You misunderstood. Reading's not really your thing, is it?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Adversity Score
- Thread starter Oneuli
- Start date
You misunderstood. Reading's not really your thing, is it?
no. you are destroying any objective baseline. Better to look at the candidates for admission after a objective baseline ranks the scores - that is hard data, then do the adversity thing if you must.I favor objective standards over subjective ones. One of the things Asians have rightly complained about is having been given lower subjective scores by admissions personnel than whites and other applicants. Using something like this, with hard numbers, in place of that subjective method would, I think, be a big improvement. It would be harder for me to complain, for example, if I were judged more severely because I was born on economic second base than if I'm judged more severely simply because my ancestors came from East Asia.
My SAT allowed entrance into Vanderbilt, Snowflake.
Let me guess...yours didn’t.
Hehe. Vanderbilt was one of my safety schools and yes, my SAT (along with all my other factors) got me in there. If you're the type of person they admit, I'm glad I got into better options.
How does one quantify “overcoming hard circumstances”... would overcoming mental illness qualify?
Some are easy to quantify. I discussed that in the top post. For example, it wouldn't be hard to have people share the average income of their parents over the prior five years. Other factors are harder to quantify. For example, though you could quantify whether the person had been diagnosed with a mental illness, ranking one such illness against another would be arbitrary, and severity would be impossible to quantify meaningfully.
no need to get snippy. I skim thru your walls of texts, to try to find core ides. if you subjectify the zcores themselves, then the score are not hard dataYou misunderstood. Reading's not really your thing, is it?
Get the hard data, ans then make allowances for adversity.
where is McTyre Hall on Vandy’s campus, Snowflake?Hehe. Vanderbilt was one of my safety schools and yes, my SAT (along with all my other factors) got me in there. If you're the type of person they admit, I'm glad I got into better options.
no. you are destroying any objective baseline.
You misunderstood. Go back and reread the top post. The factor I'm advocating is clearly objective. You're free to argue that the objective factor I want to include should be excluded, for whatever reason, but as a simple fact it is objective.
where is McTyre Hall on Vandy’s campus, Snowflake?
I don't know. If I'd been slumming it there with your likes for four years, though, I assume I'd know.
Hehe. Vanderbilt was one of my safety schools and yes, my SAT (along with all my other factors) got me in there. If you're the type of person they admit, I'm glad I got into better options.
Your sentence structure and syntax indicates a community college ...or a GED.
My SAT allowed entrance into Vanderbilt, Snowflake.
Let me guess...yours didn’t.
I was unaware Gloria had a fashion design school in a strip mall for transexuals. Bully for you.
“Hehe. Vanderbilt was one of my safety schools and yes, my SAT (along with all my other factors) got me in there.”I don't know. If I'd been slumming it there with your likes for four years, though, I assume I'd know.
Your poor syntax indicates that you “got” in Venderbilt, Snowflake.
Perhaps you could have qualified as the janitor of the dorm rooms.
I was unaware Gloria had a fashion design school in a strip mall for transexuals. Bully for you.
Take a hike, pende*o.
now you need better comprehension.You misunderstood. Go back and reread the top post. The factor I'm advocating is clearly objective. You're free to argue that the objective factor I want to include should be excluded, for whatever reason, but as a simple fact it is objective.
scores are empiracle data - objective. any adjustment factors by nature ( even if they have scores too)
are by nature a subjective assign
no need to get snippy. I skim thru your walls of texts, to try to find core ides.
If even posts as short of mine exceed your capacity for finding core ideas, you should practice actually reading, instead of skimming. You'll get better with practice.
“Hehe. Vanderbilt was one of my safety schools and yes, my SAT (along with all my other factors) got me in there.”
Your poor syntax indicates that you “got” in Venderbilt, Snowflake.
Perhaps you could have qualified as the janitor of the dorm rooms.
I've never even heard of "Venderbilt." As for my syntax, it was fine.
now you need better comprehension.
scores are empiracle data - objective. any adjustment factors by nature ( even if they have scores too)
are by nature a subjective assign
"Empiracle" isn't a word, and "objective" doesn't mean "unadjusted." Objective adjustments are possible.
Your sentence structure and syntax indicates a community college ...or a GED.
Hilarious. If you're going to try to attack my sentence structure and syntax, shouldn't you at least master subject-verb agreement?
Sure. There are two defensible reasons for it. First, it enriches university life for the full student body. Exposure to people who haven't enjoyed a great run of luck gives everyone a closer view into what can be accomplished in the face of adversity, while also making people more immediately aware of the form that adversity can take (e.g., seeing a classmate struggling with a handicap can inform a person's understanding of issues facing those with handicaps). Second, as between two people who have covered the same distance, the one who did so over tougher ground accomplished something more impressive, suggesting greater skill or diligence. For example, picture you were putting together a track team, and you had two potential recruits, one of whom ran a 10.1 100m wearing the best racing shoes on the market and with running form that shows he's been enjoying elite coaching. The other runs a 10.2, wearing cheap and worn-out Walmart sneakers, and with a ragged form that tells you his high school coach was just a moonlighting teacher who didn't know anything about track. Which do you want on your team? I'd take the guy who ran the 10.2, because if he's that fast with so much going against him, I'm pretty sure he can wind up a lot faster than the guy who's running 10.1 with everything already in his favor. Well, in the same way, if I can recruit a student who maybe is slightly less accomplished academically, but got to that point over serious obstacles, I'm going to see more potential there.
In your opinion.
Vanderbilt was one of my safety schools and yes, my SAT (along with all my other factors) got me in there.
So you say.