The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
What doesn't make sense about H undergrad [pensive]
Poast new message in this thread
Date: June 11th, 2006 8:40 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann Harvard doesn't really care much about academics, at least not compared to Princeton, Yale, MIT, Caltech, or the top 5 LACs. It's not as good a school. The reason for going to Harvard is simple: you want not to have to do any work for four years. Other elite colleges'll force you to bust your ass to get good grades, but at Harvard, only a minority of the students have any work ethic whatsoever so it's ridiculously easy to coast.
However, obviously it takes a lot to get into Harvard. So the question is this: why would someone put so much effort into getting into Harvard, just for the sake of not having to work four years? A better strategy would be to relax during high school, save up energy instead of burning out, and work hard during college and the career-building years. |
 |
Date: June 11th, 2006 8:45 PM Author: know-it-all gaping Because it's Haaaaaavvvuuud (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#5961328) |
|
Date: June 11th, 2006 8:48 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann Yeah, but it's also a school notorious, among the higher social circles (clearly it has unrivaled cachet at the lower end) for its students' having terrible social skills and no work ethic. (There is a sizable minority contingent of whom neither charge is true, and they get screwed by these stereotypes.)
Plenty of schools are easier to get into and don't project nearly as ruinous a glow on their undergraduate alumni. |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 1:18 AM Author: Contagious milky house sweet tailpipe This is a really good point, actually. However, as bad as the reputation of Harvard's undergraduate program may be among "the right circles", IBanks still recruit there. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6033400) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 1:25 AM Author: Drab Lay You are so fucking pathetic you make me feel good about myself. Thank you. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6033459) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 1:30 AM Author: floppy infuriating sound barrier theater stage Where did you go? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6033493) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 1:31 AM Author: Drab Lay Nothing like Harvard. I'm just saying that he's pathetic because he's talking out of his ass about a school that he did not attend. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6033504) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 1:32 AM Author: floppy infuriating sound barrier theater stage He knows a lot about it though. What type of school did you attend? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6033512) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 1:33 AM Author: Drab Lay How does he know about it? An anonymous school. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6033520) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 12:15 PM Author: Violent Hall What's the basis for your belief that he knows a lot about it? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6035455) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 1:47 PM Author: floppy infuriating sound barrier theater stage (Different user under this acct.) Pensive is, by far, the most knowledgeable poster on the board about Harvard-- at least its undergraduate division-- which is interesting since he never went there and others here, who know much less about it, did. I would call this impressive, except for the fact that it's clearly not prestigious to know things about college admissions; prestigious people just have things fall into their favor naturally and pensive clearly doesn't understand this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6036126) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 2:20 PM Author: comical french spot skinny woman do you really think that this "community account" charade fools anyone, mike? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6036372) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 8:12 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann Huh? Maybe you haven't noticed, but as of late, I DON'T POST DURING THE DAY. Moron. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6039558) |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 5:22 PM Author: yellow karate cruise ship oh god, he doesnt track your post patterns? What an idiot (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6046881) |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2006 10:57 AM Author: comical french spot skinny woman "prestigium-317 (pensive)" might not post during the day, but mike church certainly does. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6052106) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 5:22 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann Wrong. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6061904) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 2:34 PM Author: Violent Hall I'm asking you for a basis for the belief, not a restatement of the belief. How do you know that anything he has to say is correct? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6036484) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 4:22 PM Author: comical french spot skinny woman maybe you'll get a "new" "different user" to tell you. haha. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6037540) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 8:13 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann Well, perhaps I'm not truly an authority on Harvard, but I'm clearly more knowledgeable about the place than anyone who has spoken of it on XO. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6039572) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 9:10 PM Author: bearded adventurous kitchen clearly? please, how so? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6040060) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 9:12 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann I understand Harvard College admissions and culture better than anyone else on this board. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6040076) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 10:10 PM Author: bearded adventurous kitchen I don't know if that's true one way or another. I am pretty sure, though, that you are better at making unsubstantiated statements than anyone else on this board. Which is saying a lot.
Why don't you hunt down several of your outstanding past threads on HC and post them for us? |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 10:14 PM Author: aphrodisiac abode crotch "I am pretty sure, though, that you are better at making unsubstantiated statements than anyone else on this board."
V. subtle: a 178. A better formulation would be something along the lines of, "you are in the top 2.3% for making unsubstantiated...", just to fully underline the irony/comic hypocrisy. |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 10:59 AM Author: Violent Hall His inability to distinguish between repeating a claim and supporting a claim doesn't suggest much experience with higher education of any kind. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6043811) |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2006 1:19 AM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann You're a fucking idiot. If you keep your posts to things that are self-evident or rationally derived from self-evident facts, as I do, then you don't need to "support" your posts with five hundred more posts. Some of us can express ourselves and prove our points with fewer words and have no need to exasperate ourselves in the way a failure and idiot like you might. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6050555) |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2006 1:36 AM Author: talented low-t filthpig There are at least 7 or 8 regular posters who attended HUG. This seems kind of unlikely. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6050668) |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2006 1:38 AM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann It does seem unlikely, and yet whenever they talk about Harvard, they spout shit that is both offensive and highly inaccurate. It makes no fucking sense. The Harvard posters who are actually remotely intelligent seem to stay away from the debate, leaving Implied Wonton to make their school look like it's full of douchebag idiots. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6050680) |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2006 10:43 AM Author: comical french spot skinny woman ...according to you. only. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6052052) |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2006 8:39 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann You're already discredited, and if I can beat one of your points then I've alreaday done more than enough. It's not "according to me", but objective, that IW makes his school look bad. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6056518) |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2006 9:32 PM Author: comical french spot skinny woman i love the way you seem to think that your personal opinions are somehow normative, and that repeating them over and over "proves" them. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6056823) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 5:32 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann No, wrong. Implied Warranty is the biggest idiot on the board. He's even stupider than you are; you both equally make asses of yourselves but you try to do so and he doesn't, so you win the tie. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6061953) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 1:30 AM Author: Narrow-minded Well-lubricated Senate Faggot Firefighter Yes. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6033495) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 1:28 AM Author: Insanely creepy degenerate i disagree. the less work the better.
i picked a well-placing T14 over lower schools because i wanted to drink and have fun (not work as much) and still be able to get a good job.
most humans are work-averse |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 1:29 AM Author: Drab Lay Correction: you went to a t14 because you wanted a good job and got in and you are able to drink and have fun and work less because you go to a t14. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6033486) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 1:35 AM Author: Insanely creepy degenerate nope, not because i got in.
i know myself and i wouldn't study too much here or anywhere else. it was best to hedge my bets.
but i am ~median after 1L so i am fine, thankfully. |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 1:36 AM Author: Drab Lay You actually seem like a pretty cool guy. Good for you man. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6033535) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 1:37 AM Author: Insanely creepy degenerate lol, thanks.
new moniker or new poster? i can never keep track of moniker changes |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 1:38 AM Author: Drab Lay New moniker, somewhat regular new poster. I know its confusing. I think this is a cool one maybe people will remember. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6033559) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 8:13 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann STFU, pensive. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6039575) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 10:36 PM Author: dead racy pocket flask Hi pensive! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6040877) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 1:29 AM Author: floppy infuriating sound barrier theater stage This is a great post. As summarized by hero, Harvard College is a shithole. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6033489) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 10:12 PM Author: henna center You think Harvard is lax academically/has grade inflation? Clearly you've never been to Stanford.
The point is that grads of these schools are still highly desired, by basically everyone (grad schools + the workplace). As long as there's continued demand, students there will continue to coast and laugh themselves to the bank while the average joe thinks they're working their asses off. |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 10:55 PM Author: Avocado stage Harvard is a place filled with amazing people, not merely amazing students. They have celebrities, olympians, winners of the most competitive math/science and music competitions, brilliant and published writers, people who overcame extremely difficult circumstances in terms of socioeconomic background, etc. Anyone who says otherwise is basing their knowledge on stereotypes and published material and have probably not spent much time on campus or with Harvard students or recent alumni. And this whole Harvard having grade inflation thing is just stupid. The people there are incredible students and it is a very competitive place academically, so it's kind of difficult for professors to give students C's for A work just to prevent grade inflation. Harvard is one of the few top schools that gets that it's about more than academics. Their graduates are very thougtful, well-rounded, and intellectually mature individuals (today, at least). Of course there will be some exceptions, but people who really know Harvard recognize that it is one of the least pretentious schools among competitive colleges. I understand the jealousy though. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6041107) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 11:17 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann "Harvard is a place filled with amazing people, not merely amazing students."
Only people from the lower reaches of society would say that. The nonacademic components of Harvard's admissions practices are antiquated racist garbage. People who value them are shit, plain and simple.
"They have celebrities,"
Yes: it is not beneath Harvard to use the entertainment industry as a means of advertisement.
"...olympians..."
Athletic admits are outside my purview.
"...winners of the most competitive math/science and music competitions..."
This is true, surprisingly, of math and I can't figure that out, since those students would be better served by MIT or Caltech. However, having also been a successful contest-math gunner, I can only say that those sorts of students easily develop a tunnel vision and can easily be misled by propoganda (e.g. NYCFan). In fact, this is probably true of all 17-year-olds.
"...brilliant and published writers,"
Wrong, and an idiotic claim. They get a few "packaged" writers like Kaavya-- we all know how that turned out-- and parentally manufactured artifacts like Nick McDonell. The next generation's great writers and artists were/are nowhere near Harvard. They are way to iconoclastic, intellectual, and individualistic to have a hope of getting in on ECs, and academics are rarely enough.
"...people who overcame extremely difficult circumstances in terms of socioeconomic background, etc."
Yes, there are a few "token minority" students Harvard brings in as "diversity experiences" for its rich WASP clientele.
"And this whole Harvard having grade inflation thing is just stupid. The people there are incredible students and it is a very competitive place academically, so it's kind of difficult for professors to give students C's for A work just to prevent grade inflation."
There are some incredibly devoted students there, but most of them have no work ethic whatsoever, and it's easy to beat them and do well on the curve just by studying an hour or so a night. That's not what I call "difficult".
"Their graduates are very thougtful, well-rounded, and intellectually mature individuals (today, at least)."
This is bullshit NYCFan-esque propoganda. To say that the nonacademic aspect of H admissions (race and socioeconomic status; that's all) has anything to do with being "well-rounded" or "thoughtful" is to play in to the antiquated, offensive, intellectually indefensible notion of the Anglo/Aryan H clientele as well-rounded and manly and "the others" as inferior. Please take your racist shit elsewhere.
"people who really know Harvard recognize that it is one of the least pretentious schools among competitive colleges."
Again, most people associated with THE UNIVERSITY (which is very good) and not the college are near the top of their fields and don't need to be pretentious.
"I understand the jealousy though."
If anything, Harvard troll, you're jealous after having been shown up by someone who didn't go to your self-overrated school. |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 2:09 AM Author: henna center While I think you've got elements of truth here (especially the bit about "great writers"), I don't see the point of singling out Harvard. All of the other elite private colleges slavishly follow Harvard's example (from admissions to endowment management), with the result that Harvard still wins out.
Also, my understanding from a couple of very trusted sources is that professors often feel Harvard undergrads are more talented than the grad students.
The massive pre-professionalism and general lack of intellectual vitality that you might find at Harvard is apparent at many of the other top schools as well. It's a consequence of the pervasive "let's make it much harder to get in that to get C's" philosophy.
|
|
Date: June 23rd, 2006 1:28 AM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann "Also, my understanding from a couple of very trusted sources is that professors often feel Harvard undergrads are more talented than the grad students."
These are professors in fields like "Dildo Studies" and "Toiletry Engineering", which draw neither top grad students nor discerning professors. Harvard professors hate undergrads; the profs are too prestigious to associate with entitled, rich kids, 50+% of whom have no respect whatsoever for what they are there to teach.
"All of the other elite private colleges slavishly follow Harvard's example (from admissions to endowment management), with the result that Harvard still wins out."
I'm not convinced of this.
"The massive pre-professionalism and general lack of intellectual vitality that you might find at Harvard is apparent at many of the other top schools as well."
Yes, but Harvard actually strives for this in admissions. If you're too smart/sincere to spend an hour a week in 54 different ECs while ostensibly caring about not one, it can cost you admission there. Harvard is the only school in the country that considers douchebaggery itself (independent of other possibly correlated factors that would be objectively desirable) a positive in its admissions practices.
