Why are OOS flagships so popular these days?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In state = 13th Grade

+1

-1
That's what parents/kids say when they don't get in. It's a face-saving technique that's entirely transparent.

What? Plenty of kids who don't get into UVA or UMD can do better than VT/JMU or UMBC oos

dp... yes, but this particular thread is about how going to in state = 13th year.

If you are saying that someone applied to but didn't get into to UVA or UMD (in state), that would still mean they were willing to do the 13th grade.

And if you didn't get into UVA/UMD, and then say it's like "13th grade", then that's just face-saving sour grapes.

I hope my kids leave the state/area for college. But they may prefer the “13th grade” option. It’s just how it is and different people have different preferences.

If you are offended by “13th grade” then you may want to reflect on why.

? I'm not offended by it. IMO, the the ^^PP who called it 13th grade probably did so because their DC got rejected to the flagship.

I'm originally from CA, and we have a very different opinion about going in state (yes, I know why.. CA has a lot more great options). So, even in the DC area, it doesn't bother me that going in state = 13th grade, especially if that in state is the flagship that has an amazing national reputation.

If you weren’t offended then why did you say the PP’s kid probably got rejected?

13th grade is 13th grade. Regardless of where PP’s kids were accepted.

But no one calls it 13th grade anymore. UVA is far too difficult to get into. And if you know someone there, they will tell you that you never see those that they know because of 26,900 students down there. Our private high school sent only two students, the valedictorian and salutatorian- they ever saw each other. Those Eagle Scouts that went from our son’s troop also says they never saw each other and lost contact

The original PP never even said UVA.

Many kids/parents seek out OOS colleges regardless of their ability to get accepted at any particular in-state college.

They want a different experience. That’s ok. It’s just a preference. No need to be offended by other people’s preferences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the wacko aspect of an employee's religious faith doesn't affect their job performance, then it is also discrimination. Against the law plain and simple. You are violating the law all the time it seems. Wow. Do you even know about Title VII?

It demonstrates poor judgment and potential HR issues done the line.

The law disagrees.

Nope. It would affect job performance and employee retention. No one wants to work with nutters.

So you do discriminate on the basis of religion?

No discrimination. I just don’t hire people with bad judgment and poor social skills. Many (most?) that I do hire are religious.

Wow. It's ironic you don't realize you are indeed discriminating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the wacko aspect of an employee's religious faith doesn't affect their job performance, then it is also discrimination. Against the law plain and simple. You are violating the law all the time it seems. Wow. Do you even know about Title VII?

It demonstrates poor judgment and potential HR issues done the line.

The law disagrees.

Nope. It would affect job performance and employee retention. No one wants to work with nutters.

So you do discriminate on the basis of religion?

No discrimination. I just don’t hire people with bad judgment and poor social skills. Many (most?) that I do hire are religious.

Wow. It's ironic you don't realize you are indeed discriminating.

If most people I hire are religious then how am I discriminating based on religion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the wacko aspect of an employee's religious faith doesn't affect their job performance, then it is also discrimination. Against the law plain and simple. You are violating the law all the time it seems. Wow. Do you even know about Title VII?

It demonstrates poor judgment and potential HR issues done the line.

The law disagrees.

Nope. It would affect job performance and employee retention. No one wants to work with nutters.

So you do discriminate on the basis of religion?

No discrimination. I just don’t hire people with bad judgment and poor social skills. Many (most?) that I do hire are religious.

Wow. It's ironic you don't realize you are indeed discriminating.

If most people I hire are religious then how am I discriminating based on religion?

Because you said you don't hire "religious wackos"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the wacko aspect of an employee's religious faith doesn't affect their job performance, then it is also discrimination. Against the law plain and simple. You are violating the law all the time it seems. Wow. Do you even know about Title VII?

It demonstrates poor judgment and potential HR issues done the line.

The law disagrees.

Nope. It would affect job performance and employee retention. No one wants to work with nutters.

So you do discriminate on the basis of religion?

No discrimination. I just don’t hire people with bad judgment and poor social skills. Many (most?) that I do hire are religious.

Wow. It's ironic you don't realize you are indeed discriminating.

If most people I hire are religious then how am I discriminating based on religion?

Because you said you don't hire "religious wackos"

I also don’t hire non-religious wackos.

[Anonymous]

My two older kids went OOS. They got merit aid to help with difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In state = 13th Grade

+1

-1
That's what parents/kids say when they don't get in. It's a face-saving technique that's entirely transparent.

What? Plenty of kids who don't get into UVA or UMD can do better than VT/JMU or UMBC oos

dp... yes, but this particular thread is about how going to in state = 13th year.

If you are saying that someone applied to but didn't get into to UVA or UMD (in state), that would still mean they were willing to do the 13th grade.

And if you didn't get into UVA/UMD, and then say it's like "13th grade", then that's just face-saving sour grapes.

I hope my kids leave the state/area for college. But they may prefer the “13th grade” option. It’s just how it is and different people have different preferences.

If you are offended by “13th grade” then you may want to reflect on why.

? I'm not offended by it. IMO, the the ^^PP who called it 13th grade probably did so because their DC got rejected to the flagship.

I'm originally from CA, and we have a very different opinion about going in state (yes, I know why.. CA has a lot more great options). So, even in the DC area, it doesn't bother me that going in state = 13th grade, especially if that in state is the flagship that has an amazing national reputation.

If you weren’t offended then why did you say the PP’s kid probably got rejected?

