Anon for this one... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Continuing:
> 2nd thread:
>
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1338441> 1st thread:
>
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1338032>
>
> Well, I should probably let this go, but all the
> silly face-saving efforts here have really
> irritated me.
>
>
> Beth's Son Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Shame on you for thinking that you have the
> right
> > to judge the worth of other people based on your
> own
> > preconceived notions and limited life
> experience.
>
>
> Shame on me? For doing my job? Shame on me for
> participating in the process that decides which
> one in three applicants gets the benefit of my
> institution's resources (i.e. hardworking
> taxpayers' money)?
>
> Why do you think I, and my colleagues, are tasked
> with making these decisions? Perhaps--and brace
> yourself for a little cognitive dissonance--it's
> because of our " life experience." I have nearly
> 30 years of teaching experience, and have worked
> with thousands of students over the years. You are
> a student who has yet to even graduate or apply
> to a graduate program. Excuse me for clinging to
> to the wisdom I've gleaned over the years, rather
> than capitulating to your feel-good baloney.
>
> I once had to find a replacement GTA to take over
> a class because the young lady teaching it quit,
> not only the teaching assignment but grad school
> altogether. When I asked her why she wanted to
> leave she told me that "it got 'yucky'!" Your mom
> claims you're an undergraduate CS student. Do you
> want Ms. Yucky teaching your class? Do you want
> some mama's boy teaching your class, someone who
> needs his mama to pave the way and open doors for
> him? Or would you rather have a confident,
> competent self-starter? When we award a student a
> coveted slot, and expend limited resources on
> them, we want to make sure that those monies--not
> to mention our own time and efforts--are not
> wasted on someone who doesn't want to be there, or
> ought not be there in the first place.
>
> There's no shame in us considering "maturity" as
> one of many criteria when determining who gets
> into our PhD program. And shame on YOU for
> implying otherwise.
>
>
> Beth's Son Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It's abhorrent to me that there are people out
> there
> > who hold the futures of others in their hands
> and
> > deem those people unworthy
>
>
> We don't deem anyone "unworthy." Most applicants
> are very good, but we have to make an honest
> assessment of who's most likely to be successful
> because of limited resources. The process is very
> objective. We look at
> -standardized test scores
> -GPA
> -type of course work completed
> -any journal publications authored or co-authored
> (big plus)
> -etc
>
> We also consider "showstoppers," like maturity. I
> don't mean maturity like having pulled a prank,
> but if you need mommy on campus to feed you, burp
> you and change your diapers... then we just can't
> afford to take the risk. It's not fair to other
> worthy candidates, the taxpayers we ask to foot
> the bill, the faculty that will invest their time
> in you, nor the students you may come in contact
> with.
>
> I'm sure you and your mama can come up with a
> better system. Maybe we should take in whomever
> really, really, really wants it the most. Or holds
> their breath the longest. Or eats the most hot
> dogs. Maybe we should just give a PhD to everybody
> who wants one. Would that be less "abhorrent?"
>
>
> Beth's Son Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You've probably met a lot of people in your
> life, so
> > it's natural for you to to label and catalog
> them.
> > Categorization is the default method for
> > understanding the world around you, after all;
> we
> > deal with new stimuli by likening them to things
>
> > we've already experienced so that we have some
> frame
> > of reference by which we can grasp the new
> things.
> >
> > People are complex, though. People have decades
> of
> > continuous existence under their belts. People
> > differ from one another in necessarily infinite
> ways.
> > You can no more comprehend the entire being of
> a
> > person than you can count all of the numbers
> > between zero and one.
>
>
> You know what that drivel sounds like to me? It's
> sounds more like it was written by Beth's Son's
> mama then by "Beth's Son." You know, the lady who
> already confessed that she wished she had studied
> Demography. You know what else? I've never heard
> one of my students refer to the others as "CS
> kiddies," or talk about "suckling." That sounds
> more like a middle aged lady to me.
>
> So, I'm going to write the balance of this
> assuming that "Beth's Son" is really Beth's Son's
> mama (i.e. Beth).
>
>
> Beth's Son Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Certainly, you can divide a subject into simpler
>
> > and simpler specimens, but the grand fallacy is
> that
> > there is always a finite point that you cannot
> > surpass. In reality, there is only a finite
> point at
> > which our vocabularies become insufficient to
> > describe what we're observing.
>
>
> I have a pretty good vocabulary, and I can tell
> you what we're observing: bloviating! Beth's Son's
> mom is pretending to be Beth's Son, and writing a
> bunch of crap crap crap to try to save face given
> the screed she posted last night. Now we're
> supposed to believe that she personally knows half
> the CS faculty at Imaginary U, and that industry
> experts are crawling out of the woodwork to pass
> along career tips for her son...
>
> Well, I teach at Reality U, not Make Believe U, or
> Feel Good U. If you don't believe me about these
> things, go ahead and head to campus to “work
> it” and give him a “leg up." But I think
> you'll be unpleasantly surprised at how his odds
> are "skewed." In the mean time, I'll be on the
> lookout for applicants who's mother's name is
> Beth. ;-)