<p>But I can buy a bottle of Mexican bottled Coke at Big Lots for a dollar. No airfare or passport necessary…</p>
<p>Anyone had Coke in the 8.5 oz aluminum bottles? We have a few in the fridge that were given to us as samples, but haven’t opened them yet.</p>
<p>I am getting worried. This is getting to be the thread that sounds like the Dana Carvey ‘oldman’ from SNL, IN MY DAY…</p>
<p>Time to shut it down.</p>
<p>Coke and Sprite taste differently in Mexico. Many prefer the taste because of the more expensive sugar used. It is more expensive but far from 60 pesos… That would be well over five bucks. The exchange rate is around 11 pesos per dollar. Mexico has perhaps the highest consumption per capita in soft drinks. Companies exporting Coke and other Mexican soft drinks to the US are making a killing. Not bad for legally exported products.</p>
<p>I will only drink Mexican Coke out of the glass bottle. Buy them from a Mexican food bus about a mile from my house for $1. It is what I remember Coke tasting like when I was a kid.</p>
<p>Sorry I meant 6 pesos. It’s all funny money to me. I still haven’t figured out the coins yet.</p>
<p>Re Warren Buffett:</p>
<p>He really doesn’t provide much support for the anti-Ivy League crowd, despite getting his BA from Nebraska after two years at Wharton. There’s no question that Buffett’s critical education came at Columbia Business School, where Ben Graham and David Dodd taught. Buffett named his son after Graham. And Buffett’s consigliere, Charlie Munger, has his sole higher education degree from Harvard.</p>
<p>Is nt it that Buffett loves Columbia and hates Harvard because they did nt admit him?</p>
<p>I’m not anti-harvard. But, where you get your MBA and where you go to undergrad are entirely different things.</p>
<p>
The total cost for 1976-77 was about $7500.</p>
<p>Poetgrl – you’re still addressing, at most, 10% of my point, which was that your sweeping statement went a bit too far. You said there is no place in the non-academic world where going to Harvard vs. going to Chicago might matter. That’s all I’m disagreeing with.</p>
<p>But I give up. So if you want to go to Yale Law, or be a TV writer, or work at the New York Times, or get recruited at Goldman or McKinsey, poetgrl says your odds are exactly the same at Chicago and Harvard, Hanna says your odds are not exactly the same, and all of our opinions are worth what readers paid for them. That’s all I have to say on the subject.</p>
<p><a href=“http://dartmouthalumnimagazine.com/“nuanced-decisions”/[/url]”>http://dartmouthalumnimagazine.com/“nuanced-decisions”/</a></p>
<p>Here’s a review of the admissions process as practiced by Dartmouth.
Looks like they do send a few likely letters out to artists…</p>
<p>Nothing surprising.
They are addressing many, most of the concerns voiced on CC. Answers are somewhat vague, but there is some data.</p>
<p>Actually, Hanna, I specifically excluded Goldman from my comment. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>I specifically said UCLA or USC if you want to write for TV. </p>
<p>I specifically mentioned the ACC and Lacrosse for some of the finance positions. And, I will add, if you want to work for BofA, you’ll have to go to Charlotte, NC, where the biggest index firm, besides PIMCo, which is northern CA, exists.</p>
<p>As for the New York Times, I went to Medill for grad school, and I don’t think all that highly of the Harvard option for a journalist, but that’s just personal. Yale Law? I’m pretty much with the Bard on the lawyers and don’t give a care where any of them go to school. </p>
<p>But, yes, you show your own law school background with your complete distortion of my comments, as usual. always a pleasure.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>These following two snippets sort of crack me up. I understand what she’s getting at, but they do sound a little contradictory on first read. </p>
<p>At the top -
</p>
<p>But later down in the article, talking about interviewers</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess this means you can rate personal qualities, but not nuanced personal qualities.</p>
<p>
This answer isn’t too informative, but it did occur to me that there may be one reason for a legacy advantage that we haven’t discussed–the admissions officers may think–and rightly so–that legacy applicants will be especially disappointed and sad if they don’t get accepted at their parent’s school. When looking at several very similar candidates, this could make a difference.</p>
<p>The Dartmouth site that performersmom links to above confirms what I was saying earlier on this thread with regard to applicants in the arts. While they are not recruited per se, like some athletes, those who have very high talent in the arts have a hook of sorts as arts supplements will be reviewed and taken into consideration in admissions and these highly selective colleges indeed wish to admit some top talented visual and performing artists. It is not as if those in the arts are ignored and not paid attention to, similarly as athletes.</p>
<p>By the way, I know someone who went to a ski academy (for HS) who was recruited by Dartmouth for skiing and went to Dartmouth, but ended up giving up skiing and pursued theater at Dartmouth! He is currently studying in Paris at the International Theater School Jacques Lecoq, a graduate school for theater arts.</p>
<p>Interesting discussion about the arts. My daughter who actually will be graduating from the same high school at soozievt’s daughters, will be going to Harvard next year. She is a legacy (her mom), who very rarely donates to the school! Middle class all the way. My daughter is also very strong in the arts, and I believe that was a hook for her, to some extent. She took a very non-traditional approach to her academics as well, and her interviewer applauded her for that (as in no math her senior year, 3 languages, and an online AP science program so she could continue w/her jazz studies during the day at the school. And to promote this tiny, rural high school, one of her classmates is also attending Harvard next fall, (1st generation). 1 is headed to Yale, two to MIT, 3 to Middlebury…and the tuition we will be paying (we are for sure middle class) is actually the same as what it cost me to attend back in the early 1980’s!</p>
<p>s- The Early process for recruited artists is different from that of recruited athletes.
The school has a set number slots they set aside for athletic recruits on all that they “award” via coach selection, starting with Likely Letters.</p>
<p>My impression from the Dmouth description is that the Early approach for Artists is more random- not for a specified number of slots. Varies year to year. Depends on who if anyone catches their eye. Not sure where interest is generated. So different, less definite. Less of a structural permanent percentage factor in the process.
And who knows if there is any boost or forgiveness in the AI for artists.</p>
<p>THESE are the points this thread was trying to puzzle out.</p>
<p>In the RD/non-likely letter process, the supplement for artists is a advantageous way to demonstrate talent. But the decision process is similarly holistic at this point for artists, athletes, and other EC’s.</p>