Other schools use their admissions processes to defend against the low-bred, anti-intellectual douchebaggery. Harvard embraces it through its "leadership" (stupidity) criterion. |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2006 11:02 AM Author: Violent area sex offender "Harvard is one of the few top schools that gets that it's about more than academics."
That must be why its students constantly whine about the shitty quality of life and general drab atmosphere |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 11:02 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann "You think Harvard is lax academically/has grade inflation? Clearly you've never been to Stanford."
I know nothing about Stanford, but something tells me that if Harvard is worse than 22 or 23 of the T25 in terms of academic laxity, it's still pretty bad.
"The point is that grads of these schools are still highly desired, by basically everyone (grad schools + the workplace)."
Grad schools don't care where you went; they care what you can do for them. A Harvard student with a 3.8 and excellent course selection will get in, but the median Harvard grad is going to get shut out of good departments.
As for employers, see below on social class: the higher you go, the more Harvard's cachet fades... until it inverts. Employers in "the workplace" who put a special, singular value on Harvard are going to be not the most desirable ones. Now, of course, desirable employers won't turn down a competent Harvard grad even still; it's not like Harvard totally sucks. It's just not great. |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 11:06 PM Author: Avocado stage Harvard is great because of the student body more than anything. Academics? It's probably on par with its peer institutions. Princeton has great academics, but its undergraduates are fairly pathetic. Just talk to any Princeton professors who I've personally see complain because students are not engaged intellectually in the classroom and are more interested in getting a job at Bain, eating clubs, drinking, etc. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6041237) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 11:19 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann "Princeton has great academics, but its undergraduates are fairly pathetic. Just talk to any Princeton professors who I've personally see complain because students are not engaged intellectually in the classroom and are more interested in getting a job at Bain, eating clubs, drinking, etc."
It's amazing how when one replaces Bain with (admittedly slightly better regarded) McKinsey and "eating clubs" with "final clubs" one goes from "pathetic" to a supposedly great college, isn't it? |
|
Date: July 6th, 2007 11:40 PM Author: Stirring Fuchsia Halford Main People Even a year after his best work, I'm amazed by Pensive's ability to blow up a message board, here and elsewhere.
It was best when people thought he was a serious poster. |
|
Date: July 6th, 2007 11:52 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann Hahahaha.
I don't actually have anything against Harvard. A lot of my friends went there and it seems to be like any other college: really great if you make a lot out of the available opportunities, and shitty if you don't. It was just funny to deploy H-bashing threads, back in the day when this board still had something to do with education rather than lawsuits, and wake half the board up.
Some of the story is true. Harvard's admissions office did get my high school's grading system drastically wrong, putting me 0.7 grade points lower than I actually was. This caused me to get upset and blow up the interview. I'm over it, though: actually, it's pretty fucking funny-- one of those things that makes huge drama at 17 and means nothing at 24. |
Date: June 21st, 2006 1:28 AM Author: amethyst laser beams toilet seat YLS doesn't really care much about academics, at least not compared to HLS, CLS, Chicago, NYU, or any other top 14. It's not as good a school. The reason for going to YLS is simple: you want not to have to do any work for three years. Other elite law schools'll force you to bust your ass to get good grades, but at YLS, only a minority of the students have any work ethic whatsoever so it's ridiculously easy to coast.
However, obviously it takes a lot to get into YLS. So the question is this: why would someone put so much effort into getting into YLS, just for the sake of not having to work three years? A better strategy would be to relax during college, save up energy instead of burning out, and work hard during law school and the career-building years. |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 1:30 AM Author: Drab Lay You internalized pensive. That's hot. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6033498) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 1:32 AM Author: Cyan haunted graveyard cool moniker, btw...do you copy "°¿°" from word, i presume? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6033508) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 1:33 AM Author: Drab Lay http://www.muller-godschalk.com/emoticon.html Thanks for the compliment (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6033522) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 1:40 AM Author: Cyan haunted graveyard hehe. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6033566) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 1:31 AM Author: Cyan haunted graveyard lol. awesome. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6033503) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 1:32 AM Author: pink abnormal library therapy 180 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6033507) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 9:18 AM Author: stimulating garnet address The difference, of course, is that YLS is respectable at all levels of society, even the top. Harvard undergrad starts losing respectability at the upper-middle-class level, and at the top of society, is completely gone. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6034464) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 9:39 AM Author: comical french spot skinny woman how many monikers do you HAVE? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6034510) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 9:45 AM Author: stimulating garnet address 2. I forgot the password to my other one, which I haven't used since the board started. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6034520) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 10:44 AM Author: comical french spot skinny woman this response only makes it even more certain that you are pensive. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6034871) |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 11:01 AM Author: floppy infuriating sound barrier theater stage Date: June 21st, 2006 10:44 AM Author: can\'t edit me away!
this response only makes it even more certain that you are pensive. |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 11:03 PM Author: Avocado stage YLS does care about academics; it just has a different educational philosophy. Its students do better on the bar than some of the other schools you mentioned in the T-14, so they are still learning the law. And the work is far from easy, but the students are self-motivated as opposed to being focused on beating out other students for grades. YLS's student body is a highly accomplished group of people who have done amazing things and have done incredibly well in the classroom and on the LSAT. They are also a diverse group, which is important. I don't know where your hatred comes from or what institutions you have attended, but your ignorance is frightening. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6041208) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 1:37 AM Author: bat-shit-crazy market Let it go, man. Let it fucking go. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6033544) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 1:39 AM Author: Drab Lay TITCR (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6033561) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 10:05 AM Author: Excitant umber becky people who are hurt No shit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6034586) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 10:12 AM Author: house-broken stag film love of her life Carlton isn't even better than Will Smith. Gettin Jiggy Wit It... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6034613) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 10:13 AM Author: Excitant umber becky people who are hurt Boo. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6034620) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 1:59 PM Author: diverse unholy telephone dilemma Out of the "Top 5" LACs, I'd say Carleton is the one that is most out of place. I'd put it at Top 10 or Top 15 really, especially in terms of name-value and what its graduates are able to accomplish after graduating. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6036229) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 4:23 PM Author: comical french spot skinny woman i'd never even heard anyone talk about "top 5" lacs until pensive. i'd always heard amherst williams swarthmore, period. and i fucking went to carleton. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6037554) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 4:34 PM Author: Violent Hall True. People say "AWS"; who talks about top 5 anything? (Other than the Food Network.) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6037652) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 10:59 PM Author: Avocado stage It's simple. This fake Pensive really doesn't know what he or she is talking about. Enough said. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6041159) |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 11:02 AM Author: floppy infuriating sound barrier theater stage Are you embarrassed of being a Carleton alum? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6043831) |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 2:16 PM Author: comical french spot skinny woman only on this board, thanks to pensive. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6045455) |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 2:54 PM Author: floppy infuriating sound barrier theater stage How has the name Carleton benefited you? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6045681) |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2006 10:44 AM Author: comical french spot skinny woman the name itself? close to zero. it's unknown outside of academia and not really a prestige type of school. the education has stood me in good stead though. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6052054) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 5:23 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann Carleton either gets "Wow!" or "Where?" with nothing in between. The "where?" reaction occurs probably 75-85% of the time, since it's not a large, well-known school.
However, it's such a small school that most people only know 1 or 2 alumni from there. Those who only know of Carleton from a douche like "can't edit me away!" are probably not going to have positive impressions of the place. |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 6:42 PM Author: comical french spot skinny woman you can't honestly be saying that carleton gets "wow" from any significant number of people who aren't alumni themselves. basically the only schools that get "wow" are hypsmc. that's it. possibly aws too, but even then, much less likely than hyp. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6062312) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 6:46 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann Not "Wow!" as in "Wow, you got in", since it's lower T25 for selectivity, so much as in response to its educational program. People familiar with it are generally quite impressed with its teaching.
People familiar with both Harvard and Carleton will rate Carleton better for educational program but Harvard higher for difficulty of getting in. |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 6:47 PM Author: comical french spot skinny woman yeah, pretty much no one i've ever encountered other than you would rate carleton better than harvard for educational program. and that includes everyone i knew at carleton. better in some ways like class size, perhaps, but not comprehensively "better than harvard" in any other way than general lac cheerleading.
carleton is fine, but havard is harvard. |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 6:57 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann Harvard's educational program is mediocre by T25 standards. The professors hate the undergrads, class sizes are small, and 50+% of the students have no work ethic whatsoever.
Also, what's wrong with LAC boosting? For well-rounded general education, LAC is by far the best model. (Of course, for specialties, big universities like Harvard often win.) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 8:26 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann Name value? You have a point. Name value favors location and thus Carleton and Pomona, though very strong colleges, are excluded from the top set on account of their non-northeastern settings. This does not, of course, impair .
As for "what its graduates are able to accomplish after graduating", that has nothing to do with name value, which matters only for the first job and (a little) grad school admissions. Believe it or not, undergrad prestige has very little correlation with what people accomplish afterward that isn't explained already by HS GPA and SAT scores. |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 4:56 PM Author: Ebony Very Tactful Police Squad I'm at a """better""" LAC than carleton and when I complained about my school's lack of academic intensity to a super stanford prof i happen to know, he asked if i had considered carleton. HTH. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6046675) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 8:18 PM Author: chrome alpha menage At college, I learned from my friends, not my professors. In this respect, going to Harvard would allow you to absorb many intangibles from the smartest students in the world. (I didn't attend H). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6039618) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 8:34 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann Students at MIT, Caltech, and even mediocre math/science grad programs will be much smarter than Harvard undergrads. One might think that Harvard could offer a greater diversity of intelligence, in terms of the arts/humanities side, but those kids usually are too creative/iconoclastic to get into Harvard, and those who could are more likely to go to Yale, Princeton, art schools, or LACs.
Harvard also has a lot of worthless resume kids, like Kaavya and Blair Hornstine. Next come the final-club brats who run the place's social scene. In Harvard's undergrad division, intellectuals are a persecuted, freakish minority. Much could be "absorbed" at Harvard College but very little of it would be good. |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 8:56 PM Author: diverse unholy telephone dilemma "Students at MIT, Caltech, and even mediocre math/science grad programs will be much smarter than Harvard undergrads."
Correction: They will be smarter in math/science, not across the board. |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 9:01 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann MIT/Caltech aren't going to *have* many lit/humanities students, but the ones they do have will be better than Harvard's. So, yeah, those schools do win across the board. (Yale and Princeton are probably better than MIT and CTex for arts/hum, though.)
I'm at an upper-middle math grad department and I'd estimate the average IQ around 145-160, which blows Harvard's average (~129) out of the water. For what it's worth, students in math grad sch tend either to know nothing about arts/lit (the hard-core specialists) or be much more knowledgeable/art-literate than the average H student (the smart generalist) but there's no real middle ground. |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 9:04 PM Author: diverse unholy telephone dilemma I guess you're one of those people that spends all his/her time talking to other math/science nerds while whining/bitching about how humanities/social science majors have it 'easier' than you folks do.
I used to hang out with a bunch of people who did this. They're getting PWNED in the real world. |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 9:10 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann Why the hell would you infer that?
If anything, we have it easier than hum/soc-sci majors do. I don't know why you would suspect me to believe the opposite. |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 9:14 PM Author: diverse unholy telephone dilemma Your constant obsession with IQ and how much 'smarter' math/science people are (people who really ARE smart don't really give a shit about IQ scores any way; they let their work do the talking), coupled with your incessant bashing of Harvard vs. CalTech/MIT etc.
Math/science people have it easier? Tell me how. |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 9:21 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann I never said math/science people are smarter. I said that MIT/CTex have smarter students, and that the arts/hum students they do have (admittedly not many) are smarter than Harvard's.
