UC’s “Too Many Asians” Admissions Policy

[SunWuKong]

Prior to Proposition 209, the University of California used race preferences to admit less academically qualified black and Hispanic students over more qualified Asians. Now, evidently uneasy that Asians make up nearly 40 percent of its undergraduates despite being only 11 percent of the state population, UC is again skirting 209 against high-achieving Asians.

The new system, called comprehensive review, de-emphasizes applicants’ SAT scores and high-school grades by adding new admissions factors, including participating in UC outreach programs, coming from a low-income family, first generation to attend college, attending a low-performing high school, and personal hardships. By these criteria, a student can rack up enough points to almost guarantee admission.

Although superficially race neutral, the new system is designed specifically to increase the number of blacks and Hispanics and reduce the number of Asians and whites admitted into UCLA and UC Berkeley, the UC system’s flagship schools. Under UC’s previous rules, grades and test scores were the determining factors for most admissions. Under those criteria, Asians and whites did well, but blacks and Hispanics did poorly, hence, the move to “comprehensive review.”


more... (http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/cap/2002/cap_02-08-21.html)

[AliBabaIncorporated]

How long before they realize their "hardship admits" (and let's face it, they don't want hardship admits, they want Blacks and Hispanics) aren't graduating at the same rate as the normally admitted students. Just as we've already seen - affirmative action admits have low retention rates. Unless you start an unofficial policy of telling teachers to go easy on students. And setting up easy majors and gut classes for the really terminal cases.

Hey, why don't they just set up "matriculation classes" and start handing out free entrance exam passes to anyone with the right skin color.

Damn, this place is starting to look just like Malaysia. Hope you don't duplicate the brain drain as all the actually qualified students who happen to be of one of the overrepresented races start going to other countries to get a fair shake.

[angel nympho]

Another reason why I decided not to go into the UC system. *Sigh*

I'm not offended by what they're doing, like, on behalf of my race or whatever... But I DO think it's unfair to those who SHOULD have gotten into their schools (*coughcough* me *coughcough*). It's upsetting to me that a lot of people who spend their entire 4 years of high school cheating off me got in and I didn't because they had a family member die and I didn't.

[kasia]

but we have to look at the facts. are these *really* unqualified blacks and hispanics getting in?

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by kasia@Sep 18 2002, 10:01 PM
but we have to look at the facts. are these *really* unqualified blacks and hispanics getting in?
well, are these blacks and hispanics more qualified than the asians that are not getting in?

[kasia]

i don't know. but if they were slightly less, i'm guessing the argument is that it is unconstitutional? what would the argument be?

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by kasia@Sep 18 2002, 10:18 PM
i don't know. but if they were slightly less, i'm guessing the argument is that it is unconstitutional? what would the argument be?
argument for or against the new policy?

[kasia]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Sep 19 2002, 03:20 AM
Originally posted by kasia@Sep 18 2002, 10:18 PM
i don't know.  but if they were slightly less, i'm guessing the argument is that it is unconstitutional?  what would the argument be?
argument for or against the new policy?
argument as to why it would be unfair to asians. i just want to hear how it would be made.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by kasia@Sep 19 2002, 03:22 AM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Sep 19 2002, 03:20 AM
Originally posted by kasia@Sep 18 2002, 10:18 PM
i don't know. but if they were slightly less, i'm guessing the argument is that it is unconstitutional? what would the argument be?
argument for or against the new policy?
argument as to why it would be unfair to asians. i just want to hear how it would be made.
Well it's unfair because if you strip the entire acceptance process of color and quality of schools the people graduate from, a lot more asians than hispanics and blacks would be getting in. and the idea is that, yes, some of the hispanics and blacks are gifted and qualified, but the quality of schools they graduate from does not do much to show how good of students they are. ... generally, crappy schools grade really easily, and they're not getting the same level of education as somebody graduating from a better school. now im not saying blacks or hispanics live in crappy neighborhoods and asians dont, and im not saying this is unfair to asians only... im saying that its unfair to select people based on where they're from. because, bottom line, you CANT say its unfair to asians because they're not accepting on pretense of race.. they changed their standards HOPING that more blacks and hispanics would be accepted.

[angel nympho]

Oh my god that last post was a complete mess. I didnt even make sense. =x I hope SOMEBODY kinda saw where I was going with that.

[kasia]

i understood where you were going.

but if the programs/policies are supposed to be remedial--that is, because more Blacks and Hispanics live in the inner-city ghettos that tend to have crappy schools, we want to give them a boost to get into college--what would happen if we take these programs/policies away?

should we just say 'to hell with them'? or that they will just have to overcome the odds themselves?

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by kasia@Sep 18 2002, 10:33 PM
i understood where you were going.

but if the programs/policies are supposed to be remedial--that is, because more Blacks and Hispanics live in the inner-city ghettos that tend to have crappy schools, we want to give them a boost to get into college--what would happen if we take these programs/policies away?

should we just say 'to hell with them'?  or that they will just have to overcome the odds themselves?
well they have to decide, is their stance that they are trying to give blacks and hispanics a boost, or that they are changing their criteria of what is considered qualifiable for acceptance into the schools? if their stance is the latter, it would be arguable at best because they're trying to quantify how much personal "struggles" individual applicants have and weigh that against raw achievements. if an applicant is rejected because he/she did not go through enough personal trials and tribulations, then it can be argued that it would be unfair to him because it's completely out of his control that his life and his family has been relatively "well adjusted" and did not have any financial troubles.



