disgruntledbilliken

Dear Roy, It sounds like you worked incredibly hard during your college years. More than most, for that matter. It also sounds like that hard work paid off, and that you have done well for yourself. I'm glad that you were able to work your way into a good life. No one, and I mean no one, is trying to take that away from you. Best, Disgruntledbilliken

Here are my thoughts on the matter, which are informed by time teaching high school and now at the college level: First, I'll lay out my thesis: The decision to make the ACT/SAT optional will have a negligible impact on the "quality" of students at SLU (or at other universities for that matter). I have taught a wide variety of bright (and not-so-bright) students. Some students demonstrated their intelligence through insightful comments during class discussion or on their essays. Some (certainly not all) of my best writers/thinkers did quite poorly on multiple choice exams. I had other students who received perfect or near-perfect scores on exams, and I expected them to be top of the class in other ways as well. However, when I would read their writing, I would realize the while they were good at regurgitating information, they weren't able to think beyond the surface. Surely, I also had students who were able to do it all. The students that can do it all (either because they are unusually gifted and motivated or because they got a little bit of a head start because of their background) will be fine. If they want to go to SLU, they will go to SLU. To this point, most SLU students are in this category. Yes, we aren't a school like Wash U that can gets their pick of perfect applicants. However, students who want to go to SLU know what they have to do to get in, and generally have the means to make it happen if they aren't naturally gifted. My reading is that this decision is most relevant for students who 1) Have strong GPAs, extracurriculars, recommendations, etc, but have low test scores OR 2) Have very strong test scores but are lacking in another aspect. If you are in the first category, you now have the opportunity to not submit a poor score. This means nothing, of course, without having a strong application in every other way. Likewise, if you are in the second category you can show a school that even if you either dicked around in HS or if you had to work to help you family make ends meet and that impacted your GPA, there is some metric out there that shows that you have some of the skills required for college, especially at an academically rigorous institution like SLU. Look, I don't think that standardized test scores are totally useless. I think they can tell us some things while simultaneously hide other things. Yet we get so wrapped up in thinking that the way things have been for us are the best way to do them, and any change will lead to "decline." There are plenty of idealistic reasons for why getting rid of the ACT/SAT requirements is a good idea. There are also plenty of idealistic reasons for why keeping the ACT/SAT requirement is a good idea. There are plenty of ways to "make it to the top." You can be incredibly naturally intelligent. You can be not-so-intelligent but incredibly dilligent and hard-working and make up for your weaknesses. You can be rich and well off and buy your way in (either through things like legacy or through buying a good education and test prep). At the end of the day, I don't think any of that changes.

People get their panties in a bunch over the weirdest things. It's simple: If your kid sucks at AP physics (or one of the other really difficult HS courses in STL, LOL!) and needs validation, take the ACT/SAT. If you can afford and you value test scores, take the ACT/SAT. If you dicked around in HS and want to show your abilities in a way other than GPA, take the SAT/ACT and write a good essay. This is really not "the dumbing down of America."

I'm not "in the know," but if I get anything from looking at this list it's that 1) Nesbitt wants to go away from home for college. 2) wants to go to a big school.

You're an actual piece of sh*t.

Im a grad student at a large flagship public university in the Midwest (thankfully, not Mizzou). While nothing is official, the chair of my department said that based on his conversations with university administration, "it is a good prediction that at least half of the fall semester will be remote."

But doesn't the same dynamic play out for most athletes at most (if not all) D1 basketball programs? I'm thinking here about all of the missed classes, "ghost classes" (ala what UNC got in trouble for, but certainly doesn't only happen at UNC), etc. Let's say we have a basketball player--we will call him Tony Smith. Tony decides to go to one of these "baseketball factories." His whole day is organized around basketball. He takes a few easy classes so that the "school" does just enough to justify their position as a "school." Tony Smith then gets an offer from Average Joes State University (or maybe we can it Midsize Midwestern City Catholic U). His days is organized around basketball. He takes a few easy classes to justify his position as a student. There online courses that are developed for him and other athletes. He is given extensions on assignments to work around his schedule. He misses classes a lot due to his schedule, and they due just enough to pass his courses. What really is the difference? Granted, the overwhelming majority of students at the university are there to study. However, the experience of the basketball player is overwhelmingly centered around basketball.

Wait, you do understand that the very basic idea that the fact that the first American Covid death was recorded on Feb. 29 does NOT mean that "not one american died from the chinese flu virus" prior to that day, right?

Yes, I do get disgruntled by racist a**holes

Didn't you have some come to Jesus post a few days ago where you recognized your role in the craziness of this thread? And yet here you are with your racist bull****. At this point, it is common sense that calling it the "chinese flu" or anything of the like is absolutely racist, and yet here you are showing your colors. Didn't you say you've considered leaving the board? Maybe you should. One of your posts said you received a PM from another board member who convinced you to come back after a hiatus. Maybe if I PM you I can convince you to leave and never come back?

It's a message board username. Again, a walking/talking meme.

You're probably too old and miserable to "get it," but you're quite literally a walking, talking meme.

Woah, Bryce Drew is at Grand Canyon? What a fall from grace!

Do you get off on being a jerk to everyone?

Yes, you are right. I was not precise enough in my words. Let's try this again. Here is my more precise and corrected post: "Dude. The president literally said the reaction to the coronavirus outbreak was a Democrat hoax in late February, a month after the dates you posted earlier. I don't quite care who you vote/don't vote for. I hope for good leadership so that people are healthy and things are solved soon. At this point you just look silly though." Mmh. Doesn't make it any better.