13th grade is 13th grade. Regardless of where PP’s kids were accepted.

But no one calls it 13th grade anymore. UVA is far too difficult to get into. And if you know someone there, they will tell you that you never see those that they know because of 26,900 students down there. Our private high school sent only two students, the valedictorian and salutatorian- they ever saw each other. Those Eagle Scouts that went from our son’s troop also says they never saw each other and lost contact

The original PP never even said UVA.

Many kids/parents seek out OOS colleges regardless of their ability to get accepted at any particular in-state college.

They want a different experience. That’s ok. It’s just a preference. No need to be offended by other people’s preferences.

No one's offended if your kid goes to OOS. It's actually better for those who want in state. Less competition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In state = 13th Grade

+1

-1
That's what parents/kids say when they don't get in. It's a face-saving technique that's entirely transparent.

What? Plenty of kids who don't get into UVA or UMD can do better than VT/JMU or UMBC oos

dp... yes, but this particular thread is about how going to in state = 13th year.

If you are saying that someone applied to but didn't get into to UVA or UMD (in state), that would still mean they were willing to do the 13th grade.

And if you didn't get into UVA/UMD, and then say it's like "13th grade", then that's just face-saving sour grapes.

I hope my kids leave the state/area for college. But they may prefer the “13th grade” option. It’s just how it is and different people have different preferences.

If you are offended by “13th grade” then you may want to reflect on why.

? I'm not offended by it. IMO, the the ^^PP who called it 13th grade probably did so because their DC got rejected to the flagship.

I'm originally from CA, and we have a very different opinion about going in state (yes, I know why.. CA has a lot more great options). So, even in the DC area, it doesn't bother me that going in state = 13th grade, especially if that in state is the flagship that has an amazing national reputation.

If you weren’t offended then why did you say the PP’s kid probably got rejected?

13th grade is 13th grade. Regardless of where PP’s kids were accepted.

probably because it's true.

Because you are offended.

nah. I had actually never even heard of the phrase 13th year till recently, but I don't really care. A lot of kids in CA (where I'm from) go to the same colleges with their classmates. No one cares. This is a DC snobbery thing.

Clearly you bought in if you assume PP says that only because their kid didn’t get in.

People who use the phrase 13th grade are either snobs or bitter that their kid didn't get in.

In state flagship is huge. Even if many kids from your school district go there, the chances of you knowing a lot of kids from all over the school district is pretty slim. You may see a few people from your HS, but the vast majority of kids there will be strangers to you. You can easily avoid kids from your HS by befriending kids you don't know.

I went to an in state college out west, and I saw two people from my HS there, and that was my senior year right before I graduated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the wacko aspect of an employee's religious faith doesn't affect their job performance, then it is also discrimination. Against the law plain and simple. You are violating the law all the time it seems. Wow. Do you even know about Title VII?

It demonstrates poor judgment and potential HR issues done the line.

The law disagrees.

Nope. It would affect job performance and employee retention. No one wants to work with nutters.

So you do discriminate on the basis of religion?

No discrimination. I just don’t hire people with bad judgment and poor social skills. Many (most?) that I do hire are religious.

Wow. It's ironic you don't realize you are indeed discriminating.

If most people I hire are religious then how am I discriminating based on religion?

Because you said you don't hire "religious wackos"

I also don’t hire non-religious wackos.

Non-religions wackos are not a protected class.

[Anonymous]

The HR issue is if someone in a position to sue finds out that you assume that minority religious believers have poor judgment because you think their beliefs are crazy. Look at the Supreme Court's decision in Groff this past term. 9 to 0. The law is so against you. Animosity or prejudice against a religion is not a legit reason to discriminate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC chose OOS Flagship as it is much better than any instate options. UVA is not good for engineering, and DC’s school is better than VT.

You've said this before, but you won't provide the name of the school. Too funny.

The group of schools includes:

Michigan
Wisconsin
UIUC
Purdue
GA Tech
UC Berkeley
UT Austin
Texas A&M

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the wacko aspect of an employee's religious faith doesn't affect their job performance, then it is also discrimination. Against the law plain and simple. You are violating the law all the time it seems. Wow. Do you even know about Title VII?

It demonstrates poor judgment and potential HR issues done the line.

The law disagrees.

Nope. It would affect job performance and employee retention. No one wants to work with nutters.

So you do discriminate on the basis of religion?

No discrimination. I just don’t hire people with bad judgment and poor social skills. Many (most?) that I do hire are religious.

Wow. It's ironic you don't realize you are indeed discriminating.

If most people I hire are religious then how am I discriminating based on religion?

Because you said you don't hire "religious wackos"

Religious wackos have strange eyes...stare in a zombie-like trance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The HR issue is if someone in a position to sue finds out that you assume that minority religious believers have poor judgment because you think their beliefs are crazy. Look at the Supreme Court's decision in Groff this past term. 9 to 0. The law is so against you. Animosity or prejudice against a religion is not a legit reason to discriminate.

+1

[Anonymous]

An OOS flagship in a more liberal state than Virginia provides better stem cell research. Even if DS doesn't pursue that particular research, that's what he wanted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC chose OOS Flagship as it is much better than any instate options. UVA is not good for engineering, and DC’s school is better than VT.

You've said this before, but you won't provide the name of the school. Too funny.

The group of schools includes:

Michigan
Wisconsin
UIUC
Purdue
GA Tech
UC Berkeley
UT Austin
Texas A&M

Sure, we believe you!