happy1
OOA Interest
Posts: 129
|
Post by happy1 on Nov 4, 2009 5:53:13 GMT -5
We debated over... what would our founders do.... There were no easy answers Why not? Ya'll couldn't just call them an ask? Good idea. I just shot one of them an email.  |
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Nov 4, 2009 9:14:39 GMT -5
*kisses Happy*
|
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Nov 9, 2009 8:19:57 GMT -5
Interesting. IMO, Scholarships should reward achievement, not potential.
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Nov 9, 2009 8:53:54 GMT -5
Interesting. IMO, Scholarships should reward achievement, not potential. |
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Nov 9, 2009 9:16:35 GMT -5
Your original question said "struggling C" (potential) versus A+ (achievement). That's what I responded to. Not sure where the "shades of B" comment came from.
|
|
|
|
Post by ReignMan19 on Nov 9, 2009 9:24:17 GMT -5
I thought the struggling was in terms of "homelife"
|
|
|
|
Post by ReignMan19 on Nov 9, 2009 9:25:38 GMT -5
That chick called me retarded.... I feel a lot of ways about that...
|
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Nov 9, 2009 10:25:26 GMT -5
I thought the struggling was in terms of "homelife" Again, it's all interpretation. People struggle for a number of reasons, some social (homelife) and some academic (inability to grasp). I guess it depends of the perspective of the review panel. |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Nov 9, 2009 10:34:21 GMT -5
I thought the struggling was in terms of "homelife" Again, it's all interpretation. People struggle for a number of reasons, some social (homelife) and some academic (inability to grasp). I guess it depends of the perspective of the review panel.
(n0w 91 is being a word elitist) |
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Nov 9, 2009 10:45:52 GMT -5
Again, it's all interpretation. People struggle for a number of reasons, some social (homelife) and some academic (inability to grasp). I guess it depends of the perspective of the review panel.
(n0w 91 is being a word elitist)Is this some kind of drinking game where you see how many threads you can work "elitist" into? Are you getting toasted over there? In all seriousness, in our school a "B-" was a 2.7. A "C+" was a 2.3. Being able to slide that B into the convo did make a difference when being evaluated for opportunities. I guess it matters how many resources an org has. If they have enough to help all who apply...great. To me to not give the scholarship to the student who exceeded the requirements by the furthest is akin to being denied a job because you are "overqualified". |
|
|
|
Post by ReignMan19 on Nov 9, 2009 10:55:47 GMT -5
I have heard of the + - scale but we were on the 10 point scale. 2.0-2.9 is a C and I would probably give someone an evil *side eye* if they called themselves a B- student
|
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Nov 9, 2009 11:03:46 GMT -5
Agreed Reign. But we have to make the kids feel good about themselves right?
|
|
|
|
Post by ReignMan19 on Nov 9, 2009 11:06:26 GMT -5
Agreed Reign. But we have to make the kids feel good about themselves right? Yes and I will do all the motivating in the world to let that "C" student know he can become a B student by exerting some extra efforts ... |
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Nov 9, 2009 11:10:26 GMT -5
*tears up*
EXACTLY Reign! Support the student, increase their expectation and resulting performance, don't reward mediocrity.
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Nov 9, 2009 11:15:52 GMT -5
I got some shades of B for yo' a$$. In any event - the real question is need vs. deserve - and in that context there's no difference between a C+ and a B- when they're going up against an A+
(n0w 91 is being a word elitist) Is this some kind of drinking game where you see how many threads you can work "elitist" into? Are you getting toasted over there? In all seriousness, in our school a "B-" was a 2.7. A "C+" was a 2.3. Being able to slide that B into the convo did make a difference when being evaluated for opportunities. I guess it matters how many resources an org has. If they have enough to help all who apply...great. To me to not give the scholarship to the student who exceeded the requirements by the furthest is akin to being denied a job because you are "overqualified".
2.7 vs. 4.0
The argument doesn't change - decimal elitist.
p.s. People are denied jobs often for being over qualified.  |
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Nov 9, 2009 11:20:30 GMT -5
<---has been denied a job for being overqualified.
That's why I support the best candidate available receiving the scholarship. If you're targeting needy students, place an upper limit on the requirements or a family income limit.
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Nov 9, 2009 11:29:01 GMT -5
<---has been denied a job for being overqualified. That's why I support the best candidate available receiving the scholarship. If you're targeting needy students, place an upper limit on the requirements or a family income limit.
<--x understood the hiring manager's logic
<--x knew manager needed someone long term and we both knew I was leaving at my first opp
<--x will simply set up a foundation in 91's name and have her fund it |
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Nov 9, 2009 11:59:48 GMT -5
Agreed Reign. But we have to make the kids feel good about themselves right? That's definitely NOT why the +/- grading scale has become the norm in public and private institutions. I mean, I hear you talkin, but that's not it. Not at all. |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Nov 9, 2009 12:10:14 GMT -5
*Whispers in Leja's ear*
Well explain it then
|
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Nov 9, 2009 12:18:06 GMT -5
*stands beside Damie waiting on Leja's reply*
|
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Nov 9, 2009 12:26:19 GMT -5
Oh. my bad. LoL. Got distracted.
Yeah so, first-tier schools are well known for awarding the highest grades to their students. Whether it's because the students earn them because they are overall better than students at other schools or whether the better schools have more lax standards give out higher grades is a chicken-egg question. What has happened though, is in an effort to climb the tiers (and perhaps as an afterthought to make 2nd and 3rd tier students more marketable after graduation), schools subdivided their grading continuum into pluses and minuses so that a 2.7 student at, say, Renssalaer would appear better than a 2.9 student at, say, UPenn. GPAs at +/- schools are supposedly more indicative of students' overall achievement and accentuate the positive. 2 years or so of a 3rd tier school's students looking as good or better on paper that a 1st tier school's can serve as an upward boon.
|
|
|
|
Post by ReignMan19 on Nov 9, 2009 12:52:22 GMT -5
Oh. my bad. LoL. Got distracted. Yeah so, first-tier schools are well known for awarding the highest grades to their students. Whether it's because the students earn them because they are overall better than students at other schools or whether the better schools have more lax standards give out higher grades is a chicken-egg question. What has happened though, is in an effort to climb the tiers (and perhaps as an afterthought to make 2nd and 3rd tier students more marketable after graduation), schools subdivided their grading continuum into pluses and minuses so that a 2.7 student at, say, Renssalaer would appear better than a 2.9 student at, say, UPenn. GPAs at +/- schools are supposedly more indicative of students' overall achievement and accentuate the positive. 2 years or so of a 3rd tier school's students looking as good or better on paper that a 1st tier school's can serve as an upward boon. Gotta admit... That's pretty crafty... Elitist |
|
