Comments on: Dignifying That Controversy: Statistics, Injustice, and Damn Luck

By: Marocharim

Marocharim — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:23:56 +0000

Dennis:

True enough. But what about the necessary expenses (board, lodging, fare, food, and so on) should said poor student pass the UPCAT and gain admission to UP?

I do agree that entrance exams *help* schools weed out the talented who *must* gain entry into their schools. However, any institution that is capable of fostering excellence is also capable of fostering mediocrity. Entrance exams are *never* an assurance or a proof of excellence; even the best trees make rotten fruit.

Thanks for your thoughtful comment.

By: Dennis Resurreccion

Dennis Resurreccion — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:13:02 +0000

FYI. Public school students who belong to the top 10 of their graduating class get to take the UPCAT for free.

The quality of the graduates determines the prestige of a school, just as a tree is known by the fruit it bears. Entrance exams help schools select the talented young blood who will ensure the school retains the prestige that it carries.

If AMA, for example, were to produce mostly incompetent graduates, its prestige will be very low, no matter how much money it spends on advertizing and promotion. But if they get the best minds and train them to become topnotch professionals, their name would be honored far and wide.

By: Jamestoned

Jamestoned — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 08:29:51 +0000

Den (did I spell it right?)

Excusez-moi for spelling your name wrong but I did wrote the slang “whatchamacallit” which meant “whatever you call it.”

Just a trivia for you.

By: Marocharim

Marocharim — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 02:35:31 +0000

Den:

Y’know, reading your comment, I’m reminded of small children who, after getting scraped knees, show off the scars even if the wounds have healed.

Move on.

By: Den

Den — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 23:39:20 +0000

My post about Fake Scholars and School Bashing were not driven by resentment. Those were winnowed out from my own observation and opinion. I believe that, in essence, our collective perception of a certain institution (and its graduates) depends more upon the institution’s endowment more than anything else. Wealthy institutions can entice star faculty members, provide their faculty with state-of-the-art resources, have top-notch libraries, can equip their classrooms with high-tech audio-visual equipment and maintain small class sizes. It’s all because they have all of these great resources and so students flock to them. And so they have the luxury to get the pick of the litter. Well, it’s all about money, isn’t it? However, some students may manage to maximize their learning in spite of lack of endowment by their chosen institution. Yet, some fail to grasp this. Undeniably, graduates from lesser-fancied schools (like me) are being placed at a disadvantage because of those “biases”.

I think as a nation we should stop glorifying schools. Wouldn’t it be better if we judge graduates according to their own ability and not on one’s perceived-ability? Would it be better if we don’t allow stereotypes to cloud our judgments?

Yes, I am guilty of glorifying my own alma mater. You may call me bitter or whatever. It’s not bitterness it a clamor for equality.

By the way, I’m Den, not Dan.