I think math/sci people have it easier on the job market, first off because they are presumed (perhaps incorrectly) to be smarter and to have passed through more demanding coursework. Moreover, there's excess demand for math/technical talent, whereas a dearth of it for arts/hum talent. Personally, I think this is a shame because I think a lot of the lit/humanities people are quite bright and extremely talented; unfortunately, society doesn't value much what they have to offer. |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 10:33 PM Author: chrome alpha menage Perhaps I should rephrase my post above for accuracy. Harvard tends to attract students that will go on to amass power and wealth. I concede that this is quite different from attracting students that are brilliant in a single field. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6040850) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 10:45 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann More accurate would be to say that Harvard tends to attract (admit, actually) students whose parents have already amassed power and wealth and who are marginally intelligent enough not to fritter it away. Harvard doesn't pull the next generation's self-made people or rising stars. Again, those people tend to be too iconoclastic, single-minded, and individualist to game ECs and have any hope of getting in (unless they have rich parents, but this is why I specified "self-made"). More yet, they tend to prefer places that aren't Harvard: again MIT, Caltech, YPS, top LACs... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6040980) |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 2:21 AM Author: hyperactive 180 immigrant church building Please explain what the fuck is so "iconoclastic" about MIT, Caltech, or YPS. I'll admit a few of the top LACs have some individualists (Amherst in particular). But the top students of the ENTIRE FUCKING GENERATION are fucking careerists. Do you know why? Because the fucking hippie-make-happy-peace-by-holding-hands-and-painting-fucking-flowers days are over. I'm sorry if that hurts your shrivelled nuts, pensive, but the fact is, the leaders of our generation are too smart to be crusaderfucks.
You have your Harvard blinders on on this one, pensive. Nobody at fucking MIT is planning to undermine the system. Why the fuck should they? The most successful students are SUCCESSFUL PRODUCTS OF THE SYSTEM. They have no incentive to change anything. While some of your points are astute, you single out Harvard unfairly. This is the iconoplastic generation. It's systemic. It's the way we live now. Deal with it. |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 2:49 PM Author: Razzle ungodly point factory reset button "Planning to undermine the system"/hippie vs. brainless careerist gunner with no values = FALSE DICHOTOMY. You lose. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6045655) |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 4:05 PM Author: hyperactive 180 immigrant church building Shithead, there's a spectrum of possibilities in between the two, I acknowledge that. However, the top leaders of our generation are much more on the careerist gunner track than on the hippie one. I also don't claim that the careerists lack values, just that their values are blindly conformist. HTH Fucktard. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6046259) |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 4:15 PM Author: Razzle ungodly point factory reset button The conformist gunners (1) are not remotely intelligent, (2) have no values except for short-term orientation and selfishness, (3) have no culture or right bearing, and (4) will be destroyed in the next economic downturn from which they will not recover because they are neither intelligent nor strong enough. They'll be eaten alive. To call them "the top leaders of our generation" is to expose oneself as an incorrigible idiot. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6046345) |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 5:00 PM Author: Ebony Very Tactful Police Squad who are amherst's individualists? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6046696) |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2006 1:22 AM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann You're a pathetic loser who believes polished mediocrity (the striver who couldn't do anything remotely intellectual to save his life) is as good as genius, and that our generation's proliferation of idiot resume kids represents something as beneficial to our society as a spirit of genius. Well? You're wrong.
This has nothing to do with "shrivelled nuts"; this has to do with a generation that has lost sight of excellence. |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2006 2:52 AM Author: hyperactive 180 immigrant church building It's survival of the fittest, pensive. Those at the top of the system deserve to be there, because they've gamed their environment. You haven't. Pwned.
This has nothing to do with "polished mediocrity"; this has to do with a generation that has thankfully lost sight of sour gripers like you. |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 5:31 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann See, I'm not representing the cause of "sour gripers" or of "hippies", as you seem to believe. The sour gripers are just as bad as douchey pre-IB losers, and hippies have had their time. What inflames me is that few in our generation want to strive for excellence: writing a great novel, proving an impressive theorem. Instead, we have many who want to impress others (with no care about the absolute quality of their contribution to the world) but few who want truly to excel. Well, that's quite pathetic.
I'm as much a fan of excellence as you fancy yourself to be. However, I resent when loser-fuckers like Kaavya and Blair Hornstine are packaged as excellent (they aren't) just because they've "gamed their environment".
"Those at the top of the system deserve to be there, because they've gamed their environment."
How do you define the "top of the system"? Most of the HYP -> IB douche-gunners you consider "elite" are going to flame out at 24 and recycle to the middle. Blair Hornstine, who represents more accurately than anyone else the archetype of the "leadership" admit to HYP, is never going to excel at anything.
You should try this whole thing again when you understand the debate. Good first try, though. |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 10:58 PM Author: Avocado stage You aren't pensive, so stop pretending that you are. What is this IQ talk? Any educated person should understand that the reliability of an IQ test is dubious at best. And, there is a consensus in the academic community that it is a test that can be prepared for like the SAT and AP, and therefore, can't accurately measure what it attempts to measure (among other reasons). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6041148) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 11:04 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann Average IQ of a group that is assembled for academic purposes (e.g. a college student body) is relevant. I'm not as confident that it's a reliable measure of individual intelligence, and certainly not at a comprehensive and holistic level. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6041220) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 11:10 PM Author: Avocado stage Well, all of these numbers are pure conjecture. If not, CITE YOUR SOURCES. I know a graduate student in psychology who worked at a facility that conducted IQ tests and he (as everyone else who has had this sort of work experience) was literally laughing at the notion of an IQ exam being capable of measuring anything really, particularly innate mental capacities. After a few weeks working there, he understood the exam and could easily get a perfect score after learning the methodology. So, you need to stop talking about IQ or even average IQ as an indicator of intelligence. You may say it's the closest thing we have, but that still doesn't mean that we have anything able to measure intelligence at all. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6041277) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 11:25 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann "If not, CITE YOUR SOURCES."
This board: the SAT median of the top 25 colleges has been posted. For Harvard, it's 1490. Look for it; I'm drunk and don't feel like wasting my time. SAT is an IQ test plus an error term (prep, vocabulary) that can easily be-accounted for.
Not every student with a 1490 has the same IQ, but the errors cancel each other out on the macro scale. An individual scoring 1490 would be likely to have an IQ higher than 129, but test-prep corrupts the process (again, this can be accounted-for because TP corruption is approximately linear in terms of the dependent variables) and so the formula is approximately 0.04X + 68.
The point is not that IQ tests are valid for everything. Obviously, they aren't. The point is that the median Harvard undergrad is nothing special at all and could not get into any selective grad program. That doesn't even need IQ (in fact, IQ would cloud the debate); it's self-evident. |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 10:23 PM Author: Rusted frum private investor anti-harvard trolling is always good for a laugh.
face it, dawg, it's still the most prestigious undergrad in the nation and world, at all levels of society. arguing otherwise is just chasing windmills. and i went to a TTT shithole for undergrad, so i don't have a cock in this fight. |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 10:29 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann "face it, dawg, it's still the most prestigious undergrad in the nation and world, at all levels of society."
Wrong. Harvard is considered prestigious uniformly outside of the US because Europeans, Asians et al have an entirely different university system (much more specialized) and tend to conflate the University, which is great, with the College, which is not.
Upper-middle-class and above, Harvard loses ground against Yale, Princeton, MIT, Stanford and the top LACs. It probbly doesn't even crack the top 10. You're confused about "all levels of society" because you tend to think of a real estate broker who made $160k last year as "upper class", that's all. |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 10:30 PM Author: Rusted frum private investor "Upper-middle-class and above, Harvard loses ground against Yale, Princeton, MIT, Stanford and the top LACs. It probbly doesn't even crack the top 10. "
when you craft flame, you need to be a lot more subtle than that. hell, just look at mckinsey's incoming associate classes. they are harvard-heavy for a reason. |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 10:41 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann "hell, just look at mckinsey's incoming associate classes. they are harvard-heavy for a reason."
Students at Harvard tend to know more about places like McK and talk about them more, so the ones who apply are better prepared. MC/IB job searching is all about preparation; for example, it's really tough to get a job at one of those places without an internship, but easy to get one with internship and easy to get an internship. One simply has to start the game early. Students at Harvard will figure this out (be told of the fact) in time while those at other schools might not.
Also, while I don't think the average H undergrad is very bright, he managed to pull off something-- gaming Harvard admissions-- which, while noncerebral in nature, is generally harder than scoring a McK spot out-of-college.
Don't get me wrong: Harvard has incredible cachet among the working and lower-middle classes, but it loses its singularity at the middle-middle level and, by the time we get to upper-middle, many schools are actually considered preferable at the undergrad level, though Harvard is considered a great place to attend grad school. |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 11:22 PM Author: galvanic learning disabled gas station idea he suggested are you honestly saying the ypmc students aren't prepared for their mckinsey interviews? do harvard students keep "gaming" the system their entire lives? harvard college admissions, mckinsey interviews, t14 law schools? if so, sign me up. and harvard wins the cross-admit battle across all classes. if you'd gone to yale or princeton, you'd know this. |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 11:27 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann "are you honestly saying the ypmc students aren't prepared for their mckinsey interviews?"
If they are not successful, that would be the reasonable conclusion. (I don't know if they are or not.) Management consulting and investment banking are all about preparation; very easy to get for the prepared, not as much for the unprepared.
"and harvard wins the cross-admit battle across all classes."
Wrong. You are conflating income with class. Don't do this. The real-estate broker who makes 200k/year is not upper class. |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 11:33 PM Author: galvanic learning disabled gas station idea he suggested there is no reason to believe harvard students are better prepared for their mckinsey interviews than their competitors at other top colleges.
real-estate brokers who make $200K/year don't have kids who go to harvard. they go to emory or something. the kids at harvard are the children of either government workers/librarians/teachers or ultra-wealthy east coast old money libertarians. |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 11:38 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann "there is no reason to believe that harvard students are better prepared for their mckinsey interviews than their competitors at other top colleges."
If they were more successful at their interviews, that would be a reason. Chances are, since students at Harvard have been studying and learning ways to beat admissions systems since age 9 or so, they'd clean up the McKinsey process with little effort at all.
"real-estate brokers who make $200K/year don't have kids who go to harvard. they go to emory or something. the kids at harvard are the children of either government workers/librarians/teachers or ultra-wealthy east coast old money libertarians."
Wrong. It's real estate new money who value Harvard the most. People who have settled into good places think it's one of the weaker T25s. The reason some people from good places end up at Harvard is that there are legacies; you know, people whose parents' nostalgia gets in the way of objectivity. |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 11:46 PM Author: galvanic learning disabled gas station idea he suggested i went to h and i could be wrong, but almost nobody there planned to be when they first started looking at colleges. the system can be gamed, of course, but the admissions office usually knows when it's being had. it's painfully obvious in most cases, especially when there are so many relevant sources of information. it's not that new money doesn't value harvard, it's that most of the children of new money, like their parents, can't get in. they lack class, as you might say. |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2006 1:37 AM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann "i went to h and i could be wrong, but almost nobody there planned to be when they first started looking at colleges."
Uh, this is what they said. One would hope that someone who can get into Harvard would learn quickly that is not socially acceptable to admit to having been a douchebag admissions-gunner, even if the majority of them were (or went to prep schools that made gunnery unnecessary).
"the system can be gamed, of course, but the admissions office usually knows when it's being had."
Wrong. I don't know what admissions officers at Harvard are paid per app, but it's orders of magnitude less than what admissions consultants like Kat Cohen make. Fact is, admissions offices care about honesty, sure, but not packaging. They aren't going to feed every application into some complex data-mining model in order to determine whether or not the student saw a counselor.
"it's painfully obvious in most cases, especially when there are so many relevant sources of information."
Uh, Kaplan'd SAT scores? Half-decent grades from T5 prep school? 74 ECs in which one spent 1 hour per month, plus 3 bullshit "leadership" titles?
Check to all three = Welcome to Harvard. Gunnery works.
"it's not that new money doesn't value harvard, it's that most of the children of new money, like their parents, can't get in. they lack class, as you might say."
You're a fucking idiot. If you think Harvard's admissions (beyond the weak correlations of SATs and grades) have anything to do with "class", you haven't been within a million miles of it and we're done. Spending one hour per month in order to rack up bullshit ECs, then having one's parents buy one a resume ("founded a nonprofit") is not about "class", at least not when we use the word to denote a character trait rather than its baser (socioeconomic) meaning. |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 5:43 PM Author: Violent Hall >the ones who apply are better prepared
If Harvard, by whatever means, is doing a better job of preparing its students for competitive recruiting than its peers...why again is this a BAD thing? |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 5:50 PM Author: Razzle ungodly point factory reset button IB/MC is "competitive recruiting"? You've obviously never heard of law school, med school, or grad school. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6047158) |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 5:52 PM Author: Violent Hall >law school, med school, or grad school.
Uh, because Harvard undergrads face an uphill climb to get into these? |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 5:55 PM Author: Razzle ungodly point factory reset button The average Harvard undergrad can get...
T2 law school, maybe lower T1 NO med school, NO grad school in competitive subjects (math, econ, classics) NO funding in less competitive subjects, and NO admissions to departments that have decent placement in academe.
