance of doing better should get higher consideration. Problem is our factors typically are used to make less qualified people eligible instead of more qualified people..... Quote They are? How do you know that? How do you know which of these two students is "more qualified"? More qualified for what? More likely to succeed? I know it's harsh. Fix the public schools or give vouchers it's too late to try to retroactively fix some perceived social issue at the college level. SO you'd say "Too bad" and take an upper class loser who happens to have been well coached over someone that's really motivated and smart? How does that benefit the country? Would it be any more fair to reject that 1300 score without ever meeting the individual as it would to reject the 1250 without meeting them? The comment begs that interpretation. Hardly any colleges interview applicants any more. Decisions are all based on the application form and the SAT/ACT and GPA. I have been on our admissions committee and seen applications from all over. Someone with a 1300 SAT from a fancy private school is basically mediocre or unmotivated, and generally won't do well in college. An inner city kid from a ghetto school with a 1250SAT is extraordinarily motivated.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #78 January 22, 2004 1300 is 50 greater than 1250 - not a significant difference (?). Nowhere on the admissions form should be any statement of income. That way you avoid discrimination in 'either' direction. If the school wants to have an additional factor where students' performances are predictive based on which school they came from, then that is a different factor not relating to the SAT. But it could be used. But not for pity, but to ensure students with a high predictive chance of doing better should get higher consideration. Problem is our factors typically are used to make less qualified people eligible instead of more qualified people..... I know it's harsh. Fix the public schools or give vouchers it's too late to try to retroactively fix some perceived social issue at the college level. Would it be any more fair to reject that 1300 score without ever meeting the individual as it would to reject the 1250 without meeting them? The comment begs that interpretation. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #79 January 22, 2004 Another senario. Lets suppose you have someone from a "Fancy Private School who scored 1300. Someone from a middle class suburban school that scored 1250. Someone from an inner city public school who scored 1200. Now what do you do? You can easily infer an income based on the demographics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #80 January 22, 2004 QuoteIf you criticized the racist agenda of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson with equal enthusiasm I might pay attention. I'm confused. Were Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson also installed by Preisdent Bush as Judges on a federal appeals court? I hadn't heard about it. I may agree with you that they have highly racist agendas but this thread seems to be about Charles Pickering. Let me check the thread title again.... yup "Bush INSTALLS Racist Judge" Al Sharpton? Jesse Jackson? Start a new thread and I'll hop in and watch... but just as two wrongs don't make a right, saying "These guys are racist too!" Doesn't really alleviate Mr. Pickering of Garys claims here. Just my $0.02CND, rant-over. Nick My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #81 January 22, 2004 Quote1300 is 50 greater than 1250 - not a significant difference (?). Nowhere on the admissions form should be any statement of income. That way you avoid discrimination in 'either' direction. Quote But it does say which school they attended, and admissions offices have the school performance data per "no child left behind" available to them. If the school wants to have an additional factor where students' performances are predictive based on which school they came from, then that is a different factor not relating to the SAT. But it could be used. But not for pity, but to ensure students with a high predictive chance of doing better should get higher consideration. Problem is our factors typically are used to make less qualified people eligible instead of more qualified people..... Quote They are? How do you know that? How do you know which of these two students is "more qualified"? More qualified for what? More likely to succeed? I know it's harsh. Fix the public schools or give vouchers it's too late to try to retroactively fix some perceived social issue at the college level. SO you'd say "Too bad" and take an upper class loser who happens to have been well coached over someone that's really motivated and smart? How does that benefit the country? Would it be any more fair to reject that 1300 score without ever meeting the individual as it would to reject the 1250 without meeting them? The comment begs that interpretation. Hardly any colleges interview applicants any more. Decisions are all based on the application form and the SAT/ACT and GPA. I have been on our admissions committee and seen applications from all over. Someone with a 1300 SAT from a fancy private school is basically mediocre or unmotivated, and generally won't do well in college. An inner city kid from a ghetto school with a 1250SAT is extraordinarily motivated.