The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
More prestigious: Joe Jewell or Mike Church?
Poast new message in this thread
Date: November 10th, 2006 5:43 PM Author: fragrant brethren I'd say Joe. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6965022) |
 |
Date: November 10th, 2006 5:46 PM Author: Elite whorehouse son of senegal Same, he has a grip on reality, better credentials, and actually accomplishes things instead of making excuses. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6965038) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 5:47 PM Author: Cracking Voyeur Joe, by a long shot. This is like asking whether Albert Einstein is a better physicist than a retarded orangutan. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6965040) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 5:48 PM Author: fragrant brethren I suppose so. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6965048) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 5:48 PM Author: spectacular claret pit O RLY (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6965051) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 5:53 PM Author: fragrant brethren YA RLY! http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/7114/orangyarlyly7.jpg (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6965079) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 5:54 PM Author: spectacular claret pit P\/\/N3D (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6965085) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 7:36 PM Author: tripping twinkling uncleanness theater stage heh (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6965517) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 6:38 PM Author: cerebral sadistic national security agency I don't know who is more prestigious, because they're both clearly flame, which makes it hard to tell, but I know who is more interesting. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6978110) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 11:54 PM Author: Electric people who are hurt doctorate It's funny how pensive can keep a steady bearing and make dependably ridiculous arguments, but Joe loses his cool so easily.
Has Joe not figured out yet that pensive is pure flame? |
|
Date: November 13th, 2006 6:36 AM Author: galvanic coral fortuitous meteor Mike has never been pure flame. He is a weak and empty person. He was the same way at Carleton, and his userfile was full of this shit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6982168) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2006 6:45 PM Author: titillating slate private investor I didn't run UF. I don't know why that is attributed to me. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6985584) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2006 8:43 PM Author: lavender beady-eyed lodge sweet tailpipe Especially for posts like these, I don't see what you gain by not using your usual moniker. Everyone knows it's you, man. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6986560) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2007 4:41 PM Author: Bearded locale tough call (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#7672759) |
Date: November 10th, 2006 5:58 PM Author: fragrant brethren Mike versus Joe - http://img472.imageshack.us/img472/6262/joechurchyf9.jpg |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 5:59 PM Author: spectacular claret pit what the fuck is that below my right ear? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6965109) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 6:28 PM Author: stimulating trailer park Hi, Pensive. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6965227) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 9:03 PM Author: fragrant brethren Hi! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6965945) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 7:43 PM Author: tripping twinkling uncleanness theater stage In the running for the worst photo ever taken of me. I'd never claim to be an objective 8.0 or even above average, but wow, is that horrible. I'm about 18 inches from the flash, sweaty, and in the worst shape of my life. Since then, I've been rowing 3-5 times a week...
Here's a better one taken the same day. Still not great, but at least I don't look like a freak: http://www.chicagogsb.edu/images/news/2005-11-04_prepme_FSB.jpg |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 9:04 PM Author: fragrant brethren Much more prestigious. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6965947) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2006 9:32 AM Author: Bearded Native Hissy Fit Christ that pic above wasnt even doctored? It looks like you have had the ebola virus for about 3 days. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6982278) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 6:30 PM Author: motley red mood range Joe Caltech for sure. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6965235) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 6:48 PM Author: idiotic vigorous crackhouse windowlicker mike church is better at math (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6965295) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 7:47 PM Author: Well-lubricated address (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6965556) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 7:54 PM Author: histrionic associate which one is better at math? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6965573) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 8:08 PM Author: titillating slate private investor This is a stupid comparison, but I'll entertain it anyway because I'm bored. It's tough to say; a pretty close call. He's better credentialed whereas I'm more likely to go on to influence culture. We have entirely different sets of talents. I could see him being successful in politics or a big corporation, whereas I probably wouldn't. On the other hand, I'm going to be more successful at a creative venture. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6965619) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 8:10 PM Author: Aqua jet-lagged theater excellent and fair analysis (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6965628) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 8:11 PM Author: histrionic associate this is a fair analysis. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6965631) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 8:12 PM Author: motley red mood range "Accomplishments: Even. (PrepMe vs. Ambition + a few game-dev projects in the works; apples-to-oranges but a relatively even comparison.)" I laughed my fucking ass off after reading this. Illusions of grandeur much? |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 8:16 PM Author: titillating slate private investor I didn't write that, but I agree with it. Where'd that come from? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6965660) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 8:18 PM Author: zippy bisexual selfie You're one ugly peckerwood. Why don't you have any sideburns? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6965669) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 8:19 PM Author: Greedy low-t electric furnace Fair analysis. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6965673) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 8:21 PM Author: dark messiness I believe you're forgetting the OXFORD ULTIMATE PRESTIGE factor. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6965683) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 8:24 PM Author: titillating slate private investor That's true. While I don't know anything about the quality of their programs, I think Oxford and Cambridge are probably the most prestigious colleges for undergrad. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6965704) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 8:21 PM Author: hateful razzmatazz party of the first part http://www.provost.umich.edu/scholars/nominees/jewell.html
You just got PWNED terribly. |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 8:23 PM Author: titillating slate private investor The Rhodes Scholarship is, really, a derivative accomplishment. If it were awarded because of no prior accomplishment or track record, it would be unimpressive, but what it takes to get one is extremely impressive. I already conceded that his academic track record is a lot better than mine. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6965698) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 8:24 PM Author: hateful razzmatazz party of the first part But your XO posts are better, so it's a wash. Ty for clearing this up. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6965709) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 8:27 PM Author: titillating slate private investor No, thank you. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6965726) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 8:26 PM Author: dark messiness Given the intense two round interview process involved, the Rhodes Scholarship is hardly derivative. The Rhodes Scholars I knew at Oxford are and were probably the single most impressive group of people I've ever met, in terms of both intellectual accomplishment and personality.
How many have you met? |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 8:29 PM Author: titillating slate private investor By "derivative", I didn't mean anything negative. I meant that a Rhodes Scholarship is awarded because of other very impressive accomplishments.
I don't count the interview process since anyone who is smart enough to be in the running for a Rhodes can prepare for and pass any interview process out there. |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 8:31 PM Author: dark messiness LOL.
Clearly you are not at all familiar with this process.
An OXFORD MAN would know better. |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 8:34 PM Author: titillating slate private investor Getting the academics and activities necessary to be eligible even to sit for a Rhodes interview: Hard.
Passing a Rhodes interview: Extremely easy, for a person who can do what it takes to get to the interview in the first place.
These aren't deadbeat losers who show up smelling like cigarette ash. |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 8:36 PM Author: hateful razzmatazz party of the first part How would you have any idea what you're talking about? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6965782) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 8:39 PM Author: titillating slate private investor Ok, fine... I suppose it's possible that there are a bunch of deadbeat idiots who get invited for Rhodes interviews and fail them. Perhaps. But I reject that hypothesis because this thing called intuition tells me that it's probably not, and that a Rhodes Committee would be pretty effective at filtering them out before they get to an interview in the first place. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6965800) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 8:42 PM Author: dark messiness Your posts are evidence enough that you have nary a clue about this.
Again: How many Rhodes Scholars have you actually met? How many have discussed the process with you? I went to Oxford. I've met dozens. |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 8:43 PM Author: titillating slate private investor Two. Both said that the interview process was, in effect, a formality as well as a way for Rhodes Scholars to meet each other for the first time. The decision is already made based on breadth of academic and extracurricular track record. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6965815) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 8:48 PM Author: dark messiness You're lying. There's no other way I can reconcile what you just typed with what the dozens of people I know in person have told me.
No one who has been through the process would EVER say that, let alone two of them. There's just not any chance in hell.
I've met many more than two, including a couple of professors who were Rhodes in the old days who have actually served on recent Rhodes committees, and they say it's the most high pressure, high stakes interview they've ever gone through. |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 8:54 PM Author: titillating slate private investor It's "high stakes, high pressure" according to the testimony of people who have never interviewed for jobs. Even very bright people are naive out of college; I was. Trust me, go to Wall Street if you want to try out something you might call a tough interview.
You're the liar. You're attributing falsities to dozens of Rhodes Scholars of whom at least most would not feel any need to lie about or exaggerate the process, since their credentials speak for themselves. |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 10:07 PM Author: tripping twinkling uncleanness theater stage Hi Mike!
I'm getting some questions on IM about Rhodes interviews regarding this thread. I thought it might help if I came here to clear things up once and for all on this topic.
I'm going to put this as nicely as I possibly can... you're full of it, Mike. I know that no force on earth will dissuade you from one of your wholly-unconnected-to-reality pet theories on how the world really works, but you are just plain wrong on this.
The interview is extremely, extremely important. Just anecdotally, I was told at my state-level interview that I was "not one of the top two on paper" but that it was the interview that put me over. I guess that's kind of a double-edged compliment or criticism, depending on how you look at it, but it certainly indicates that the interview is critical.