<!--EDIT|SunWuKung|Sep 18 2002, 10:57 PM-->

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by kasia@Sep 19 2002, 03:33 AM
i understood where you were going.

but if the programs/policies are supposed to be remedial--that is, because more Blacks and Hispanics live in the inner-city ghettos that tend to have crappy schools, we want to give them a boost to get into college--what would happen if we take these programs/policies away?

should we just say 'to hell with them'? or that they will just have to overcome the odds themselves?
giving able students whose life circumstances have negatively affected their educational opportunities and chance to acquire knowledge is a noble goal. so why exactly are colleges responsible for bringing those students up to speed? The university is exactly the wrong environment to address differences in prior academic background. The principle of courses in tertiary education is to bring together into a single classroom students who have roughly the same level of prior knowledge and preparedness, and see which of them are best able to grasp new material presented to them.

if UC officials really cared about students who have suffered these life hardships, they'd give them scholarships to attend preparatory classes and remedial work with other students of a similar level of preparation. instead of shuttling them directly into college-level work for which their prior academic experiences have not prepared them, in which they compete against students of a much higher level of preparation, and in which many simply give up.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Sep 19 2002, 03:57 AM
Originally posted by kasia@Sep 18 2002, 10:33 PM
i understood where you were going.

but if the programs/policies are supposed to be remedial--that is, because more Blacks and Hispanics live in the inner-city ghettos that tend to have crappy schools, we want to give them a boost to get into college--what would happen if we take these programs/policies away?

should we just say 'to hell with them'? or that they will just have to overcome the odds themselves?
well they have to decide, is their stance that they are trying to give blacks and hispanics a boost, or that they are changing their criteria of what is considered qualifiable for acceptance into the schools? if their stance is the latter, it would be arguable at best because they're trying to quantify how much personal "struggles" individual applicants have and weigh that against raw achievements. if an applicant is rejected because he/she did not go through enough personal trials and tribulations, then it can be argued that it would be unfair to him because it's completely out of his control that his life and his family has been relatively "well adjusted" and did not have any financial troubles.
No, I think it's really admirable that schools are trying to include underprivledged kids into their programs, but... does this really have to be done at the expense of the kids who WERE more privledged? I mean, not to be a bitch or anything, but different schools provide different levels of education. Those underprivledged kids might have a world of potential, but who's to say that the "rich kids" should be punished for being well off? In a perfect world, all schools would be at the same level of education, and admission to schools would be colorblind and income-blind. But, also, we have to remember that just because less "rich" people get admitted, they're less likely of going unless they get a scholarship. Do I want some kid from the ghetto with a 4.0 GPA at HIS school taking my scholarship because his school isn't as prominent as mine when, if that kid had gone to a more privledged school, he would have gotten a 2.0? I mean, hypothetically. Sure that kid worked hard for it, but so did I. I mean... high schools, you have to agree, are all on different levels. This underprivledged kid could get to UCLA and realize "OH SHIT, this is fucking hard!" And realize that maybe his high school education didn't prepare him at ALL for this. Whereas, somebody from a more challenging school would be able to go and make the most of their time there. I'm not saying that we can really blame people for their upbringing and education that was available... I just wish there was a better way to meter potential and the capacity to learn. :(

I'm not saying I necessarily 100% AGREE with what I just said up there, but it definately is food for thought.

[Reinhard H.]

Why don't they just follow two simple steps:

1. Introduce standardized, comprehensive college entrance examinations that every student who wants to study has to take, so one can compare different students more easily.

2. Eliminate the names (because you can often tell a person's ethnicity that way), race and gender from the applicants profiles that the admissions offices get to see, so they can't judge people by such criteria any longer.

The result would be:
1. The best people get admitted first.
2. Nobody can claim to have been short changed.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by Reinhard H.@Sep 19 2002, 05:22 PM
Why don't they just follow two simple steps:

1. Introduce standardized, comprehensive college entrance examinations that every student who wants to study has to take, so one can compare different students more easily.

2. Eliminate the names (because you can often tell a person's ethnicity that way), race and gender from the applicants profiles that the admissions offices get to see, so they can't judge people by such criteria any longer.

The result would be:
1. The best people get admitted first.
2. Nobody can claim to have been short changed.
wishful thinking... what about personal interviews? or what if i participated in Asian Student Association? volunteer work in Chinatown? you can't really have a completely race or ethnic blind application process.

[Reinhard H.]

In my opinion they could just drop "volunteer work in Chinatown" and similar non academic criteria like athletic abilities or social background from the admissions process. That's why I wrote "standardized, comprehensive college entrance examinations", so they can't use such totally arbitrary criteria for selecting their students any longer. I'm not suggesting that this system would be perfect, it's just the fairest and most effective system for choosing the best people I can think of, while now it often seems to be more of an entrance lottery.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by Reinhard H.@Sep 19 2002, 06:18 PM
In my opinion they could just drop "volunteer work in Chinatown" and similar non academic criteria like athletic abilities or social background from the admissions process. That's why I wrote "standardized, comprehensive college entrance examinations", so they can't use such totally arbitrary criteria for selecting their students any longer. I'm not suggesting that this system would be perfect, it's just the fairest and most effective system for choosing the best people I can think of, while now it often seems to be more of an entrance lottery.
so you suggest that they base their admission criteria only on one standardized test?

[Reinhard H.]

I think in most Asian countries you have college entrance examination tests, where students have to take tests in different subjects (a bit like the SAT maybe, only more different subjects) and afterwards you can enter better or worse colleges according to how well you have done on this exam, with other criteria not counting for much. Appears perfectly fair to me.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by Reinhard H.@Sep 19 2002, 07:33 PM
I think in most Asian countries you have college entrance examination tests, where students have to take tests in different subjects (a bit like the SAT maybe, only more different subjects) and afterwards you can enter better or worse colleges according to how well you have done on this exam, with other criteria not counting for much. Appears perfectly fair to me.
hmm... actually the education systems in alot of asian countries are very lacking. elementary school kids might be able to perform better than their american counterparts through the practice of rote memorization, but their educations are famously lacking in nurturing a sense of creative process. that's why alot of parents in asia would rather send their kids overseas if they can afford it, or send them to international schools, again, if they can afford it. so i don't really think asian education systems are really a good model for america, it's rather the other way around, and alot of asian educators will agree with this.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by Reinhard H.@Sep 20 2002, 12:33 AM
I think in most Asian countries you have college entrance examination tests, where students have to take tests in different subjects (a bit like the SAT maybe, only more different subjects) and afterwards you can enter better or worse colleges according to how well you have done on this exam, with other criteria not counting for much. Appears perfectly fair to me.
It also turns school into a Princeton Review course and life into exam hell. also it stifles creativity. no one gives a damn about the possible answers, just about the answer that gets them into college. China used standardized exams for thousands of years with precisely that purpose - you memorized the classics, you memorized the officially accepted commentaries on the classics, then you took the exam to show that you had accepted the same body of thought as all the other civil service drones.