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #82 January 22, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteDidn't mean to ignore you Benny. Got distracted by Gary's latest anti-Anvil rant. Quite amusing. I'd support non-race based affirmative action if it were based upon parents'/guardians' tax returns or something of the like AND merit were still the primary factor. I think most other conservatives would as well. Most liberals too. I think billvon and I might have discussed something of the sort a while back - I forget. Quote How would you evaluate the relative merit of someone from a fancy private school who achieved a 1300 SAT score, with someone from an inner city ghetto school who received a 1250 SAT, if you were a college admission officer? Hmmm - no answer yet. Must have been a difficult question! If he was an Admissions Officer, would he be with a private or public college? I think these variables would make a difference. Why? The mission of any admissions office is to admit the students most likely to succeed.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Paige 0 #83 January 22, 2004 Quote Un-Fucking-Believable. More uniting, not dividing! More to make the Republican party proud! Unfortunately, the left is just as badTunnel Pink Mafia Delegate www.TunnelPinkMafia.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites gary350 0 #84 January 22, 2004 >You've mistaken me for the sorry dumbass who actually respects your arrogance. How silly of you. What can I say? That's quite an assumption, but I will admit to sometimes being a silly guy. . . >I'm sorry Gary No reason to be sorry - from my view, you are only embarrassing yourself more and more, at my considerable amusement, though I'm sure all the good little dittoheads will cheer you on no matter what. Old saying - when you are in a hole, first thing to do is stop digging. So many changes of subject, so much labeling, so much smugness, so much belligerence, so much bullying, so LITTLE of actually arguing reasonable points or countering mine (and even the few times you do, it's always laced with some or a lot of the above). Can't you do better? You clearly have gotten your inspiration from Bill O'Reilly - I just loved the Terri Gross interview and especially the time he wasn't in the safety of his own show and couldn't defend himself against Al Franken's arguments. So he ends up screaming at Franken, "SHUT UP! SHUT UP!" Oh, Vincent, is that next for you? Let's ignore most of the ugly stuff and the different-subject stuff and look at what you actually did say about Charles Pickering: >And it is YOU who ignore the fact at hand: both Lee and Pickering were recess appointments (Actually, this doesn't even count, since it has nothing to do with the merit or lack of merit of Pickering - it is just more of the same tired tactic of comparing to some other wrong, real or perceived. . . 'But your guy did it FIRST! And WORSE!' I'll say AGAIN - Lee was appointed to an assistant attorney general position, NOT A LIFETIME JUDGESHIP ON A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. Maybe in your book, it's just a conveniently insignificant detail, but I think it is an important point. Apples and oranges, just like comparing with Roger Gregory (qualified, non-controversial, almost complete bipartisan support. . . ) And let me ask again, what does Bill Lann Lee have to do with installing a judge with a "...record that is replete with examples of bad judging, littered with cases that demonstrate a misunderstanding of the law in many crucial and sensitive areas, a record that shows a judge inserting his personal views into his judicial opinions, and putting his personal preferences above the law."