<p>My younger sister did just as well in math and science in high school as I did, but she had no interest in engineering or science, much to our father’s chagrin. She got her BS and MS in education, specializing in literacy. I can’t even begin to tell you how proud of her I am! I got to sit in on one of her classes a couple of years ago. The skill and patience she exhibited were unbelievable. She had these rowdy kids with special needs organized and fully-engaged. During the summer, she teaches OTHER special ed teachers, many of whom are at private schools where the parents spend mega-bucks to send their little darlings. I’m SO glad she followed her passion and took some of those silly classes at UT.</p>
<p>Thank you all for your willingness to attack my integrity. I appreciate it. </p>
<p>I was fortunate enough not to suffer under the tuition of education majors in primary and secondary school. My parents spent “mega-bucks” to send me to private school where I was taught math by mathematics majors and engineers. </p>
<p>The value of a “silly degree” is not silly when it is tackled by an individual with a high IQ. It is silly when you expect someone with an average IQ to major in sociology to learn something that would add value to our society. I don’t expect those individuals to major in engineering! They probably shouldn’t be in college in the first place. </p>
<p>Good for your sister. Those special ed kids are probably going end up working at wal-mart anyways so her efforts will probably be in vain.</p>
<p>Is it really necessary to take a shot at special ed kids? I don’t know what you are like in real life, but on here you can come across as very negative.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow. Just wow. Let’s hope that you never give birth to one of those ‘special ed’ kids. You might have an opinion about people who categorize them like that. You might want to check out: [A</a> Whole New Mind | Daniel Pink](<a href=“http://www.danpink.com/whole-new-mind]A”>A Whole New Mind | Daniel H. Pink)
The era of “left brain” dominance, and the Information Age that it engendered, are giving way to a new world in which “right brain” qualities-inventiveness, empathy, meaning-predominate. It’s a good read, and one that might make you rethink those ‘useless’ classes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I could care less about the athletes–who make up a small percentage of the student body and are talented at something–as opposed to the thousands of top 10% admits that have pathetically low SAT scores. The top 10% law might actually work for UT if an SAT (or ACT) score threshold was implemented, e.g., 1100 (2 section) + top 10% of graduating class to be automatically admitted. Sorry, but people who can’t score an 1100 on the SAT and who aren’t truly talented in arts or athletics have no business attending a well-regarded university like UT. </p>
<p>There’s little question that the pace and rigor of classes at UT suffers at least somewhat due to the enormous disparity in academic achievement of incoming freshmen, or else the graduation/retention rates would be much lower than they are now. The official university reports provide some insight: black and hispanic students in liberal arts account for 30% of students but, together, average below an 1100 SAT; nearly 2,000 students majoring in education with an average SAT score of 1077; 13% of top 10% admits (all majors) in 2009 had below a 1500/2400–national average–on the SAT; hispanic students, excluding engineering majors, account for nearly 20% of the student body but have an SAT average of 1090, etc. (check it out for yourself: [Admissions</a> Research: Top Ten Percent Reports - UT Austin](<a href=“http://www.utexas.edu/student/admissions/research/topten_reports.html]Admissions”>http://www.utexas.edu/student/admissions/research/topten_reports.html))</p>
<p>I’d love to see UT slash liberal arts, communications, and education enrollment and raise tuition to make up for the lost income, implement a test score threshold (since the top 10% rule is likely here to stay), and focus on admitting only high SAT/ACT-scoring students outside the 75% cap (along with, of course, the athletes that aren’t academically inclined). The faculty, infrastructure, and high-ranking programs are in place–a few “adjustments” and UT would truly be a top public.</p>
<p>^[1](<a href=“http://www.fairtest.org/selected-annotated-bibliography-sat-bias-and-misus]Selected”>Selected Annotated Bibliography on The SAT: Bias and Misuse - Fairtest)</p>
Selected</a> Annotated Bibliography on The SAT: Bias and Misuse | FairTest ↩︎
<p>SAT scores not a good predictor of success in college? The minority groups with SAT scores at or below 1100 also have retention and graduation rates at UT that are significantly lower than that of white and Asian students. To reiterate: most students are from the top 10% of their graduating class, so it’s the SAT/ACT scores that show correlation with low GPA’s and graduation rate. Hmmmm…</p>
