User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.7314 seconds
50 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
...do exactly what I've been taught "human nature does" by my dominant cultural assumptions.
Funny how that happens.
Until something else does.
Disconcur. Punching back at internet misogyny is a huge deal.
That one's worth an encore, especially since it's taken him so long to get around to it.
And even as an Obama supporter, I have to admit I couldn't find a single specific detail that I could argue with----the man is a genius.
Even without clicking the link, I feel like I just know that won't be a link to an actual tax plan.
It'll instead be a thing Dems forward to each other & post to Facebook while pretending to LOL, which everyone else ignores utterly.
Did I guess right?
Untrue. Some people work best in face-to-face situations; others don't. You're elevating your preferred mode of communication above others'.
They can't do those favors for you because they're not physically present. That says nothing about how well you know them. The same communitarian spirit you're describing animates online interactions as well as offline ones-- people do things for eachother all of the time, except online, it's actually less self-interested, because the gift economy isn't organized around a principle of one-to-one reciprocity the way things can be in the physical world.
I don't know your point. It may have existed for some people. I'm sure it still exists for some people. But pretending that this thing that existed for a few people 1) was universal, and 2) is some sort of master plan for building a society, is just a flat-out nostalgic fantasy. It says more about you than it does about the society that you claim existed. It was a great time to be a straight white Christian male. It's not surprising you want to go back to it, especially given the shambles your religion finds itself in today.
Good point. Allowing anonymous jerkassery is bad, which is why it's so important that the world know Sam Hutcheson makes terroristic threats over the internet.
You're so cute when you're angry.
I'm cute all the time.
yes
My goodness maybe I'll quote someone who earlier talked about it ...
So there are "tangible benefits of having diversity of thought and experience" (your words), but now you want to know "how those different thoughts and experiences are, ipso facto, a net plus in any given work environment".
Now you and earlier you need to get together and discuss those "tangible benefits" and when you have decided if they exist or not let me know.
No, I am stating that different races, cultures, genders, religions and sexual orientations have different experiences than middle aged heterosexual white males. If you think this is not true then you are, to put it simply, wrong.
Everybody has different experiences. The belief that there is some intrinsic value (other than preferential value) in the sort of diversity you're discussing is just that; a belief. No different from religion, and just as impervious to reason and rationality.
Then by definition, they have different experiences from each other -- not just from middle aged heterosexual white males. The fact that you continually reduce those differences to mere opposition to white males is quite telling. Indeed, it's probably the core guidepost of the modern liberal philosophy. There are white males ... and there's everyone else.
They should just make out already.
Take it up with earlier Joe K - he thinks there are tangible benefits to diversity of thought and experience and I was discussing it with him on that basis.
So next time if I use the example of all Lesbian Black Females, and the other group is everyone else then that will make you happy? Because my point still applies. I am not assuming any special privilege from any group, in fact I am stating that groups of a single group (and I don't care who it is) will be less successful (everything else held constant) than diverse groups.
I used the example of middle aged heterosexual white guy, because a vast majority of the people here (including me - though I am not Protestant, that is the background [sort of] I grew up in) fit that category. I have been on projects comprised of that mono-cultural group, and other projects with more diverse groups, and the diverse group almost always produces a better end result. That is my experience (and I am in IT, where you would think it is all dry and technical and it wouldn't matter, but it does) and I have read studies that confirm it in various other fields.
Do I have absolute proof? Nope. However this sub discussion started around the topic of the good old days and how it was so much worse today. In that sub-topic I would like someone to explain to me how the diversity today is bad (which seems to be what was being said earlier). We can - I guess - turn this into a thread on Diversity, but that was not really what I was aiming for (though I am a believer in it).
In ecology mono-cultures are known to be very vulnerable, while diverse ecosystems are very hardy. This is a good analogy. Mono-cultural groups fall prey to group think and their confirmation biases all line up the same (or close). Diversity leads to synthesis of ideas and to challenging long held beliefs (some of which stand up and others don't).
Are you pretending not to understand plain English or is this an actual deficiency?
If an MLB team is trying to teach hitting, then hiring a former power hitter and a former singles hitter is preferable to hiring two former singles hitters — i.e., the former combination will offer diversity of relevant subject-matter thought and experience.