? (Leahy) Bursting a vein still about Lee? Start another thread! >Brown and Pickering have WHAT in common? Did they hear the same # of cases? Same type of cases? Did they sit together en banc somewhere? Go to law school together perhaps? What, exactly, makes your presented comparison statistically relevant? NOTHING. Nada. Zilch. Zero. Live with it. Apples and oranges would be extremely appropriate here. Yeah - great point - I have to admit I made an incredible leap of logic there. You know, what a bonehead assumption that just because they were appointed by the SAME man, to the SAME (almost) position for about the SAME amount of time, that it was in any way fair to compare their records of receiving unpublished reversals ("ignoring or violating well established principles of law" ), fifteen vs. zero. Yup, musta been drunk. . . I will say that I am aware of Hatch's assertions that Pickering's record isn't really so bad (a reasonable retort - gee, why couldn't you bring that up instead of ranting about my education or whether or not I'm drunk or how vague my facts from a "hate site" are - though you still haven't refuted any. . .), but I'll go with Leahy again on that: "Whatever these numbers purport to represent about the quantity of Judge Pickering's reversals -- and I cannot vouch for them one way or another, not knowing their source or meaning -- they do not in any way excuse the poor quality of his underlying opinions." On his record of unpublished reversals, let me say (again), ". . . I don't think it PROVES anything. I think it is another piece of evidence in a glaringly long list that seriously questions the man's commitment to racial equality and his fitness to serve." Let me add that for me, that list comes from far more places than just PFAW (see below). >Glaringly long list of vague accusations from a conservative hate sight? And you WONDER why I question it? LMFAO. Try again dude. More tired, angry labeling. Yeah, I did it too - one whole sentence - big deal - I got it out of my system and moved on to the actual argument. Vincent - if PFAW's information regarding Pickering is JUST "vague accusations from a conservative hate sight", if they are SUCH a "non-credible source", then shouldn't it be a piece of cake for a heavy thinker like you to shred their info to bits??? C'mon - you can do it! Piece of cake! Same with the arguments and facts from all those other wacko hate sights, liberal media outlets, and scumbag liberal law professors. Do it! Do it! ADDRESS THE "FACTS"! >...it's not even worthwhile to go through the morass. Shit, forgot that it just isn't worthwhile for you. Too easy, too pathetic, huh? More important things to do? I understand. Just in case you change your mind, here's a little more that I considered while forming my opinion, all from the god damned LIBERAL MEDIA (should be easy pickin's to tear apart). Also see separate posting with a legal analysis from some pinko law professors. . . Link to a compiled set of Pickering editorials and commentary: http://www.earthjustice.org/policy/judicial/pickering_commentary.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites gary350 0 #85 January 22, 2004 Lawrocket - these might help explain, in greater legal depth, why so many folks are so concerned about Charles Pickering. They are letters from well known law experts, written at the request of Senator Edwards, who wanted to cut through the rhetoric and get technical about WHY he is a bad judge, if he is, at least on certain issues. I'm not saying it PROVES anything - they are interpretations and opinions from highly qualified reviewers - that's all. I personally am fine trusting the conclusions drawn from these by Edwards, Leahy, etc., but I thought you might like to go to (and be capable of understanding!) some of the sources. http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=1270 http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=1271 http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=1272 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #86 January 22, 2004 QuoteSO you'd say "Too bad" and take an upper class loser who happens to have been well coached over someone that's really motivated and smart? How does that benefit the country? This is where we cross paths, you are willing to make a judgement call on a complete stranger based solely on putting him into a group. Good or bad. That kind of bias and generalization sucks and I think you are wrong and unfair. It's exactly the same basic thought as sexism, racism and all those other 'isms out there. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #87 January 22, 2004 I'll state a rule: There is a direct relationship between the length of a post and the odds that nobody will read it. You'll make no point with that post to Vinnie. Nobody will read it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,584 #88 January 22, 2004 QuoteThis is where we cross paths, you are willing to make a judgement call on a complete stranger based solely on putting him into a group No, he's evaluating a stranger based on educated knowledge about where he went to school. Someone who went to an inferior school is quite likely to have taught themselves as much as having been taught. If an early advantage doesn't matter, then why do people want their children to have a good education? Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #89 January 22, 2004 I'm not a fan of bunching up people into groups. It's the individual that counts. Still think the assumption sucks. That might be a great kid or really is a 'Loser'. You just DON'T know and can't be fair making that call no more than assume the 2nd kid is a crook because he's from a 'bad' school - it's the same thing. You don't have enough information. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #90 January 22, 2004 I don't think the opinions of those law professors mean as much as they are ballyhooed to mean. I'll put it to you this way - these professors have been hired to argue a viewpoint. They can just as easily argue the other side. It's what lawyers do when they are retained. A couple of my professors frequent the national news shows on Court TV and Network TV. Renowned law experts. Doesn't mean I don't think they're full of shit. I've never heard of those guys who sent the letters in. I have heard of Johnnie Cochran and Robert Shapiro from my beloved alma mater. They said OJ didn't do it. Why don't we all just agree with them? Could it be because they are advocating a position? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites gary350 0 #91 January 22, 2004 QuoteI'll state a rule: There is a direct relationship between the length of a post and the odds that nobody will read it. You'll make no point with that post to Vinnie. Nobody will read it. So right - fixed. Thanks - I'm new at this. P.S. I read about your ultrasound. Awesome! Tears in my eyes (memories). Very happy for you - congratulations and good luck. Enjoy it all! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #92 January 22, 2004 Thanks, man. It's amazing. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #93 January 22, 2004 QuoteI'm not a fan of bunching up people into groups. It's the individual that counts. Still think the assumption sucks. That might be a great kid or really is a 'Loser'. You just DON'T know and can't be fair making that call no more than assume the 2nd kid is a crook because he's from a 'bad' school - it's the same thing. You don't have enough information. Name me one college or university that gives a personal interview to all applicants. In the absence of a personal interview, all the admissions office can go on is the HS record and SAT/ACT results. PS, referring to a previous reply of yours, most colleges also require the parents to submit a FAFSA form, which identifies parental income. It's certainly mandatory if any scholarships or financial aid are requested.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #94 January 22, 2004 Princeton interviewed Joel in Risky Business. THERE! I named one. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #95 January 22, 2004 Kallend's Physics 101 - So you have two kids in your class and they take the same Physics 1 exam. One is from a private school and the other is from an inner city school. They both score 80% Do you give them different grades? Would you if you were allowed? If you knew one went and got a tutor to do better, would you dock his grade down as a result? It's the same thing. Financial aid is different than admissions requirement. Of course it's impractical to 100% interview - and it's still unethical to make judgement calls based on how much money someone's family has and use that to decide if a kid can go to school or if he's a 'loser' - rich or poor bias, both are wrong. Particularly if his test scores are satisfactory. If the test scores were switched around and someone argued to send the rich kid anyway even though his score was 50 lower it would be wrong. It's wrong either way. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #96 January 22, 2004 QuotePrinceton interviewed Joel in Risky Business. THERE! I named one. "...all applicants"... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #97 January 22, 2004 QuoteKallend's Physics 101 - So you have two kids in your class and they take the same Physics 1 exam. One is from a private school and the other is from an inner city school. They both score 80% Do you give them different grades? Would you if you were allowed? If you knew one went and got a tutor to do better, would you dock his grade down as a result? It's the same thing. Rubbish. The grade is no different than the SAT score - it is based on performance on a test. You don't manipulate the grade or the SAT score. It's how you interpret the grade that's different. If it came to deciding which student to give an internship to help me with my research, I would be looking for potential for success, which involves interpreting the grade in the context of prior experience. Quote Financial aid is different than admissions requirement. Quote The college still has the information. Of course it's impractical to 100% interview - and it's still unethical to make judgement calls based on how much money someone's family has and use that to decide if a kid can go to school or if he's a 'loser' - rich or poor bias, both are wrong. Particularly if his test scores are satisfactory. If the test scores were switched around and someone argued to send the rich kid anyway even though his score was 50 lower it would be wrong. It's wrong either way. It's not the "rich or poor", its how you got there. If a kid overcomes enormous obtacles and achieves a 1250, I have more respect for his motivation and ability than one who has everything handed to him on a plate and gets a 1300. And I know which one I'd want helping me in my lab. Which would you think the more promising athlete - one who runs a marathon and then immediately does 100 meters in 12.0, or one who is fresh and runs the 100 in 10.8?