Yet he gets IB/MC effortlessly. Ergo, grad schools are more selective. |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 5:58 PM Author: Violent Hall The point is that the median Harvard undergrad does better at all of it (grad school and MC/IB) than the median undergrad pretty much anywhere else. So where's the down side? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6047222) |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 6:00 PM Author: Razzle ungodly point factory reset button There's another school in Cambridge, and one a lot like it in Pasadena. You may have heard of those places.
Since the nonacademic admissions components were designed to select for stupidity (to make legacy kids feel less dumb) under a transparent guise of "leadership", the median Harvard undergrad wouldn't beat a lower-T50 undergrad if not for the name. |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 6:04 PM Author: Violent Hall Sure, I've heard of them. And if you can show me that they do better than H UG at med, law, business, or MC/IB admissions -- because that, you may recall, is what we were talking about -- I'd like to see the data. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6047267) |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 6:05 PM Author: Razzle ungodly point factory reset button They take in smarter students and educate them better: what do you expect? I'm pretty sure the MIT salary profile is superior to Harvard's at all levels. I know this to be true at studentsreview.com, though admittedly those numbers are self-reported. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6047273) |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 6:09 PM Author: Violent Hall What do I expect? I expect that you don't have any data, and the fact that you're "pretty sure" is not the same thing as data.
I notice that you have failed to even offer assertions out of your ass to challenge my point about med, business, and law school admissions. Because we DO have those data, and they make Harvard look very good. |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2006 1:40 AM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann You should publish these "data" if you have them (aside from the WSJ feeder data with obvious methodological flaws). It might make up for the idiocy of your Harvard trolling. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6050697) |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2006 10:19 AM Author: Violent Hall http://www.yale.edu/bulletin/html/law/students.html
Hope this helps. |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2006 10:46 AM Author: comical french spot skinny woman let's see...
amherst 9
williams 14
swarthmore 5
carleton 1
which school doesn't belong on this list?? |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2006 1:11 AM Author: diverse unholy telephone dilemma you're pensive, i'm pretty sure of that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6050483) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 10:32 PM Author: dead racy pocket flask Wow, pensive, did you cater a dinner for the Cabots once and suddenly become a Brahmin by default? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6040839) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2006 10:46 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann If you're talking about cultural/intellectual leadership, I was born and bred a Brahmin. If you're curious about financial means, well... quite middle-class, actually, and now (as a grad student) lower-middle, but that will change. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6040993) |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 2:02 AM Author: dead racy pocket flask I am dying to know what you have contributed to the cultural or intellectual life of anything. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6042624) |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 1:53 PM Author: Razzle ungodly point factory reset button To be fair to pensive, not that Ambition's a major accomplishment (a game that is 3 years old and still being revised?) it still puts him in the top 0.001% of 22/23 year olds. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6045263) |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 2:24 PM Author: comical french spot skinny woman there are fewer than 8 million 22/23 year olds in the country. 0.001% of those would be under 80 people, or under 40 for his cohort year. you honestly think he's in the top 40 overall out of his class in the fucking united states for making up a pretty sucky card game? he's not even in the top 40 for MATH, and that's his only real strength.
you must be pensive. |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 2:33 PM Author: Razzle ungodly point factory reset button I meant 0.01%, sorry.
"you honestly think he's in the top 80 overall in the fucking united states for making up a pretty sucky card game?"
Not everyone agrees that it's a shitty game. Obviously the magazine that published it liked it. I doubt you've even played it.
"he's not even in the top 80 for MATH"
The Putnam disagrees.
"that's his only real strength"
Wrong by far.
"you must be pensive."
Incorrect again. You really like stringing 'em together, don't you? I don't really have a dog in this fight either way, but I'm not a fan of envious losers who bash people over the Internet. |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 2:35 PM Author: Coiffed Principal's Office Internal Respiration what about envious losers who fellate people over the internet? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6045568) |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 2:47 PM Author: Razzle ungodly point factory reset button I'm certainly not envious of pensive, and I'm not out to "fellate" him. On the other hand, I don't think he's an idiot just because he didn't go to Harvard. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6045641) |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 3:25 PM Author: Violent Hall He's not an idiot because he didn't go to Harvard. He's an idiot because he's spent years repeating the same delusions and obsessions on this board. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6045914) |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2006 1:41 AM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann You only consider my astute points to be "delusions" because I don't think much of the school for which you incessantly troll, NYCFan. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6050703) |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2006 10:46 AM Author: comical french spot skinny woman no one else supports your opinion. it's just you and a few thinly-veiled alternate monikers. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6052062) |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 2:54 PM Author: diverse unholy telephone dilemma "but I'm not a fan of envious losers who bash people over the Internet."
Then why are you a fan of pensive? |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 3:04 PM Author: Razzle ungodly point factory reset button When pensive attacks people, it's well-executed and very funny. Also, he picks for targets people most of the board hates anyway, so he adds to board camaraderie.
I'm not really "a fan" of pensive, but I'm defending him because the attacks are so ridiculous. |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 4:08 PM Author: Coiffed Principal's Office Internal Respiration *vomits* (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6046288) |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 4:12 PM Author: hyperactive 180 immigrant church building What was so ridiculous about attacking pensive's presumptive claim to "intellectual/cultural leadership"? Making a card game does not place at the forefront of the nation; I doubt more than 0.001% of the country (and yes, I'M using my decimals correctly) even plays that shitty game. The top 0.001% of 22/23 year olds are probably all U.S. Rhodes or Marshall Scholars, and Communist China/Socialist India probably have the rest of the top 0.01%.
pensive is not another Euler or Napoleon or Einstein or even fucking Kelly Clarkson, all of whom influence more of today's culture than pensive ever will. By default, he is just another anonymous cipher, an ugly, AIDS-ridden duckling pretending to be a swan. |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 4:21 PM Author: Razzle ungodly point factory reset button 99.99 percentile does not make one an Euler or Napoleon. It doesn't put one "at the forefront" but at the back of the front. I don't think game designers or, really, artists of any sort are at the forefront of our society; this is a nation of "doers" and technicians, not of artists, which is why its level of scientific accomplishment is unprecedented but its cultural achievements are exceedingly mediocre.
"The top 0.001% of 22/23 year olds are probably all U.S. Rhodes or Marshall Scholars"
I've worked with some of those, and there were a couple at my school. Those fellowships are respectable, but not nearly as difficult to get as you might suspect. They're neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for potential for greatness. |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 4:33 PM Author: comical french spot skinny woman everyone knows you're mike. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6046518) |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 4:45 PM Author: Razzle ungodly point factory reset button First, I'm not, and second, there are people out there who can gracefully lose arguments and you'd do yourself well to learn from them. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6046596) |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2006 1:06 AM Author: Hairraiser step-uncle's house scourge upon the earth Hi pensive! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6050442) |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 5:18 PM Author: Exciting garrison yarmulke dude why do you even bother?
you wouldn't try to convince a schizo that the FBI isn't after him, would you?
just let him be a moron, its like talking to a wall. |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2006 1:05 AM Author: Hairraiser step-uncle's house scourge upon the earth Hi pensive! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6050436) |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 4:35 PM Author: comical french spot skinny woman "The top 0.001% of 22/23 year olds are probably all U.S. Rhodes or Marshall Scholars"
TITCR. we're talking about 80 people across two classes in the top 0.001%. in two classes there are 64 rhodes scholars and about 80 marshall scholars. that's 144 people right there blocking out pensive. |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 4:48 PM Author: Razzle ungodly point factory reset button You're wrong. I've met Rhodes and Marshall scholars. Many are quite impressive, but the majority of them are of the "merely very good" 3.8/econ strain. None of them have been morons or losers, but to call them the top 0.001% of our generation is foolish. You obviously haven't a clue what you're talking about. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6046617) |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 5:32 PM Author: diverse unholy telephone dilemma if they're so unimpressive, i challenge you to get one of these fellowships yourself. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6046980) |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 5:36 PM Author: Razzle ungodly point factory reset button I'm 28, and I didn't say they were unimpressive. I said they weren't top 0.001%. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6047019) |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 5:36 PM Author: Violent Hall The ones I knew were fucking insanely qualified. I knew multiple people who got into YLS and only got the regional interview for the Rhodes. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6047021) |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 5:47 PM Author: Razzle ungodly point factory reset button Your standard for "fucking insanely qualified" would be very low, because the people who are truly impressive are invisible from your vantage point. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6047128) |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 5:48 PM Author: Violent Hall My vantage point being what? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6047138) |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 5:49 PM Author: Razzle ungodly point factory reset button Your level in society. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6047152) |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 5:50 PM Author: Violent Hall Which is what?
(I freely admit that I did not attend that bastion of the upper crust, Carleton.) |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 5:52 PM Author: Razzle ungodly point factory reset button I thought Carleton was more upper-middle-class.
No, you write like a poor, and your opinions are those held by those poorly born. Only a failure would think quite the way you do. |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 5:54 PM Author: Violent Hall Wow. Can you tell me my income? And my parents' income?
I'll give you credit for anything within plus or minus 50 grand. |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 5:56 PM Author: Razzle ungodly point factory reset button Conflating class with income is an error made often by the lower classes. I won't play this crass game. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6047207) |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 5:58 PM Author: Violent Hall I see. So when you said, "You write like a poor," you really meant, "You write like a person with a high income." I get it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6047227) |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 6:02 PM Author: Razzle ungodly point factory reset button If you have high income, it's only because you've sold yourself out 90 hours a week in some striverite sweatshop where you have no chance of advancement. That's not prestigious. By "a poor", I was describing you in terms broader than crude economics. Poors are still poors after winning the lottery. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6047249) |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 9:27 PM Author: comical french spot skinny woman you're not even trying to disguise yourself anymore.
slamming achievements more prestigious than mike church will ever get within a mile of while simultaneously pumping up the prestige of making up card games pretty much points to only one person. |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2006 1:43 AM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann Winning the lottery is "more prestigious than [I] will ever get within a mile of"?
Also, he doesn't seem much to care one way or another about Ambition. |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2006 10:47 AM Author: comical french spot skinny woman no, winning a prestigious international fellowship is more prestigious than you'll ever get within a mile of. hell, you couldn't even win a national fellowship and didn't get a departmental fellowship either. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6052069) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 5:44 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann Uh, I had a first-year departmental fellowship.
I failed to win any of the national felloships. However, those pertain to a specialty. The "general"/"overall" fellowships would've actually been an easier shot for me.
My GPA might have shut me out of the Rhodes: 3.88 but with some strategic use of pass/fail option (would've been about 3.7-3.8 without). Also, my course selection was not as diverse as it could've been: I took a LOT of math/CS courses.
If none of that kept me off, my recs and interviews would be great. So if I didn't get dinged on my academics (a big if: I'm not bad, but possibly not Rhodes quality) I'd be a walk-on regarding the soft factors. |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 6:03 PM Author: comical french spot skinny woman oh yeah, your interviews would've been incredible! rofl. i would in all truth pay to see the part where you told them about your card game. and all that leadership you demonstrated at carleton really would've wowed folks for sure. i can see it now: "well, i did these poetry readings... and a lot of people liked to read my online meltdowns..."
on academics, rhodes, marshall, churchill scholars are the types who get into all of the top us programs for their field PLUS have the extras. you were soundly rejected from a number of the top programs in your field, so i doubt you'd meet the standard.
(by the way, when you're a teaching assistant and earn $14,000 a year, that's not what most people would call a "fellowship" at all.) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 6:10 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann "oh yeah, your interviews would've been incredible! rofl. i would in all truth pay to see the part where you told them about your card game."
As I said, if I weren't dinged on academics (admittedly nothing special by Rhodes standards, making this quite possible) I'd have been a walk-on.
"and all that leadership you demonstrated at carleton really would've wowed folks for sure."
I wrote for a large number of publications and launched a newly-invented card game while you were masturbating and posting on the Internet.
"when you're a teaching assistant and earn $14,000 a year, that's not what most people would call a 'fellowship' at all."
I made slightly more than that, not including my summer. |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 6:23 PM Author: comical french spot skinny woman "I wrote for a large number of publications and launched a newly-invented card game while you were masturbating and posting on the Internet."
unless those publications are national print media or refereed academic, no one cares. if you think having a poem in some giant yearly anthology, putting up something on an internet site, writing a report on some summer project that doesn't get published, or composing missives for the school paper count by the standards of a rhodes or marshall scholar, that's pretty naive of you.
your card game is laughable. like i said, i'd seriously enjoy seeing you try to "sell" that as a significant achievement to a committee of accomplished people. |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 6:27 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann "unless those publications are national print media or refereed academic, no one cares. if you think having a poem in some giant yearly anthology, putting up something on an internet site, or composing missives for the school paper count by the standards of a rhodes or marshall scholar, that's pretty naive of you."