If an MLB team is trying to teach hitting and hires a white guy and a black guy or a white guy and a Latino rather than two white guys or two black guys or two Latinos, what "tangible benefits" accrue specifically because of the racial or ethnic diversity?
To switch over to academics, the idea that Harvard is somehow better if it admits a Korean who scored 1550 on his SATs, a white kid who scored 1400, and a black kid who scored 1250 rather than three Koreans who scored 1550 is little more than liberal nonsense. It's just diversity for diversity's sake.
No it's not, because "College" encompasses a whole lot more than aptitude on standardized tests. If everybody comes from the same homogenous cultural background, then every experience becomes like an echo chamber. Where I grew up, everyone was white, middle class, Catholic. The family 2 doors down was white, middles class, and Lutheran. They were like space aliens. My worldview was formed by assuming everybody was white, middle class, and Catholic. I didn't meet my first Jewish person, or oriental person, or know the first name of a black person until college, and I feel the worse off because of it.
"Somehow" isn't defined vaguely-- if you're sending students off to work with people from different backgrounds, it's a big help if they've had experience dealing and interacting with people from those different backgrounds while they were in college. A lot of times, the biggest adjustment students have to make at the freshman level, especially at racially/ethnically diverse colleges, is in learning to interact with people from groups they grew up separated from. There's more than just an instrumental value to diversity, but since you actually seem to need the instrumental value explained to you, there it is.
This is such a weird thing to say I have a hard time thinking you actually believe it. Is there some intrinsic value in diverse cuisine, rather than food made solely from Europe? Or is it just preferential? Is there any intrinsic value in being aware of and exposed to diverse financial systems, or is it solely preferential to expand beyond what you learned in Econ 101?
I'm not one of those people who believes that if something can't be quantified, then it doesn't exist or doesn't have value, but unless you can describe some real-world tangible benefits to using race as a basis for college admissions, I'm calling B.S.
This type of thinking is akin to believing an all-black baseball team would be better off if it dropped an All-Star black guy in favor of a .170-hitting white guy, all because of some largely if not entirely illusory benefits of "diversity."
Using diversity as a tiebreaker among equals is one thing; claiming "diversity" is worth 400 points on the SATs is quite another.
I grew up in a pretty insular little town. I did not meet a black person until 9th grade (and there were only three or four in my high school). I got to college and inadvertantly said some things that the other minority students (black and Indian in particular) found offensive. As bad as that was, better there than at my first job. So in that sense, diversity at my school certainly benefited me.
No, it's not.
ditto, except the Lutherans were not two doors down, they were next door, and they were OK, it was the Methodists the next block over who were space aliens... The Jews in my town were like everyone else, except they went to church (Temple) on Saturdays instead of Sundays.
Then I went to college and ran into "Brooklyn Jews," yikes, now that was some culture shock...
Of course it is. How else would you describe it? Affirmative action and race-based admissions have moved way beyond using race as a tiebreaker. We're being told, implicitly if not explicitly, that "diversity" is worth hundreds of points on SAT scores. Rejecting a Korean who scored 1550 on the SATs in favor of some non-Asian who scored 1250 is akin to dropping a .300-hitting black player in favor of a .170-hitting* white player.
(* Yes, I know batting average is retrograde around here.)
Oh, you mean like The Almighty actually commanded?
Goyim, what a kooky bunch.
So if you are forming a project team, in my experience it is a very good idea to make the team diverse. If the pool of employees is all Lesbian Black Females then you can't have a very diverse project team. It is much better to have a pool of employees to put on projects that are diverse, because employees bring with them their thoughts and experiences.
Bringing this back to the original sub-thread, the demographics of the workforce are changing. First of all the demographics of the US are changing and also there is much more off shore/ on shore work being done (especially in my field). So it is important (for me) to have my boys exposed to this diversity so they can work more effectively in the even more demographically diverse workforce of their future.
They will do better, be happier, and their employer will get more value if they (and their peers)can work effectively within this diverse workforce. They and society are better off with them being exposed to and functioning in this diverse environment. The old fashioned closed and relatively segregated neighborhoods where everyone only knew their neighbors who were just like them is not the way to go.
Can I point out now that no one spoke of affirmative action or race based admissions until you brought them up. Clearly you were just aching to move the discussion from diversity to affirmative action. Which is fine we can talk about those topics also, but either why jump away from the original topic and pretend (like you are) that they are the same?
