<p>your right brand...i know i'm offensive. Most of it is retaliation.</p>
<p>I just have a hard time ignoring snobs who pour their own insecurities all over threads that are meant to be helpful...not boost their own egos.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i'm going to go to berkeley and if i choose to endure dealing with people like yourself, i may choose to go to law school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you can call that a choice!</p>
<p>
[quote]
I have people skills, I have an active life, beyond collegeconfidential (you said it yourself, this is where you come when you suffer from boredom and thats just the saddest thing i've ever heard)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>ILC, your average post per day is just 1.90 posts lower than mine. Do you really mean to say that those 1.9 posts somehow make the difference between a social butterfly and a hermit?</p>
<p>I must say, without misanthropy, this would be one boring forum.</p>
<p><em>sits back and watches the pwnage</em></p>
<p>it was a choice. You dont have the pleasure of living in california. You dont know a damn thing about our system. </p>
<p>or perhaps i do...DO YOU REALLY WANT ME TO LIST THEM??! </p>
<p>seriously GO AWAY get over yourself.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I must say, without misanthropy, this would be one boring forum!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Seconded. :D</p>
<p>
[quote]
Don't pay attention to nspeds' ramblings about community college. He often brings that factor up when:</p>
<p>1) He is offended.
2) He is at a loss for words.
3) He is just plain tired of the argument.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Brand, you are an anomaly. Most of the students, and I really mean most of the students at a CC in now way possess the intellectual capability to perform well at a top tier school. That I should make a generalization is not foolish.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You dont have the pleasure of living in california.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uhh... I have had the pleasure. I mean, I've lived there before.</p>
<p>
[quote]
DO YOU REALLY WANT ME TO LIST THEM??!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>List what? There is nothing to list!</p>
<p>wow you dont know MOST of the students at CCs.</p>
<p>you are all talk.
seriously, if your so great, why are you at georgetown? georgetown doesn't seem to meet the standards for a philosophical genius like yourself (plz note the sarcasm). If your so brilliant, why aren't you at Harvard or another school in the top 5???</p>
<p>
[quote]
seriously, if your so great, why are you at georgetown?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never said I was great.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If your so brilliant, why aren't you at Harvard or another school in the top 5???
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never said I was brilliant. I merely claimed that you are an idiot. It doesn't require the world's greatest genius (or idiot) to figure that out.</p>
<p>And Georgetown isn't a bad school. I kind of like it here. I also had the choice between #9 (UChicago) and #17 (Rice). Does it really matter, though? Each experience, be it one at Georgetown, Rice, or Harvard has its own virtues and vices. I'm happy with that I have.</p>
<p>I still don't see a list, which really makes me think that there isn't one.</p>
<p>We're sort of digressing. It's good to know that I am not entirely culpable for starting this stupid debate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Brand, you are an anomaly
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why, thank you. Let's hope adcoms think so.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Most of the students, and I really mean most of the students at a CC in now way possess the intellectual capability to perform well at a top tier school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Seconded. However, I am a bit offended when you say that someone that goes to a community college must immediately be ignorant, or in some way, inferior. I believe that is an inductive fallacy. ;) And I look forward to my Philosophy courses, wherever they may be.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If your so brilliant, why aren't you at Harvard or another school in the top 5???
