Welcome to College Confidential!

The leading college-bound community on the web

Sign Up For Free

Join for FREE, and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions, and more.

Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky welcome messages (like this one!)

As a CC member, you can:

  • Reply to threads, and start your own.
  • Post reviews of your campus visits.
  • Find hundreds of pages of informative articles.
  • Search from over 3 million scholarships.

Ohiodad51 Senior Member

1,588 Points 3,095 Visits 1,804 Posts
Last Active:
Registered User
  • Re: Div 1 Ivy athletic recruit's academic stats on accepted and rejected recruits by the AO

    I agree with @twoinanddone that the AI is an effort to compare kids from lots of different backgrounds. Another thing to remember @tonymom, the AI was composed of 1/3 class rank (another somewhat objective measure of how a kid performed relative to his peers), 1/3 ACT/SAT and 1/3 SAT2. My guess is that a one or two place movement in class rank had a bigger effect on the AI number than moving from a 3.65 to a 3.68 GPA, so when schools stopped providing rank information the variability of that 1/3 of the score flattened out. Couple that with fewer schools requiring SAT2s, and the SAT/ACT result becomes the default largest variable in the calculation.
  • Re: Something very scary and very wrong is happening

    One of the things that causes me great despair is the effort to maybe not justify, but at least explain, the progressive violence on campus and at Trump rallies by reference to the supposedly increasing number of hate crimes going on since the election. The problem though, and one of the reasons understanding your sources is important, is that the evidnece for this increase comes largely from a database maintained by the SPLC (see @cobrat's link #4 above). While outlets like Slate take this as gospel, the database itself is entirely unreliable. The figures cited are, unless things have changed very recently, self reported from a form on the SPLC web site. See http://nypost.com/2016/12/05/report-buried-trump-related-hate-crimes-against-white-kids/ So there is no consistent effort to verify any of the data. It's just thrown out there and repeated until it becomes fact.

    That's bothersome on a lot of levels, not least of which is that as with the SPLC's designation of Charles Murray as a white nationalist extremist, this type of information is being accepted uncritically by people already seemingly inclined to believe that people with whom they disagree are in some way evil. And you then get what happened here.
  • Re: Something very scary and very wrong is happening

    To try and get this thread back to where we started, here is an interesting article from the Washington Post I saw this morning.


    And yes, this is classic begging the question. Two people could say that they would not permit a racist to speak. One could be thinking of Donald Trump or Charles Murray, and the other David Duke or Louis Farrakhan. And obviously it would be nice to have the research questions themselves, but in general I found this interesting. Basically although college students are becoming relatively less tolerant, there is still a majority or close to it who profess to tolerance. If that is the case, then Murray may be correct and what is happening is that a minority is being allowed to bully the remainder of the community into if not acquescence then at least silence. That may mean that there is a chance that some type of significant discipline being meted out, and a consistent show of coherent leadership may blunt this trend.

    We will have to see, but maybe these last events were the bridge too far that the girl screaming at her professor at Yale, or the professor shouting for "muscle" to remove a photographer, or the professor attacking a pro life demonstrator at UCSB (I think), et., etc was not, and maybe some serious consequences will land on the aggressors here.
  • Re: Something very scary and very wrong is happening

    [quite]"Oh, my. It's the right's fault the left is rioting."
    If you can't see at least some of this factoring in, you are drinking too much Kool-Aid. To use another often quoted saying, "You reap what you sow."[/quote]

    You better hope this isn't true. Because if the reaction to MAGA hats and "coded racism" is beating up people at Trump rallies and what we are seeing now, God help us when the next escalation starts.

    And I have read a fair amount about BLM. Even if you find them to be the most wonderfulest group in the world it does not explain why ALM is a hate group. And google can be your friend. If you are open minded enough to read a few things even slightly right of Mother Jones, Vox and Salon.

    @mom2and, the country is not progressive. It hasn't been since the early thirties, if even then. The US is far to diverse, geographically, socially and culturally, to ever have a single dominant political strain. But the last administration was perhaps the most progressive since the first two FDR terms,, and colleges and the dominant media have been trending that way for a generation at least. As these groups become more and more insular (which is obvious from every single poll and survey) they move farther from the mean of the population. It has happened before, it will happen again. I read a great article several months ago that made the point that our society goes through a social upheaval every fifty years or so. I think that is where we are now. We have had an obvious drift of certain regions and certain institutions away from others, and there has to be some type of correction.
  • Re: Something very scary and very wrong is happening

    @consolation, until someone can articulate a reason why All Lives Matter is a hate group and Black Lives Matter is not, I will stand comfortably on the statement that the SPLC is a joke. Does the SPLC do some good things? Sure. But they are there to give liberals moral authority and to scare people into donating money. To use them as some arbiter of morality is crazy. This is particular true when the point being made at the time was that Murray shouldn't have been permitted to speak because he was on one of the SPLC's lists.