Comments on: Be a Pure Learner… but only if you’re rich

By: http://thewaronbullshit.com/2007/07/24/bad-grades/ | mJaynEa

http://thewaronbullshit.com/2007/07/24/bad-grades/ | mJaynEa — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 08:13:17 +0000

[...] on to part two –> [...]

By: artist

artist — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 07:39:18 +0000

Another major problem in universities of more concern is cheating.

see The great university cheating scandal article below
http://www.macleans.ca/homepage/magazine/article.jsp?content=20070209_174847_6984

By: The Smiling Bandit

The Smiling Bandit — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 09:19:23 +0000

1)the majority of people agree with this argument
2)Grades are distributed on a bell curve
3)Only those with less than average grades favor this argument
4)natural selection favors the intelligent

|- ?

as a side note you can add

5) This argument’s fundamental conclusion is that good grades do not co-relate to the high intelligence they are supposed to indicate.

to show this argument’s validity.

By: The Smiling Bandit

The Smiling Bandit — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 09:08:23 +0000

Nah, I don’t think he’s smart enough to be corrupt. If he was actually lying to defend the system he’d have used a better argument.

By: The Smiling Bandit

The Smiling Bandit — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 09:07:14 +0000

A pure learner is one who goes to school to learn. If a pure learner was not learning, they would either drop out of school or fix the problem so that they could learn. You demonstrate the intelligence of your average brainwashed 8th grader, indicating that you have not learned since then. You claim to have recieved A’s throughout college and not to have dropped out. You are, therefore, not a pure learner.

Your primary determinant of your academic success is that you had an A average, therefore you are not a pure learner.

You seem to think that having an A average precludes both you being an idiot and you not having learned anything in college. Therefore you are not a pure learner.

These things are sufficient to show that you are not a pure learner, though they are not necessary.

By: The Smiling Bandit

The Smiling Bandit — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:59:58 +0000

In sentence 5 you then say the entire admissions process is currently subjective and seem to think that this is not only a good thing but what the author of the articles is advocating. This is directly contradictory to the rest of the paragraph.

By: The Smiling Bandit

The Smiling Bandit — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:56:26 +0000

And I can assure you that your qualifications for presence on an admissions committee are dismally low as a) you demonstrate an inability to formulate grammatically correct and therefore readily understandable sentences, b) you demonstrate a total and abhorrent lack of logic, c) you can’t even spout your own propaganda without exposing your complete ignorance in regards to the system. Unlike you, I will provide evidence to support these claims:

“The goal is to make it as least arbitrary as possible. Leaving things subjective might seem intuitively correct for you, but when you have an applicant pool of over 20,000 students and spots for only 1,700 of them, one must take the least subjective route possible. Note, however, that even with good grades, one does not have a spot at, say, Harvard. The supposedly quantitative measures of which you complain are merely used to get your foot in the door, and the subjective aspects take over in the final round.”

First, I assume the first sentence is intended to read “The goal is to make the system as objective as possible”. This may be incorrect, but your sentence (and general argument) is so devoid of logic that I can do no better. In the second sentence you imply that the author of the article wishes the school system and co-related admissions process to be as subjective as possible. This is not true. As stated in the article, the author believes the solution to the current messy state of affairs is to make the system as objective as possible, like you claim to support. The author merely shows that the only logical solutions to the current conundrum is to either make the system entirely subjective or to attempt to progress towards objectivity before giving preference to the latter.

In your third sentence you explain that admissions personnel, which you claim to be, ‘must’ use the least subjective method of choosing applicants possible. You don’t give any explanation as to why this is so, presumably because you a) are wrong (admissions personnel SHOULD use objective criteria but that doesn’t mean they DO/HAVE TO) and b) actually think you should use the most subjective process possible

By: The Smiling Bandit

The Smiling Bandit — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:29:19 +0000

Whereas, in your version of pompous fraudulence, you filch thinking processes, for lack of your own, from the “Formal Fallacies” section of logic texts and employ them in what, after careful study, we believe was intended to be regarded as thought.

By: The Smiling Bandit

The Smiling Bandit — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:17:27 +0000

Nah, just proves you’re unable to read. Or write, apparently. I’m glad our Welfare system provides enough for you to be able to eat at McDonald’s, Lord knows you’d kill yourself cooking salad otherwise. Still, our society really ought to do more for those unfortunates with truly horrendous deficiencies in intellect; being online as you are, you may well continue to encounter information too complex for your tiny little brain, and I so dislike having to read mad gibberings.

By: The War On Bullshit » Blog Archive » Nine Reasons why Bad Grades Don’t Mean Squat

Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:23:25 +0000

[...] War On Bullshit Take No Prisoners Be a Pure Learner… but only if you’re rich [...]