Do you really think that a discussion of the worth (or lack thereof) of diversity is the same as a discussion of affirmative action? I assure you they are different. I was not at all speaking about affirmative action, race based admissions or anything like that.
I was discussing the power of diversity and leading towards the discussion of why the "snapper approved" neighborhood is fine, but in the modern world is not the end all be all, and in fact in some respects other models better fit the modern world.
I guess I might be more uncomfortable in diverse environments now if I'd grown up in one of the less diverse places. I really have no way to know. It probably depends as much on the individual's ideological upbringing as on his or her surroundings. Nobody ever told me that people of other ethnicities or cultures were supposedly inferior, so I never thought so. I was perplexed when we learned about racism at school. Sadly, I've since been on the receiving end of obvious racism on numerous occasions. No human attribute is limited in scope.
???
I'm the one who first mentioned the idea of diversity of thought and experience, while you were — and apparently still are — claiming that hiring on the basis of skin color or ethnicity automatically yields diversity of thought and experience.
This has nothing to do with the original topic. Being able to work in diverse environments doesn't mean that diverse environments yield superior results when compared to non-diverse environments.
Here's a picture of Apple's entire design team. Does anyone want to argue that a lack of ethnic, racial, or gender diversity is holding Apple back?
It's a dumb analogy, because the goal of playing baseball, presumably, is to win baseball games. The goal of college is not quite so fixed (a lot of times, it depends on the student to configure their own goals), nor are the outcomes as easily quantifiable-- there are a whole bunch of metrics we use to assess "success", and all of them measure somewhat different things. Students often assess their own success differently than we do-- they sacrifice points on their GPA for a long weekend with their family, or for the challenge presented by a difficult major.
I like the analogy, I really do except I'd say it's more like dropping a .315 hitting player for a .275 hitting player
I'd also add this: SAT is to Academic Achievement/Ability what Batting Average is to baseball achievement/ability, there's a high degree of correlation, but a lot that is missing, batting average doesn't measure slugging well, or on base ability, or base running or defense...
That guy/gal/it who scores 1250 could bring a better total package to the table than that 1550 scorer (though I don't see how skin color alone could bridge a gap like that)
Unless you've only been speaking in support of diversity that occurs strictly as the result of a colorblind meritocracy, there's far less difference between the topics than your objection would suggest.
Well, there's 2 women pictured, one of whom looks Asian. There appears to be 2 Asian men. And only God knows what their religious and sexual affiliations are. So...what was the question again?
This might be true for philosophy majors, but it's not true for med students. The goal of a med student should be to become the best possible doctor, and the goal of a medical school is — or should be — to turn out the best possible doctors. To the extent that things like diversity are used as a factor in med-school admissions, both of these goals are compromised.
It's cute that you think this is making your point...
Growing up my idea of diversity was watching black sitcoms like Goodtimes.
My town was about 99% white
or maybe 98.5 % non hispanic white
1% hispanic white
0.25% black
0.20% asian
0.05% native american (yes one family, and I only knew they existed because one of them was my age and one of my best friends- but until I met him in 7th grade I vaguely recall thinking that Amerindians were extinct)
Per Wiki my hometown is now:
95.81% White,
0.72% African American (I visit my mother maybe once a month,walk around town, I swear I have not sen a black there in 20+ years)
0.04% Native American (still works out to one family, but not same one, my friend's family moved 10+ years ago.)
2.03% Asian,
0.48% from other races,
0.92% from two or more races.
Hispanic or Latino of any race were 3.02% of the population
Ha ha. No black men, no black women, no Latinas, no Latinos, and two women out of 16 people. That's your idea of diversity? If you made such a claim on a college campus, you'd be called a sexist racist.
I mentioned diversity. You mentioned diversity of thought and experience - and I agreed that was a very relevant point. I asked before and you never answered.
If there are two teams, one has all young lesbian black female followers of Wicca and the other has a mixture ages, sexual orientations, ethnicity and religions which team has a more diversity of thought and experience?
For example one team I joined, full of middle aged white males from the suburbs, who were very talented and smart, but really clueless about the diversity of the world. They programmed an entire system and it was brilliant, but really flawed. Among other things they programmed gender as a two value field, Male and Female.
