<p>And I answered yours for myself, since the question seemed to encompass all those who have contributed to this thread, not for other posters whose political views I do not know or may not share.</p>
<p>Unlike TheDad, I do not think the venue for publishing that article either enhances or undermines its contents. And I think that most of the posts were directed at its contents, not the venue in which it was published.</p>
<p>
<p>Unlike TheDad, I do not think the venue for publishing that article either enhances or undermines its contents. And I think that most of the posts were directed at its contents, not the venue in which it was published.
</p>
<p>I totally disagree. I think the Dante comment was directed specifically at the fact that the mother writes for NRO and, obviously, so does she. I was not taking any exception to other posts because they seemed to be exchanges of ideas/opinions/experiences, which is enormously helpful and informative. As I said, I thought the specific posts to which I referred were snarky. Doesn't mean that I disagree with anything posted by anyone else or that I didn't gain some valuable insight from the thread.</p>
<p>Zoosermmom:</p>
<p>You are right about TheDad's comments. But I don't see how your post #145, which was in answer to Sjmom's post #142 (quoting me) could be construed as responding specifically to TheDad and not encompassing other posters, including, but not limited to, Sjmom and me.</p>
<p>
<p>You are right about TheDad's comments. But I don't see how your post #145, which was in answer to Sjmom's post #142 (quoting me) could be construed as responding specifically to TheDad and not encompassing other posters, including, but not limited to, Sjmom and me.
</p>
<p>Your use of the word "flout" made me wonder if you were coming from the same mindset as TheDad. I believe that I did say "wonder" and specifically meant that as a questioning/learning more type of thing.</p>
<p>zooser:</p>
<p>I agree that at least one (if not more) had an extra ax to grind simply because of the author's association with NR.</p>
<p>Zoosermom:</p>
<p>You really ought not to lump everybody together. The "flout" came from Sjmom, not me. And the "flout" referred to conventional wisdom regarding college admissions, not their political mindsets. There's no need to wonder about my politics, or of other contributors to this thread. As for TheDad, he's made his own quite clear, so no need to wonder about his, either. Let's stick to the contents of the article.</p>
<p>Zoosermom, my d. still hasn't decided - its between NYU & Barnard. (And I'm still reeling over the concept that she was accepted to either, much less both). But we'll have a much clearer idea once we have aid awards to compare. </p>
<p>SJmom -- I really don't think that Catherine's column could be read as "encouraging" high school students to skip steps. She supported her own daughter's initiatives, just I supported my daughter's idea to go to Russia, and my mom supported me years ago when, like Maia, I skipped 11th grade. As parents we all make choices based on how well we know our kids -- and when you are the parent of a strong-willed, self-directed kid, then encouragement is sometimes the best thing you've got going. </p>
<p>If you make different parenting choices for your own kid, fine -- no one said you have to do the same. The point is that there are many alternatives, and many successful outcomes. </p>
<p>I personally think that my daughter's and Maia's rather surprising successful outcomes in a highly competitive college year result in part from the fact that by doing something different, they made themselves interesting, and demonstrated that initiative and passion that the colleges are always looking for. And it worked for them precisely because it wasn't done with the intent to impress anybody - so it came through as genuine. It's not a prescription that can be given to others: it is simply a matter of two young girls who defined their own goals and acted upon them. (My daughter's Russian teacher tried very hard to convince her that age 16 was far too young to go to Russia alone and to wait another year ... but I've learned that once my daughter sets her mind to something, she's hard to stop). </p>
<p>The only message to anyone else is: don't be afraid to follow your own passions, wherever they might lead. </p>
<p>jlauer95 -- I agree with everything you've said, twice. Enough already. The UC system is great. It's not all that hard for Californians to get into. Cal & UCLA, pretty tough. The other campuses: not that tough. </p>
<p>--
And on the whole National Review thing... I don't get it either. I am about as far left as any participant on this board, I listen to NPR and get my online op ed fix from AlterNet & Common Dreams ... but I have now had an exchange of very courteous PM's with Catherine and Maia. They seem like an ordinary mother and daughter to me. There are some people I don't discuss religion or politics with -- but that doesn't mean I have to reject everything they say. </p>
<p>Catherine didn't like stuff going on in Maia's school. Maia wanted something, the school wouldn't agree, so they switched schools. To me, that all has a "been there, done that" feeling -- it is how every one of us would deal with any school that we were unhappy with. (Actually, after reading the report of Maia's experience with the "Troll Doll" teacher related in the current National Review Online column ... well if it were my daughter, I would have pulled her out a lot sooner. )</p>
<p>
<p>You really ought not to lump everybody together. The "flout" came from Sjmom, not me. And the "flout" referred to conventional wisdom regarding college admissions, not their political mindsets. There's no need to wonder about my politics, or of other contributors to this thread. As for TheDad, he's made his own quite clear, so no need to wonder about his, either. Let's stick to the contents of the article.