Beyond just my personal experience, I had the opportunity to discuss this with a number of very accomplished people, who have definitely interviewed for jobs in their lifetimes, at a reunion for Rhodes Scholars in Philadelphia, summer 2005. Since we were the "new class" at that time, it was a common topic of conversation for the older folks to talk with us about what their interviews had been like. As a consequence, perhaps uniquely given that these reunions are only every 10 years or so and therefore one is not likely to be "the new class" in any given year, I've had this conversation several dozen times with very successful older people in various stages of their careers. Some of them are now Rhodes interviewers themselves.
Uniformly they say the Rhodes interviews were some of the most or (more often) the most intense interviews in their lives, and completely unlike any they'd had before. The interviewers confirm that Rhodes interviews are critical. In fact, once you've made it past the paper cut, the interviews are pretty much the only thing that matters. In fact, no one is invited to even the first interview who doesn't have a chance on paper at winning the scholarship--that's a matter of policy. In fact, state committees in the past have on occasion not advanced as many students as they are allowed to that they *did* interview to the final interview round, because they didn't feel that the candidates would have a realistic chance of winning given their state-level interviews.
That's a pretty good sample of Rhodes Scholars right there. It's certainly better than your two, who I suspect are probably made up anyway, because I agree with Oxonian. Absolutely no Rhodie I have ever met (and I have met literally hundreds of all ages) would ever, ever, ever say the purpose of the interview was "a formality as well as a way for Rhodes Scholars to meet each other for the first time."
(Given that 15-18 people usually made it to the final interviews and 4 were chosen--with the other 28 coming from the rest of the country--it would be a terrible mechanism for that anyway! So many "extra" disappointed people there and so many other winners not there, and a high pressure situation to boot. What's the point?)
(In fact, one of the big red flags that pops up about your alleged quote is that there *is* actually a formal event for Rhodes Scholars to meet each other for the first time before going off to England together. Of course, it's much more along the lines of what a sane, rational person would guess would be a good "way for Rhodes Scholars to meet each other for the first time." They have an event called "Sailing Weekend" in DC that lasts about 4 days and is supposed to replace the bonding time that the voyage over to Europe on ship used to represent for earlier American Rhodes Scholars. It's fun, not stressful, and there aren't a whole bunch of people who won't be going there with you. Just makes much more sense.)
Your version of events also doesn't square with the accounts in biographies and autobiographies of Rhodes Scholars that I have read (which is several), nor does it square with anything published in the press on the subject.
For an example, see: http://www.upenn.edu/gazette/0399/0399student.html
(A choice phrase: "Huang, a veteran of job and scholarship interviews, said his Rhodes interview was unlike any he has encountered.")
Also check out the extensive Reed web archive of firsthand accounts: http://www.reed.edu/~brashiek/Rhodes-Marshall/past.html
And there are of course many more sites out there, all of which agree with what I (and the hundreds of Rhodies I know and have met) say on the subject, which is just about the direct opposite of what you say.
I don't expect you to be convinced, unless you've changed a lot in the past year since I stopped posting, but Mike, why don't you just admit that you have no idea what you're talking about here? |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 10:09 PM Author: opaque supple plaza weed whacker EVERYBODY DANCE NOW (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6966436) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 10:27 PM Author: Disrespectful Charcoal Skinny Woman Library 180, This was possibly best one ever. I spent about 5 minutes reading that post, and was expecting to see Pensive's reply. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6966584) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 10:43 PM Author: motley red mood range This is something you have mastered and perfected. I see no need for you to master any other kind of hobby IRL. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6966687) |
|
Date: November 11th, 2006 12:34 PM Author: exciting meetinghouse simply magnificent. joe's post was great too |
|
Date: November 11th, 2006 5:41 PM Author: rambunctious irradiated menage scrumtrilescent (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6970627) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 1:32 AM Author: crawly heady theatre The uniformity and number of admiring posts is almost as funny as the origin post. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6974461) |
|
Date: November 11th, 2006 5:23 PM Author: titillating slate private investor Let's look at the hilarity of this situation. Instead of trying to promote our accomplishments and demote the other persons', I promote your accomplishment out of a spirit of honesty and you demote it. I'm saying that the Rhodes Scholarship requires excellent academics; you're arguing that it actually only requires half-decent academics and that interview preparation/luck plays a huge role. You're the Rhodes Scholar, not me. Why you'd want to take an impressive accomplishment of yours and make it look like interview luck is beyond me. Perhaps this is some sort of extreme humility; otherwise, it makes no sense.
For the record, while I'm much more impressed with Rhodes Scholars than with Wall Streeters, a Rhodes interview is going to be nothing, in terms of intensity, compared to a Wall Street interview. The latter is notoriously brutal; in some cases, an interviewer will scream at the candidate to see if he or she loses his cool. Sometimes candidates leave interviews crying. There are other interviewers who will swear or make offensive comments to see if the candidate loosens his guard, but if he or she even uses a minor profanity like "p***ed off", it's over. I don't think Rhodes Committees use these types of tactics; I'd expect them to be much too civilized. Even back-office jobs on Wall Street involve more intense interviews than any sort of educational interview. |
|
Date: November 11th, 2006 11:34 PM Author: tripping twinkling uncleanness theater stage Don't twist words. It's clear enough what I wrote.
"I'm trying to portray the Rhodes Scholarship accurately, by saying that it requires exceptional academics and scholarship."
The second part of that sentence is true. *None* (and I mean zero, zilch, nada) of your statements about interviews have been even close to true or anything like "portraying the Rhodes Scholarship accurately." Which brings us to...
"Why you'd want to take an impressive accomplishment of yours and make it look like interview luck is beyond me."
Actually, one of my favorite things about the whole Rhodes experience has been that interviews count so much. Where you're wrong--and where you reveal once again your total lack of any understanding of what the Rhodes Scholarship is and stands for--is that performance in an interview like that is not really the same thing as "luck." It also has very little to do with academic talent, although I'm sure being quick-thinking and and the ability to consider multiple points of view simultaneously help a lot. The essential crux, though, is that they intend to evaluate *how* you interact with other people--both your peers (the other interviewees) and the committee itself. There is another set of skills there, one that doesn't come across on a sheet of paper but that (Cecil Rhodes thought, at least) is very important.
I was very impressed with the people invited to interview, without exception. All of them seemed very intelligent to me and had diverse and deep interests, etc. To put it bluntly, though, there were a certain number of arrogant #$&%s and a number of people who could only talk about themselves. There were also some who clearly thought they had every issue under the sun all figured out. I, personally, find those personality traits very annoying. Not everyone does, of course, and it's just my personal preference, but speaking for myself only: I can't stand that kind of $%*#.
In my selection region, at least, they filtered out these people extremely well. I remember being surprised and very pleased that the 3 people I personally *liked* best (as people) at the final interviews were the other 3 chosen. Now, I'm not saying they all had some inherent great quality just because I liked them and got along with them--maybe we just all had similar personalities. Whatever it is though, there are very few Rhodies (I can count them on one hand, out of several hundred I know) who I haven't immediately enjoyed being around and honestly enjoy spending time with and getting to know more deeply--in a number of cases, I'm quite certain, on the level of life-long friends. This is despite extremely varying interests and fields, extremely varying political views, different social, cultural and religious backgrounds, and the fact that we come from 20 different countries. In many cases I've had similar experiences even with much older Rhodes Scholars.
I firmly believe, and just about every Rhodie I've ever discussed this with also firmly believes, that the intense interviews are responsible for this.
Again, I need to stress that I'm not saying these people are inherently "better" because I almost universally get along well with them. There may be some quality that we all have in common that makes us like each other (but that would annoy others) or something of that nature. But, for me personally, it certainly has made my experience a *lot* more fun, so I have to say that in my opinion the fact that the interviews are so critical is one of the very best aspects of the Rhodes selection process.
"while I'm much more impressed with Rhodes Scholars than with Wall Streeters, a Rhodes interview is going to be nothing, in terms of intensity, compared to a Wall Street interview."
That's not what a large number of people who have been through both--and been on the other side of both--said. You've not been through both (and in fact I doubt you've ever even met, let alone discussed this with, anyone who's been through both), so you have absolutely no frame of reference.
"Even IT jobs on Wall Street involve more intense interviews than any sort of educational interview."
Any sort of "educational interview"--hah! If you're still deluding yourself that it's all about academics, it's clear that you have even less of an idea of what this involves than I thought. A very significant point of the Rhodes interview is to create a sustained pressure-cooker situation to see how candidates handle themselves. It lasts two days straight and includes a variety of different social environments including (and this is key) some that involve interaction with peers, not just an interview committee.
In sum:
1) You have no idea what you're talking about. Again.
2) I really don't often say things along these lines, but: Isn't it really pretty stupid to disagree with me on this? It's obvious that I'm correct, and it's obvious why I'm correct. I've also posted many credible outside sources supporting 100% my point of view, which is diametrically opposed to yours. I understand that you don't like being wrong, but aren't you intellectually agile enough to grasp this, at least on some level? |
|
Date: November 11th, 2006 11:57 PM Author: titillating slate private investor Pensive: The Rhodes Scholarship requires excellence in scholarship.