<p>I can better agree with the notion of an inherent bias towards more privileged students who can take the test(s) multiple times, take prep courses, went to a better school, etc. But with all these factors, it’s still unacceptable to score below national average on the SAT or ACT and go to a school like UT, where, in contrast, over a third of all students are scoring in the 95th percentile on these exams. Just putting in a low threshold like an 1100 (ONLY for top ten students) is a fair thing to do and would do wonders for the overall quality of the student body at UT.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am very happy I do not know this person in real life. What a winner! “Integrity”? You don’t have any to attack.</p>
<p>First of all to address all the people who wish to attack my character, I will for now on call special education individuals “■■■■■■■■”. They are ■■■■■■■■. ■■■■■■■■. Get it? </p>
<p>As for what I am like in real life, I am above all, honest. I am NOT nice. I tell the truth, even when the truth hurts. This is the nature of integrity. Having “integrity” does not mean one is nice. </p>
<p>Mimimomx3, I hope you are not a lawyer. If you were my public defender, I would commit suicide. Your argumentation skills are pathetic. First of all, you imply that I consider soft majors and classes to be “useless”. In my previous post, I made the point that they were of less social utility in comparison with quantitatively oriented majors and classes.</p>
<p>Furthermore, you respond to jr1038 with a link to fairtest. I don’t know what exactly you are getting at, but it seems to me(correct me if I am wrong) that you think the SAT is meaningless. Jr1038 was not making the point that SAT is a perfect test. It is not. But it is the best method we have for evaluating college readiness. The SAT has plenty of flaws. </p>
<p>But “bias” is not one of them. I read through the list of summaries you provided and laughed. Some of these conclusions are hilarious. The SAT is biased against girls. The SAT is biased against NAMs. Perhaps, the SAT favors SMART PEOPLE. Obviously, it is biased against STUPID PEOPLE. It is supposed to be. Is it too much to ask that you consider the possibility that boys might be better at math than girls? Or that whites and Asians might be smarter (on average) than NAMs? </p>
<p>The SAT is not perfect. But evaluating by SAT is much fairer than evaluating by “class rank”. </p>
<p>I’m pretty scared that “right brainers” will rule the future because many of them will also be “left wingers”. Right brain+left ideology= :X(.</p>
<p>“and focus on admitting only high SAT/ACT-scoring students outside the 75% cap (along with, of course, the athletes that aren’t academically inclined).”</p>
<p>Though I do not have concrete evidence for my conclusion, anecdotal reports tell me that this is exactly what UT is doing. SAT scores seem to be weighed heavily in non top 10 admissions. This makes sense, UT’s average SAT drops when they admit students from the top 10 with lower SATs, so in order to boost their ranking, they like to select students with higher SATs to compensate.</p>
<p>People who score below 1100 M+V probably have no business attending college, in the traditional sense. Read Charles Murray’s “Real Education”. </p>
<p>The top 10% law has actually been changed to the top 8%. [The</a> University of Texas at Austin to Automatically Admit Top 8 Percent of High School Graduates for 2011 | The University of Texas at Austin](<a href=“http://www.utexas.edu/news/2009/09/16/top8_percent/]The”>http://www.utexas.edu/news/2009/09/16/top8_percent/)</p>
<p>^^ Navy, if you feel that some students are ‘■■■■■■■■’ with regard to intellect, I would point out then that certain other individuals are ‘■■■■■■■■’ with regard to social skills. SOCIALLY ■■■■■■■■, get it? These ‘socially ■■■■■■■■’ individuals are those who are offensive, who can clear a room with their lack of empathy. These are also known as ‘cube dwellers’ who tend to work in basements and send up the spreadsheets to the management who probably majored in liberal arts. Have a great day.</p>
<p>Amen…</p>
<p>I pointed out in another thread to another one of our barely out of highschool know-it-alls, when he was posting how useless business and liberal arts majors were, and that MBA’s were a waste, that most of his future bosses would be business/liberal arts majors with MBA’s. Here’s the post:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As you so eloquently stated, social intelligence goes a long way in the business world, and bigotted, closed minded, jerks that nobody wants to be around usually get the pink slips first in a lay off.</p>
<p>Listing CEO’s of fortune 500 companies by major is not helping your case and in fact, strengthens mine. </p>
<p>Most of these individuals are very smart. That is what propelled them forward in the corporate world. In addition, Gerstner and Otellini received their MBA’s from places like Harvard and Berkeley. </p>
<p>I never said “liberal arts/business majors are worthless”. I am arguing that for the average person with average intelligence, majoring in liberal arts/business, graduating with an average GPA from an average school, is probably playing a negative sum game both in terms of personal capital and social capital. </p>
<p>We need smart people to major in history. We need smart people to major in business. We need smart people to major in sociology. What we don’t need are more mediocre students graduating in these fields. And no, not every student at UT is smart. </p>
