Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard will end up regretting this when he starts attacking the institution, looking for more controversy (real or contrived, i doesn’t matter) to exploit to feed his hunger for notoriety and being in the spotlight.

He lived through a violent shooting with classmates literally dying around him. In his school, where he was supposed to be safe. He spoke out against other kids having to go through that and advocated for policy changes that he thought would prevent it.

He didn't, like, pee on the county courthouse because they wouldn't let him smoke weed in the public park. Jesus.

Actually he was no where near the shooting when it happened.

He was huddled in a closet with other kids. He absolutely was near the shooting. Give it a rest with your BS will you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard will end up regretting this when he starts attacking the institution, looking for more controversy (real or contrived, i doesn’t matter) to exploit to feed his hunger for notoriety and being in the spotlight.

He lived through a violent shooting with classmates literally dying around him. In his school, where he was supposed to be safe. He spoke out against other kids having to go through that and advocated for policy changes that he thought would prevent it.

He didn't, like, pee on the county courthouse because they wouldn't let him smoke weed in the public park. Jesus.

Actually he was no where near the shooting when it happened.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And all on his own merit!!!

Well yes, I'd say his work on gun control beats your kid's internship at Dad's law firm any day.

We are STEM people.

(Translation: We’re better than everyone else)

If you have stem aptitude, you probably can do just about anything type of knowledge based job. The reverse isn't always true.

A BS in engineering was harder than law school for most patent attorneys.

Possibly, but all of the male patent attorneys are alcoholics who whack off in their offices and can’t make eye contact with women...or write a grammatic sentence. STEM appitude does not equal apptitude in other areas.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if you believe that there is merit to having a university which ranks solely on one test score, you are free to start up your own. Run that flag up the pole, and we'll see how many people salute it.

????? Nobody is talking about the SAT being the sole selector for a school. We call that a straw man. Harvard rejects tons of kids with perfect scores. The issue is whether there should be a floor - a minimal demonstration of aptitude. Harvard says no, but it’s admissions numbers tell a different story. The school accepts a few with low test scores because of excellence in other areas, but for the most part it finds those who are both exceptional for other reasons and who have high test scores. More often than not they go together.

So what's the problem with Harvard -- a private institution using privates funds -- both doing what it says (not having a floor value) and using its own criteria, again?

Anonymous wrote:And if you believe that there is merit to having a university which ranks solely on one test score, you are free to start up your own. Run that flag up the pole, and we'll see how many people salute it.

????? Nobody is talking about the SAT being the sole selector for a school. We call that a straw man. Harvard rejects tons of kids with perfect scores. The issue is whether there should be a floor - a minimal demonstration of aptitude. Harvard says no, but it’s admissions numbers tell a different story. The school accepts a few with low test scores because of excellence in other areas, but for the most part it finds those who are both exceptional for other reasons and who have high test scores. More often than not they go together.

And if you believe that there is merit to having a university which ranks solely on one test score, you are free to start up your own. Run that flag up the pole, and we'll see how many people salute it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1270 is a pretty pathetic score. But this is an extremely accomplished applicant. Good for him!

I scored 1250 and went to an Ivy League university. Now have a PhD and a great job at a prestigious institution. Not everyone is a master of standardized tests.

That was before the days of hyper competitive single digit admissions rates at the top schools. The game is much different now.

The point is that students are more than just one score. Some of the least successful people I know had perfect or near perfect SAT’s. And some who had so-so scores (my DH) are fabulously successful.

Schools like Harvard are free to choose students they sense will become leaders regardless of one test result.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1270 is a pretty pathetic score. But this is an extremely accomplished applicant. Good for him!

I scored 1250 and went to an Ivy League university. Now have a PhD and a great job at a prestigious institution. Not everyone is a master of standardized tests.

That was before the days of hyper competitive single digit admissions rates at the top schools. The game is much different now.

Anonymous wrote:1270 is a pretty pathetic score. But this is an extremely accomplished applicant. Good for him!

I scored 1250 and went to an Ivy League university. Now have a PhD and a great job at a prestigious institution. Not everyone is a master of standardized tests.

STEM grads are definitely smart. Nobody is denying that.

Smart in one area doesn't always translate to others, and if being smart in that one particular way leads to overweening arrogance, you are easily blinded to your weaker spots.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And all on his own merit!!!

Well yes, I'd say his work on gun control beats your kid's internship at Dad's law firm any day.

We are STEM people.

(Translation: We’re better than everyone else)

If you have stem aptitude, you probably can do just about anything type of knowledge based job. The reverse isn't always true.

A BS in engineering was harder than law school for most patent attorneys.

The startup world is littered with the failures of engineers who thought that because whey are smart, they can figure anything out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And all on his own merit!!!

Well yes, I'd say his work on gun control beats your kid's internship at Dad's law firm any day.

We are STEM people.

(Translation: We’re better than everyone else)

If you have stem aptitude, you probably can do just about anything type of knowledge based job. The reverse isn't always true.

A BS in engineering was harder than law school for most patent attorneys.

Many STEM grads need help writing grants and research papers. STEM may be their skillset, but communicating it often isn't. And communication skills are a knowledge-based skillset.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And all on his own merit!!!

Well yes, I'd say his work on gun control beats your kid's internship at Dad's law firm any day.

We are STEM people.

(Translation: We’re better than everyone else)

If you have stem aptitude, you probably can do just about anything type of knowledge based job. The reverse isn't always true.

A BS in engineering was harder than law school for most patent attorneys.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Gee, did your kid survive a mass slaughter of his classmates? Did your kid start a national movement to ban the type of gun that killed his classmates? Did your kid support legislation across the nation to restrict crazy people from getting their hands on guns?

No? Huh. Maybe your kid isn't Harvard material.

#####

Professional hoplophobe organizers with solid financing and years of organizing experience started the movement you erroneously attribute to young Mr. Hogg.


If he's so insignificant and just a figurehead, then why do people in power even respond to or remark on him?

Who’s Paying (to) “March for Our Lives?”
https://capitalresearch.org/article/whos-paying-to-march-for-our-lives/
Hayden Ludwig March 28, 2018

To casual observers, March for Our Lives evolved from Twitter hashtag into an IRS-registered organization practically OVERNIGHT.

Besides coordinating the D.C. rally in conjunction with Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun group, Everytown for Gun Safety, as of this month, March for Our Lives now sports a 501(c)(4) lobbying nonprofit of its own—the March for Our Lives Action Fund.

Filings with the D.C. Department of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs shows registration in Delaware, with an Encino, California, business address shared by Wishnow Ross Warsavsky & Company, an accountancy. Those filings also reveal the group’s treasurer: Jeri Rhodes, former Greenpeace CFO and currently an associate executive secretary at the Friends Committee on National Legislation (a left-of-center Quaker group).


Filings obtained by the Huffington Post reveal more of the organization’s board. Listed as directors are Aileen Adams, a former deputy mayor for Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa; George Kieffer, chair of the University of California system board of regents; Melissa Scholz, a nonprofit lawyer who was involved with a redistricting group called Play Fair Wisconsin (itself a project of the left-leaning High Ground Institute); ....

#####


Mayors, deputy mayors, chair of the Univ of California's Regents, a non-profit lawyer, an accounting firm... yeah, organized and funded by your typical teenagers.

Because guns, of course.