Joe Caltech: No, pensive, you're wrong. It actually requires the ability to spin a yarn for two days straight and wait for your peers to trip up and make arrogant fools of themselves, thus leaving you to look good on the interview.
I've never even tried out for a Rhodes; you're a Rhodes Scholar. Therefore, I have nothing to gain or lose from my position, and you have something to gain from mine. You have something to lose from your position. Does it make sense, then, that you argue yours? I admit that humility is not a virtue I possess; is that some demonstration of it? |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 12:13 AM Author: tripping twinkling uncleanness theater stage "Pensive: The Rhodes Scholarship requires excellence in scholarship."
I would never disagree with that simple statement. It requires excellence in scholarship, and a number of other things. Scholarship is not and has never been the only criterion.
"Joe Caltech: No, pensive, you're wrong. It actually requires the ability to spin a yarn for two days straight and wait for your peers to trip up and make arrogant asses of themselves, thus leaving you to look good on the interview."
Not even close to what I said (in fact, nearly the opposite)--again, please don't twist my words or pretend to quote me when you're not.
What you're wrong about isn't the fact that the Rhodes requires "excellence in scholarship." It's your belief that Rhodes interviews are "a formality as well as a way for Rhodes Scholars to meet each other for the first time"--and further than that, your claim to have heard that from not one but two real live Rhodies, which I believe to be a complete fabrication.
Also wrong, incidentally, is the idea that the interviews' importance might involve "the ability to spin a yarn for two days straight" or that "tripping up" is what eliminates people.
"I have nothing to gain or lose from my position, and you have something to gain from mine. Does it make sense, then, that you argue yours?"
All I'm doing is telling the truth. It's as simple as that. But your question isn't posed very well anyway, because you're not playing with a full deck to begin with; your position is wrong, and your characterization of my position is also wrong. |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 1:08 AM Author: titillating slate private investor If the Rhodes Scholarship really were about, as you claim (and I don't disagree) the academic best and brightest, the interview would be essentially a formality except in the cases where it turns up and culls a lout or faker who clearly shouldn't receive one, but I imagine such examples are rare.
You clearly don't understand your position and what it entails, or else you would agree that it is wrong. If the Rhodes Scholarship is as strongly academic as I have posited, then the interview cannot be strongly evaluative since that would compromise the academic integrity of the process.
I'm starting to like your style of flame; it's much better than the old schtick. |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 1:25 AM Author: azure wonderful hall keepsake machete You have been thoroughly pwned in this exchange. Further responses serve no purpose. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6974401) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 1:26 AM Author: titillating slate private investor Please stop saying "pwn" because you will make the word go out of style. It doesn't belong to people like you, who never pwn anything. Thanks. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6974415) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 1:44 AM Author: azure wonderful hall keepsake machete Dude, I'm at HLS. If anything, I've pwned the process of getting rejected by Yale. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6974543) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 12:28 AM Author: tripping twinkling uncleanness theater stage Also, I don't recall a "flamewar." In particular, I have never, ever tried to "demote your accomplishments" and I don't think I've done all that much "boosting of my own" either.
I recall something more along the lines of you posting ridiculous claims about things which you know nothing (your performance on this thread might be a good example of that tendency), being corrected, harrassing me as well as use a toothbrush and probably others, and then having a nervous breakdown and promising to leave. Which apparently hasn't happened yet.
Then a couple of months' worth of your posting later you seized upon some thread about my business (again, this is seeming pretty familiar) and apparently in a fit of envy decided to post some very ridiculous, untrue, and libellous things (example: you stated that I bribed judges to win a business plan competition and that this was the "only possible way" in which we could've won). |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 1:04 AM Author: titillating slate private investor I recall a flamewar, and I see that you're trying to start one now. I decline. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6974233) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 1:27 PM Author: tripping twinkling uncleanness theater stage Wrong on both counts. (For one thing, what possible other reason could you have for continuing to post in support of your position? It's something about which I have intimate and extensive knowledge, both from myself and others, and which I posted multiple publically available sources on. What reasonable person could possibly believe that your conjecture has even a chance of being more accurate than my firsthand knowledge?) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6975920) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 2:38 PM Author: titillating slate private investor If you want to make something you've accomplished out to be pure interview luck, the ability to play a game, then I won't oppose you any longer. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6976294) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 4:03 PM Author: tripping twinkling uncleanness theater stage Why not just admit that I probably know quite a bit more about what the Rhodes selection process is like than you do? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6977033) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 5:05 PM Author: titillating slate private investor You have motives. By reducing the Rhodes scholarship to a matter of BS and interview luck, you diminish your image on this board. Why would you want to do that? It's simple, really; it would give you an excuse to stop posting here. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6977416) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 5:28 PM Author: tripping twinkling uncleanness theater stage You can't be serious. I haven't posted in months. Obviously I have plenty of excuses to stop posting (although, of course, unlike you I never promised to leave).
But that's just a red herring anyway: Why not just admit that I probably know quite a bit more about what the Rhodes selection process is like than you do?
If I'm making it all up, why do all those outside sources support my observations, while you don't have anything to support your theory?
I think you just don't like the idea that something good and legitimate in this world could possibly depend at all (among other things) on one's ability and desire to treat other people with respect.
In reality, of course, there are a great deal more things in this world than just a scholarship that depend on that. |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 9:43 PM Author: titillating slate private investor "Why not just admit that I probably know quite a bit more about what the Rhodes selection process is like than you do?
If I'm making it all up, why do all those outside sources support my observations, while you don't have anything to support your theory?"
I'll concede the possibility that you know more, but you are not transmitting knowledge so much as incorrect information fashioned to the purpose of making you look bad, as if your scholarship followed purely from some sort of interview luck and verbal sycophancy. This leaves me to argue (as I believe to be correct) that the Rhodes Scholarship is actually an academic award and has nothing to do with sycophancy, a stance that puts you in a positive light.
"I think you just don't like [...] one's ability and desire to treat other people with respect."
Ok. You just proved my point, by arguing that the Rhodes interview hinges on treating other people "with respect". I didn't say that the interview didn't matter at all. I said that it was mostly a formality and not evaluative, as is widely known to be true. Certainly a person who throws out 18 racial slurs in his 5-minute "interview" is not going to get the scholarship, nor any person who shows some other form of disrespect. By stating that the interview requires the ability to treat others with respect, you underlined a qualification that over 90+% of candidates would have and, therefore, established the interview purely as a formality. |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 10:30 PM Author: tripping twinkling uncleanness theater stage "some sort of interview luck and verbal fellatio."
Oh, actually, I'm sure sucking up is a horrible idea. That's pretty transparent. Do you think the committees are stupid?
"'I think you just don't like [...] one's ability and desire to treat other people with respect.' Ok. You just proved my point, by arguing that the Rhodes interview hinges on treating other people 'with respect'."
Now isn't it strange that the part of my words you yada-yada-yada-ed included the phrase "AMONG OTHER THINGS"! You're not really being very intellectually honest here, are you?
"I said that it was mostly a formality and not evaluative, as is widely known to be true."
Odd, then, that all the sources I cited say exactly the opposite, if your ridiculous conjecture is "widely known to be true." Odder still that all of them come from people who have been through the process, actually run the process, or both--and that you've done neither!
"By stating that the interview requires the ability to treat others with respect, you underlined a qualification that over 90+% of candidates would have and, therefore, established the interview purely as a formality."
It requires that ability among a number of others. Necessary, but not sufficient.
And I dispute your (made up, as Mike Church statistics usually are) "90+%" statistic. A paper application tells you not that much about a person's personality and even less about how they interact with their peers. Remember--in my observation, a significant fraction of Rhodes interviewees couldn't (or didn't want to) stop talking about themselves during the reception. They weren't being overtly rude and they certainly weren't using racial slurs. But still, a conversation among 4 or 5 people shouldn't have one person doing half the talking!
None of the ones that stuck out as--in my biased opinion only, I need to stress--a bit arrogant or self-centered were picked. The 3 others who were picked with me weren't the 3 most "polished" or the ones who seemed to have mastered which fork to use or tried to work big words into the conversation, but they *were* the 3 that I personally would have picked of the bunch to spend a couple years in Europe with. |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 10:38 PM Author: lavender beady-eyed lodge sweet tailpipe Dude, you're just pissed because someone finally figured out the secret of the Rhodes "5-minute 'interview'" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6979986) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 10:48 PM Author: tripping twinkling uncleanness theater stage lol
That could explain a lot, actually. Bill Clinton is a Rhodie--maybe he was "interviewing" Monica for a Cabinet position. |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 11:20 PM Author: titillating slate private investor You've never gotten over Bill Clinton, have you? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6980377) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 11:30 PM Author: tripping twinkling uncleanness theater stage What do you mean? I'm certainly not politically aligned with him but I'm not one of those Republicans who thinks "Clinton was evil!" and has spent the last 6 years celebrating the fact that his presidency is over. I doubt he should've been impeached. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6980471) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 11:36 PM Author: titillating slate private investor You brought him up, completely out of context. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6980542) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 11:39 PM Author: tripping twinkling uncleanness theater stage Completely out of context?