They are clearly not major accomplishments, yet major by the standards of such fellowships given the age of the contenders. How many 23 year olds do you think have written major scholarly work?
I've written/co-authored several papers of scholarly importance, but they were in the context of government employment and therefore internal.
"your card game is laughable. like i said, i'd seriously enjoy seeing you try to 'sell' that as a significant achievement to a committee of accomplished people."
Uh, regardless of what you may think of it, something that puts me in the top 0.01% (as another poster noted) of my generation/age cohort for prominence would hardly count as "laughable". You're such an idiot; it's hilarious to me that you still try. |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 6:40 PM Author: comical french spot skinny woman "How many 23 year olds do you think have written major scholarly work?"
not many, but i'd be willing to bet that every rhodes and marshall scholar in a scientific field has had at least one paper published. that's the whole point--not many have done it. you're "good" but the standard is quite a bit higher than that.
put another way, people at that level have no trouble winning the nsf or another big fellowship, and they certainly have no trouble getting into the top phd programs in their fields. you were rejected on all counts.
"Uh, regardless of what you may think of it, something that puts me in the top 0.01% (as another poster noted) of my generation/age cohort for prominence would hardly count as "laughable". You're such an idiot; it's hilarious to me that you still try."
the "other poster" was you, and if you think making up a card game puts you in the top 400 students of your class, particularly for "prominence," that's pretty stupid. you've gotten much more "prominence" (more like notoriety, really) out of your incredibly self-serving fight to have your game put on various wikipedia pages than anything else associated with it. that's not exactly good publicity. |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 6:54 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann "i'd be willing to bet that every rhodes and marshall scholar in a scientific field has had at least one paper published. that's the whole point--not many have done it. you're 'good' but the standard is quite a bit higher than that."
Fuck; I only have 4. (Also, yes, internal publications are counted so long as one has at least one ref. related to one's employment to verify that they exist.)
"people at that level have no trouble winning the nsf or another big fellowship, and they certainly have no trouble getting into the top phd programs in their fields. you were rejected on all counts."
The standards for NSF vs. the "general" fellowships are entirely different. NSF cares about a specialized sort of ability. (I didn't even have a speciality at the time, nor do I still for sure.) So this claim of yours is false. R/M are looking for general intellectual talent; NSF and the PhD programs look for a specialized set of talents and skills.
"the 'other poster' was you"
Wrong, but moving on...
"if you think making up a card game puts you in the top 400 students of your class, particularly for 'prominence,' that's pretty stupid."
No, it's not. Just today in Brooklyn I met a complete stranger who had heard of Ambition and knew the basics of the rules. (This doesn't happen every day, of course.) This doesn't put me in the top 0.01% of all PEOPLE for prominence, but for high-culture/intellectual prominence, among people my age, indeed it does. Try again.
"that's not exactly good publicity."
Nor was fucking your mom on TV in order to win a third world game show, but sometimes I err. |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 7:09 PM Author: comical french spot skinny woman "The standards for NSF vs. the "general" fellowships are entirely different. NSF cares about a specialized sort of ability. (I didn't even have a speciality at the time, nor do I still for sure.) So this claim of yours is false. R/M are looking for general intellectual talent; NSF and the PhD programs look for a specialized set of talents and skills."
and yet the people who win r/m generally have no trouble with nsf and any phd program they want. explain that?
of course, what all of these prestigious things (rhodes, marshall, the very top phd programs, big national fellowships) have in common is that mike church has none of them. how about that! must be some sort of cosmic coincidence.
internal publications definitely do not count. didn't i say that? so you wrote a report on What You Did That Summer. who gives a shit?
if you had 4 real papers coming out of undergrad you would've gotten into every school you applied to and won the nsf with ease. those things didn't happen, ergo... |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 7:36 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann "and yet the people who win r/m generally have no trouble with nsf and any phd program they want. explain that?"
After getting R/M, it becomes a lot easier to get into top PhD programs and the national fellowships.
"what all of these prestigious things (rhodes, marshall, the very top phd programs, big national fellowships) have in common is that mike church has none of them. how about that! must be some sort of cosmic coincidence."
Nor do you. Add "semifamous card game" (and in good time, a famous one) and you remain on the list, while I leave it.
"internal publications definitely do not count."
Yes, they do. You're an idiot.
"if you had 4 real papers coming out of undergrad you would've gotten into every school you applied to and won the nsf with ease."
Math graduate admissions at the upper end are more competitive/selective than law school, IB, or management consulting. In fact, they're more competitive than ANYTHING YOU'VE EVER FUCKING DONE. |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 8:12 PM Author: comical french spot skinny woman no, i think they're able to do that before winning, too. google around a bit on this if you don't believe me. marshall actually requires a research proposal submission, and is much more selective than virtually any united states grad school, of course. (http://www.marshallscholarship.org/rules.html) rhodes explicitly says "if it is unlikely that you would be admitted to one of the very most selective U. S. graduate programs in your primary field, it is unlikely that you will win a Rhodes Scholarship." (http://www.rhodesscholar.org/qa.html)
our resident rhodes, joe caltech, whom you love to hate, seems to correspond with that. didn't he go 6-for-6 for the top programs in his field, right down the usnews list, all before getting the rhodes? do you have any knowledge of rhodes or marshalls not getting into the very top grad programs in their field, or are you just talking out of your ass?
and you didn't have 4 published papers, significant or otherwise. simple as that. you might've written 4 end-of-summer reports for your college or your employer, but that is NOT the same as a serious academic paper. you know better than to claim that it is, mike, i'm sure of that.
if you did have 4 published papers, name the journals.
semifamous card game--laughing my fucking ass off. |
|
Date: June 25th, 2006 3:08 AM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann I read the entire "What Are My Chances?" thread and didn't see the passage you quoted. Pwned, whore.
These fellowships are extremely selective, but your claim of "much more selective than virtually any united states grad school" is, flatly, false.
Rhodes scholars are very bright, agreed, but ask a given class all to apply to math, physics, or CS grad programs (considered to be the 3 most selective grad disciplines), departments 1 through 20. Many of them won't get any of those 60.
Even admitting your (probably fabricated) quoted passage, keep in mind that "very most selective [...] in primary field" is geared toward humanities admissions, which are not as difficult as in the math and sciences (though getting funding seems to be comparably difficult.)
"our resident rhodes, joe caltech, whom you love to hate, seems to correspond with that."
I haven't "hated" him for quite a while, and yet you still fellate him. Should I make a conjecture about your relationship to him?
"do you have any knowledge of rhodes or marshalls not getting into the very top grad programs in their field, or are you just talking out of your ass?"
I doubt that any would be turned down post-Rhodes.
"and you didn't have 4 published papers, significant or otherwise. simple as that. you might've written 4 end-of-summer reports for your college or your employer, but that is NOT the same as a serious academic paper."
They weren't "end-of-summer reports", you idiot. You clearly know nothing about the research world. They were papers published internally because they used material that was internal to the government context in which I worked. You're a fucking numbskull if you don't understand this. The papers were as rigorous and legit as other REU papers.
"semifamous card game--laughing my fucking ass off."
What, because of my having achieved more with it than you ever fucking will, in any field, in your entire life?
|
|
Date: June 25th, 2006 10:33 AM Author: comical french spot skinny woman apparently you don't read very carefully. why didn't you just do a keywork search or something? it's on page 14. and i don't see anything that might indicate it's more for humanities than sciences. do you have any basis for that conclusion or are you just talking out of your ass again?
"Rhodes scholars are very bright, agreed, but ask a given class all to apply to math, physics, or CS grad programs (considered to be the 3 most selective grad disciplines), departments 1 through 20. Many of them won't get any of those 60."
who cares? most of them don't study math, physics, or CS! you have absolutely no point! those that did study those subjects would doubtless get into the top programs, exactly as the quote above says they would. could you get into a top English lit, history, or political science program? i doubt it. heck, you didn't even get into the top programs in your own field, let alone someone else's.
"I haven't "hated" him for quite a while, and yet you still fellate him. Should I make a conjecture about your relationship to him?"
i enjoy the existence of people like joe caltech, as well as stanlee, chiashu, and a few other posters because they beat you soundly at your own game (no, i don't mean your card game) and yet aren't arrogant assholes--at least not when compared with you. you have a clear history of attacking what you feel inferior towards when challenged. this drives your long threads about harvard, for example.
by the way, don't even try to pretend that this isn't you: http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=441538&forum_id=2#6065861 the hate goes on, it seems. the only fellatio i see going on on this board is from you to 174. are you in a gay relationship with him?
"as rigorous and legit as other REU papers"
so, as rigorous and legit as other undergrad summer work internal writeups that usually don't turn into journal publications? sounds about right. again, if you have any real publications please post the citations.
"What, because of my having achieved more with it than you ever fucking will, in any field, in your entire life?"
my note was published. that means i have 1 more real publication that you do. |
|
Date: June 25th, 2006 10:56 AM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann Ok, I saw it. You weren't making it up, even though it's clearly inaccurate. I guess my mind didn't process it on the first read because it was wrong and it didn't fit my gestalt for such a publication to state something flatly wrong. Grad school admissions at the top-10 level in competitive fields are AT LEAST as difficult as the Rhodes scholarship.
"who cares? most of them don't study math, physics, or CS! you have absolutely no point! those that did study those subjects would doubtless get into the top programs, exactly as the quote above says they would."
You just tried to argue that anyone who can get an RS in, say, English could get t10 grad placement in math or physics. You're wrong. Similarly, even if I had studied music in college, I wouldn't be able to get T10 grad music placement because I don't have the talent.
"i enjoy the existence of people like joe caltech, as well as stanlee, chiashu, and a few other posters because they beat you soundly at your own game (no, i don't mean your card game) and yet aren't arrogant assholes--at least not when compared with you."
Chiashu could easily be smarter than I am. He got a higher score on AHSME, but in a different year, so there's really no basis for comparison. Stanlee? Nah, not so much. Joe Caltech? He's reasonably accomplished but amazing. Ambition qualifies me to call myself a star of my generation though, admittedly, a Mag 5 or 6.
Why don't you list 174 and Renada, who are more likely to match or exceed me than any of the posters you named?
Anyway, I'm glad to hear you admit, subtly, the obvious: that you like fellating those posters even though not a single one of them would so much as bat an eye at you. You're an ant trying to referee among giants, and it's not going to work for you.
"you have a clear history of attacking what you feel inferior towards when challenged."
From the go, this is shitty sentence construction, and "towards" isn't a word. It's "toward". Of course, people of your social class often say "torrds", so I can understand this error.
" by the way, don't even try to pretend that this isn't you: http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=441538&forum_id=2#6065861 the hate goes on, it seems. the only fellatio i see going on on this board is from you to 174. are you in a gay relationship with him? "
TTT in decline? I'm not him. His post history goes back farther than mine, in fact.
"so, as rigorous and legit as other undergrad summer work internal writeups that usually don't turn into journal publications?"
You fucking know why they were "internal", but you're trying to draw me out on this. (I'm not supposed to discuss specifics, and not allowed, for reasons that should be obvious, to describe the subject matter. However, the people with whom I worked gave me glowing recommendations.)
But yes, my name's on 4 papers of much more importance than 95% of scholarly journal publications. Three of these were co-authorships, and for one of those 3 I didn't really do much of note, but that's still more than you have. |
|
Date: June 25th, 2006 11:26 AM Author: comical french spot skinny woman "Grad school admissions at the top-10 level in competitive fields are AT LEAST as difficult as the Rhodes scholarship."
yeah, you have no basis for that whatsoever. in fact, the rest of the world would say it's pretty clearly false. why don't you start a thread about it and see what the other opinions out there are?
"You just tried to argue that anyone who can get an RS in, say, English could get t10 grad placement in math or physics."
no, i didn't. i said they could get a top (not even top 10--i'm talking top 2 or 3) placement in a us grad school in *their field.* which is coincidentally backed up by what the rhodes people themselves say--one of the "very most selective" programs.
you don't have four real papers. period. i doubt you even have one real paper. i have a published note, therefore i am a superior academic. |
|
Date: June 25th, 2006 1:12 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann "yeah, you have no basis for that whatsoever. in fact, the rest of the world would say it's pretty clearly false."