Malaysia has had standardized testing for college admissions for decades, thanks to the British. We just implement "affirmative action" by giving out exam passes to people with the right skin color and putting them in "maticulation classes."

the only way to ensure fairness in the admissions process is if the admissions directors actually want it. But they show time and again through their actions that they want racial headcounts to be exactly balanced instead.

edit: (first, I corrected some spelling mistakes). Considering my position for a bit, it's hard to object to standardized testing in the sciences, and I think that admissions to faculties such as Science, Engineering, and Medicine, and to technically-oriented schools, would benefit a lot from increasednational standardized science and math testing. (Notice the success of the Indian Institute of Technology, whose graduates regularly outcompete MIT and Caltech alums in the job market. Why? IIT's entrance exams are the most competitive in the world. You're prescreened for being insanely smart and having the ability and willingness to independently master huge bodies of new material).

But for the general liberal arts school, or the school which doesn't even require students to pick a faculty, let alone a major, until several terms into their university career, Asian-style entrance exams would probably be a disaster.



<!--EDIT|AliBabaIncorporated|Sep 20 2002, 09:14 AM-->

[kasia]

Originally posted by Reinhard H.@Sep 19 2002, 11:18 PM
In my opinion they could just drop "volunteer work in Chinatown" and similar non academic criteria like athletic abilities or social background from the admissions process. That's why I wrote "standardized, comprehensive college entrance examinations", so they can't use such totally arbitrary criteria for selecting their students any longer. I'm not suggesting that this system would be perfect, it's just the fairest and most effective system for choosing the best people I can think of, while now it often seems to be more of an entrance lottery.
looking at the larger picture (e.g., richer kids getting better a better education), why would your proposed system seem fairer?

my biggest problem with the affirmative action system was that it overlooked poor asians, esp. those from southeast asia. but if my seat at berkeley were to go to a poor southeast asian kid who scored lowly on his sat's because he had to work at his parent's restaurant after school each night and because he went to a crappy school--and if that meant that i had to go to davis or san diego for that very reason, i'd be fine with that. it's like giving up so little for a greater good.

also, in what way does it seem like an entrance "lottery" now?



<!--EDIT|kasia|Sep 20 2002, 08:07 AM-->

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by kasia@Sep 20 2002, 08:00 AM
Originally posted by Reinhard H.@Sep 19 2002, 11:18 PM
In my opinion they could just drop "volunteer work in Chinatown" and similar non academic criteria like athletic abilities or social background from the admissions process. That's why I wrote "standardized, comprehensive college entrance examinations", so they can't use such totally arbitrary criteria for selecting their students any longer. I'm not suggesting that this system would be perfect, it's just the fairest and most effective system for choosing the best people I can think of, while now it often seems to be more of an entrance lottery.
looking at the larger picture (e.g., richer kids getting better a better education), why would your proposed system seem fairer?

my biggest problem with the affirmative action system was that it overlooked poor asians, esp. those from southeast asia. but if my seat at berkeley were to go to a poor southeast asian kid who scored lowly on his sat's because he had to work at his parent's restaurant after school each night and because he went to a crappy school--and if that meant that i had to go to davis or san diego for that very reason, i'd be fine with that. it's like giving up so little for a greater good.

also, in what way does it seem like an entrance "lottery" now?
What if that same kid drops out two years later?

Wouldn't it be more benefit to him to take a year or two off after high school, work, attend night school at community college where students are actually serious about learning material, then bring himself up to Berkeley's admission's standards and get in through level comparison to everyone else?

SAT measures a mix of innate ability and knowledge. That's why it doesn't test math beyond geometry and algebra, or history, or ask many scientific questions. Though you do need to have a basis of general scientific knowledge, vocabulary, and lower high-school level math. And unfortunately these days many high schools are so poor that they don't even give students this basis of knowledge.

So a student may score poorly on the SAT either because he lacks knowledge or because he lacks ability. The only way to know for sure is to give him the knowledge which his high school didn't teach him and see how he does on the SAT a second time around. And as I've said, the university environment is the wrong place to acquire the knowledge which should have been a prerequisite to getting into university.

The present system already bears a strong resemblance to Malaysia's matriculation classes, in which students of the right color are given a pass out of exams, get "affirmative action" admission into universities of their choice, take easy classes covering material which their higher-scoring peers already learned in high school, and in the end graduate with the same degree as the higher-scorers who didn't waste their university career taking classes teaching high-school level material but spent four-six years mastering tertiary-level material. This lowers the value of the degree for all students, especially for those students of the same color as the affirmative action admits (since all of them will be suspected of having been admitted under lower standards). Furthermore it wastes resources to have university professors and grad students using university classrooms teach remedial high-school courses.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Sep 20 2002, 04:31 AM
Originally posted by kasia@Sep 20 2002, 08:00 AM
Originally posted by Reinhard H.@Sep 19 2002, 11:18 PM
In my opinion they could just drop "volunteer work in Chinatown" and similar non academic criteria like athletic abilities or social background from the admissions process. That's why I wrote "standardized, comprehensive college entrance examinations", so they can't use such totally arbitrary criteria for selecting their students any longer. I'm not suggesting that this system would be perfect, it's just the fairest and most effective system for choosing the best people I can think of, while now it often seems to be more of an entrance lottery.
looking at the larger picture (e.g., richer kids getting better a better education), why would your proposed system seem fairer?

my biggest problem with the affirmative action system was that it overlooked poor asians, esp. those from southeast asia. but if my seat at berkeley were to go to a poor southeast asian kid who scored lowly on his sat's because he had to work at his parent's restaurant after school each night and because he went to a crappy school--and if that meant that i had to go to davis or san diego for that very reason, i'd be fine with that. it's like giving up so little for a greater good.

also, in what way does it seem like an entrance "lottery" now?
What if that same kid drops out two years later?

Wouldn't it be more benefit to him to take a year or two off after high school, work, attend night school at community college where students are actually serious about learning material, then bring himself up to Berkeley's admission's standards and get in through level comparison to everyone else?