Quick, associate the phrases "Rhodes Scholar" and "fellatio" in a funny way.
I don't think you can do much better than Clinton. It was probably the most famous BJ in history. |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 11:40 PM Author: titillating slate private investor I don't find obstruction of justice very funny. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6980579) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 11:40 PM Author: tripping twinkling uncleanness theater stage Right...
[backs slowly away from the crazy person] |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 11:08 PM Author: titillating slate private investor "Do you think the committees are stupid?"
I don't, but your whole argument hinges on the premise that they are-- so stupid, in fact, that they can't tell who is a good academician, who not, and have to bring people in via a very expensive process to sort that out. Since your entire argument requires such a counterintuitive premise, I'm inclined to reject it.
"Now isn't it [...] yada-yada-yada[...] 'AMONG OTHER THINGS'! You're [...] really being very intellectual[...]here, are you?"
First off, I didn't "yada-yada-yada" anything. I used an ellipsis. Second, you put the words "among other things" in a parenthetical, which indicated (to me, at least) that they were an aside of tertiary importance. Third, I ignored those words because they were only going to throw you into a losing argument, and wishing you no lost face, I could not push you into it.
"A paper application tells you not that much about a person's personality and even less about how they interact with their peers."
It actually tells quite a lot. If there are ketchup stains on a paper app, it's a good sign that a person is a slob and probably has few close friends. So you throw his application in the garbage.
"But still, a conversation among 4 or 5 people shouldn't have one person doing half the talking!"
Hm. I never knew this before.
"None of the ones that stuck out as--in my biased opinion only, I need to stress--a bit arrogant or self-centered were picked."
I'm glad you admit to your hindsight bias. |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 11:28 PM Author: tripping twinkling uncleanness theater stage "Second, you put the words 'among other things" in a parenthetical, which indicated (to me, at least) that they were an aside of tertiary importance."
I was giving you one good and well-developed example of a personality trait (or people skill, depending how you look at it), that is not luck and yet is absolutely necessary for success in that interview.
Any other reader would have understood that I didn't mean that the interview evaluated only "respectfulness" (how ridiculous is that idea, particularly given how the interviews are described in all those accounts I posted?).
No, before I pushed the "post" button I threw that in (in parentheses because it's so obvious to most people) since I suspected that Mike Church would need a little extra help figuring out that last point, and because I suspected you'd instinctively come back with some variation of "respecting your peers is easy!"
"'But still, a conversation among 4 or 5 people shouldn't have one person doing half the talking!'
Hm. I never knew this before."
That explains a lot.
"'None of the ones that stuck out as--in my biased opinion only, I need to stress--a bit arrogant or self-centered were picked.'
I'm glad you admit to your hindsight bias."
Not hindsight bias at all, just bias in that what I consider self-centered and arrogant might be different from what anyone else does.
I actually decided while we were all waiting together to hear the results exactly which three people (I figured it would be bad luck to look for four!) I thought I'd most like to go to England with. They all won--I remember thinking it was very unlikely that exact group would be picked since all were men, but it happened anyway, so it definitely sticks out in my head. Later I found out that the committees are instructed that gender balance is not a consideration, so that explains that.
A young lady who would've been the other person I picked if I had to pick a 4th who was not myself didn't win, but did end up getting the Marshall. We're now good friends as well! |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 11:35 PM Author: titillating slate private investor "I was giving you one good and well-developed example of a personality trait (or people skill, depending how you look at it), that is not luck and yet is absolutely necessary for success in that interview."
Actually, it is luck. The people we meet in our daily lives (or, in contrived situations such as interviews) are more or less a random sample of the people qualified to be at that given place and time. Whether that person ends up being someone one can respect comes down to a bit of randomness in the end.
"I suspected you'd instinctively come back with some variation of 'respecting your peers is easy!'"
In other words, you added "among other things" to have a wildcard that could later be revised to have whatever meaning you wished.
"Not hindsight bias at all. I actually decided while we were all waiting together to hear the results exactly which three people (I figured it would be bad luck to look for four!) I thought I'd most like to go to England with."
I'm impressed, but if you have such prescience, you should apply your gift to the lottery, where psychic powers become a literal gold mine.
"They all won--I remember thinking it was very unlikely that exact group would be picked since all were men, but it happened anyway, so it definitely sticks out in my head."
So are you saying that women are intrinsically worse at interviewing? This is a bold, counterintuitive assertion and I really don't believe it to be true. |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 11:49 PM Author: tripping twinkling uncleanness theater stage A wildcard? No, I just didn't want to spend hours composing a treatise on every single interpersonal skill that might possibly affect how effectively one interviews or works with other people.
"if you have such prescience, you should apply your gift to the lottery, where psychic powers become a literal gold mine"
1) I wasn't trying to pick the actual winners, I was trying to pick those I *wanted* to win based on who I got along with the best. There's a big difference. At the time I thought one of the people who annoyed me would definitely win because they had a certain really impressive achievement (which they kept talking about...)
"So are you saying that women are intrinsically worse at interviewing?"
I didn't say anything even close to that. Out of the group of Rhodes interviewees in my region, they all *happened* to be men. I believe our overall class ended up nearly 50-50, so clearly it averaged out, more or less, over the country as a whole.
The final selection committee for our region, incidentally, was 3 women and 2 men, so I doubt they were biased against women. |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 3:10 AM Author: motley red mood range Dude, the fact that you respond to pensive in such grueling detail is evidence enough that you're almost as douchey as he is. I don't care how much you've accomplished with your life...if you stoop down to his level you're just as much an idiot as he is. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6974971) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 1:32 PM Author: tripping twinkling uncleanness theater stage You're correct that I probably shouldn't respond to pensive. Usually I don't. But when he attacks me or spreads disinformation about things that I'm involved with (my company, myself, the Rhodes, etc.) I feel compelled to set the record straight.
What I have or haven't accomplished has absolutely nothing to do with it. If you'll note, I have not expressed an opinion on the original post, nor do I intend to. |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 2:41 PM Author: titillating slate private investor I'm not attacking you. I'm claiming that the Rhodes scholarship comes down to academic prowess, while you continue to argue that it comes down to bullshit interview luck. In an odd reversal, I'm arguing the position that makes you look better and you're pushing the one that makes you look worse. It makes no sense. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6976319) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 4:01 PM Author: tripping twinkling uncleanness theater stage "I'm claiming that the Rhodes scholarship comes down to academic prowess, while you continue to argue that it comes down to bullshit interview luck."
Wrong. Do you really not understand this?
Doing well on the Rhodes interview is not the same thing as "bullshit interview luck."
"I'm arguing the position that makes you look better and you're pushing the one that makes you look worse."
I'm arguing the position that's true--but again, you've yet to actually grasp what I'm telling you:
1) The interviews matter greatly.
2) Success at the interviews is not "bullshit," nor is it "luck." |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 5:08 PM Author: titillating slate private investor "Wrong. Do you really not understand this?"
I do understand it. I wouldn't have said something I didn't understand.
"1) The interviews matter greatly.
2) Success at the interviews is not 'bullshit,' nor is it 'luck.'"
2 implies that the decision comes down to "hard factors" of academic track record. In which case, "the interviews" matter greatly only in the sense of the academic accomplishments that allow an interview matter greatly, and the interview *itself* doesn't matter much at all. Which is the point I've been arguing all this time; I'm glad to see you finally come around to it. |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 5:31 PM Author: tripping twinkling uncleanness theater stage You can't be serious.
"I do understand it. I wouldn't have said something I didn't understand."
And yet you've consistently misquoted me. I think you *do* understand, but you're obfuscating on purpose.
"2 implies that the decision comes down to "hard factors" of academic track record. In which case, "the interviews" matter greatly only in the sense of the academic accomplishments that allow an interview matter greatly, and the interview *itself* doesn't matter much at all. Which is the point I've been arguing all this time; I'm glad to see you finally come around to it."
This is barely coherent, but the very first part is definitely wrong. The interview does NOT "come down to hard factors of academic track record." |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 9:45 PM Author: titillating slate private investor "The interview does NOT 'come down to hard factors of academic track record.' "
So, you wish to argue that the Rhodes is purely interview luck? Here's what I'll do. I'll find a sufficiently large number of bums on the streets of NYC and dress them up nicely and put them through the process. If none of them gets a Rhodes, then your position of it being purely luck-based, as if it were some sort of interview lottery, will be thrown into serious doubt. |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 10:16 PM Author: tripping twinkling uncleanness theater stage You're like a willfully ignorant child. How many times do you need to be told:
"doing well on the interview" =/= "luck"
There are a large number of skills that aren't academic. Many people think that these skills are very important. Clearly you don't, but that's a non-issue here. The Rhodes people do. |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 10:58 PM Author: titillating slate private investor Any admissions interview, if evaluative at all, is going to come down to a luck/lottery type system. For rigorous, difficult interviews where interview skills (skill, not luck) matter, go to Wall Street. I'm sure you'll do great-- this isn't some kind of challenge-- but I just doubt that you've been through a rigorous interview or know what one is unless you've tried for finance. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6980153) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 11:16 PM Author: tripping twinkling uncleanness theater stage Ahhh, now the true Mike Church colors come out! My "reading between the lines" was absolutely correct. Praise the Lord.