What you clearly don't understand is that the Rhodes is a *generalist* fellowship; the slant is toward well-roundedness. If you knew anything about management theory or even human nature, you'd know that it's much more difficult, taxing, and (yes) g-loaded to work in a technical specialty than at the big-picture level. So, no, I don't think most people would agree with you on something clearly false. It simply is harder to succeed in a specialized field against people with exceptional talents at that specialty than it is to succeed by a generalist metric. (In math, virtually all, if not all, the students at top departments are exceptionally talented.) This does not entail that Rhodes scholars are lacking or inferior to the specialists; it simply indicates that it is difficult to set out for and achieve the Rhodes than, say, top-10 math placement.
"i said they could get a top (not even top 10--i'm talking top 2 or 3) placement in a us grad school in *their field.*"
You don't know a fucking thing about graduate school, and you have no idea how competitive it actually is. You've never applied and simply don't know. To be fair to ya, I also underestimated the difficulty/selectivity of math grad schools and expected to be accepted more places than I was; I didn't know how amazingly bright the competition was.
You seem to think graduate school is like undergrad (or law school) where anyone with reasonable preparation and talent can get in to one of the top 5 programs. Well, graduate programs are very small and, ergo, it's not.
"you don't have four real papers. period. i doubt you even have one real paper."
You have no fucking clue what I did, and I'm not going to tell you because, alas, I'm not allowed. However, it wasn't small fucking potatoes, and there's a greater chance that my work will be used than that your "note" will EVER be important to anyone. Fuck you, you drooling fucking loser.
"i have a published note, therefore i am a superior academic."
Guess what, loser? I HAVE A SUPERIOR INTELLECT. That wins. Make no mistake about it: I am a fucking genius compared to you. |
|
Date: June 25th, 2006 1:35 PM Author: comical french spot skinny woman "It simply is harder to succeed in a specialized field against people with exceptional talents at that specialty than it is to succeed by a generalist metric. (In math, virtually all, if not all, the students at top departments are exceptionally talented.)"
you don't seem to understand that rhodes and marshall scholars have to have that exceptionally specialized talent PLUS be good at everything else--good enough to get into the VERY MOST SELECTIVE phd programs in their field. that's very good indeed.
i know you have it in your head that people who have a real math/science talent--a talent even greater than your own--couldn't possibly also be good at other things (since you aren't), but that's the way the real world works, mike. there are, amazingly, people out there who can match and very likely exceed you for achievement in their specialty and ALSO be exceptionally athletic or whatevver. those are the people that win these fellowships.
this is at the statement of the rhodes foundation itself, or should we just add them to the long list of very well-respected organizations that "mike church says lie" with no evidence (like harvard about their admissions process, and so on.) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2006 2:22 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann "you don't seem to understand that rhodes and marshall scholars have to have that exceptionally specialized talent PLUS be good at everything else"
Many of them do have a specialized talent, but it's not required by the selection criterion. It's a generalist fellowship, and quite a competitive one, but that's what it is. It's incidental that a lot of solid generalists also have good specialties.
"good enough to get into the VERY MOST SELECTIVE phd programs in their field."
Very few PhD programs will turn someone down post-Rhodes.
"i know you have it in your head that people who have a real math/science talent--a talent even greater than your own--couldn't possibly also be good at other things"
No, I don't, because I know some people like this.
"(since you aren't)"
Uh, wrong. I am more well-rounded than your pencil dick after you stick it in a sharpener. You've evidently never heard of writing, or this thing known as the English language. This is odd, because you often fumble about trying to use precisely it. (Don't even fucking try to fight me on this; I was a better writer at 14 than you could ever dream of becoming.) You also don't think much of game design; oh well, I won't proselytize.
"there are, amazingly, people out there who can match and very likely exceed you for achievement in their specialty and ALSO be exceptionally athletic or whatevver."
I don't doubt you.
"those are the people that win these fellowships."
Sometimes, yes. For what it's worth, the athletic requirement has been relaxed quite a bit; one no longer needs to be a great athlete in order to get the Rhdoes. The Rhodes is now essentially all about academics, though it gets somewhat subjective since the comparisons are across disciplines.
I'm not saying that I'd necessarily win the Rhodes. My GPA might not be good enough: it's a 3.88, and there's much higher out there. My breadth of coursework also leaves some things to be desired; I took mostly math and CS, and I'm pretty sure that most people in those contests have much more diversity of study. However, if I wasn't shut out on GPA/breadth-of-study and got to the interview phase, I'd be a fucking walk-on, which is more than you can say.
"this is at the statement of the rhodes foundation itself"
Care to advise me on your "creative" use of the word "at"?
"(like harvard about their admissions process, and so on.)"
Harvard College is one of the greatest marketing successes of our century. However, they didn't pull off what they did without ever misrepresenting their admissions process to make themselves (and their students) look better. For example, they never say that the nonacademic component of admissions is a racist hangover from 70 years ago, but it's a verified fact. They never say that students have been turned down or accepted on the basis of their ZIP code alone, but it's true. They claim that artistic submissions are read by professors, which has been proven false (unless the already euphemistic title "sanitation engineer" has been upgraded to "materials sequestration professor", since the round-file has been proven to be exactly where Harvard College puts anything remotely related to creativity). |
|
Date: June 25th, 2006 4:12 PM Author: comical french spot skinny woman let's not get off-track here, mike.
rhodes explicitly says "if it is unlikely that you would be admitted to one of the very most selective U. S. graduate programs in your primary field, it is unlikely that you will win a Rhodes Scholarship." (http://www.rhodesscholar.org/qa.html)
that's pre-rhodes. not post. pre.
personally i think you'd fail most clearly on the leadership criterion, but you're right, your lack of any sort of vigorous interests outside of academics and the fact that you couldn't get into the "very most selective U. S. graduate programs in your primary field" certainly wouldn't help you either. i also think you'd fuck up the interview bigtime--i don't think they're looking to recruit narcissists--but that's also beside the point. |
|
Date: June 25th, 2006 5:41 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann "that's pre-rhodes. not post. pre."
Okay, then let's take it at face value. They clearly have no idea how difficult it is to get into top graduate programs in subjects such as math and physics. Their concept of the difficulty of these admissions must be calibrated to 1960 or before, but obviously not 2006. That much is clear, and I can't fault them for this.
"personally i think you'd fail most clearly on the leadership criterion"
"Leadership" is like "creativity": it probably exists, but 99% of the defitions given for the trait are so idiotic as to be utterly worthless. If there's such a thing as a "leadership criterion", it's not taking seriously by the committee because these people are smart enough to know that so-called "leadership" is a condescending soft-batch construct designed to make low-IQ, unskilled losers feel better about themselves. So no, it wouldn't block me. If there's a non-trivial "leadership criterion" (and there's not) I would ace it, unless the committee is full of idiots (which it's almost certainly not).
"your lack of any sort of vigorous interests outside of academics"
I've probably told you 200 times this, but you don't seem to get it: You're a fucking idiot. Your opinions are worthless, especially when you have never met me and have no idea who I am. How the fuck would you know what my "vigorous interests" are?
"i also think you'd fuck up the interview bigtime--i don't think they're looking to recruit narcissists--but that's also beside the point."
Actually, before an interview I always introduce myself by saying, "I'm a huge fucking narcissist". It takes an edge off the tension and the interview goes smoothly. You should try it some time. |
|
Date: June 25th, 2006 5:58 PM Author: comical french spot skinny woman "They clearly have no idea how difficult it is to get into top graduate programs in subjects such as math and physics."
but most of the people who run these scholarships are in academia themselves, right? they make the decisions about who to admit to their "top graduate programs." shouldn't they know what it takes? |
|
Date: June 25th, 2006 6:10 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann Aren't they in England? It's probably easier over there, since part of the difficulty of US math/phys/CS admissions is that we aren't competing against the country, but the world. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6068988) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2006 9:34 PM Author: comical french spot skinny woman it's a dot-org address, not dot-org-dot-uk, so this seems doubtful to me but why don't you check it out? i'll bet that very same faq sheet has the answers you're looking for.
i doubt it's in england though because they specifically reference the top "U. S." graduate programs. i'm pretty sure by that they mean the top graduate programs in the united states.
i love your "probably...competing against the world" statement though. i'd be willing to bet quite a lot of money that oxbridge have much more international student bodies (including math/science grad programs) than your typical us grad school does.
i do find it weird that you're constantly referencing specifically math, physics... and cs. wtf is up with that? good chemistry or electrical engineering or astronomy phd programs are every bit as hard to get into as math and physics. plus, i always thought of cs as kind of weaksauce myself. |
|
Date: June 25th, 2006 10:52 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann "i'd be willing to bet quite a lot of money that oxbridge have much more international student bodies (including math/science grad programs) than your typical us grad school does."
In the top 15, >50% international is not at all unusual.
"i do find it weird that you're constantly referencing specifically math, physics... and cs. wtf is up with that? good chemistry or electrical engineering or astronomy phd programs are every bit as hard to get into as math and physics."
You may be right; it wouldn't surprise me.
"plus, i always thought of cs as kind of weaksauce myself."
CS graduate admissions are pretty damn competitive. |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 4:32 PM Author: comical french spot skinny woman the putnam does not disagree. did he ever place higher than 40th? 80 includes two cohorts, so it's the wrong number to use.
i wouldn't put him in the top 400 or 0.01% of his class either, by the way. he goes to the #13 grad school for his subject, and does not have a fellowship or perform at the top of that class. in math alone that means there are a good 100-200 students better than he is in his cohort year.
top 4000, or 0.1%? now i might buy that, but it's nothing remarkable on xoxo. |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 4:41 PM Author: Razzle ungodly point factory reset button Putnam is four years of students, actually. It's an undergraduate competition.
For your case, I've heard a mathematician say that he thinks Putnam measures creativity more than likelihood of succeeding in mathematics. So it might be premature to say that he's in that top group for math alone just because he's unusually creative; success in mathematics obviously takes a lot more both in the way of effort and talent. However, when you consider the number of things he's good at, he probably still is. Math and writing ability are somewhat correlated, but still become independent enough at the upper reaches to make the case for 4-800. |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 9:24 PM Author: comical french spot skinny woman pensive, it's far too obvious that this is you. given that, you should know better than this, and i suspect that you do.
putnam is "four years of students," but your point would only be valid if the putman were only held (or winners were only announced) once every four years. or, of course, if you had gotten your precious honorable mention four years in a row instead of just your senior year.
it must be pretty sad to have your defining moment be making the honorable mention list for a very narrow and largely meaningless contest. |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2006 1:45 AM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann What 4,000,000,000 people died and made you smartest person in the world in order to say Putnam is "a very narrow and largely meaningless contest"? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6050735) |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2006 2:57 AM Author: hyperactive 180 immigrant church building What 6 billion people and 70 orangutans died and made you the top 50% of sentinent organisms in order to say that Harvard College "doesn't really care much about academics"? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6051242) |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2006 10:48 AM Author: comical french spot skinny woman 180. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6052074) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 6:13 AM Author: slimy windowlicker 180 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6059462) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 11:00 AM Author: Violent Hall 180. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6059654) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 12:55 PM Author: Excitant umber becky people who are hurt 181. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6060093) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 5:47 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann You may not think much of my intelligence, but you're making an attribution error. It is evident from revealed characteristics-- admissions, easiness of curriculum, horrific grade inflation given the light workload-- that Harvard College, by T25 standards, cares little about academics. (Of course, by more general standards, it's still quite strong.) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6062052) |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2006 10:55 AM Author: comical french spot skinny woman very narrow = it's for a certain type of contest math geek and no one else. there are brilliant historians, doctors, authors, even nuclear physicists and biochemists, who would have no interest in the test.
largely meaningless = it has very little bearing on anything else in life. it means nothing outside of math, and close to nothing even in terms of aptitude for "real" math research, by your own admission. it's not even a normed quasi-"intelligence" test like the SAT or ACT. |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 5:55 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann Putnam, contrary to popular belief, only requires mathematical knowledge up to calculus 3, or maybe linear algebra. (Of course, further mathematical exposure is an advantage.) It's usually possible to get 6-8 problems with no math beyond what we learn in high school, and that's quite a good score. (My best score was 58, or 6 problems with minor penalties.) What makes Putnam so difficult then? It's a problem-solving/creativity test at the upper reaches. Of course, I agree wholeheartedly that there are lots of brilliant/creative people who would have no interest in taking it. Moreover, I'll readily acknowledge that prior exposure to such tests is quite an advantage, since one does get better with practice. (Of course, Putnam is not 1/10 as prep-able as the SAT.)