SAT measures a mix of innate ability and knowledge. That's why it doesn't test math beyond geometry and algebra, or history, or ask many scientific questions. Though you do need to have a basis of general scientific knowledge, vocabulary, and lower high-school level math. And unfortunately these days many high schools are so poor that they don't even give students this basis of knowledge.

So a student may score poorly on the SAT either because he lacks knowledge or because he lacks ability. The only way to know for sure is to give him the knowledge which his high school didn't teach him and see how he does on the SAT a second time around. And as I've said, the university environment is the wrong place to acquire the knowledge which should have been a prerequisite to getting into university.

The present system already bears a strong resemblance to Malaysia's matriculation classes, in which students of the right color are given a pass out of exams, get "affirmative action" admission into universities of their choice, take easy classes covering material which their higher-scoring peers already learned in high school, and in the end graduate with the same degree as the higher-scorers who didn't waste their university career taking classes teaching high-school level material but spent four-six years mastering tertiary-level material. This lowers the value of the degree for all students, especially for those students of the same color as the affirmative action admits (since all of them will be suspected of having been admitted under lower standards). Furthermore it wastes resources to have university professors and grad students using university classrooms teach remedial high-school courses.
see, this really depends on how much leeway is given to the poor student. if my seat was given to a student who scored 300 points lower than me on his SATs and all he had to do was have a part-time on the weekends, well that seems to me kind of unfair. but if it was given to a student who scored 100 points lower than me and he came from a single-parent household, had to work after school and on the weekends, etc etc, the works, well shit, then i'd concede that he worked harder than i did through high school.

and we haven't even gotten to how imperfect standardized testing like the SAT is yet. my friend's parents actually spent money to get him a tutor for the verbal part of the SAT and he improved dramatically. i also know kids who took SAT prep courses for months. so yeah, sometimes the SAT tests knowledge and ability, but sometimes it just tests how much money and what quality of education you had.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by Reinhard H.@Sep 20 2002, 12:33 AM
I think in most Asian countries you have college entrance examination tests, where students have to take tests in different subjects (a bit like the SAT maybe, only more different subjects) and afterwards you can enter better or worse colleges according to how well you have done on this exam, with other criteria not counting for much. Appears perfectly fair to me.
What if the student wants to enter the art department? A very talented artist, but slightly lacking in the other subjects. What if the student had a major personal issue that affected schoolwork? A very intelligent person, with a little bit of bad luck. ...I mean, you can't always judge somebody by a test score. Some people just don't test well.

[Reinhard H.]

Quote Kasia:
"looking at the larger picture (e.g., richer kids getting better a better education), why would your proposed system seem fairer?"
"also, in what way does it seem like an entrance "lottery" now?"
-------------------------------------------------
I think if you have standardized rules that count for everybody you get the fairest system. The same way you don't give the fat kid 3 seconds advance time in a 100m dash, if he can't run so fast he simply shouldn't attempt to become a professional athlete. Regarding the entrance lottery, Tiger Woods got into Stanford with an SAT score of 1300, because he can claim to be "black", even though he is some weird mix of I don't know what and because he's an athlete, some average kid with an SAT of 1400 would probably not get into Stanford, what else is this than a lottery?


Quote Sun Wu Kung:
"see, this really depends on how much leeway is given to the poor student. if my seat was given to a student who scored 300 points lower than me on his SATs and all he had to do was have a part-time on the weekends, well that seems to me kind of unfair. but if it was given to a student who scored 100 points lower than me and he came from a single-parent household, had to work after school and on the weekends, etc etc, the works, well shit, then i'd concede that he worked harder than i did through high school. and we haven't even gotten to how imperfect standardized testing like the SAT is yet. my friend's parents actually spent money to get him a tutor for the verbal part of the SAT and he improved dramatically. i also know kids who took SAT prep courses for months. so yeah, sometimes the SAT tests knowledge and ability, but sometimes it just tests how much money and what quality of education you had."
-----------------------------------
I generally don't believe in all this "underprivileged this, discriminated that, poor him" etc. talk. You see a lot of poor uneducated Asians coming to the US and their children performing very well at school, if kids from the ghetto tend to fail it may simply be due to laziness or lack of abilities. It's the same thing in the hiring process: Say two people want to work as electrical engineers, then the company that hires them should compare their grades and not where they grew up, what their parents do, what race they are...

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Sep 20 2002, 04:13 PM
and we haven't even gotten to how imperfect standardized testing like the SAT is yet. my friend's parents actually spent money to get him a tutor for the verbal part of the SAT and he improved dramatically. i also know kids who took SAT prep courses for months. so yeah, sometimes the SAT tests knowledge and ability, but sometimes it just tests how much money and what quality of education you had.
What you just named there, what your friend got from the tutor, is knowledge - knowledge of English vocabulary. that's the only thing you can really get out of a test-taking course, aside from a block of time in which you are forced to study. it's not as though he paid money and upped his test score without having learned a damn thing at all.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by Reinhard H.@Sep 20 2002, 06:33 PM
I think if you have standardized rules that count for everybody you get the fairest system. The same way you don't give the fat kid 3 seconds advance time in a 100m dash, if he can't run so fast he simply shouldn't attempt to become a professional athlete. Regarding the entrance lottery, Tiger Woods got into Stanford with an SAT score of 1300, because he can claim to be "black", even though he is some weird mix of I don't know what and because he's an athlete, some average kid with an SAT of 1400 would probably not get into Stanford, what else is this than a lottery?

outside of science and engineering faculties, and maybe some of the more quantitative social science majors such as Economics or Linguistics, it's hard to judge people on a standardized test. and most affirmative action admits don't go into the sciences. in america, many affirmative action admits can't even meet the prerequisites (e.g. calculus and AP-level science) to take basic engineering courses until their 3rd, 4th or 5th semester, by which time it's already too late.