"Any admissions interview, if evaluative at all, is going to come down to a luck/lottery type system."
Wrong. You want to believe this, you deeply NEED to believe this, because of your Harvard interview experience and heaven knows what else in your past, but it just isn't true. Just about no one believes this except for you.
In particular, the MANY SOURCES I CITED all disagree with you. You have no source, just your hunch.
"For rigorous, difficult interviews where interview skills (skill, not luck) matter, go to Wall Street."
Well, that's just amazing! Mike thinks an interview he's successfully completed is the hallmark of success? That's absolutely stunning. Strange how your definition of what's meaningful and what's not dovetails so closely with what you've done and what you haven't.
"I just doubt that you've been through a rigorous interview or know what one is unless you've tried for finance."
You are not in a position to know that. And the people who are, disagree with you. The many, many Rhodes Scholars who I've met who are involved in finance certainly haven't said that. If anything, it's the complete opposite--it was their job interview that was a formality. |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 11:19 PM Author: titillating slate private investor Harvard? I *did* mess up that interview. I told her I didn't want to go school there, which was true, because Harvard had alienated me in the visit process. Of course I was going to get rejected.. Likewise, I'm sure that someone who intentionally insulted the Rhodes Foundation would have a zero percent chance of getting an RS. That's not what I'm talking about.
"Strange how your definition of what's meaningful and what's not dovetails so closely with what you've done and what you haven't."
You're starting to lose your cool. Are you sure you don't want a break and a glass of water? |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 11:37 PM Author: tripping twinkling uncleanness theater stage Well, Mike, if there's one thing that annoys me, it's having my words twisted.
The "It's" was implied, and I can't believe you're resorting to correcting my grammar. Clearly you have nothing left of substance to say.
I'm reminded of a Margaret Thatcher quote (yes, I know it's a "quotation," but if you'll permit me the vernacular for a moment): "Well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left." |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 11:41 PM Author: titillating slate private investor "Clearly you have nothing left of substance to say."
Uh, I'm pensive. Irony and provacation are what I do. (Welcome to the board, by the way.) When did I start having anything of substance to say? |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 11:53 PM Author: tripping twinkling uncleanness theater stage So you admit you're full of crap.
Fantastic! I'm out of here. |
|
Date: November 13th, 2006 12:00 AM Author: titillating slate private investor It's funny how you try to make it look like you're "out of here" when I'm actually letting you leave. You bite down on every corpse-eating worm I throw into the water. I don't even have to make a single personal attack, because I can get you to flame me. Just admit it: I'm very good at what I do. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6980802) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2006 6:45 AM Author: galvanic coral fortuitous meteor Given that what you do is serve as probably the most pathetic loser ever to grace this board, and for sure the most pathetic loser I ever heard of at Carleton, I'd say you're correct that you're fucking good at it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6982169) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2006 6:47 PM Author: titillating slate private investor You, on the other hand, post under 3 different accounts (this one, can't edit, Old Tom Joad) to harrass me. This arrangement makes *me* the pathetic one? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6985603) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2006 8:15 PM Author: galvanic coral fortuitous meteor Nice try. I've posted under just one other name, and it's neither of those.
You harrass yourself by existing. |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 11:45 PM Author: 180 awkward orchestra pit I highly doubt a truer post has ever been written on xoxo. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6980650) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2006 6:47 AM Author: galvanic coral fortuitous meteor Mike's hangups are pretty consistent. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6982171) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2007 4:45 PM Author: Bearded locale Joe~
u forgot to say, "HTH"
just sayin'... |
|
Date: February 26th, 2007 4:39 PM Author: Bearded locale now you got it!
TITCR |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 8:52 PM Author: hateful razzmatazz party of the first part Your logic is backwards. Wouldn't a bunch of loser-idiots showing up to interview make it easier to get a Rhodes Scholarship? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6965870) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 8:55 PM Author: titillating slate private investor You'd have to be an idiot to fail a Rhodes interview, because that would mean that after doing all that work building the academic track record, you declined to put in the few hours necessary to prepare for the interview, and that's just dumb. It almost never happens. The people who don't get it after interviewing were never actually in the running. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6965892) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 9:00 PM Author: hateful razzmatazz party of the first part But what you're suggesting is that most of the people who get an interview end up with a Rhodes Scholarship. My point is that you have no other basis for this other than your own speculation. (Though I shouldn't be surprised.) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6965927) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 9:05 PM Author: titillating slate private investor I'm sure some people are allowed to interview as backup, in the event that one of the candidates makes some racist or sexist comment-- or doesn't show up at all-- and cuts himself out. I'm guessing that this is extremely rare. What I'm saying is that the decisions are made essentially on academics and the interview is more of a formality that might on a very rare occasion vote a person up or down. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6965951) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 9:08 PM Author: hateful razzmatazz party of the first part I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying you're blowing smoke out your ass instead of arguing based on actual evidence. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6965966) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 10:13 PM Author: tripping twinkling uncleanness theater stage He is completely, utterly wrong. I'm not sure he could be more wrong. Possibly he could if he tried to argue that (in fact) no interviews actually take place, but barring that, nope, no way for him to be more incorrect on this point than he is right now. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6966476) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 1:43 AM Author: bateful ungodly site How many rounds are there in the Rhodes competition? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6974539) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 1:44 PM Author: tripping twinkling uncleanness theater stage Until last year there were two (well, three if you count the college selection panels).
Your college first has to endorse your nomination. At Caltech that involved an interview with some faculty members who were Rhodies. Some colleges endorse everyone, some are picky and only endorse people whose applications they think have a good chance, but it varies. Entirely up to the college.
Anyway, a couple thousand people are endorsed by their university, one way or another.
Up until last year the system was that each state invited 5-15 people to interview (or fewer if they didn't get enough good apps) and then chose 1-6 (depending on population... California got to advance 6, a lot of tiny or empty states got 1, and everyone else was in between) to go to the district final interviews. The country was divided into 8 selection districts with roughly equal applicant populations. 12-15 people advanced from their state interviews would be at the district, and 4 from each district were elected as scholars.
This year they've switched the process from two rounds of interviews (each round was two days--a reception/dinner/social event one evening and then interviews and re-interviews all the next day) into just one round. So the country is now 16 equal-applicant-population regions, each of which interviews 15-18 people and elects 2 scholars.
Most old Rhodies (and many currently on stipend, including myself--mine was the last class elected under this system) think the new system is inferior to the old. I liked the idea of two entirely separate panels screening people, since I think it promotes a certain uniformity of standards. It also let more old Rhodies be involved in the selection process, which I think is a positive thing. There were 50 state committees and 8 district committees--now just 16 district committees. (Each selection committee is mostly made up of old Rhodies, although the chairperson is always non-Rhodes.) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2007 4:38 PM Author: Bearded locale You're beginning to get it... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#7672739) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 8:25 PM Author: dark messiness Wow, that picture is much better, too. He isn't an ugly bastard after all.
"We are tremendously pleased that Joseph chose Michigan for graduate studies," Provost Paul N. Courant says. "He's obviously one of the finest young scholars you could hope to meet, and a well-rounded person besides. Michigan is thrilled to share him with Oxford."
As well they should be. It is OXFORD.
OXFORD ULTIMATE PRESTIGE. |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 8:35 PM Author: exciting meetinghouse i'm sort of amazed at how much of this i agree with. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6965778) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 10:11 PM Author: Comical Lay Tank Joe is better than you in every possible way, pensive.
And you'll be Renada at age 30? What the fuck? You're not funny, pensive, and that's probably not going to change with age. |
|
Date: November 11th, 2006 5:26 PM Author: titillating slate private investor "Would you like to purchase a four-year warranty for this couch? It's only $49.95 extra." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6970563) |
|
Date: November 11th, 2006 6:02 PM Author: pearl lascivious dilemma nowag haha! pwn3d! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6970743) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 1:27 AM Author: Comical Lay Tank Huh? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6974420) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 1:33 PM Author: Tantric Set Look at this FAG. While Joe pwns him IRL, pensive tries to make up for it by playing up his 'xoxo' prestige of PWNING LOSER FUCKERS. Accomplishments: Even. PrepMe has been nationally publicized, in money magazine, etc. And you yourself have stated Ambition isnt even popular outside of Carlton. |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 2:39 PM Author: titillating slate private investor I never stated that. Ambition was published in the Japanese magazine Nikoli, actually. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6976306) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 5:18 PM Author: Tantric Set Subject: money magazine v. nikoli OH SHIT NIKOLI?! NO WAY!! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6977502) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 5:20 PM Author: Tantric Set Not even wikipedia publishes your shit LOL "My conclusion is that Wikipedia should not include an article on this card game. While it enjoys a strong reputation among its "play community", that community is small and the game itself is relatively obscure. It borderline-passes the inclusion criteria according to notability, but logistic problems with the previous article represent cause not to include it." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EventHorizon/ambition_findings#Criticisms_of_Ambition |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 5:24 PM Author: titillating slate private investor He was probably the most thoughtful of the people who wanted it deleted.