Except of course it was in the medical field and the various trans gender options (and others) never occurred to them. Had they ever known someone transgender, if any of them had any experiences that allowed them to realize such people exist and can be transitioning from Male to Female (or vice versa, and other options) they never would have programmed it the way they did. They were not bad people. They were very smart. But we had to rip out and rewrite a whole section of their code because they were clueless.
Yes this is a single anecdote. Yes it proves nothing. I have already stated I don't have absolute proof (and if I did and linked to the study you would not believe it anyway), but in my experience and from the various studies I have seen a more diverse team will function generally better than a less diverse team.
Of course if you through out the great lesbian black female witch programmer for the absolutely clueless middle aged white guy just for the sake of diversity then productivity will decrease. I am not advocating that, but keep throwing that straw man out there.
I read an article from a few years ago, about a visit to Microsoft's headquarters, the author noted what appeared to be a huge degree of racial/ethnic diversity- including a large number of African Americans, except he said they weren't African AMERICANS, he started talking to them, they were from the Caribbean, or Europe, or Africa, but literally none of the blacks he spoke with there were born in the US...
I'm not quite sure what that means...
What type of team are we talking about? What sport? Are their really enough young lesbian black female Wiccans in the world to fill out any roster?
Who cares? Unless the goal is to outsmart a bunch of black lesbian Wiccans, how would having diversity of non-subject matter thoughts and experiences help the second team?
If that's your best case for diversity, then ... wow.
Where are those doctors going to be practicing medicine? Are they only going to be seeing patients from their same ethnic group, with their same cultural context? Might health outcomes be improved by better communication between doctor and patient? Again, you're conflating baseball, where we tend to know what sort of actions produce value, with areas where performance is far more context-dependent.
And you continue to mistakenly assume that SAT scores tell us something definitive about a person's ability. We have very good guesses about what sort of students will perform well at what sorts of institutions, but success is much more about "fit" than it is about any sort of raw ability, to the extent that such a thing even exists. A gay student at a school that provides no sort of support network will often struggle academically, not because they're stupid or lazy, but because they're distracted by the environment.
middle aged white males from the burbs in the US are as likely to be transgender or familiar with transgender issues as just about any other group, adding a few random females, asians, blacks, etc., likely wouldn't have changed this little anecdote one whit,
Project teams .. which is what I have experience in.
I guess not the guy that earlier posted about the tangible value of diversity of thought and experience. I guess it is only tangible when you say it is and otherwise all that diversity of thought and experience (still YOUR words) doesn't mean much.
Where did I say it was my best case? Oh that's right I didn't. It is an example. A real life example that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars because a project team was not diverse enough (either personally or through awareness of others) to understand that gender is not binary.
The problem with this anecdote is that the punchline is just the setup repeated: they lacked diversity and thus failed in understanding diversity. It doesn't suggest that diversity has a value unrelated to itself - that, for example, a diverse team is more likely to come up with creative solutions.
Academic achievement is part of that fit. You probably aren't doing someone any favors by admitting them to a school they couldn't normally get into on the basis of their academic record. Well, unless they are taking humanities courses. Good luck in the hard sciences, engineering or math -- because it'll be ####### hopeless.
Of course, this issue in the context of schools is pretty much dead. Using race as a factor in the admissions process is as good as dead, primarily because diversity can be (and has been) achieved without using race as a factor in admissions.
Except for the part in several of my examples (earlier I admit - it is a long list) where I mentioned gender identity as one of the diversity bits. Besides amusingly enough every female that looked at it all mentioned that was a problem. It is more "public" now, but in the 90s (for whatever reason) women (those I interacted with) were much more open of and aware of transgender issues.
But again it is an example. It is not proof. It does not cover the spectrum. Feel free to nitpick, I guess but it doesn't really disprove the underlying point.
The dig at the humanities aside: yeah, academic achievement is part of it, but I think you're putting to much predictive value on what kids do from ages 15-17, and on their capacity for intellectual development given the right context.
Edit: What I mean here is that kids have "see the light" moments with their academic performance at different points. And a lot of times that has to do with the context they were raised in-- were they taught that academic achievement is something worthwhile? Worth sacrificing for? We see kids take all sorts of turns in the 4 years we have them.
I am sure this a great relief to the company which wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars and months of time.
But in my experience this is also the case, but I don't have a handy two paragraph anecdote for it. It is too nebulous. Doesn't mean it is not so though. And not to nitpick I never said anything about creative solutions, my contention is the project team functions better, has a better outcome (which could be creative but doesn't have to be) if it is a diverse team.