so their only real effect is to inflate the size of certain easy arts faculties and deflate the size of science faculties and other departments which require real knowledge and preparation. e.g. in Malaysia, some majors such as Islamic Studies and History are entirely full of kids who got in under matriculation class instead of exams. To the point where an individual who is serious about majoring in one of those subjects has to go overseas to get a degree, otherwise him and his degree won't be taken seriously.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Sep 20 2002, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Sep 20 2002, 04:13 PM
and we haven't even gotten to how imperfect standardized testing like the SAT is yet. &nbsp;my friend's parents actually spent money to get him a tutor for the verbal part of the SAT and he improved dramatically. &nbsp;i also know kids who took SAT prep courses for months. &nbsp;so yeah, sometimes the SAT tests knowledge and ability, but sometimes it just tests how much money and what quality of education you had.
What you just named there, what your friend got from the tutor, is knowledge - knowledge of English vocabulary. that's the only thing you can really get out of a test-taking course, aside from a block of time in which you are forced to study. it's not as though he paid money and upped his test score without having learned a damn thing at all.
yeah except it's knowledge that you might not otherwise have if you don't have the money for a good private school or an SAT tutor.

he paid money and learned. but if he didn't have the money to pay, he might not have learned.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Sep 20 2002, 10:19 PM

yeah except it's knowledge that you might not otherwise have if you don't have the money for a good private school or an SAT tutor.

he paid money and learned. but if he didn't have the money to pay, he might not have learned.
test prep books contain the same knowledge - vocabulary and example sentences. you just need to open the cover. used test prep books are dirt cheap. if you lack ability, all the money in the world isn't going to raise your scores once you acquire the basic knowledge required to understand the tests.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by Reinhard H.@Sep 20 2002, 01:33 PM
I generally don't believe in all this "underprivileged this, discriminated that, poor him" etc. talk. You see a lot of poor uneducated Asians coming to the US and their children performing very well at school, if kids from the ghetto tend to fail it may simply be due to laziness or lack of abilities. It's the same thing in the hiring process: Say two people want to work as electrical engineers, then the company that hires them should compare their grades and not where they grew up, what their parents do, what race they are...
I'm almost certain that we'll just end up agreeing to disagree, but...

The Poor
Let's say you have

Student A
1st rate private school
SAT tutors
never had to work
both parents at home

Student B
2nd rate public school
no extra education
part-time job after school and weekends
single-parent home

Let's say both students have very similar scores. If I'm a college admissions officer, I'm going to say that Student B has had to work harder. It's not that I don't think Student A didn't work hard, but I think that if you place Student B in Student A's environment, and assuming Student B would still have the same work habits, I think Student B would have had better scores than Student A. So if both students had about the same test scores, then I think Student B deserves to get in more than Student A.

Yes, it's entirely possible to raise yourself out of poverty within your lifetime, but it can be very difficult. A person coming from an upper-middle class or rich family only has to put in an average amount of effort and he would have a relatively good life. A person coming from a poor family would perhaps have to put in twice or three times as much effort to have a comparably "good" life. The reality is that it usually takes 2 or 3 generations' efforts to raise a family out of poverty. If a student has to work part-time everyday after school, and that interferred with his studies (as opposed to a student that can devote 4 or 5 hours everyday after school to homework and studies), then in no way do I think he's "lazy" or that he "lack abilities".

I am fully aware that the implementation of affirmative action in many areas can be very flawed. But it just so happens that economic lines correlate with racial lines in this country. Of course we can all say "screw them", but personally I'd rather not.


Asians and The Immigrant Mentality
Asian emigration to Western countries spiked after World War 2. There are two types of Asian immigrants in Western countries.

The first type of Asian immigrants immigrated here because they believe that the US (or any other Western country) had more and better opportunities. They did not necessarily have to move, but they chose to do so in search of better lives for them and their children. Their immigrant mentality makes them strive for success and this is usually passed on to their children. However, studies have shown that the immigrant mentality tapers off around the 3rd or 4th generation, where 3rd and 4th generation Asian Americans on the average achieve success levels in education and career at lower levels than their 1st and 2nd generation counterparts. That is to say, 3rd and 4th generation Asian Americans actually average at about the same success level as the white average.

The second type of Asian immigrants immigrated here to escape certain unbearable or unlivable situations. In other words, they are refugee families and they moved to this country to escape rather than in search of better opportunities. Many children of refugee families actually perform at the same level as children of poor black and hispanic families. That is to say, well below the white average.

The model minority myth was pretty much created by the Reagan administration to stiff poor people of much needed welfare, of which many blacks and hispanics benefit from. The idea was not created to praise Asians, it was a political agenda to stick it to blacks and hispanics. And Asians became the next wannabe whites after Jewish people in the eyes of blacks and hispanics.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Sep 20 2002, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Sep 20 2002, 10:19 PM

yeah except it's knowledge that you might not otherwise have if you don't have the money for a good private school or an SAT tutor.

he paid money and learned. &nbsp;but if he didn't have the money to pay, he might not have learned.
test prep books contain the same knowledge - vocabulary and example sentences. you just need to open the cover. used test prep books are dirt cheap. if you lack ability, all the money in the world isn't going to raise your scores once you acquire the basic knowledge required to understand the tests.
yes, if you lack the ability, all the money in the world isn't going to give that to you. that is, assuming poor kids lack the abilities to begin with.

so tell me, what is better, a private SAT tutor or an SAT prep book?

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Sep 20 2002, 10:47 PM
I'm almost certain that we'll just end up agreeing to disagree, but...

The Poor
Let's say you have

Student A
1st rate private school
SAT tutors
never had to work
both parents at home

Student B
2nd rate public school
no extra education
part-time job after school and weekends
single-parent home

Let's say both students have very similar scores. &nbsp;If I'm a college admissions officer, I'm going to say that Student B has had to work harder. &nbsp;It's not that I don't think Student A didn't work hard, but I think that if you place Student B in Student A's environment, and assuming Student B would still have the same work habits, I think Student B would have had better scores than Student A. &nbsp;So if both students had about the same test scores, then I think Student B deserves to get in more than Student A.

Yes, it's entirely possible to raise yourself out of poverty within your lifetime, but it can be very difficult. &nbsp;A person coming from an upper-middle class or rich family only has to put in an average amount of effort and he would have a relatively good life. &nbsp;A person coming from a poor family would perhaps have to put in twice or three times as much effort to have a comparably "good" life. &nbsp;The reality is that it usually takes 2 or 3 generations' efforts to raise a family out of poverty. &nbsp;If a student has to work part-time everyday after school, and that interferred with his studies (as opposed to a student that can devote 4 or 5 hours everyday after school to homework and studies), then in no way do I think he's "lazy" or that he "lack abilities".