A
ctually, Marite, I didn't violate the TOS here and so I am free to post my own observations and questions and you are free to ignore them if you so choose. Your post and your tone is offensive and I would like to remind you that I am not one of your children or your hired help to whom you can be, if you so choose, officious and condescending.</p>
<p>" personally think that my daughter's and Maia's rather surprising successful outcomes in a highly competitive college year result in part from the fact that by doing something different, they made themselves interesting, and demonstrated that initiative and passion that the colleges are always looking for. And it worked for them precisely because it wasn't done with the intent to impress anybody - so it came through as genuine."</p>
<p>Is an absolutely brilliance piece of insight that I find incredibly helpful and will keep it in mind as my daughter goes throught the process. I hope your daughter is very, very happy at either school and I know both will be richer for her presence.</p>
<p>
Calmom, clearly everyone is free to direct and/or support their child as they wish. My comments are not with regard to the college applications process -- your strategy, and that of Maia's family, were successful. My comments have always been about the risks of skipping academic preparation -- graduating early, for example -- when HS material has not been learned. Getting into college is not the hard part -- it's graduating that can be difficult for many students.</p>
<p>
And I know that I will be much, much poorer, whichever one she chooses. :p</p>
<p>Wow, Zoosermom, I'm sure Marite doesn't need my help, but I've never found her posts to be either officious or condescending. You must not have read her other comments on a variety of threads.</p>
<p>"It's not a prescription that can be given to others"</p>
<p>Yes, and that is, by far, the most important lesson, if there is one in this account. No matter how "successful" or "lucky" the outcome was the daughter's writer, her approach is still a recipe for disaster, and this in many ways. Her account might be unique among the thousands of applicants at UCSD, and it will probably offer nothing but a small exception to the hundreds or thousands of stories of better qualified students who won't be accepted. </p>
<p>Exceptions are meant to break the established rules, but that does not change the fact that exceptions are for exceptional cases. And for you, Calmom, I should have spelled that out as "L'exception confirme la r</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well I'm sure that's generally true because I have read her posts and found them smart, helpful and informative, but that particular post was a bit much in my opinion. No one needs to agree with my observations on this thread, but if I'm not violating TOS, then I shouldn't be told in a condescending manner what I should and should not post about.</p>
<p>"Marite ... officious and condescending."</p>
<p>Zoosermom, people with short histories on CC are typically given the benefit of the doubt. As such one might understand your inability to understand the occasional sarcasm of the TheDad. However, deciding to hurl such an unfounded and vile offensive post at Marite is uncalled for. Marite is one of the nicest and most helpful person one might ever meet on an online forum. </p>
<p>Shame on you!</p>
<p>This thread really highlights the controversy and the value of UC's comprehensive review. Parents and high school students get so caught up with the competitive nature of College admissions and trying to 'paint themselves' in the most favorable light that they lose track of the big picture. UC College Admissions is not all about getting the highest scoring type A high school students into UC, it is about producing the best graduates for the State of California. Comprensive review was designed to break the narrow minded view of students that traditional admissions impose. It is because it can see beyond the traditional scores that people have conditioned themselves to achieve at the expense of all other values that people on this thread are so irked.</p>