Feel free to have a different experience and relay your anecdote about the diverse team that communicated poorly and failed where a less diverse team would not have. I am sure it has happened, but not in my experience.
The question then becomes how hard do you dig to find talent that doesn't always show up in cookie cutter ways. I'm reminded of the constant excuses that teams like the Yankees and Red Sox made in the early 50's that "we'd be glad to sign qualified black players, but we haven't found any." Meanwhile teams like the Dodgers, the Braves, and the Giants looked somewhere beyond their own noses and managed to come up with more than a few, while the Red Sox were signing white bonus babies who couldn't hit their way out of a wet paper bag.
I don't doubt that culture matters in some cases, but I'd still rather have a Grade A doctor with poor bedside manner than a Grade C doctor who supposedly will be better at communicating with people in a certain ethnic group. I simply don't believe "diversity" makes up for some of the huge differences I'm seeing reported re: admissions thresholds, etc.
No, I'm not saying SAT scores are definitive; I'm simply saying that I don't believe that being black or Latino should be worth 400 points of SAT scores. The gulf between the needed SAT score for Asians and the score needed by blacks at some colleges is incredible, and almost assuredly not made up for by illusory "diversity" benefits.
The right context is key. People who could be extremely competent engineers might be discouraged away from that path by attending an institution where they are surrounded by people who have achieved significantly more academically than they have. Hard science/math classes are typically curved because of the difficulty. Grades reflect not how well a student objectively knows the subject, but how well he or she does compared to the other students in those classes.
There weren't any humanities classes I took where the average grade was 20 (out of 100) on an exam.
As a humanities scholar, by the way, I'm glad to concur that much of what goes on in the humanities is ####. There are a few of us left who do our best to call #### out for what it is, but so much of it is ####, and the #### has sufficient political power, that we have a hard time doing it if we want to have careers ourselves . . . careers, to get back to the first paragraph's point, we very well might have chosen not to have if we'd known we'd wind up surrounded by ####! (Though I guess I'll be happy to do my self-described non-#### if someone willpay me to do it.)
I meant no dig at humanities. The point was simply that there are right and wrong answers in fields like medicine, math, engineering, while those lines either don't exist or are much more blurry in a field like philosophy.
(EDIT: I just noticed you were replying to Steve; I thought you were replying to my earlier comment about philosophy majors.)
He meant my dig. I didn't intend it as a dig either -- it's just a fact. A fact of which it's impossible to be unaware if you took both humanities and hard science classes in an elite institution.
This sounds like a problem with the project's specs rather than something that would have been solved by diversity. I don't believe I've ever filled out a form that offered anything but "Male or Female" as the gender option, so I'm not sure why some company would assume a bunch of computer programmers would know that additional options are needed.
No hostility was intended. (Sometimes it seems like we need a Minnesota-to-New York translator, which can make our exchanges a little maddening.)
I teach in a field that's pretty neatly positioned at the intersection of humanities and social sciences, and we have a lot of tensions between humanities teaching/testing methods and social science teaching/testing methods (which, of course, try to imitate and borrow the rigor and certainty of the hard sciences, for better or for worse). I'm sympathetic to arguments on both sides-- I've seen some pointlessly hard tests that do nothing to impart and cultivate knowledge, and some pointlessly bullshitty writing exercises that similarly fail in their objectives. But the idea that the hard sciences grade on a curve and the humanities don't is...detached from how grading in the humanities often happens.
That's a fair counterpoint. In one the curve is implicit, the other the curve is more explicit.
The most disheartening was in graduate school, where the Professor came in after the first test and said he was disappointed in all of us, we clearly didn't know as much as he thought, and there was work to do. Not something you want to hear in grad school. I got an A in the end though (of course in grad school - there anyway - if you were not getting an A there was cause for alarm and if you couldn't manage a B you should think about doing something else with your life).
Seriously? Diversity is good for pretty much the same reasons you should not #### your sister.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I think it's very likely that someone here would be willing to watch my well-behaved dog for a week while I went on vacation. I don't know that I'd be any more comfortable asking any but my closest friends than I would a NYC Primate. (I'm sure Ray would be thrilled to watch her!)
I'm still bummed that I've never been able to one of those meetups. They always seem to hit on dates that I'm not around. I'm sure you all plan it that way.
