Quote:
Originally Posted by 33girl
Meh.
Some people don't test well, period. Some people don't shine until they get into a sorority (or vice versa). We all have sisters who we thought just joined to party and ended up bleeding for the sorority...and those with high GPAs, glowing resumes and personal recommendations who ended up being big blobs of lard.
As far as people who shouldn't go to college, that is largely the fault of the parents who just don't want to hear that Susie could make way more and be way happier as a hairdresser than she would as a doctor. All the tests in the world aren't going to change that - mainly because a lot of the time it's their own kid telling them they don't want to go.
|
I'm confused by your response. This isn't what the article is saying at ALL. It's saying that there are better determiners for life-success than grades and those things are quantifiable.
And someone correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there lots of studies that say students who went to college make X amount more than those who didn't, but those who go to podunk U are just as likely to make the big bucks as those who went to an Ivy League school? That getting into the super-competitive school (as a result of good grades) is not a predictor of long-term success? But of course, this study defines success as things other than money.
I don't think this exact survey could work in rush, but I could picture some sort of variation on this being usable. Yes, 4 teacher evaluations from high school would be great, but that is completely unrealistic and I hadn't even thought of that. Or just using some of these questions in conversation, although this would have to be done skillfully. Maybe in a colony environment?
Threaded Mode