The article on Ambition was deleted because it caused flamewars, not on notability criteria. Around the time I published the game, I had a blog running with some political content and a couple of right-wing bloggers launched an attack on me. They put the bulk of their efforts into Wikipedia because they could remain anonymous and create as many new monikers as they needed. |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 5:26 PM Author: Tantric Set He posted objective data on your TTT card game about it being relatively 'obscure' Barely making it on wikipedia, this shows your card game isnt even popular enough for a wiki entry. Sad. Dont even place yourself in the same sentence as joe you nerd. |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 5:28 PM Author: titillating slate private investor For the record, I also can't find PrepMe on Wikipedia. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6977571) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 5:29 PM Author: Tantric Set Try Money Magazine next time. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6977579) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 5:32 PM Author: titillating slate private investor I really don't mean anything against Joe's business, but Money is a third-tier magazine. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6977601) |
|
Date: April 28th, 2008 1:22 PM Author: nighttime stain milk haha (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#9698290) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 8:14 PM Author: hateful razzmatazz party of the first part Are we really having this debate again? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6965646) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 8:19 PM Author: titillating slate private investor Obsessions over prestige and status have been absent from XO for some time, but tonight, as you should recall, is retro night. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6965672) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 8:21 PM Author: hateful razzmatazz party of the first part No kidding? Blue Smoke and Kill around? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6965687) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 8:23 PM Author: Multi-colored Persian http://www.provost.umich.edu/scholars/nominees/jewell.html
As one of the resident gays I'd say Joe Caltech is MUCH better looking than pensive. |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 8:42 PM Author: pearl lascivious dilemma nowag we need a pic of joe's gf (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6965811) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 10:11 PM Author: Disturbing puppy Maybe I'm confused, but what has pensive done that remotely compares to Joe? He went to a good undergrad, but isn't he at like Wisonsin doing a math Ph.D? Besides Carleton, where is the prestige? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6966457) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 10:12 PM Author: fragrant brethren Since when is Carleton "good"? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6966468) |
|
Date: November 11th, 2006 5:37 PM Author: titillating slate private investor It's not nearly as tough to get into as Caltech, but the quality of education is extremely high. Carleton is probably one of the ten most academic and rigorous undergrads, and likewise eminent for the quality of its teaching. That said, I can't really compare it against Caltech because I know very little about it, and also because they're entirely different schools. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6970610) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 10:12 PM Author: Comical Lay Tank Pensive created a card game sensation that's sweeping the nation. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6966469) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 10:16 PM Author: Marvelous Scourge Upon The Earth Location Link? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6966510) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 10:25 PM Author: Comical Lay Tank How have you not heard of it? It's played by 2000 people WORLDWIDE. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6966571) |
|
Date: November 11th, 2006 5:11 PM Author: titillating slate private investor The number is unclear at this point. It seems to be in the low thousands based on a number of indicators: emails, web traffic, etc.
Once the website is set up and people can play online, it's expected to top out anywhere between 250 and 10,000 kPh (thousand player hours) per month (obviously, it won't start that high). This sounds impressive but it's really not; four people sitting for a 1.5-hour game is 6 Ph, so 250k (the conservative estimate) would only be about 40,000 games, chump change compared to the traffic poker sites get. |
|
Date: November 11th, 2006 5:14 PM Author: fragrant brethren "it's expected to top out anywhere between 250 and 10,000 kPh (thousand player hours) per month"
Did McKinsey just finish their feasibility study? |
|
Date: November 11th, 2006 5:25 PM Author: titillating slate private investor I can't afford McKinsey for this sort of thing.
For a reasonably well-advertised Internet game, 250 kPh/month is extremely low and conservative. |
|
Date: November 13th, 2006 6:53 AM Author: galvanic coral fortuitous meteor Mike finished retrieving 10,000 kPh from his ass. Don't worry, though. His ass has a lot more kPh where those come from. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6982176) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 10:30 PM Author: fragrant brethren http://www.pagat.com/invented/ambition.html (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6966600) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 10:13 PM Author: lavender beady-eyed lodge sweet tailpipe Wisconsin math, although not a top-10 program, is much more prestigious than carleton undergrad. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6966477) |
|
Date: November 11th, 2006 12:57 PM Author: titillating slate private investor Any top 20 program in math, physics, comp-sci, engineering or econ is more prestigious than any undergrad. Compared to grad schools, top undergrads just aren't that selective. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6968747) |
|
Date: November 11th, 2006 11:43 PM Author: tripping twinkling uncleanness theater stage Not true in my opinion. Top 20 is a lot of schools. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6973666) |
|
Date: November 11th, 2006 11:50 PM Author: titillating slate private investor Caltech and MIT may be exceptions, but a share of idiots manage to get into the Ivies. Not so for T20 grad schools in the mathematical sciences. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6973729) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 12:31 AM Author: tripping twinkling uncleanness theater stage And you know this based on...
Exactly. There's no point in discussing this; you don't really root your opinions in verifiable facts very often. |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 1:04 AM Author: titillating slate private investor Oh. Actually, I've never met or even heard of an idiot who got into Harvard or a similarly selective college. Never ever. It just doesn't happen. Never has, never will. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6974224) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2006 6:46 AM Author: galvanic coral fortuitous meteor Well, they kept you out, that's one douchebag idiot less. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6982170) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2006 6:52 PM Author: titillating slate private investor I applied early action. Harvard screwed up interpreting my high school's weighted grading system (as I didn't find out until much later) and read a 97 unweighted average as an 89. Thus, I was deferred.
I attended my interview, indignant at having been deferred when my application was so nukular it came with its own mushroom cloud, and showed up 10 minutes late, then told my interviewer I had no interest in attending Harvard. This was a rash thing I did out of anger. I was rejected from Harvard, but got into all the other schools I applied to. I went to Carleton and got an amazing education; things turned out right after all. |
|
Date: November 13th, 2006 10:04 PM Author: Comical Lay Tank I kept myself out of Harvard too by not applying. I didn't apply, thus I wasn't accepted. In fact, I kept myself out of all the Ivies. Oxbridge too. Also the Sorbonne. And a couple of other places. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6987092) |
|
Date: November 10th, 2006 10:51 PM Author: mind-boggling parlour I'm glad the tide has turned on this thread since I first read it earlier in the day
anyone who entertained the possibility that pensive = Joe Caltech or pensive > Joe Caltech needs to consider that they might, in fact, be an alternate personality of Mike Church |
|
Date: November 11th, 2006 12:23 PM Author: geriatric house aznaznazn > joe caltech > pensive
|
|
Date: November 11th, 2006 3:20 PM Author: aquamarine philosopher-king queen of the night bump, we are waiting for your answer pensive (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6969695) |
|
Date: November 11th, 2006 4:21 PM Author: geriatric house But perhaps the real brains behind "prepme" [or whatever it is called] are the indian guys from the GSB and they are just using joe caltech because they need a white guy as a front.
|
|
Date: November 11th, 2006 5:35 PM Author: titillating slate private investor Honestly, I don't feel like doing this anymore. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6970600) |
|
Date: November 11th, 2006 5:40 PM Author: hateful razzmatazz party of the first part Funny, a lot of GW students think this way. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6970625) |
|
Date: November 11th, 2006 5:56 PM Author: aquamarine philosopher-king queen of the night So you don't have a response to Joe. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6970713) |
|
Date: November 11th, 2006 6:06 PM Author: titillating slate private investor Why do I need a response to him? I really have nothing against him. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6970768) |
|
Date: November 11th, 2006 10:57 PM Author: tripping twinkling uncleanness theater stage Yuck. That whole post turns my stomach.
Can you please stop trying to create some association between me and you? We are in no way similar to each other--clearly you view life (and reality) in an entirely different way than I do. I don't think you'll ever be happy. |
|
Date: November 11th, 2006 11:49 PM Author: titillating slate private investor There's no association being made, and I agree wholeheartedly that "we are in no way similar". (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6973721) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 12:18 AM Author: tripping twinkling uncleanness theater stage Where you're wrong is that I don't see the world like that and find the fact that you do ridiculous. Just leave me out of your ill-conceived "metaphors" and ramblings about "big people" and "little people." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6973923) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 1:09 AM Author: titillating slate private investor Big people? Little people? If you want to argue that you're a little person or a big one, I won't fight you. You'd know better than I would. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6974282) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 1:45 PM Author: tripping twinkling uncleanness theater stage You don't seem to get it. I "want to argue" that your little theories should not include me. I want no part of them. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6976017) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 2:42 PM Author: titillating slate private investor I'm a big person, therefore my theories are also big. I mean no offense by this, but you should get the details right before you make posts. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6976324) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 7:55 PM Author: Cracking Voyeur No, you're not, Mikey Church. You're a delusional douchebag with illusions of grandeur. It comes across in your transparent bullying, your endless trolling, and the generally rancid quality of life that prompts your insane ramblings. Get some help, take some pills if your shrink recommends it, but for goodness sake, shove your Napoleon Complex over to St. Helena already.
