UC San Diego -- or Prostitute College

[jlauer95]

<p>NJ</p>

<p>I think that there was a time when bizarre experiences were rare. The kids of my friends and family (and ours, too) have experienced MANY bizarre things at various schools. </p>

<p>Although the majority of teachers/administrators are innocent of bizarre behavior, there often is “one” in the crowd that should have been “let go” for various reasons years ago. </p>

<p>We had a band director that had a terrible drinking problem and would have “black outs” and not show up for days (and because he was passed out, he wouldn’t answer his phone either). When the band director was at school, he’d lose his temper and throw things at the kids. The principal was afraid to fire him. If this kind of behavior occured years ago, he would have been fired pronto! It wasn’t until another teacher witnessed him using terrible language that he was fired.</p>

[marmat103]

<p>jlauer95:

I don’t know how to put in a hyperlink so if someone can do it, please do!

<a href=“http://www.nationalreview.com/seipp/seipp200603290734.asp[/url]”>http://www.nationalreview.com/seipp/seipp200603290734.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Just copy the link from the address line of your browser, you don’t have to do anything else.</p>

[calmom]

<p>Re pamavision’s post #237; you are mistaken:

[quote]
California high school students who attain eligibility in the statewide context or eligibility in the local context are both guaranteed a space at the University of California, though not necessarily the campus or major of choice. ELC and statewide eligibility provide the same guarantee.<a href=“emphasis%20in%20original”>/quote</a> Source: <a href=“http://www.ucop.edu/sas/elc/eligibilityinfo.html[/url]”>http://www.ucop.edu/sas/elc/eligibilityinfo.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[ellemenope]

<p>ELC was instituted so that kids who went to a crappy high school would still be UC eligible if they graduated in the top X% even if their stats fell below statewide eligibility floors.</p>

[calmom]

<p>I think that one point of confusion is that ELC does have greater weight or priority than statewide eligibility – it basically is going to significantly increase chances of getting into a first choice campus. So it could very well be the difference between a kid with lower test scores going to Santa Barbara or Riverside. My daughter is ELC and was accepted into Berkeley… of course I couldn’t say what would have happened without that status, except that my d’s test scores are way below norm for Berkeley, even though they are just fine for most of the other campuses.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>No doubt that Seipp likes to continue to yapp about this. Too bad she did not take the opportunity to answer a few direct questions from the officious blowhard crowd -see post 224. While she laments to have been accused of gaming the system, she does not hesitate to post this: </p>

<p>

I had also assumed that applying to college from a big urban public L.A. high-school like Marshall would give Maia an advantage [after switching from Ribet Academy]. But then she found out they don’t rank students who are only there for senior year.

</p>

<p>Nor does she hesitates to use chosen adjectives. </p>

<p>

I think my L.A. Times op-ed last week, about how Maia got into UC San Diego despite our ignoring guidance counselor advice not to skip 12th-grade etc., was pretty mild-mannered, all things considered. But I won’t pretend I was surprised that many people took offense, especially those high-anxiety type parents on College Confidential. I guess they detected, just beneath the surface, my usual impatience with officious blowhards and took it personally.

</p>

<p>Funny how that reads a bit differently from

As anyone even vaguely acquainted with me knows, I don’t suffer officious types gladly. Not the administrators at my 16-year-old daughter Maia’s old private school, which we quit last year after they wouldn’t let her graduate at the end of 11th grade, and not readers who think they know her better than I do.

</p>

[jlauer95]

<p><<< No doubt that Seipp likes to continue to yapp about this >>></p>

<p>Xiggi, my friend,</p>

<p>I don’t think any of us “pots” should be calling any “kettles” black.</p>

[theotherside]

<p>Off topic, but ‘prostitute college’ is now firmly entrenched in my day to day lexxicon.</p>

[jlauer95]

<p>mine too…</p>

[xiggi]

<p>"<<< No doubt that Seipp likes to continue to yapp about this >>></p>

<p>Xiggi, my friend, I don’t think any of us “pots” should be calling any “kettles” black."</p>

<p>Jlauer, what can I say? Until this discussion was revived yesterday at 08:12 PM, the last post in this thread was on 04-03-2006 at 10:16 AM. This said, I’ll willingly admit to answer to your post, as well as being more than willing to swing at every pitch thrown by the Seipps. </p>

<p>Do I resent being called an officious blowhard for my comments in this thread? You betcha, especially considering the hypocritical arguments presented by this “writer” to recategorize an exteme dose of luck.</p>

[jlauer95]

<p>xiggi</p>

<p>I know… I just thought it was funny that one of us who “yapps” about all kinds of things would mention such about another.</p>

<p>Signed,
A fellow yapper ;)</p>

[calmom]

<p>Yeah, Xiggi, but the Siepp column was published on March 29th… it’s you who are doing the “continuing”</p>

[xiggi]

<p>Calmom, with all due respect, faulty assumptions and selective reading are again clouding your judgment.</p>

[pamavision]

<p>Another officious blowhard here…just wanted to say thank you to calmom for correcting me about UC eligibility. I’ve seldom in my life been so glad to be wrong because this means that D2, who’s every bit as bright but nowhere near as studious as D1 was, will have a chance to go to a UC, based on her (improving) GPA and test scores.</p>

<p>However, if I’ve learned one thing from my experience with #1, it’s to make sure that #2 keeps San Francisco State (or another Cal State) on her list. Love they safety indeed…</p>

[NJres]

<p>context, context…</p>

<p>The discussion was revived as a new thread. Post #239 was a brand new thread that was in response to the new blog entry and actually included the entire article. The moderators deemed it a copywrite violation and snipped it down and then merged that thread with the original thread.</p>

<p>So now you know the whole story. (rolling eyes)</p>