Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To add fuel to your fire, there are a number of recent posts on here by OPs who went to ivies who don't have any logical reasoning skills. They also write poorly. My recent fave is the lady (i.e. concerned parent) who started a thread about top publics asking if students *checks notes* "really learn there?"

It really takes a village idiot to suggest that no leaning happens at public universities.

SMDH. That's all you can do, OP.

For goodness sake, have you never encountered hyperbole as a rhetorical tool? Do you think I actually believe someone can attend a major state university and learn, literally, “nothing?” The gist of the post was to find out if the educational experience at these large schools was at all comparable to the more intimate educational experience typically associated with smaller private schools. As for my writing, this is an anonymous chat board. I am pecking at my phone. One can be forgiven for constructing sentences in a casual manner, as one might while texting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:affluent high school.

Background: I went to a high school that has a 3/10 on GreatSchools in the rust belt. The average SAT was in the 900s. The school had no dedicated “college counselors”; no lacrosse, field hockey, volleyball or golf teams; no Calc BC, AP Physics C, AP foreign languages or AP Art; and no academic clubs like Science Olympiad or internships. No one could afford club sports to be recruitable for athletics, not that there were many club teams nearby anyway. We had to use clear backpacks everyday and wear uniforms. The guidance counselors knew absolutely nothing about applying to top colleges. Once every three years or so, the valedictorian would go to a school like the Ivy located in our state.

It’s beyond insulting that someone would think that students at such a school have an “advantage” in applying to elite schools. Students from high schools like these are few and far between at top colleges. The kids who do get in from such schools are busting their butts organizing their whole lives themselves.

So spare me.

Pennsylvania?

Has to be. Where else in the rust belt is there an ivy?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with OP. When parents of kids at schools with +$50k tuition complain that their poor child are “disadvantaged” in any way just makes me laugh. It’s so patently ridiculous.

Their idea of disadvantage is "my money no longer guarantees my preferred outcome." It's ridiculous but they have no concept of what actually disadvantaged kids are up against, and outside of grand statements about how the world should be, the truly don't care.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To add fuel to your fire, there are a number of recent posts on here by OPs who went to ivies who don't have any logical reasoning skills. They also write poorly. My recent fave is the lady (i.e. concerned parent) who started a thread about top publics asking if students *checks notes* "really learn there?"

It really takes a village idiot to suggest that no leaning happens at public universities.

SMDH. That's all you can do, OP.

For goodness sake, have you never encountered hyperbole as a rhetorical tool? Do you think I actually believe someone can attend a major state university and learn, literally, “nothing?” The gist of the post was to find out if the educational experience at these large schools was at all comparable to the more intimate educational experience typically associated with smaller private schools. As for my writing, this is an anonymous chat board. I am pecking at my phone. One can be forgiven for constructing sentences in a casual manner, as one might while texting.

You seem pretty deluded, given that flimsy argument. Was it intentional or casual--you can't even keep your argument straight. I highly doubt the latter because you can't stand that I'm casting aspersions on your thread and this one. Anyone who reads this forum would understand that throwing out such a caustic (but "casual" she protests!) post titles is troll-ish behavior.

Still SMDH.

Was the post intended to provoke discussion and put state school grads on the defensive with respect to the quality of instruction and degree of personal attention they received? Yes. Did it work? Yes. Am I a troll? That is a question for the great white male in the sky.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To add fuel to your fire, there are a number of recent posts on here by OPs who went to ivies who don't have any logical reasoning skills. They also write poorly. My recent fave is the lady (i.e. concerned parent) who started a thread about top publics asking if students *checks notes* "really learn there?"

It really takes a village idiot to suggest that no leaning happens at public universities.

SMDH. That's all you can do, OP.

For goodness sake, have you never encountered hyperbole as a rhetorical tool? Do you think I actually believe someone can attend a major state university and learn, literally, “nothing?” The gist of the post was to find out if the educational experience at these large schools was at all comparable to the more intimate educational experience typically associated with smaller private schools. As for my writing, this is an anonymous chat board. I am pecking at my phone. One can be forgiven for constructing sentences in a casual manner, as one might while texting.

You seem pretty deluded, given that flimsy argument. Was it intentional or casual--you can't even keep your argument straight. I highly doubt the latter because you can't stand that I'm casting aspersions on your thread and this one. Anyone who reads this forum would understand that throwing out such a caustic (but "casual" she protests!) post titles is troll-ish behavior.

Still SMDH.

Anonymous wrote:To me the issue isn’t admissions. Whatever. All the Ivy hypesters are missing what’s going on in reality. Those schools have lost their edge. But that isn’t the point. THE issue is the fact my kids, after having the best thrown at them in high school are going to absolutely thrive at whatever college they go to. They are prepared so well that that isn’t fair. I would pay a bit more for college to provide kids who have not had those advantages with some extra help.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be like comparing someone's GPA from Harvard to someone's GPA from U Conn for purposes of law school admission and then saying the U Conn applicant is more deserving because he got a 3.8 vs the Harvard applicant at 3.6. And then dismissing the objections of the Harvard applicant as "privileged" whining without any other information. The overall point is that a GPA from a hard high school is different from a GPA at an easy high school and that should be recognized based on a concept of fairness. And we are talking here about regular kids, not the son of a Saudi prince vs an orphan who had 3 jobs.

Wealthy high schools actually have the most grade inflation.

BS
It depends greatly on the classes one is taking and the teacher they have. At any HS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To add fuel to your fire, there are a number of recent posts on here by OPs who went to ivies who don't have any logical reasoning skills. They also write poorly. My recent fave is the lady (i.e. concerned parent) who started a thread about top publics asking if students *checks notes* "really learn there?"

It really takes a village idiot to suggest that no leaning happens at public universities.

SMDH. That's all you can do, OP.

For goodness sake, have you never encountered hyperbole as a rhetorical tool? Do you think I actually believe someone can attend a major state university and learn, literally, “nothing?” The gist of the post was to find out if the educational experience at these large schools was at all comparable to the more intimate educational experience typically associated with smaller private schools. As for my writing, this is an anonymous chat board. I am pecking at my phone. One can be forgiven for constructing sentences in a casual manner, as one might while texting.

Anonymous wrote:Cry me a river OP and you cannot "out poor" me. Life is not fair...get over it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be like comparing someone's GPA from Harvard to someone's GPA from U Conn for purposes of law school admission and then saying the U Conn applicant is more deserving because he got a 3.8 vs the Harvard applicant at 3.6. And then dismissing the objections of the Harvard applicant as "privileged" whining without any other information. The overall point is that a GPA from a hard high school is different from a GPA at an easy high school and that should be recognized based on a concept of fairness. And we are talking here about regular kids, not the son of a Saudi prince vs an orphan who had 3 jobs.

Wealthy high schools actually have the most grade inflation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am that person. The point was not compare a genuine hardship scenario to an affluence situation... it was more contrasting let's say a top 3 public high school in a state to a top 20. Maybe at the top 3 high school, the average family income is somewhat higher. But the idea that the kid at the mediocre high school should have an advantage over the kid at the tough high school seems wrong, just because grading is easier there. But I think that is what is going on now.

How is a top 20 high school mediocre?

Anonymous wrote:I am that person. The point was not compare a genuine hardship scenario to an affluence situation... it was more contrasting let's say a top 3 public high school in a state to a top 20. Maybe at the top 3 high school, the average family income is somewhat higher. But the idea that the kid at the mediocre high school should have an advantage over the kid at the tough high school seems wrong, just because grading is easier there. But I think that is what is going on now.