Joe, congratulations on your latest accomplishments. Sorry you have to deal with this megalomaniac stalker. I hope you continue posting here in spite of that. Good luck. |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 8:04 PM Author: titillating slate private investor I like idiots. I like when idiots say idiotic things, as they are wont to do. Keep posting. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6978774) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 8:37 PM Author: Cracking Voyeur "Love for idiots" seems to be your phrase of choice for "narcissism". (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6979005) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 9:46 PM Author: titillating slate private investor So I shouldn't love idiots? Okay; good to know. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6979505) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 10:35 PM Author: tripping twinkling uncleanness theater stage "Joe, congratulations on your latest accomplishments. Sorry you have to deal with this megalomaniac stalker."
Thanks. I was sort of hoping that this article wouldn't make it over to XOXO, because I knew exactly the sort of response it would provoke from you-know-who, but no such luck. |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 10:51 PM Author: titillating slate private investor I didn't even start this thread-- I had no intention to start any thread about you-- and I haven't said anything negative about you yet. I have been, on this thread, defending you against your self-libel by supporting the assertion that the Rhodes Scholarship is, in fact, an academic award. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6980096) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 10:54 PM Author: tripping twinkling uncleanness theater stage Do you think I'm stupid, Mike? I can read between the lines.
I'd prefer that you just be quiet when you're demonstrably wrong. With people like you "defending" me, attackers aren't necessary. |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 10:55 PM Author: titillating slate private investor I mean no offense by this, but you seem to be especially talented at reading what's not even there. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6980132) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 11:07 PM Author: tripping twinkling uncleanness theater stage I think it's pretty clear to anyone who knows your history. I'll lay it out for you:
You don't like interviews or anyone trying to evaluate or pass judgment on your personality. You like to make ridiculous, elaborate claims full of made up percentiles (as if social skills can even be evaluated that way), to "prove" that despite your social shortcomings, you'll still run the world some day.
You therefore like to claim that interviews are either unimportant or easy to game or "luck," unless--of course--it's an interview you've somehow gotten through, in which case it might really mean something.
It's really all remarkably similar to your sour grapes feelings about Harvard admissions, when you get right down to it. I'm sure I'm not the only one to have seen the similarities here.
So, why don't you just go back to trolling about card games, and leave me alone. Fight your demons some other way than as masquerading as an expert on the Rhodes selection process. |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 11:16 PM Author: titillating slate private investor "You don't like interviews or anyone trying to evaluate or pass judgment on your personality."
This argument has nothing to do with me. I've never been within 100 feet of a Rhodes application. I'm doing my best to prevent you from making yourself look worse. I'm trying to help you out here, and you just don't see it.
"[Y]ou'll still run the world some day."
I'm glad you know some things.
"You therefore like to claim that interviews are either unimportant or easy to game"
Unless they involve difficult brainteasers or extremely adverse behavior (both of which can occur on the street) it's a simple fact that they are. Even a social idiot can be pleasant and smooth for a few hours. It's not that hard.
You used the term "sour grapes" with, clearly, no understanding of the Aesop parable. It's no surprise to me that you choose to ape other posters on this issue.
"So, why don't you just go back to trolling about card games, and leave me alone."
You could start by leaving me alone. You threw first flame. I realize that it's what you do around here, but I really don't want another flamewar; it's kinda pointless. |
|
Date: November 13th, 2006 3:34 AM Author: narrow-minded excitant crotch "This argument has nothing to do with me. I've never been within 100 feet of a Rhodes application."
Let alone a Rhodes scholarship. pensive, you have ZERO expertise in this subject. You are, at best, a sixth-rate mathematics major with a chip on his shoulder large enough to guarantee Frito-Lay profits into perpetuity.
"I'm doing my best to prevent you from making yourself look worse. I'm trying to help you out here, and you just don't see it."
Trust me--Joe isn't the one who comes out looking worse in this exchange.
"I'm glad you know some things. If anyone blocks me, I'll knock up his wife and receive a check from the government for my contribution to the gene pool."
pensive, pretending you're some sex machine becomes laughable when considering your tattered romantic history with your hand.
"Unless they involve difficult brainteasers or extremely adverse behavior (both of which can occur on the street) it's a simple fact that they are. Even a social idiot can be pleasant and smooth for a few hours. It's not that hard."
Apparently you are dumber than a "social idiot" since, according to knowledgable sources, there has never been an hour where you are pleasant and smooth. That's IRL, let alone during your pathetic flames.
"You used the term "sour grapes" with, clearly, no understanding of the parable. It's no surprise to me that you choose to ape other posters on this issue."
Too bad the grapes were out of reach, pensive.
"You could start by leaving me alone. You threw first flame. I realize that it's what you do around here, but I really don't want another flamewar; it's kinda pointless."
How? By winning the Rhodes? |
|
Date: November 13th, 2006 6:54 PM Author: titillating slate private investor You pretend much knowledge that you do not have. By doing this, you make yourself appear to be arrogant and lacking intelligence. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6985669) |
|
Date: November 11th, 2006 11:44 PM Author: Fighting sticky home headpube If this thread has done anything, it has proven that Joe Jewell is a douchebag. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6973673) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 12:30 AM Author: tripping twinkling uncleanness theater stage I'd certainly disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion. Personally I think you're the same as Mike Church anyway. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6974025) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 7:38 PM Author: Fighting sticky home headpube Really? You'd disagree with the claim that you're a douche?
I didn't see that coming. |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 7:58 PM Author: titillating slate private investor Subject: Haha ... but honestly, for being annoying, he's well below 50th percentile in the population of this thread and for the board. This just shows where the board has gone. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6978723) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 1:12 AM Author: Comical Lay Tank Huh? Joe's coming across pretty stellar to me. Joe's great. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6974307) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 1:15 AM Author: titillating slate private investor I have no problem with him. He seems, honestly, like a nice, energetic guy. Perhaps he can be a little bit overbearing with his niceness. Knowing that I like flame-- in fact, excel at it-- he is trying to offer me a flamewar in the posts above. I've declined it-- I don't wish to enter such a contest-- but I appreciate his graciousness and generosity. The opportunity to flamewar with someone of his or similar stature is very rare. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6974326) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 1:16 AM Author: Comical Lay Tank Shut up, pensive. You should know by now that I never get past the first 4 boring words of your boring posts. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6974340) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 1:18 AM Author: titillating slate private investor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_Deficit_Disorder (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6974351) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 1:22 AM Author: Comical Lay Tank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boredom (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6974379) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 1:24 AM Author: titillating slate private investor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imitation (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6974390) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 1:26 AM Author: opaque supple plaza weed whacker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonna_Make_You_Sweat_(Everybody_Dance_Now) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6974412) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 1:27 AM Author: titillating slate private investor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/180 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6974424) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 1:45 AM Author: crawly heady theatre Sublime. Damn. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6974553) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 7:08 PM Author: motley red mood range You pull out all the stops once again. Nice job holmes. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6978343) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 7:40 PM Author: Fighting sticky home headpube 180 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6978583) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 10:14 PM Author: Ruby Provocative Idea He Suggested Business Firm I believe this post has helped me reach enlightenment (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6979741) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2006 6:48 AM Author: galvanic coral fortuitous meteor Fucking hilarious. You deserve a medal. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6982173) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2006 9:38 AM Author: Bearded Native Hissy Fit so funny (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6982284) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 1:27 AM Author: Elite whorehouse son of senegal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_tension (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6974416) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 1:29 AM Author: titillating slate private investor http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%3F&redirect=no (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6974441) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 1:46 PM Author: house-broken embarrassed to the bone mad cow disease http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6976025) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 1:33 AM Author: azure wonderful hall keepsake machete Nice flame. Almost subtle enough to pass for a serious post. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6974467) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 1:35 AM Author: titillating slate private investor Flame is XO's leading export. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6974485) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 1:36 AM Author: Comical Lay Tank You are painfully unfunny. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6974490) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 1:38 AM Author: titillating slate private investor You're just painful. I think I win.
(Before you strain your mind, nothing in the above post was funny, nor ever intended to be so.) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 5:10 AM Author: Twinkling mediation I would rather read 1000 posts from J at her hipper-than-thouest before one from you.