[/quote]
</p>
<p>G-Town is among the best for philosophy. I'm not sure about the specific fields of philosophy, but I think the best for ph. is NYU - which he could have easily gotten into, but often times choices are made on fit instead of ranking.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, I am a bit offended when you say that someone that goes to a community college must immediately be ignorant, or in some way, inferior.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I confess that that is hyperbole on my part.</p>
<p>Hrrrm. Actually, I agree with nspeds that most students at a CC do not have the intellectual capability to perform well at a top tier school. They don't have it for many reasons, one of them is that the intellect at a CC level is limited due to the many circumstances that CC students inherently have. Many don't have the drive nor do they care to aim for a top tier school, while others are too busy with jobs or children. However the generalization does not hold true for community college students here on college confidential as they are not representative.</p>
<p>johnzen -</p>
<p>Well, yes, and I concede that fact. But to use "you go to a community college" as an insult implies that a CC student is inherently ignorant. The vast majority of students at my CC are, in fact, ignorant (there I said it).</p>
<p>Now that I re-read what was said, I believe Nspeds was referring to the fact that ilovecali said she had accomplished many more things than he could ever imagine to do - at which point he said she was at a CC - which actually does make sense. It is illogical to believe that someone at a CC has accomplished more than someone at a university about to go on to law school. </p>
<p>However, when I and Nspeds argued in the past, he used the fact that I go to a CC as an insult against my intelligence, which is I how I immediately viewed it in this case. I don't believe that was his intent in this case - it was instead a retort to her claim that she had more achievements than he.</p>
<p>I could be wrong about the intent in his statement, but I don't get into the community college debate / argument anymore as I am well aware of the possibilities that lie ahead.</p>
<p>i am willing to bet my life that most of you who make these generalizations regarding the intellectual capabilities of CC students, haven't met enough to draw any conclusions..</p>
<p>They are capable. The same way a Mexican at a low-performing high school, is admitted to a good school through affirmative action, and then proves himself with proper training and exceptional resources.</p>
<p>nspeds, all jokes aside now.</p>
<p>What is the supposedly existing standard scale with which you and me and others can use to determine difficulties associated with subjects?</p>
<p>Can you explain why there should even be that standard scale you mentioned?</p>
<p>I agree with you that I cannot assume that such does not exist just because I am not aware of its existence.</p>
<p>But how would you explain that there should be any?</p>
<p>To me, it makes more sense to prematurely judge against any possible existence of that sort with little or no evidence.</p>
<p>It does not make any more sense for one to assume that there should be any existence of that sort with little or no evidence.</p>
<p>How would you explain this?</p>
<p>Don't misunderstand me. I am not asking these questions to argue against your claim. They are simply questions arise from your own claim.</p>
<p>Also, which one do you prefer?
Apple or Orange?
I like Apple because it's sweeter.
Do you think sweetness is the standard scale with which one can judge between tasty and less tasty fruits? That's absurd. It depends on one's preference.</p>
<p>I think the previous comment is a misunderstanding of nspeds assertion. From what I read, he argues that by referencing the example of trying to differentiate apples and oranges you artificially impose the idea that there are no commonalities by which one can evaluate the varying levels of difficulty between particular fields.</p>
<p>By continuing to reference your apples and oranges example, you are perpetuating his claim that in your ignorance of not knowing a true means of comparison you assert that there exists no such thing. He doesn't seem to comment so much on your idea as he does your logic, which here is flawed.</p>
<p>Just my take.</p>
<p>Humanities shouldn't be a great deal easier than the scientific disciplines, but because of the now pervasive postmodern and Marxist influence, and the resultant lack of intellectual rigor, many of these departments have simply gone to ****.</p>
<p>For a different take on why this is so important, look at where the US is heading. It is further and further becoming an information-based economy. Also consider that engineering, medical and other such jobs are being increasingly taken by those from China, India etc., and understand: Those that can effectively communicate, distill and analyze ideas will be in high demand. Of course, these are the skills that are SUPPOSED to be taught in the Humanities department, but sadly, this is no longer the case at most universities.</p>
<p>ilovecalifornia,</p>
<p>Having transferred from a CC, I can say with absolutely no hesitation that most CC students would not succeed at a top school. Most high school students would not succeed at Harvard, though. That doesn't mean that most high school students are bad people, per se.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Humanities shouldn't be a great deal easier than the scientific disciplines, but because of the now pervasive postmodern and Marxist influence, and the resultant lack of intellectual rigor, many of these departments have simply gone to ****.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No. Let's be honest here: no matter how you try to frame it, most people are going to have a much harder time with quantum physics than T.S. Eliot.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No. Let's be honest here: no matter how you try to frame it, most people are going to have a much harder time with quantum physics than T.S. Eliot.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, you'll note that I did use the qualifier "much."</p>
<p>Your example is imprecise, since you're comparing a historical figure with a discipline. Do what with T.S. Eliot? Read a work by him? Analyze a passage? Write as well as he could? But I get what you are saying. However, ignoring that, your example is disingenuous. Watch, I can do the same thing:</p>
<p>Most people are going to have a much harder time with Cartesian materialism than basic arithmetic.</p>
<p>Freakonomist, </p>
<p>The point wasn't really the example as much as it was the concept. Humanities are almost always a less academically rigorous field than most hard sciences.</p>
<p>That doesn't make them bad. It's just true. Even the social sciences tend to peak at a lower level of difficulty than the hard sciences. I'd argue that most people can dive right into economics (arguably the most rigorous social science) much more easily than they can dive into math or science.</p>
<p>This isn't a bad thing per se, but we should be realistic here.</p>