I am fully aware that the implementation of affirmative action in many areas can be very flawed. &nbsp;But it just so happens that economic lines correlate with racial lines in this country. &nbsp;Of course we can all say "screw them", but personally I'd rather not.


Asians and The Immigrant Mentality
Asian emigration to Western countries spiked after World War 2. &nbsp;There are two types of Asian immigrants in Western countries.

The first type of Asian immigrants immigrated here because they believe that the US (or any other Western country) had more and better opportunities. &nbsp;They did not necessarily have to move, but they chose to do so in search of better lives for them and their children. &nbsp;Their immigrant mentality makes them strive for success and this is usually passed on to their children. &nbsp;However, studies have shown that the immigrant mentality tapers off around the 3rd or 4th generation, where 3rd and 4th generation Asian Americans on the average achieve success levels in education and career at lower levels than their 1st and 2nd generation counterparts. &nbsp;That is to say, 3rd and 4th generation Asian Americans actually average at about the same success level as the white average.

The second type of Asian immigrants immigrated here to escape certain unbearable or unlivable situations. &nbsp;In other words, they are refugee families and they moved to this country to escape rather than in search of better opportunities. &nbsp;Many children of refugee families actually perform at the same level as children of poor black and hispanic families. &nbsp;That is to say, well below the white average.

The model minority myth was pretty much created by the Reagan administration to stiff poor people of much needed welfare, of which many blacks and hispanics benefit from. &nbsp;The idea was not created to praise Asians, it was a political agenda to stick it to blacks and hispanics. &nbsp;And Asians became the next wannabe whites after Jewish people in the eyes of blacks and hispanics.
Well... what you failed to mention... all hypothetical of course:

Student A:
Top 10% of his graduating class in a very very competitive school. Might have had everything in life handed to him, but that's why he wants to go to college... so he can live life on his own.

Student B:
Top 10% of his graduationg class. The 90% that was not the top 10% of the graduating class were pretty much slackers, didn't try at all, and barely got by. The top 10% consists of A students and B students. The teachers who give out these grades are unqualified, teaching the students pure crap. He thinks 4 + 4 equals 13.

Who DESREVES to go to the school? Well that's entirely up to you. Who would do BETTER at the school? I'd say student A. Now I'm not saying this is always the case... and I'm also not saying that a student who is rich isn't smart or that the student who is poor isn't smart, or anything like that. I'm just saying... there's a difference between schools that can provide a good education and schoosl that can't. And I know it's really not fair to the kids who have to go to schools where they get bad educations, but... there's just another reason why people should give the *teacher* occupation a little more respect. But seriously.... Do you think a C- student would fare well at a very competitive college?

I got basically A's and B's at my high school.. had I gone to the high school down the street, I would have had straight A's all across the board, not a PROBLEM. Had I gone to the one 20 miles from my house, I probably would have been a C+ student. You know what I mean? GPA doesn't really mean anything.



<!--EDIT|angel nympho|Sep 21 2002, 12:31 AM-->

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Sep 20 2002, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Sep 20 2002, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Sep 20 2002, 10:19 PM

yeah except it's knowledge that you might not otherwise have if you don't have the money for a good private school or an SAT tutor.

he paid money and learned. but if he didn't have the money to pay, he might not have learned.
test prep books contain the same knowledge - vocabulary and example sentences. you just need to open the cover. used test prep books are dirt cheap. if you lack ability, all the money in the world isn't going to raise your scores once you acquire the basic knowledge required to understand the tests.
yes, if you lack the ability, all the money in the world isn't going to give that to you. that is, assuming poor kids lack the abilities to begin with.

so tell me, what is better, a private SAT tutor or an SAT prep book?
There isn't one that's better than the other. If you're dedicated enough, you don't need either. But a test prep book is awesome. The private tutor doesn't do much for you except read the questions and the answer explanations out loud.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Sep 20 2002, 07:30 PM
Well... what you failed to mention... all hypothetical of course:

Student A:
Top 10% of his graduating class in a very very competitive school. Might have had everything in life handed to him, but that's why he wants to go to college... so he can live life on his own.

Student B:
Top 10% of his graduationg class. The 90% that was not the top 10% of the graduating class were pretty much slackers, didn't try at all, and barely got by. The top 10% consists of A students and B students. The teachers who give out these grades are unqualified, teaching the students pure crap. He thinks 4 + 4 equals 13.

Who DESREVES to go to the school? Well that's entirely up to you. Who would do BETTER at the school? I'd say student A. Now I'm not saying this is always the case... and I'm also not saying that a student who is rich isn't smart or that the student who is poor isn't smart, or anything like that. I'm just saying... there's a difference between schools that can provide a good education and schoosl that can't. And I know it's really not fair to the kids who have to go to schools where they get bad educations, but... there's just another reason why people should give the *teacher* occupation a little more respect. But seriously.... Do you think a C- student would fare well at a very competitive college?

I got basically A's and B's at my high school.. had I gone to the high school down the street, I would have had straight A's all across the board, not a PROBLEM. Had I gone to the one 20 miles from my house, I probably would have been a C+ student. You know what I mean? GPA doesn't really mean anything.
actually my example had more to do with standardized testing. let's say both your students A and B have about the same SAT scores, is it not a good indication that had Student B been placed in the same environment as Student A, he would have performed just as well, if not better, and that he worked harder, than Student A, since the quality of education he received was much worse than Student A, yet was able to achieve about the same SAT score as Student A?

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Sep 21 2002, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Sep 20 2002, 07:30 PM
Well... what you failed to mention... all hypothetical of course:

Student A: &nbsp;
Top 10% of his graduating class in a very very competitive school. &nbsp;Might have had everything in life handed to him, but that's why he wants to go to college... so he can live life on his own.

