Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (469614)	10/2/2003 4:35:55 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

So now you are forced to resort to the "Two wrongs make a right" argument to justify your position? OK. Good enough for me. That makes my point. BTW, I did start with SAT and GP intentionally. While subjectivity does go into some of the grades making up a GP, overall the sunjective biases of many people will tend to cancel giving a reasonable stab at objectivity.

To: TigerPaw who wrote (469614)	10/2/2003 4:53:59 PM
From: Kevin Rose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Random would never work, on a practical basis. Everyone would overapply, then the universities would have to have follow-up lotteries in a series until they settled on a group that both won and had them as their first choice. I like the '10%' as an added factor. Possibly it would be a bigger factor for students who attended schools with lower scores, since there would seem to be a relationship between overall lower test scores and educational opportunity. Of course, as I remember, the counter argument was that students would flock to the lower test score schools, but even if that happened, the result would seem to be an 'evening out' of the schools. Tough problem.