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites gary350 0 #98 January 22, 2004 QuoteGary,.......if you will provide me with an address I will gladly send you a "BUSH/CHANEY" bumper sticker. How about a "RUSH IS RIGHT!" or a "CHOOSE LIFE". (don't pull a "Howard Dean" here...only kidding) >"CHANEY" I think that speaks for itself. I'm not into bumper stickers, but I saw some that maybe you might like: George W Bush - Cocaine Free Since 1974! GW Bush - How Dumb Is Too Dumb? Regime Change Starts At Home GW Lies GIs Die Pro-Constitution Anti-Bush George Bush is a Corporate Whore! Bush's Deficits - Our Children's Debt Death, Debt, Deceit Bush - Cheney We're All Wearing The Blue Dress Now Hate Lies Greed The Republican Way Rush is Reich! Mission Accomplished! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jimbo 0 #99 January 22, 2004 QuoteSO you'd say "Too bad" and take an upper class loser who happens to have been well coached over someone that's really motivated and smart? How does that benefit the country? Until you find a better way to weight the score, yes. I'm sorry, but giving a kid preference because he's not a WASP is as much a load of crap as denying entrance for the same reason. QuoteSomeone with a 1300 SAT from a fancy private school is basically mediocre or unmotivated, and generally won't do well in college. An inner city kid from a ghetto school with a 1250SAT is extraordinarily motivated. You've got to be kidding me! Someone who does well at a fancy private school is unmotivated, or mediocre? What kind of crap is that? But a black, or hispanic kid who doesn't do as well on the SAT is a genius? Really, Professor, that just doesn't add up. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkydiverRick 0 #100 January 22, 2004 QuoteQuoteGary,.......if you will provide me with an address I will gladly send you a "BUSH/CHANEY" bumper sticker. How about a "RUSH IS RIGHT!" or a "CHOOSE LIFE". (don't pull a "Howard Dean" here...only kidding) >"CHANEY" I think that speaks for itself. I'm not into bumper stickers, but I saw some that maybe you might like: George W Bush - Cocaine Free Since 1974! GW Bush - How Dumb Is Too Dumb? Regime Change Starts At Home GW Lies GIs Die Pro-Constitution Anti-Bush George Bush is a Corporate Whore! Bush's Deficits - Our Children's Debt Death, Debt, Deceit Bush - Cheney We're All Wearing The Blue Dress Now Hate Lies Greed The Republican Way Rush is Reich! Mission Accomplished! A blond in every pond - Ted Kennedy never pull low......unless you are Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 4 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Paige 0 #83 January 22, 2004 Quote Un-Fucking-Believable. More uniting, not dividing! More to make the Republican party proud! Unfortunately, the left is just as badTunnel Pink Mafia Delegate www.TunnelPinkMafia.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gary350 0 #84 January 22, 2004 >You've mistaken me for the sorry dumbass who actually respects your arrogance. How silly of you. What can I say? That's quite an assumption, but I will admit to sometimes being a silly guy. . . >I'm sorry Gary No reason to be sorry - from my view, you are only embarrassing yourself more and more, at my considerable amusement, though I'm sure all the good little dittoheads will cheer you on no matter what. Old saying - when you are in a hole, first thing to do is stop digging. So many changes of subject, so much labeling, so much smugness, so much belligerence, so much bullying, so LITTLE of actually arguing reasonable points or countering mine (and even the few times you do, it's always laced with some or a lot of the above). Can't you do better? You clearly have gotten your inspiration from Bill O'Reilly - I just loved the Terri Gross interview and especially the time he wasn't in the safety of his own show and couldn't defend himself against Al Franken's arguments. So he ends up screaming at Franken, "SHUT UP! SHUT UP!" Oh, Vincent, is that next for you? Let's ignore most of the ugly stuff and the different-subject stuff and look at what you actually did say about Charles Pickering: >And it is YOU who ignore the fact at hand: both Lee and Pickering were recess appointments (Actually, this doesn't even count, since it has nothing to do with the merit or lack of merit of Pickering - it is just more of the same tired tactic of comparing to some other wrong, real or perceived. . . 