Misunderstanding about earlier admissions post

[Anonymous]

Can't you people read? OP is no longer a teacher, and for the 100th time, he/she did not denigrate World Bank parents or sporty boys!

[Anonymous]

We need a new thread on "Munderstanding about `Misunderstanding about earlier admissions post.'"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We need a new thread on "Munderstanding about `Misunderstanding about earlier admissions post.'"

LOL. No kidding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm just glad she wasn't on the jury for my son, who is now at St. Albans. He wouldn't have stood a chance: World Bank parents AND he loves sports. Poor thing probably won't amount to anything...

Same here!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can't you people read? OP is no longer a teacher, and for the 100th time, he/she did not denigrate World Bank parents or sporty boys!

Just FYI, OP said wrote quite clearly above that she is SPEAKING AS A TEACHER. Did you even read her post?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't you people read? OP is no longer a teacher, and for the 100th time, he/she did not denigrate World Bank parents or sporty boys!

Just FYI, OP said wrote quite clearly above that she is SPEAKING AS A TEACHER. Did you even read her post?

You have been very nasty toward the original poster with repeated negative posts in both this thread and the original. I am really having a difficult time understanding why. All she is doing is providing honest insight into the admissions process. You may not appreciate the reality of the process, but then your problem should be with the process, not the messenger. What she originally wrote was "Speaking as a teacher who's sat on admissions committees". The important part here is that she sat on admissions committees and therefore has insight that others lack. You can choose to ignore her insight, learn from her insight, or even be upset by her insight. But, I don't understand your need to belittle her for her insight.

[Anonymous]

Yes I did actually. And the next one too.

Anonymous wrote:
Just so you know, I myself don't teach anymore (and haven't done any admissions related work for even longer) because of how depressing I found "the game" that so many people turned education into.

[Anonymous]

Jeff,

I am not the poster you addressed, but I am somewhat disturbed that you are using your ability to track posting activity to berate someone who is being uncivil but is not breaking any rules and whose abusiveness falls far short of that displayed in other posts on this forum.

-OP of the original thread (as you know)

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Jeff,

I am not the poster you addressed, but I am somewhat disturbed that you are using your ability to track posting activity to berate someone who is being uncivil but is not breaking any rules and whose abusiveness falls far short of that displayed in other posts on this forum.

-OP of the original thread (as you know)

Yeah, I know. Whatever I do is wrong. Its my fault that people post mean messages and its my fault that I try to stop it. I'm pretty much used to it.

[Anonymous]

I don't think anyone would object to a message simply pointing out that a post is mean--although there are so many of those that the decision to intervene can seem arbitrary. What bothered me was your mentioning the person's other posts. I think the success--and yes, also the over-the-topness--of these forums is due in large part to the fact that people feel confident that their anonymity will be preserved. Even though I already know or assume that you can track activity at a certain level, it's disconcerting to me that you would use that ability in cases (unlike sock-puppetry, for example) where the integrity of the fourms is not at issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymity has been preserved. Also, he didn't kick her off. He asked an entirely appropriate question, which I for one would also have asked had I known that several of the negative comments were being made by one person. The intervention clarifed things for me, and it was one only a moderator could make.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think anyone would object to a message simply pointing out that a post is mean--although there are so many of those that the decision to intervene can seem arbitrary. What bothered me was your mentioning the person's other posts. I think the success--and yes, also the over-the-topness--of these forums is due in large part to the fact that people feel confident that their anonymity will be preserved. Even though I already know or assume that you can track activity at a certain level, it's disconcerting to me that you would use that ability in cases (unlike sock-puppetry, for example) where the integrity of the fourms is not at issue.

As you acknowledge, a message simply pointing out that a post is mean would have been considered arbitrary. I also think that multiple messages that appear to be independent of one another do affect the integrity of the forums. I am not claiming that the person to whom I responded has any type of evil motives or was intentionally posting in a manner aimed at creating a deceptive impression. I was simply struck by the repeated negative and personal responses to the original poster that all came from a single source. The anger seems misplaced and unnecessary. It definitely was contributing to the deterioration of the thread. But, just to be clear, the purpose of anonymity is to allow sensitive topics to be addressed and to make access to the forums as easy as possible. Nobody should be under the impression that anonymity conveys a right to personally attack other posters.

[Anonymous]

Once again, I heart Jeff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm just glad she wasn't on the jury for my son, who is now at St. Albans. He wouldn't have stood a chance: World Bank parents AND he loves sports. Poor thing probably won't amount to anything...

Same here!

You guys are a bunch of LOSERS I guess you didn't get in to your first choices.

OP was informative and shared her OBSERVATIONS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm just glad she wasn't on the jury for my son, who is now at St. Albans. He wouldn't have stood a chance: World Bank parents AND he loves sports. Poor thing probably won't amount to anything...

Same here!

You guys are a bunch of LOSERS I guess you didn't get in to your first choices.

OP was informative and shared her OBSERVATIONS.

Aren't you being a little childish?