<p>Comprensive review was established because UC administrators noticed that the highest scoring high school students are not always the most successful in college, and more importantly do not always produce the best graduates. Take School Teachers for example. Few people whuld agree that the best way to choose the best prospective teacher is the SAT or some other limited measure - the best teachers are ones with many other qualities. And its not just things like teachers. When I studied Computer Science 20 years ago it was remarkable how the freshman class re-ranked itself at the end of the first year of college. Many of the students with the highest High School scores quickly moved to the bottom of the class, while those who just scraped in moved to the top. And it wasnt because the 'smartest' ones slacked off while the strugglers worked really hard. Peoples natural aptitudes just took over and caused some people to find the hard subject matter easy while others struggled. This was most frustrating to the High School high achievers - doing well at professional degrees takes more than just hard work - you have to have the natural talent first and then work at it. It is for his reason that you notice that people who are motivated by money (the I will work hard and be successful crowd) are ultimately less successful at their job skills than those who are motivated for love of the job.</p>
<p>If you go back to the admitted freshman SAT scores from 15 years ago at UCSD Id bet that you'd find that they are lower than today - do you really think that todays graduates are will be better teachers, doctors and engineers?</p>
<p>And FWIW my D had very similar scores to the original poster and got into UCSD and not UCSB or UCD or UCB or UCI and she is thriving in her third year.</p>
<p>Look at the big picture!</p>
<p>
The point is, it wasn't intended as a "strategy" - at least not a getting-into-college strategy. Its just a matter of 2 kids who wanted control over the course of their own educations, not limiting themselves to the offerings of their high schools.
[QUOTE]
My comments have always been about the risks of skipping academic preparation -- graduating early, for example -- when HS material has not been learned. Getting into college is not the hard part -- it's graduating that can be difficult for many students.
[/QUOTE]
I just know many, many early graduaters and grade-skippers who ended up being high achievers. I did really well in college and went on to law school- so did my father, who graduated at age 15 and went to Ivies. Maia's problem is that she also tests poorly, which makes people doubt her ability. My daughter is the same way - but I don't doubt that my daughter will do better in college than her high-testing brother, who graduated on schedule with excellent high school prep and dropped out of college after 2 years. My son was lazier. My daughter just applies herself more. You really can't know the "risks" for somebody else's kid. One important aspect to Maia's story is that her mom observed that she did better in her community college courses than in her high school courses.</p>
<p>That's a very important clue, because it shows that Maia's high school problems are more likely an issue with boredom or dissatisfaction than with course content. I also had very uneven grades in high school, though fortunately (for me) I tested well. But I remember a lot of really unpleasant stuff going on at my high school; for example, when I was in 10th grade a kid pulled a knife on our English teacher in class. (This was a suburban public high school filled with affluent white kids). Those sorts of things just don't happen in college.</p>
<p>
<p>Zoosermom, people with short histories on CC are typically given the benefit of the doubt. As such one might understand your inability to understand the occasional sarcasm of the TheDad. However, deciding to hurl such an unfounded and vile offensive post at Marite is uncalled for. Marite is one of the nicest and most helpful person one might ever meet on an online forum. </p>
<p>Shame on you!
</p>
<p>The post at issue? If not, then don't comment. If so, shame on YOU.</p>
<p>
[quote]
One important aspect to Maia's story is that her mom observed that she did better in her community college courses than in her high school courses. That's a very important clue, because it shows that Maia's high school problems are more likely an issue with boredom or dissatisfaction than with course content.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is a great point. I wish I had that "preview" on my underachieving senior S, whose SAT and ACT scores exceed his mediocre GPA (until 1st semester this year, at least, when he maybe finally "got it"). It may be that a gap year and/or some community college courses are the only way to "prep" him, b/c I think it's still a matter of growing up that he has to do.</p>
<p>I'm not going to continue the discussion with Zoosermom, but I thank those who have said kind things about me on this thread :)</p>
<p>Timcobb makes some excellent points about the value of the the comprehensive review. This is why I think that the article was not as good as it could have been. </p>
<p>One clarification: the SAT was recentered in 1995, so the SATs of admitted students that should be compared with those of today should date from 1996 onward--a 10 year period rather than 15 years.</p>