'But your guy did it FIRST! And WORSE!' I'll say AGAIN - Lee was appointed to an assistant attorney general position, NOT A LIFETIME JUDGESHIP ON A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. Maybe in your book, it's just a conveniently insignificant detail, but I think it is an important point. Apples and oranges, just like comparing with Roger Gregory (qualified, non-controversial, almost complete bipartisan support. . . ) And let me ask again, what does Bill Lann Lee have to do with installing a judge with a "...record that is replete with examples of bad judging, littered with cases that demonstrate a misunderstanding of the law in many crucial and sensitive areas, a record that shows a judge inserting his personal views into his judicial opinions, and putting his personal preferences above the law."? (Leahy) Bursting a vein still about Lee? Start another thread! >Brown and Pickering have WHAT in common? Did they hear the same # of cases? Same type of cases? Did they sit together en banc somewhere? Go to law school together perhaps? What, exactly, makes your presented comparison statistically relevant? NOTHING. Nada. Zilch. Zero. Live with it. Apples and oranges would be extremely appropriate here. Yeah - great point - I have to admit I made an incredible leap of logic there. You know, what a bonehead assumption that just because they were appointed by the SAME man, to the SAME (almost) position for about the SAME amount of time, that it was in any way fair to compare their records of receiving unpublished reversals ("ignoring or violating well established principles of law" ), fifteen vs. zero. Yup, musta been drunk. . . I will say that I am aware of Hatch's assertions that Pickering's record isn't really so bad (a reasonable retort - gee, why couldn't you bring that up instead of ranting about my education or whether or not I'm drunk or how vague my facts from a "hate site" are - though you still haven't refuted any. . .), but I'll go with Leahy again on that: "Whatever these numbers purport to represent about the quantity of Judge Pickering's reversals -- and I cannot vouch for them one way or another, not knowing their source or meaning -- they do not in any way excuse the poor quality of his underlying opinions." On his record of unpublished reversals, let me say (again), ". . . I don't think it PROVES anything. I think it is another piece of evidence in a glaringly long list that seriously questions the man's commitment to racial equality and his fitness to serve." Let me add that for me, that list comes from far more places than just PFAW (see below). >Glaringly long list of vague accusations from a conservative hate sight? And you WONDER why I question it? LMFAO. Try again dude. More tired, angry labeling. Yeah, I did it too - one whole sentence - big deal - I got it out of my system and moved on to the actual argument. Vincent - if PFAW's information regarding Pickering is JUST "vague accusations from a conservative hate sight", if they are SUCH a "non-credible source", then shouldn't it be a piece of cake for a heavy thinker like you to shred their info to bits??? C'mon - you can do it! Piece of cake! Same with the arguments and facts from all those other wacko hate sights, liberal media outlets, and scumbag liberal law professors. Do it! Do it! ADDRESS THE "FACTS"! >...it's not even worthwhile to go through the morass. Shit, forgot that it just isn't worthwhile for you. Too easy, too pathetic, huh? More important things to do? I understand. Just in case you change your mind, here's a little more that I considered while forming my opinion, all from the god damned LIBERAL MEDIA (should be easy pickin's to tear apart). Also see separate posting with a legal analysis from some pinko law professors. . . Link to a compiled set of Pickering editorials and commentary: http://www.earthjustice.org/policy/judicial/pickering_commentary.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gary350 0 #85 January 22, 2004 Lawrocket - these might help explain, in greater legal depth, why so many folks are so concerned about Charles Pickering. They are letters from well known law experts, written at the request of Senator Edwards, who wanted to cut through the rhetoric and get technical about WHY he is a bad judge, if he is, at least on certain issues. I'm not saying it PROVES anything - they are interpretations and opinions from highly qualified reviewers - that's all. I personally am fine trusting the conclusions drawn from these by Edwards, Leahy, etc., but I thought you might like to go to (and be capable of understanding!) some of the sources. http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=1270 http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=1271 http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=1272 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #86 January 22, 2004 QuoteSO you'd say "Too bad" and take an upper class loser who happens to have been well coached over someone that's really motivated and smart? How does that benefit the country? This is where we cross paths, you are willing to make a judgement call on a complete stranger based solely on putting him into a group. Good or bad. That kind of bias and generalization sucks and I think you are wrong and unfair. It's exactly the same basic thought as sexism, racism and all those other 'isms out there. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #87 January 22, 2004 I'll state a rule: There is a direct relationship between the length of a post and the odds that nobody will read it. You'll make no point with that post to Vinnie. Nobody will read it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,584 #88 January 22, 2004 QuoteThis is where we cross paths, you are willing to make a judgement call on a complete stranger based solely on putting him into a group No, he's evaluating a stranger based on educated knowledge about where he went to school. Someone who went to an inferior school is quite likely to have taught themselves as much as having been taught. If an early advantage doesn't matter, then why do people want their children to have a good education? Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #89 January 22, 2004 I'm not a fan of bunching up people into groups. It's the individual that counts. Still think the assumption sucks. That might be a great kid or really is a 'Loser'. You just DON'T know and can't be fair making that call no more than assume the 2nd kid is a crook because he's from a 'bad' school - it's the same thing. You don't have enough information. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #90 January 22, 2004 I don't think the opinions of those law professors mean as much as they are ballyhooed to mean. I'll put it to you this way - these professors have been hired to argue a viewpoint. They can just as easily argue the other side. It's what lawyers do when they are retained. A couple of my professors frequent the national news shows on Court TV and Network TV. Renowned law experts. Doesn't mean I don't think they're full of shit. I've never heard of those guys who sent the letters in. I have heard of Johnnie Cochran and Robert Shapiro from my beloved alma mater. They said OJ didn't do it. Why don't we all just agree with them? Could it be because they are advocating a position? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gary350 0 #91 January 22, 2004 QuoteI'll state a rule: There is a direct relationship between the length of a post and the odds that nobody will read it. You'll make no point with that post to Vinnie. Nobody will read it. So right - fixed. Thanks - I'm new at this. P.S. I read about your ultrasound. Awesome! Tears in my eyes (memories). Very happy for you - congratulations and good luck. Enjoy it all! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #92 January 22, 2004 Thanks, man. It's amazing. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #93 January 22, 2004 QuoteI'm not a fan of bunching up people into groups. It's the individual that counts. Still think the assumption sucks. That might be a great kid or really is a 'Loser'. You just DON'T know and can't be fair making that call no more than assume the 2nd kid is a crook because he's from a 'bad' school - it's the same thing. You don't have enough information. Name me one college or university that gives a personal interview to all applicants. In the absence of a personal interview, all the admissions office can go on is the HS record and SAT/ACT results. PS, referring to a previous reply of yours, most colleges also require the parents to submit a FAFSA form, which identifies parental income. It's certainly mandatory if any scholarships or financial aid are requested.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #94 January 22, 2004 Princeton interviewed Joel in Risky Business. THERE! I named one. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #95 January 22, 2004 Kallend's Physics 101 - So you have two kids in your class and they take the same Physics 1 exam. One is from a private school and the other is from an inner city school. They both score 80% Do you give them different grades? Would you if you were allowed? If you knew one went and got a tutor to do better, would you dock his grade down as a result? It's the same thing. Financial aid is different than admissions requirement. Of course it's impractical to 100% interview - and it's still unethical to make judgement calls based on how much money someone's family has and use that to decide if a kid can go to school or if he's a 'loser' - rich or poor bias, both are wrong. Particularly if his test scores are satisfactory. If the test scores were switched around and someone argued to send the rich kid anyway even though his score was 50 lower it would be wrong. It's wrong either way. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #96 January 22, 2004 QuotePrinceton interviewed Joel in Risky Business. THERE! I named one. "...all applicants"... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #97 January 22, 2004 QuoteKallend's Physics 101 - So you have two kids in your class and they take the same Physics 1 exam. One is from a private school and the other is from an inner city school. They both score 80% Do you give them different grades? Would you if you were allowed? If you knew one went and got a tutor to do better, would you dock his grade down as a result? It's the same thing. Rubbish. The grade is no different than the SAT score - it is based on performance on a test. You don't manipulate the grade or the SAT score. It's how you interpret the grade that's different. If it came to deciding which student to give an internship to help me with my research, I would be looking for potential for success, which involves interpreting the grade in the context of prior experience. Quote Financial aid is different than admissions requirement. Quote The college still has the information. Of course it's impractical to 100% interview - and it's still unethical to make judgement calls based on how much money someone's family has and use that to decide if a kid can go to school or if he's a 'loser' - rich or poor bias, both are wrong. Particularly if his test scores are satisfactory. If the test scores were switched around and someone argued to send the rich kid anyway even though his score was 50 lower it would be wrong. It's wrong either way. It's not the "rich or poor", its how you got there. If a kid overcomes enormous obtacles and achieves a 1250, I have more respect for his motivation and ability than one who has everything handed to him on a plate and gets a 1300. And I know which one I'd want helping me in my lab. Which would you think the more promising athlete - one who runs a marathon and then immediately does 100 meters in 12.0, or one who is fresh and runs the 100 in 10.8?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gary350 0 #98 January 22, 2004 QuoteGary,.......if you will provide me with an address I will gladly send you a "BUSH/CHANEY" bumper sticker. How about a "RUSH IS RIGHT!" or a "CHOOSE LIFE". (don't pull a "Howard Dean" here...only kidding) >"CHANEY" I think that speaks for itself. I'm not into bumper stickers, but I saw some that maybe you might like: George W Bush - Cocaine Free Since 1974! GW Bush - How Dumb Is Too Dumb? Regime Change Starts At Home GW Lies GIs Die Pro-Constitution Anti-Bush George Bush is a Corporate Whore! Bush's Deficits - Our Children's Debt Death, Debt, Deceit Bush - Cheney We're All Wearing The Blue Dress Now Hate Lies Greed The Republican Way Rush is Reich! Mission Accomplished! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #99 January 22, 2004 QuoteSO you'd say "Too bad" and take an upper class loser who happens to have been well coached over someone that's really motivated and smart? How does that benefit the country? Until you find a better way to weight the score, yes. I'm sorry, but giving a kid preference because he's not a WASP is as much a load of crap as denying entrance for the same reason. QuoteSomeone with a 1300 SAT from a fancy private school is basically mediocre or unmotivated, and generally won't do well in college. An inner city kid from a ghetto school with a 1250SAT is extraordinarily motivated. You've got to be kidding me! Someone who does well at a fancy private school is unmotivated, or mediocre? What kind of crap is that? But a black, or hispanic kid who doesn't do as well on the SAT is a genius? Really, Professor, that just doesn't add up. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiverRick 0 #100 January 22, 2004 QuoteQuoteGary,.......if you will provide me with an address I will gladly send you a "BUSH/CHANEY" bumper sticker. How about a "RUSH IS RIGHT!" or a "CHOOSE LIFE". (don't pull a "Howard Dean" here...only kidding) >"CHANEY" I think that speaks for itself. I'm not into bumper stickers, but I saw some that maybe you might like: George W Bush - Cocaine Free Since 1974! GW Bush - How Dumb Is Too Dumb? Regime Change Starts At Home GW Lies GIs Die Pro-Constitution Anti-Bush George Bush is a Corporate Whore! Bush's Deficits - Our Children's Debt Death, Debt, Deceit Bush - Cheney We're All Wearing The Blue Dress Now Hate Lies Greed The Republican Way Rush is Reich! Mission Accomplished! A blond in every pond - Ted Kennedy never pull low......unless you are Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