I'd be willing to bet that Putnam, while not strongly so, is much *more* indicative of intelligence on the 140-180 range than the SAT/GRE general, where the math is trivial and the verbal responds enormously (at the upper end) to one's possession (or lack thereof) of XIX-c. vocabulary. |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 6:14 PM Author: comical french spot skinny woman so basically this post is a reinforcement of the fact that most top college students, even most top college students in math-oriented subjects, have no interest in this contest, plus a restatement of your unsupported *opinion* that nonetheless it's a better indicator of intelligence than tests rigorously designed, evaluated, and normed as such.
did you know that the verbal sat has been shown to correlate more closely with tested iq than the math part? looks like you've got a good 90 points to go before you've got to worry about a new scale! |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 6:23 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann "your unsupported *opinion* that nonetheless it's a better indicator of intelligence than tests rigorously designed, evaluated, and normed as such."
Um, you're a fucking idiot. There's a reason why doing well on the Putnam is more highly regarded than doing well on the SAT or GRE. The Putnam is much more difficult and, yeah, is probably a better indicator of intelligence over the 140-180 range, though admittedly, measuring IQ is not what the test was designed to do. People like Blair Hornstine can break 1500 on the SATs through extensive prep, but would fall flat on the Putnam.
"did you know that the verbal sat has been shown to correlate more closely with tested iq than the math part?"
SAT-M is pretty trivial.
"looks like you've got a good 90 points to go before you've got to worry about a new scale!"
Oh, I honestly don't care. The difference between 700 and 800 is usually vocabulary; it was in my case. I have a 53,000 word vocabulary, which pwns you by an estimated factor of 3.53 (I've seen enough of your writing to have a pretty good estimate). Of course, since I studied math, many of my surplus words are technical or mathematical terms that never appear on the SAT. If I had studied Victorian literature instead, the technical terms would've been replaced by XIX-c. $10 words instead and I would've aced it. |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 6:31 PM Author: comical french spot skinny woman woulda coulda shoulda
the putnam can *maybe* measure you versus other math majors, though even that is doubtful. other than that, of course someone like blair hornstine would fail. even if she wasn't a cheating loser, she doesn't study math. it's far, far too "niche" to represent a realistic iq test.
did you at least get a certificate for your one year of honorable mention or something? do you masturbate to it at night? i'm just wondering because it seems to be your crowing achievement, honorable mention in a math contest few people have heard of and even fewer people care about. |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 6:38 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann "the putnam can *maybe* measure you versus other math majors, though even that is doubtful. other than that, of course someone like blair hornstine would fail. even if she wasn't a cheating loser, she doesn't study math. it's far, far too 'niche' to represent a realistic iq test."
I know this. I didn't say that it's a great measure of IQ at all. It's obviously not. However, I said that over the 140-180 range, it's better than SAT/GRE. This isn't a strong claim since those tests are very weak over that range.
"did you at least get a certificate for your one year of honorable mention or something? do you masturbate to it at night? i'm just wondering because it seems to be your crowing achievement, honorable mention in a math contest few people have heard of and even fewer people care about."
I have you green with envy. This is pleasing to me. |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 6:46 PM Author: comical french spot skinny woman "I said that over the 140-180 range, it's better than SAT/GRE"
...for comparison between math majors. maybe. (it's not normed and likely depends quite a bit on familiarity with the type of problem presented, so even that is pretty doubtful.)
and yeah, i'm green with envy over your wrinkled, semen-soaked honorable mention certificate. [now awaiting tired, pathetic "your mom" joke from pensive] |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 7:00 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann "...for comparison between math majors. maybe. (it's not normed and likely depends quite a bit on familiarity with the type of problem presented, so even that is pretty doubtful.)"
I'd agree that it does not necessarily signify low intelligence for someone NOT to be good a Putnam; there are, in other words, what would be considered "false negatives" if it were to serve as a test for exceptional intelligence. There are no false positives: one simply doesn't do well on the Putnam without a high level of ability.
Also, do you even know what the fuck "normed" is? Please give a definition sufficient to indicate an understanding of the concept.
"yeah, i'm green with envy"
I'm glad we've settled this.
"wrinkled, semen-soaked"
Where the fuck do your obsessions come from? |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 7:15 PM Author: comical french spot skinny woman apparently in all of your distinguished literary journeys you've never encountered sarcasm. to be clear, you can keep your spunge-encrusted scoresheet to yourself.
your theory on the putnam is interesting but pretty irrelevant. fact is, a test that only a few specialized people take only covering their specialized field isn't valid to compare them with the rest of the population.
there's only one other person on this board who bothered to do the putnam contest (chiashu). he got a higher score than you. does that mean that you're in the bottom 50% of intelligence on this board? |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 7:46 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann What's "spunge"? Please explain for this sub-750 SAT-V scorer.
Actually, it was on the AHSME that he got a higher score. We took them in different years, for what it's worth, so the scores can't really be meaningfully compared. (In any case, a 145 is damn impressive any year, and better than I ever got: my best was 141.) We tied on the AIME.
You're not listening to me. I'm not saying that the Putnam is an ironclad, fool-proof IQ test over 140-180. I'm saying that, as a test designed to measure abstract problem-solving/creativity at the highest levels, it's going to be more indicative than the SAT, a test designed to measure the center. |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 10:20 PM Author: comical french spot skinny woman but you did "well" on the subject-based putnam (which is not a rigorous intelligence test), while not even coming close to maxing the SAT? how do you explain that?
i'd explain it as your math intelligence/skill (the facility you have for math) being significantly higher than your general intelligence (iq). seems simple enough. |
|
Date: June 25th, 2006 3:13 AM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann As I said, the SAT-V is not pure IQ on account of the vocabulary. Having not been well-read in the XIX-c. literature that would be required for exposure to the last few SAT words, I didn't score as high as I would have if I had read more of that sort of literature.
My general intelligence/IQ is much higher than yours, so why does your opinion matter exactly? |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 12:07 AM Author: appetizing bisexual rehab background story Regardless of how I feel about pensive, I do agree that Harvard College is more of a TTT than its peer undergraduate institution; The fame it has acquired in the past 300+ years is what keeps it at the top.
Regarding Harvard's admissions process being racist: It's a lot less racist than Yale or Princeton (esp. historically). |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 11:04 AM Author: Coiffed Principal's Office Internal Respiration this is kind of an embarrassing thread. why does pensive know so much about harvard college? it's really pathetic. i wonder why he spends so much time learning about such a ttt pos. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6043846) |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 11:14 AM Author: Violent Hall He hasn't spent time learning about it. He's spent time bloviating about it. Of course, it's equally pathetic either way. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6043887) |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 2:26 PM Author: comical french spot skinny woman he doesn't know jack about harvard.
there are people on this board who have been at harvard for 6 or 7 years and worked in the admissions office. on the other hand, pensive was rejected twice, accepted never, and probably hasn't spent more than a day or two on campus in his entire life. |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 2:33 PM Author: Coiffed Principal's Office Internal Respiration i guess the games master can't master that game. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6045548) |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2006 1:49 AM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann The Harvard undergrad people on this board are rarely insightful about anything. Also, only one of the rejections really counts (grad school) since I didn't try at all during undergrad, and in fact intentionally pissed off the interviewer. We've all been over that story. If not for that, I would've gotten in easily because my application was so nukular it came with its own mushroom cloud. You = pwned. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6050769) |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2006 2:04 AM Author: Bat shit crazy chapel pervert "this is kind of an embarrassing thread." True, but it will make for an interesting case study for some psych students when pensive goes postal in cambridge. |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 2:32 PM Author: Fantasy-prone masturbator hospital i'd be curious to see the OP's top 10 schools according to his own rankings. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6045542) |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 5:13 PM Author: indecent cuck carleton, mit, caltech, stanford, princeton, yale, plus four others which will probably include each LAC ranked above carleton. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6046798) |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 6:00 PM Author: Fantasy-prone masturbator hospital Carleton is a great LAC, but I don't see how it could be placed in that list ahead of the likes of Chicago, Columbia, and other schools like Penn. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6047237) |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 9:27 PM Author: comical french spot skinny woman mike also has a mini-hardon for chicago. my prediction is that he'd bump yale off his list for chicago. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6048734) |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2006 10:36 AM Author: indecent cuck it is holy ground anointed by pensive's undergraduate years (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6052003) |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2006 3:01 PM Author: Fantasy-prone masturbator hospital i almost transferred there after my freshman year. then i realized that it was in the middle of nowhere, and that i'd probably hang myself within two weeks. good school though (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6053709) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 6:24 PM Author: comical french spot skinny woman are the spots where he'd give his impromptu public poetry readings even more holy? they must be because usually people would try to avoid them. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6062237) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 6:31 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann First of all, I don't remember these "impromptu poetry readings". Second, that people would try to avoid holy places (instead of seeking them) is characteristic of the shit-drivel you often attempt to pass for logic. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6062266) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 6:50 PM Author: comical french spot skinny woman it's also unusual to snicker and avoid eye contact with the holy one himself as he's doing his reading and you're walking quickly past, but from what i hear that was pretty common to.
maybe you announced them before. i have no idea whether they were really impromptu. |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 7:04 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, and you come off as an idiot. You're clearly brain-damaged, and you should sue the guy who eye-raped you as a child. I'll pay for the lawyer. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6062459) |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2006 1:50 AM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann It varies by person, because the truth is that which colleges are good for which types of people is a very subjective matter. I'll get back to this when I have time to put more thought into it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6050777) |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2006 2:59 AM Author: hyperactive 180 immigrant church building Yes, subjectively, TTTs are good for the functionally retarded. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6051250) |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 5:47 PM Author: scarlet confused pozpig When I was there, I went to school with a bunch of wealthy scions of industrial dynasties and company presidents. If the place is losing respect among the "upper classes," I'd like to see it. If that was true, I wouldn't have been able to joke to my friends about kidnapping them for ransom and such.
Not the worst idea to raise quick cash, by the way. |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2006 1:47 AM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann I bet, though, that if you had asked those kids how their families made their money, you'd find that, qualitatively, they weren't in the best of industries and that their families probably lived in ornate and expensive but tacky McMansions. Otherwise, they would have preferred places that are not Harvard. Of course, an alternative hypothesis is that they couldn't get in anywhere else. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6050748) |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2006 9:27 PM Author: Excitant umber becky people who are hurt This thread needs to die. Beginning after this post, posting in this thread will result in an immediate drop in prestige. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6048735) |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2006 2:53 AM Author: hyperactive 180 immigrant church building YOUR SCHTICK needs to die. Beginning after this post, replying to YOU will result in an immediate drop in prestige. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6051223) |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2006 8:45 PM Author: diverse unholy telephone dilemma A girl I tutored went to Carleton. She hated the location and whined about it constantly. However, she did think she received a very good education. She told me if she could do it again, she'd go somewhere else to have more fun, have access to a bigger city with easier opportunities for internships, etc. She also hated the cold winters and didn't appreciate Minneapolis (nearest big city) much. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6056559) |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2006 9:22 PM Author: dull filthy corner striped hyena Your obsession with the school makes very little sense. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6056780) |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2006 9:34 PM Author: comical french spot skinny woman in the context of the most extreme case of sour grapes you've ever seen, it makes perfect sense. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6056838) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 6:11 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann I just wanted to get a 200+. I haven't done that for a while. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6062161) |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2006 11:00 PM Author: dashing ivory boiling water ladyboy Why the fascination with H undergrad on this board? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6057450) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 11:04 AM Author: indecent cuck you mean with pensive? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6059664) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 11:08 AM Author: concupiscible faggotry Because Pensive's a jealous douche that could only get into Carleton. Ignore it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6059673) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 12:54 PM Author: plum vigorous mad-dog skullcap GO NINJA GO NINJA GO! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6060089) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 3:20 PM Author: comical french spot skinny woman credited. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6060965) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 6:07 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann I got into Chicago, which is the #10 most selective college in the country. For the record, I was only rejected from Harvard because (1) I blew off the interview, and (2) Harvard couldn't figure out my high school's grading system and ended up penalizing our applicants. (Our valedictorian also applied with straight As that they interpreted as ~3.4; she was pissed.) If I'd applied to the board's top 6, HYPSMC, in 2001 I would've had an expectation of 4.15 acceptances based on my numbers and ECs alone, and a 99.9325% chance of at least 1/6. In fact, if I were applying today (with SAT-W included in the composite) that expectation would be close to 5. So you're wrong, and you're a fucking idiot, and I'm so much smarter than you that, if I wanted to, which I never would, I could rape you and trick you into thinking it was "exercise" a la the FAS girl on Law and Order. Pwned. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6062143) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 6:12 PM Author: Excitant umber becky people who are hurt You didn't pwn shit.