Is Ray really anti-dog or is that just a BBTF meme?
OK, is it worth 50? 100? 200? And FTR, nobody claimed 400. As a matter of fact, the only one to put a number on it was you, and even you didn't claim 400. So where does this 400 come from?
The victim-complex ether that runs the white-man-grievance network.
But with globalization aren't we going one big mono-culture? A culture that is going to have more similar attitudes and being dominated by similar governments, corporations, etc.
I think if one big culture was the best the Roman Empire would still be here. Big cultures, big societies, big countries should have insuperable advantages and they always fail or break up eventually. There are reasons people can and should split off into subcultures from time to time.
There are big gaps between the average SAT score of Asians and non-Asians at a lot of colleges. Here's one example:
That last sentence is really amazing (and shameful). An Asian with a 1240 SAT score has a 10 percent chance of gaining admission, while a black kid with the same 1240 has a 92 percent chance of admission. It's like something out of Animal Farm.
This is, in a nutshell, the leftist critique of globalization, yes.
Ray said something like "anyone who has pets in their home has their screws loose". My memory was that it kind of came out of nowhere, and he didn't elaborate in that thread, that I saw (I haven't seen an explanation later, either, but it could have been addressed and I missed it). The only thing I saw later was that he gets annoyed when wet dogs spray him in the elevator.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't...
Obama is doing exactly what people wanted him to do in the last debate.
How many of those Asians were Asian-Americans, and how many were foreigners? How many Asians were from Michigan and how many were from outside the state? Now, ask the same question about the blacks? How many of those Asians with a 1240 SAT score were applying to the engineering or science departments vs the blacks? Without knowing the answers to those and other questions, those "shameful" numbers are meaningless.
Well technically, I suppose they are bribing people with their children's and grandchildren's money.
Right, but no one's disputing that. The argument is about production on Federal Land.
(*) I guess that answer from Obama is supposed to be responsive to every question? WTF. Even if "investing" in alternative sources of energy helped the economy - and it doesn't - there is no way that helps the 20-year old whiney brat who is going to graduate from college in 2014.
Putting aside ares of medicine that are generally non-interactive, I don't know how you could be a "Grade A" doctor for someone that you can't adequately communicate with. If you're cutting into an unconscious guy on the table, then yeah, you can be socially retarded and still be exceptional.
Also, while I don't think it's anywhere near that sort of drop off to the most qualified diverse candidate, most medical problems are perfectly well-handled by a "Grade C" doctor anyway. I don't need the guy who graduated at the top of his medical school for basic medical care. I need a competent doctor, and average will certainly do.
No, I'm not saying SAT scores are definitive; I'm simply saying that I don't believe that being black or Latino should be worth 400 points of SAT scores. The gulf between the needed SAT score for Asians and the score needed by blacks at some colleges is incredible, and almost assuredly not made up for by illusory "diversity" benefits.
If there's such an incredible gap between the qualifications of the top students applying from different races or backgrounds, then we might want to question how we're measuring, especially while there's still a huge amount of unrealized potential (as there pretty much always is before college starts). If a school has to drop its threshold for SAT scores 400 points to get the next available INSERTGROUPHERE, I'm more inclined to believe that SAT scores don't really adequately measure intelligence or that a huge portion of the pool of INSERTGROUPHERE simply aren't applying (its own serious problem; why are so many good people not interested in this school) than I am to conclude that INSERTGROUPHERE simply aren't good college candidates.
What is a single student's 400 points of score difference on an SAT worth to a college? Does that value change if the college already has a bunch of students that are already at that level? (Bear in mind that a 400 point jump isn't rare in my industry; it's great improvement, but I would generally expect it to happen for a couple of students that start at or slightly-below average in each class.)
Fact check seems to be saying that overall production is up - there was a precipitous drop in 2011 from 2010, but overall - it's up.
I bet you do, ############.
I bet you do.
This.
YOU need to get home and make dinner!
YOU need to get home and deal with the kids!
I didn't mean it as particularly lefty, it's an argument that could be used by either sides. I don't think the Amish are lefties.
No one culture can represent all points of view. Like the child of permissive parents who joins a restrictive religious cult because it simplifies their world.
Really? I think of the Amish as hippies with Bibles.
EDIT : And then she proves me wrong by not allowing the President to respond to Romney. Good.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main