Student B:
Top 10% of his graduationg class. &nbsp;The 90% that was not the top 10% of the graduating class were pretty much slackers, didn't try at all, and barely got by. &nbsp;The top 10% consists of A students and B students. &nbsp;The teachers who give out these grades are unqualified, teaching the students pure crap. &nbsp;He thinks 4 + 4 equals 13. &nbsp;

Who DESREVES to go to the school? &nbsp;Well that's entirely up to you. &nbsp;Who would do BETTER at the school? &nbsp;I'd say student A. &nbsp;Now I'm not saying this is always the case... and I'm also not saying that a student who is rich isn't smart or that the student who is poor isn't smart, or anything like that. &nbsp;I'm just saying... there's a difference between schools that can provide a good education and schoosl that can't. &nbsp;And I know it's really not fair to the kids who have to go to schools where they get bad educations, but... there's just another reason why people should give the &nbsp;*teacher* occupation a little more respect. &nbsp;But seriously.... Do you think a C- student would fare well at a very competitive college?

I got basically A's and B's at my high school.. had I gone to the high school down the street, I would have had straight A's all across the board, not a PROBLEM. &nbsp;Had I gone to the one 20 miles from my house, I probably would have been a C+ student. &nbsp;You know what I mean? &nbsp;GPA doesn't really mean anything.
actually my example had more to do with standardized testing. let's say both your students A and B have about the same SAT scores, is it not a good indication that had Student B been placed in the same environment as Student A, he would have performed just as well, if not better, and that he worked harder, than Student A, since the quality of education he received was much worse than Student A, yet was able to achieve about the same SAT score as Student A?
Werd. I agree with you. Unfortunately UC schools don't give a crap about your SAT scores anymore.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Sep 20 2002, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Sep 20 2002, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Sep 20 2002, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Sep 20 2002, 10:19 PM

yeah except it's knowledge that you might not otherwise have if you don't have the money for a good private school or an SAT tutor.

he paid money and learned. but if he didn't have the money to pay, he might not have learned.
test prep books contain the same knowledge - vocabulary and example sentences. you just need to open the cover. used test prep books are dirt cheap. if you lack ability, all the money in the world isn't going to raise your scores once you acquire the basic knowledge required to understand the tests.
yes, if you lack the ability, all the money in the world isn't going to give that to you. that is, assuming poor kids lack the abilities to begin with.

so tell me, what is better, a private SAT tutor or an SAT prep book?
There isn't one that's better than the other. If you're dedicated enough, you don't need either. But a test prep book is awesome. The private tutor doesn't do much for you except read the questions and the answer explanations out loud.
ok, i've never taken an SAT prep course, nor did i have a private SAT tutor, but i would think that they would be quite out of business if all they did was read the questions in a prep book out loud, or if they did not actually help their students achieve more positive results had the students not had their help.

and i think what you've basically claimed is that we don't really need any teachers at all. just give students some books and let them at it.

[Reinhard H.]

actually my example had more to do with standardized testing. let's say both your students A and B have about the same SAT scores, is it not a good indication that had Student B been placed in the same environment as Student A, he would have performed just as well, if not better, and that he worked harder, than Student A, since the quality of education he received was much worse than Student A, yet was able to achieve about the same SAT score as Student A?
------------------------------------

Students from China make up the biggest group of foreign students in the US (I think), most of them grew up in very depraved economic conditions by American standards, social welfare recipients in the US probably enjoy higher standards of living than average urban residents in China. If the ghetto students couldn't perform due to their social environments, how is it possible that these kids who come from very different cultural backgrounds and only learned English at high school manage? My father grew up in a single mother household, because his father died in WW2. Still he went on to college and earned a PhD, even in former times it wasn't really a matter of class, if you put in some work. I think ordinary middle class Americans are fed up with the present affirmative action system and it only leads to increased racial tensions.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by Reinhard H.@Sep 20 2002, 08:26 PM
Students from China make up the biggest group of foreign students in the US (I think), most of them grew up in very depraved economic conditions by American standards, social welfare recipients in the US probably enjoy higher standards of living than average urban residents in China. If the ghetto students couldn't perform due to their social environments, how is it possible that these kids who come from very different cultural backgrounds and only learned English at high school manage? My father grew up in a single mother household, because his father died in WW2. Still he went on to college and earned a PhD, even in former times it wasn't really a matter of class, if you put in some work. I think ordinary middle class Americans are fed up with the present affirmative action system and it only leads to increased racial tensions.
and what percentage of total student population are chinese international students? by the way, chinese people who grew up in depraved economic conditions don't get to go to school in the US. in fact many of them won't even have a high school education. only families in china who are relatively well-off get to send children to the US for education, because international students don't get government financial aid. them and their families usually have to shoulder the entire tuition fees.

some "ghetto students" simply don't have the abilities require for higher education, and some do. some will even have exceptional abilities, but most will have average abilities. have you considered the example of Student A and Student B which i illustrated?

i have no doubt that affirmative action is incorrectly implemented in many areas. asian americans have actually suffered because of this. but actually i thought it was standardized testing that we were talking about?



<!--EDIT|SunWuKung|Sep 20 2002, 10:19 PM-->

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by Reinhard H.@Sep 21 2002, 01:26 AM
I think ordinary middle class Americans are fed up with the present affirmative action system and it only leads to increased racial tensions.
Malaysia over the decades since the implementation of New Economic Policy (affirmative action for ethnic Malays over M'sian citizens of Indian and Chinese descent) has observed precisely that: increasing polarization. Radical Islam gained a foothold in the north. Malaysian Chinese began opening their own JCs and universities. Non-Malay enrollment in public primary and secondary schools fell. Malays and non-Malays are unwilling to room with each other or study with each other at university. Schools have to outlaw race-based clubs and stipulate all sorts of guidelines about language, racial composition of membership, etc..