<p>My conclusion. Liberal arts/business majors are useful for smart people. Same goes for law school. </p>
<p>I agree with the one poster above who argued for setting quotas and raising admission standards for liberal arts, communications, and other soft majors. This would ensure student quality in these programs and help UT with its reputation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, this is what you said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not quite “worthless” but certainly worth less than a major in a math intensive subject.</p>
<p>But now you are saying that if someone is really intelligent, it’s okay if they major in history (see above IBM chairman)/ :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Okay. Come back in a few years and report how things are going for you.</p>
<p>I’ll tell you the way things are in the world of business - the people who get laid off are not necessarily the people who work the least or are the least intelligent. In many cases the pink slips go to the “smartest” and “most hardworking”, but the department managers and directors just don’t like them. If the employee comes off as an arrogant know-it-all, you can bet that it’s just a matter of time before they get the boot.</p>
<p>The people who get advanced are the ones who the bosses like, the personable people. Now, they have to be capable of doing the work, but that is just ONE of the factors that goes into the decisions. Likeability will trump hardwork/intelligence every time.</p>
<p>It may not seem fair, it may not be what your paid tutors have told you, but it’s reality.</p>
<p>And hey, regarding this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe the reason those engineers and math majors were teaching highschool students was because they couldn’t cut it out in the business world. Otherwise why in the world would they accept the lowly position and salary of a private school teacher (btw private school teachers are paid less and have less benefits than public school teachers)</p>
<p>Ever think about that?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can’t quite figure out if you’re very, very young with limited experience of the world, completely sheltered from the real world or maybe both. In any case, the real world is full of average people of average intelligence who performed at the average and graduated from average schools. Where they excelled is in interpersonal skills and became extremely trainable and likeable. Those ‘average’ folks sign the reviews and paychecks of many incredibly intelligent people- they’ll probably sign yours one day.</p>
<p>Exactly - my current CEO graduated with a general business degree from Miami University of Ohio. No MBA from Harvard, just a really smart and incredibly personable man who constantly found himself in the right place at the right time during his career. </p>
<p>The president of the company graduated with an education degree :eek: in science from the University of Texas. He actually taught for a few years out of college, but quit to enter the business world to make more money. He’s a really smart man, and knows more about systems and the equipment than the engineers that work here.</p>
<p>Obviously, that education degree worked out for him. ;)</p>
<p>In business, your degree gets you in the door. At that point, you have to be trainable *and likeable *to advance.</p>
<p>I know we don’t live in Randland :)</p>
<p>But your message to the kids is…“it ain’t about the hard work or the results son, it’s about how much you can suck up and kiss ass?”</p>
<p>I find that very disturbing.</p>
<p>I know this is how things work in the business world, I was taught this reality of life by a wonderful instructor at McCombs, it is about who you know, not what you know. </p>
<p>But because that is the way it is, doesn’t make it right.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think my message to my kids is best summarized by the quote ‘they won’t care how much you know until they know how much you care’…trite, but proven true over and over. In the long run, you can’t be a total imbecile, but more important than book smarts, than diplomas and awards, is the ability of a person to get along with other people- to inspire, to lead, to motivate, to be part of a team. Most of us who’ve been in the working world can attest to this.</p>
<p>But, that’s the way it is. You can’t live in a vacuum, and you’re not going to find enough fellow geniuses out there to make your way without dealing with the huddled masses.</p>
<p>My suggestion to you would be to invent something so amazing that you can be a complete jerk (in your definition- truthful integrity) and people will still do business with you because they need your product or your brilliance. I’ve got it - cure cancer, or perfect the super conductor, or how about cold fusion. Short of that, you’re going to have to find a job and chances are your boss will be a humanities major.</p>
<p>Good luck!</p>
<p>BTW, I love Atlas Shrugged too, but can’t take off for the Colorado commune until I get my kids’ college paid for. But hey where’s John Galt? ;)</p>