YOUGOTDINGEDFROMHARVARDALONGTIMEAGOYETYOUSTILLCANTGETOVERITPWNED!!!! |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 6:15 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann My application was so nukular it had its own mushroom cloud. While I do not fancy myself terribly impressive or accomplished, by the standards of high school, I was the best of the best back then.
I wouldn't say I "can't get over it", but how much respect to I owe a college whose admissions office can't figure out a high school's grading system, especially when it's not that complicated? |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 6:18 PM Author: Excitant umber becky people who are hurt The simple, intuitive fact is that you wouldn't battle your way through 200 post threads about Harvard if you didn't care about your ding. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6062200) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 6:35 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann Eh, while I didn't want to go there, it kind of sucks. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6062285) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 6:52 PM Author: comical french spot skinny woman this is, of course, the most credited response of them all.
sour grapes supreme. |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 7:02 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann No, it's not really sour grapes at all. For an analogy, let's say you take the Mensa test but have no desire to join Mensa. The person grading your test is obviously incompetent, misgrades your exam, and you fail. Having put the time and effort into that test, aren't you going to be pissed, even having no desire to join Mensa? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6062445) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 7:10 PM Author: Violent Hall Well, I don't put time and effort into applying to groups I don't want to join. Rational people don't do that.
If I were still raving mad about it five years later, that would be pretty definitive evidence that I DID want to join, and that it's been eating me up inside the whole time. |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 7:23 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann "Well, I don't put time and effort into applying to groups I don't want to join. Rational people don't do that."
I wanted to get in because, as much as I bash the place, there is a benefit in saying that one got into Harvard. My plan was to get in to Harvard, turn it down and go to a better school. That way, I'd get a great education but could say, "you know, I turned down Harvard", getting the best of both worlds. I also knew that I had an application that made me a walk-on; getting MOP implies Harvard as a rule. My error was indicating my disinclination to attend. I figured it would improve the story: "Not only did I turn down Harvard, but I told them I'd do so as well." Alas, this failed, turning an auto-admit into an auto-reject. If I'd know that yield was the single most important attribute of an application to Harvard, I'd have played the game differently.
"that would be pretty definitive evidence that I DID want to join"
No, wrong. I just hate losing at games on bullshit technicalities (yield protection) when I've already won them (MOP, again).
If I had really cared about that Ivy bullshit, I would've applied to more of them, but I didn't. I applied to Harvard for the sake of turning them down for the story; this was arrogant and foolhardy, but I can't change that now. |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 7:25 PM Author: dull filthy corner striped hyena "That way, I'd get a great education but could say, 'you know, I turned down Harvard', getting the best of both worlds."
You know no one would care about your claim to have gotten into Harvard, right? |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 7:36 PM Author: comical french spot skinny woman to be fair, he'd have a good deal more credibility in his claim that he "could've gotten into harvard" if he'd not actually, i dunno, been rejected.
since so much of his self-worth and defensiveness is predicated on this rather shaky notion that he "could've" done things he actually failed to do, i can see why it drives him nuts. combine that with his against-all-logic belief that he must be in the top 0.01% of the population, must be so very intelligent and so very distinguished, and it's like a thermonuclear sour grape bomb. |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 7:39 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann I know now that no one (at the upper end of society) cares about Harvard. I wasn't so astute an observer when I was younger. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6062660) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 7:48 PM Author: Excitant umber becky people who are hurt I think what you meant to say was: "I know no one at the upper end of society"
So STFU already. |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 8:48 PM Author: Violent Hall >I know now that no one (at the upper end of society) cares about Harvard.
Yet you obviously care deeply about Harvard. So I guess you're not in the upper end of society. |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 10:19 PM Author: comical french spot skinny woman this is a pretty good catch. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6063555) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2006 2:54 AM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann No one, even at the top, likes losing to a weak opponent on a bad beat. Yertle the Turtle wasn't a fan of the dude at the bottom who burped and fucked up his whole game.
There's something amusing about being yield-protected from Harvard, but then there are outright idiots like on this thread who fail to see that acceptance to MOP makes one an auto-admit unless one intentionally blows off one's application. |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 7:21 PM Author: comical french spot skinny woman you've done this, haven't you? that's pretty fucked up.
it's like you're searching for the test that will finally force the rest of the world to accept your vision of yourself. unfortunately, you haven't found it yet. leaving aside the fact that it doesn't exist, good luck. |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 7:47 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann No, I haven't.
I won't respond the existential blather about accepting visions. Such drivel is below my consideration. |
|
Date: June 24th, 2006 7:02 PM Author: Violent Hall That's really what it comes down to in the end. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6062444) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2006 4:00 PM Author: Gold angry shrine french chef "Our valedictorian also applied with straight As that they interpreted as ~3.4"- Ok, and I bet she got in, since you did not explicitly state otherwise. Are you trying to say that for as many years as your school has been around, it has been rejecting applicants with straight A's, because they translate them as 3.4's? No one has ever addressed this? You are so angry about legacy's, and extra-credits influencing admissions... but it's really just that they screwed up your gpa? Seems that would be your beef, and you wouldn't focus on so much extraneous argument, that is, if they really screwed up your gpa as much as you say. Would I be pissed if I were rejected from MENSA, because of a mis-grade? No, it wouldn't affect me, unless deep down I didn't think it was because of a mis-grade.
People can talk about grade inflation all they want, but who is to say one school is more difficult than the next, unless these students have attended both said Universities. Harvard has extremely stringent admissions, why wouldn't they have extremely intelligent students who could easily do the work? Have you been a Harvard Undergrad? Do you really know the work ethic?
"Yes, but Harvard actually strives for this in admissions. If you're too smart/sincere to spend an hour a week in 54 different ECs while ostensibly caring about not one, it can cost you admission there. "- Say it does cost you admission there, its certainly not to someone who is less academically fit than anyone else. Do you really think more than 3-5% of the class is legacy admits and celebrity's? All other schools use affirmative action as well, so thats out the window. One out of 4 students at Harvard was Valedictorian of their class... yeah sounds like a real lazy student body.
"Harvard undergrad starts losing respectability at the upper-middle-class level, and at the top of society, is completely gone."- Sure. So the majority of upper-crust society thinks to themselves, wow thats not prestigious because they didn't attend Yale or Princeton, or Swarthmore... I don't know these people could hold that against a 17 year old high school student who picked Harvard over these schools. Even so, Legacy isn't a HUGE factor at the Yales and Standfords of the world? And it doesn't help you get into a LAC if you haven't published some bullshit paper that no one outside of the high schools creative literature department will read? As for MIT and Caltech, what about the stat that women tend to have a massive advantage in admissions? Maybe more prestigious math and engineering wise, but how many SELF-PROCLAIMED super nerds are prestigious? Go to an MIT frat party and tell me its prestigious (nothing against them, just sayin, being able to perform permutations doesn't exactly equal facility with creativity or anything else).
As for the card game, some hillbilly named cletus Mcgoobern with a 3d grader's education probably thought up the rules for Texas Hold em', and I'm sure goes the same for the majority of card games. Are these people in the top ".01" of intelligence for their age group?
|
|
Date: June 25th, 2006 5:53 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann "Ok, and I bet she got in, since you did not explicitly state otherwise. Are you trying to say that for as many years as your school has been around, it has been rejecting applicants with straight A's, because they translate them as 3.4's? No one has ever addressed this?"
A few people have gotten in, but many fewer than should. she was rejected.
"You are so angry about legacy's, and extra-credits influencing admissions... but it's really just that they screwed up your gpa?"
Those things just further embarrass Harvard and therefore I bring them up.
"Harvard has extremely stringent admissions, why wouldn't they have extremely intelligent students who could easily do the work?"
The "leadership"/nonacademic component is all about bringing in stupid kids so entitled legacy dumbasses don't feel too dumb and drop out. If everyone brought into Harvard was intelligent, the legacy kids would fall flat bottom.
"Have you been a Harvard Undergrad? Do you really know the work ethic?"
Harvard does have some extremely intelligent and interesting students, but not enough to exert a meaningful influence over the culture. The dominant culture is still one of aristocratic languor and casual contempt for any semblance of difficulty in the educational process.
"So the majority of upper-crust society thinks to themselves, wow thats not prestigious because they didn't attend Yale or Princeton, or Swarthmore... I don't know these people could hold that against a 17 year old high school student who picked Harvard over these schools."
I was exaggerating the dislike for Harvard College at society's upper end: most people would probably say that Harvard's fine. However, there's a reason people who went there say they went to school "in Boston": they want to be mistaken for/associated with MIT grads.
"Go to an MIT frat party and tell me its prestigious (nothing against them, just sayin, being able to perform permutations doesn't exactly equal facility with creativity or anything else)."
I'm 23; I don't do frat parties. However, I know a lot of students from both schools, MIT and Harvard. MIT students have much better social skills and are more creative, on the whole. Harvard students are more suited to middle-management, which is where most of them go.
"Are these people in the top ".01" of intelligence for their age group?"
I didn't say that I'm top 0.01% for intelligence. Again, that would be a 168 IQ on the LN scale (156 ND) which is higher than I have. |
|
Date: June 25th, 2006 10:33 PM Author: Gold angry shrine french chef "However, there's a reason people who went there say they went to school "in Boston": they want to be mistaken for/associated with MIT grads."- If ANYONE says they went to school in Boston, it is almost usually always assumed Boston College, Boston University, or Suffolk (maybe Harvard). MIT does not even cross most peoples minds with the ambiguous mention of Boston, high-society or not.
"it's not that hard to get into a 'top 10' grad program."
'You have no fucking clue what you're talking about. This may be true with some goofy made-up disciplines, but for math, comp-sci, and physics, it is. You have to start preparing for it in your sophomore year.'"- How many people are actually in these fields for application making them so competative? No one's doubting the difficulty of getting into these programs, but its not like a ballplayer trying to make it in a field of over 10,000,000 applicants. What makes it so exceptionally competative, to the point where it is moreso than a Rhodes Scholar... just based on number of applicants to avaliable seats... and to say that something is selective because you have to begin preparing for it in your Sophomore year... I mean isn't this also medecine, psychology... things that can be non-math or physics related? |
|
Date: June 25th, 2006 4:46 PM Author: Sadistic charismatic institution (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6068346) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2006 5:54 PM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann It's even better to see that I can effortlessly clear 300 posts (combined) on a multi-thread supercluster. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6068868) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2006 9:38 PM Author: comical french spot skinny woman sure, all it takes is your saying some unbelievably stupid things. everyone loves to rubberneck at a good old-fashioned trainwreck. your sour-grapes-themed threads are basically the board equivalent. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6070263) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2006 11:52 PM Author: Marvelous fear-inspiring native persian Its impressive but would probably be more so if you didn't dedicate quite so much effort into it (e.g. responding to yourself under different names, multiparagraph responses throughout the day etc.)
Overall its an effective flame though.
Next time claim that UWisconsin > MIT or something. Or go get a life or something I don't care. |
|
Date: June 26th, 2006 10:07 PM Author: Cheese-eating hilarious ticket booth ceo My God, pensive. You are utterly pathetic. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#6078982) |
|
Date: July 7th, 2007 12:06 AM Author: Multi-colored Frozen Resort Ape haha, this is classic pensive (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=432658&forum_id=2#8347020) |
|
Date: July 7th, 2007 12:17 AM Author: Soul-stirring primrose boltzmann I used to be great at cutting up a message board. I don't think I can do it anymore. :(
The Harvard-bashing schtick was one of my favorites, if only because it was funny to watch people come out in droves to attack or defend a school they didn't attend and have nothing to do with. (Hell, I've never even seen the campus.)
No matter what side I took, I always won these wars. I didn't know much about what I was talking about, but everyone else had no clue, and while they didn't know how much I didn't know, I knew that they didn't know anything. Second-order knowledge is surprisingly powerful. |