Many Chinese and Indian M'sians overseas absolutely hate Malays and will never go back to Malaysia for this reason. Malays increased their proportion of the economic pie at the expense of efficiency, fairness, and national unity.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Sep 21 2002, 01:16 AM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Sep 20 2002, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Sep 20 2002, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Sep 20 2002, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Sep 20 2002, 10:19 PM

yeah except it's knowledge that you might not otherwise have if you don't have the money for a good private school or an SAT tutor.

he paid money and learned. but if he didn't have the money to pay, he might not have learned.
test prep books contain the same knowledge - vocabulary and example sentences. you just need to open the cover. used test prep books are dirt cheap. if you lack ability, all the money in the world isn't going to raise your scores once you acquire the basic knowledge required to understand the tests.
yes, if you lack the ability, all the money in the world isn't going to give that to you. that is, assuming poor kids lack the abilities to begin with.

so tell me, what is better, a private SAT tutor or an SAT prep book?
There isn't one that's better than the other. If you're dedicated enough, you don't need either. But a test prep book is awesome. The private tutor doesn't do much for you except read the questions and the answer explanations out loud.
ok, i've never taken an SAT prep course, nor did i have a private SAT tutor, but i would think that they would be quite out of business if all they did was read the questions in a prep book out loud, or if they did not actually help their students achieve more positive results had the students not had their help.

and i think what you've basically claimed is that we don't really need any teachers at all. just give students some books and let them at it.
No. I don't think we need SAT teachers at all. Aside from giving the rich kids an unfair advantage, they don't really do anything but give you a false sense of "OHHH WELL I HAD A TUTOR, I'LL KICK ASS!" I've had tutors. I took the Princeton Review shit. It totally fucked me up. They had all these weird systems you could use and each one of those damn systems fucked me up. I quit and went to a private tutor... who helped a lot, but the reason why she helped is because without her, I wouldn't have cracked a damn book until 2 weeks before the test.

And I claim nothing. Some things need to be taught. SAT strategy, however, is not one of them. Why do you need to study so hard for an APTITUDE test?

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by Reinhard H.@Sep 21 2002, 01:26 AM
actually my example had more to do with standardized testing. let's say both your students A and B have about the same SAT scores, is it not a good indication that had Student B been placed in the same environment as Student A, he would have performed just as well, if not better, and that he worked harder, than Student A, since the quality of education he received was much worse than Student A, yet was able to achieve about the same SAT score as Student A?
------------------------------------

Students from China make up the biggest group of foreign students in the US (I think), most of them grew up in very depraved economic conditions by American standards, social welfare recipients in the US probably enjoy higher standards of living than average urban residents in China. If the ghetto students couldn't perform due to their social environments, how is it possible that these kids who come from very different cultural backgrounds and only learned English at high school manage? My father grew up in a single mother household, because his father died in WW2. Still he went on to college and earned a PhD, even in former times it wasn't really a matter of class, if you put in some work. I think ordinary middle class Americans are fed up with the present affirmative action system and it only leads to increased racial tensions.
They take classes aimed directly for them, take different standardized tests, and apply under different premises.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Sep 21 2002, 02:28 PM
And I claim nothing. Some things need to be taught. SAT strategy, however, is not one of them. Why do you need to study so hard for an APTITUDE test?
who knows why, but as long as it actually does help, and which it does, people will continue hiring private tutors and taking courses for aptitude tests. i kind of wish i had thought of that for my verbal SATs.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Coached Students Do No Better, Study Finds (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/20/1032054965003.html)

Not precisely related but this should give you some idea ...

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Sep 21 2002, 04:01 PM
Coached Students Do No Better, Study Finds (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/20/1032054965003.html)

Not precisely related but this should give you some idea ...
interesting... i'd love to see a more comprehensive report on the data collected in that study.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Sep 21 2002, 09:01 PM
Coached Students Do No Better, Study Finds (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/20/1032054965003.html)

Not precisely related but this should give you some idea ...
Werd. I didn't think tutoring really taught me anything I didn't already know. It just kind of made me buckle down and study harder than I would have without being disciplined.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Sep 22 2002, 04:06 AM
Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Sep 21 2002, 09:01 PM
Coached Students Do No Better, Study Finds (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/20/1032054965003.html)

Not precisely related but this should give you some idea ...
Werd. I didn't think tutoring really taught me anything I didn't already know. It just kind of made me buckle down and study harder than I would have without being disciplined.
maybe that's the point and that's how it has helped some students?

[deez nuts]

Well those Kaplan and Princeton review classes, from the borrowed texts and notes I've seen from studying for the MCATS, is that they teach test savvy, how to make that educated guess, a lot of process of elimination techniques, how to recognize that blatantly incorrect answer choice etc etc. But, then again I've never taken the class itself, just what I gathered from the books and notes.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Sep 22 2002, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Sep 22 2002, 04:06 AM
Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Sep 21 2002, 09:01 PM
Coached Students Do No Better, Study Finds (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/20/1032054965003.html)

Not precisely related but this should give you some idea ...
Werd. I didn't think tutoring really taught me anything I didn't already know. It just kind of made me buckle down and study harder than I would have without being disciplined.
maybe that's the point and that's how it has helped some students?
But what's the point of paying somebody to make you study? Just sit down and study. It's a waste of money... I guess I just mean that it's totally possible for somebody without a tutor to do just as well as somebody with one... as long as they have the desire to do well.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Sep 22 2002, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Sep 22 2002, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Sep 22 2002, 04:06 AM
Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Sep 21 2002, 09:01 PM
Coached Students Do No Better, Study Finds (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/20/1032054965003.html)

Not precisely related but this should give you some idea ...
Werd. I didn't think tutoring really taught me anything I didn't already know. It just kind of made me buckle down and study harder than I would have without being disciplined.
maybe that's the point and that's how it has helped some students?
But what's the point of paying somebody to make you study? Just sit down and study. It's a waste of money... I guess I just mean that it's totally possible for somebody without a tutor to do just as well as somebody with one... as long as they have the desire to do well.
you said it yourself, you wouldn't have sat down and do all that studying without the tutor.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Sep 22 2002, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Sep 22 2002, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Sep 22 2002, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Sep 22 2002, 04:06 AM
Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Sep 21 2002, 09:01 PM
Coached Students Do No Better, Study Finds (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/20/1032054965003.html)

Not precisely related but this should give you some idea ...
Werd. I didn't think tutoring really taught me anything I didn't already know. It just kind of made me buckle down and study harder than I would have without being disciplined.
maybe that's the point and that's how it has helped some students?
But what's the point of paying somebody to make you study? Just sit down and study. It's a waste of money... I guess I just mean that it's totally possible for somebody without a tutor to do just as well as somebody with one... as long as they have the desire to do well.
you said it yourself, you wouldn't have sat down and do all that studying without the tutor.
Yes, but I wasn't a poor kid trying to make it big. I was a spoiled rich kid who didn't give a fuck about SAT scores. I think some hard-working poor kid probably deserved a high score more than me.