prncaspian3 wrote:But for you to grind A'nold for complaining or fretting and to argue semantics in the way that you have is nothing short of hypocrisy. I've read your posts in a transfer thread where you "fretted" (as much as A'nold did ITT) about your chronic illness during UG. You posted something to the effect: "If not for my chronic illness, I'd already be at a T14. Because students as talented as myself wind up at T40 schools, an application from a student at the top of the class at a T40 should be taken just as seriously as one from a T20 on down." Nobody called you out on your logic or dubbed you a complainer probably because most were sympathetic to the effects your illness had on your education. But the assumptions you made in reaching your conclusions were no greater than the ones A'nold offered in support of his "screwy" grading situation, and the justifications he provided for his frustrating transfer cycle were no less quantifiable than the justifications you gave for your disappointing application cycle. So maybe tone down the douchiness is TCR? If you want to continue being a douche, at least make sure that you're coming to the table with clean hands
.
First, I do think context is important. I didn't go into elaborate detail about my illness. I made my point in the context of that thread--yes, vented my frustration--and moved on. It's one thing to cherry-pick one of my posts; and another to observe an entire pattern of behavior that pervades this thread and others. Of course I have 'fretted' about that, but I'm not exactly a 'frett
er' or instigator.
And second, even considering my previous post, chronic illness isn't quite analogous to a 'screwy' grading situation, as unfortunate as the latter really is. Frankly, screwy grading situations are not only more common, but they are also more prone to ambiguity. If A'nolds professors operated on differential curves, which they pre-determined
without regard to the relative perceived strength of the class (do we know this?), then his situation is screwy indeed. Either way, I sympathize with that situation. Others here have expressed sympathy as well for A'nold, for this and many other issues he has expressed. But at some point, you do accept the cards you were dealt--and unless the school takes action after your complaint, which here it has not--you have to move on.
I accept my cards, but my issue has been how to present it to Admissions. In A'nolds case, if he
were to notify them about 'stacked' sections and differential curves (and I would say avoid it), then he would need to artfully and succinctly mention the school's policy of allowing each professor to curve classes to his/her own liking--NOT, "and therefore, my grades suffered compared to the other applicants you get." But in my case, it's something they need to know, no two ways about it. Either way, I haven't really been dwelling on it, and I haven't really gone the extra
mile to draw new sympathizers.
I do appreciate your reasoned response (as opposed to the previous STFU), but I take issue with your drudging up my own (isolated) concern to draw a moral/practical equivalence with A'nolds overall conduct here.