You can't even wrap your awkward little head around that. |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 6:34 PM Author: Comical Lay Tank "hipper-than-thouest "
If I really come across like that, you can feel free to beat the fuck out of me. |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 7:10 PM Author: motley red mood range You can't be serious about that...that's an open invitation for violence from any number of xoxo posters. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6978351) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 7:13 PM Author: Comical Lay Tank Bring it on then. i can't fucking stand "hipper than thou" shit. Though to be fair, I don't think many people in real life would accuse me of it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6978367) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 7:48 PM Author: motley red mood range I dunno, you sometimes come across that way on xoxo. I have no idea how you come across IRL, so that's off-limits for me. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6978634) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 1:34 PM Author: Tantric Set 174 is pensives ally on this board, they help each other with their alternate monikers and such. So this is normal of 174. Hey chink hows Columbia? |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 1:19 AM Author: thriller piazza hominid Joe (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6974355) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 1:36 AM Author: bateful ungodly site Joe, I haven't noticed if you've posted about it in other threads but how's Oxford? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6974487) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 1:26 PM Author: tripping twinkling uncleanness theater stage Oxford is fantastic--enough fun to keep me away from XOXO for months at a time. I posted some about it in a thread on the college board last night, but I try to keep my personal life off the internet to a large extent. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6975917) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 1:44 AM Author: fragrant brethren I'm glad I started this thread. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6974545) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 2:44 PM Author: titillating slate private investor The content of your posts is uniformly worthless, but your ability to get 100+ is promising. Welcome aboard, friend. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6976342) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 7:41 PM Author: fragrant brethren "your ability to get 100+ is promising."
Shall I teach you?
http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=525120&mc=83&forum_id=2 |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 4:32 AM Author: stirring spot So, Joe wins, FLAWLESS VICTORY? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6975048) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 1:49 PM Author: dead quadroon lets see, joe:
1.perfect sat 2.graduates from most selective undergrad in country 3.accomplished musician 4.liked by peers 5.will graduate from prestigious uni degree in aerospace engineering 6.rides around in NASA aircraft 7.blond hair, blue eyes 8.started his own business 9.published his own book
pensive 1.went to shitty midwest liberal arts school 2.dropped out of grad program at wisconsin 3.works at an ibank 4.occasionally makes worthwhile xo posts 5.invented a card game 6.says he may possibly make other games in the future 7.flat top haircut 8.asserts he likes his girlfriend 9.ginormous ears |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 2:36 PM Author: titillating slate private investor I'm not at an I-bank, and you got several other details wrong as well, but what should I expect from such a shitty poster? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6976285) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 2:39 PM Author: fragrant brethren No, your ears are pretty big. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6976299) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 2:43 PM Author: titillating slate private investor They are. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6976332) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 2:49 PM Author: fragrant brethren So, uhm, what details are you saying are wrong? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6976377) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2006 6:55 AM Author: galvanic coral fortuitous meteor You failed to recognize that Mike Church is God and His Word is Law. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6982177) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2006 6:57 AM Author: twisted garrison We're taking bets on when Church will lose his virginity. You can also bet on which raped life form will kill self shortly afterwards. You seem insightful. Care to contribute? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6982179) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2006 8:17 PM Author: galvanic coral fortuitous meteor Put me down for 37 and llama. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6986333) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 5:09 PM Author: dead quadroon you are at some shitty wall street job that any shitty college graduate willing to work ungodly hours could get, if "ibank" is incorrect, my sincerest apologies senor dumboears (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6977443) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 5:16 PM Author: titillating slate private investor I make more than IB analysts and work fewer hours. Somehow, if "any shitty college graduate" could get this, I suspect IBs would struggle to fill their ranks, which they don't.
Some aspects of the job are really good; others, not so much. I'll probably move into trading within the next 2 years. |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 10:59 PM Author: Flesh rough-skinned property ib analysts make well into six figures in good years. do you make that much? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6980157) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 11:11 PM Author: titillating slate private investor 1. They don't make that much in base salary (average IB starting salary is about $55-60k) and less than half see the first bonus.
2. I don't know what my bonus will be.
3. By "good years", you mean two freakish years (2005, 2006) that are unlikely to be repeated since economic growth is shaky and the industry as a whole is contracting. |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 2:54 PM Author: exciting meetinghouse lol at pensive #8 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6976409) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 7:02 PM Author: Outnumbered death wish The reality is that in terms of RL prestige, the person who posts on xo more automatically loses. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6978301) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 7:43 PM Author: Fighting sticky home headpube Caltech is not the most selective undergrad in the country.
You're an imbecile. |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 7:47 PM Author: fragrant brethren Not everyone can go to Hamburger U. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6978626) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 8:03 PM Author: titillating slate private investor I was actually prepared to give that one up. Harvard is often floated as an example of a tough undergrad to get into, and MIT and Caltech are much more selective. It might not beat Deep Springs or a few like that, but it's definitely up there. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6978762) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 5:31 PM Author: Floppy startling volcanic crater who the fuck is pensive? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6977589) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 6:45 PM Author: idiotic vigorous crackhouse windowlicker he is a mathematician (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6978173) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 6:56 PM Author: Outnumbered death wish Yeah, in the same way someone with a Bachelors in communications is a Communicator. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6978265) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 8:06 PM Author: titillating slate private investor Not really; at least, not right now. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6978786) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 7:12 PM Author: Comical Lay Tank He is an indie game developer who is about to set the world on fire with his card game. Bridge be damned. Here comes Ambition. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6978359) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 7:36 PM Author: soul-stirring masturbator stage Joe, how'd you swing a ride in the Vomit Comet? Were you doing experiments? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6978556) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 10:43 PM Author: tripping twinkling uncleanness theater stage Yeah, I flew with a physics project (trying to make a higher-quality microspherical resonator for laser and fiberoptic applications--this one didn't work at all, we came out of it with charred, misshapen balls of glass!) in 2001, and then in 2002 and 2003 versions I and II of an experiment to measure acoustic properties of semi-stable air-water mixtures (which seems simple enough, but obviously in gravity air and water won't stay mixed for any appreciable length of time!)
It was possibly the most fun I've ever had in my life. :-) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 7:38 PM Author: hairraiser chest-beating gas station Joe seems really nice. And I remember him giving me advice on my econ app at one time. So I would say Joe. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6978567) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 8:58 PM Author: arousing institution tattoo In the few exchanges I've had with Joe, he seems like a decent guy. But even if he was a piece of shit, prestige-wise he can't be compared to Pensive. Hell, I'm probably one of the smartest fuckers to grace this board but I wouldn't shame myself but letting Joe's accomplishments make me look like I went to BU for law school and have the monetary acumen of Machobreeze. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6979199) |
|
Date: November 12th, 2006 9:36 PM Author: titillating slate private investor That was an illogical and confusing post. Mind you try to explain yourself more clearly? I think you mangled a few conjunctions, and that's what's tripping me up. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6979449) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2006 6:51 AM Author: galvanic coral fortuitous meteor I had no trouble understanding that. One but should be a by.
The meaning is clear enough. |
|
Date: November 13th, 2006 12:01 AM Author: opaque supple plaza weed whacker GO GO GO (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6980820) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2006 7:10 AM Author: Flatulent boyish shrine both are kinda faggoty but i think pensive wins. He doesn't take himself as seriously as Joe. In all seriousness, Joe kinda depresses me. He's like the 40 year-old virgin who has a bunch of hobbies and gets a lot accomplished because of pent-up sexual frustration. What is the point of accomplishing a lot if you don't get any pussy or have friends to do crazy shit with? People like JFK accomplished a lot and then fucked bitches like Marilyn Monroe. Even Nixon loved strip clubs. Hell, Bill Clinton seems to like the fatties but at least he's happy with it. I guess this is a good thing, virgin-losers are the ones who accomplish great things. Look at Newton. But does anyone actually wanna be like these people? It's such a sad fucking life, yeah you might invent calculus but you'll die a virgin with balls bluer than Papa Smurf.
Thus, when it comes right down to it if I had to choose between living Pensive's life or Joe's life and suicide wasn't an option, I'd pick Pensive's. At least that douche has a gf and though probably ugly as fuck, at least Pensive seems to know what it's about whereas Joe is just fucking clueless. Thus, I'd say Pensive is more prestigious. Though academically your accomplishments are non-existent compared to Joe.
Joe, lighten the fuck up, then maybe you'll get some pussy. |
|
Date: November 13th, 2006 7:13 AM Author: narrow-minded excitant crotch pensive posted on xoxo for advice on snagging math department poon, because he was so desperate. Joe is the one with the girlfriend and the pussy. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6982190) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2006 7:15 AM Author: Flatulent boyish shrine then why does that fag get so upset about this shit? what a douchebag (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6982192) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2006 7:17 AM Author: narrow-minded excitant crotch pensive is like that. He was born a failing douchebag. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6982194) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2006 7:19 AM Author: Flatulent boyish shrine talking about joe. is there really anything sadder than a rhodes scholar getting indignant and upset on an internet message board because of some math douche at carleton? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6982196) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2006 7:21 AM Author: thriller piazza hominid yeah, the guy who posts non stop about that rhodes scholar even when he hasn't posted for a year (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6982197) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2006 6:56 PM Author: titillating slate private investor I haven't posted about him in a long time, except in direct response to him, or in the context of this silly and rather pointless thread. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6985676) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2006 8:22 PM Author: galvanic coral fortuitous meteor It looks to me like, completely unprovoked, you came out with this:
http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6965619
And there was no response until you'd been flinging shit for a dozen posts or so, and a very measured response it was at that: http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6966427
This is all just like your User File and really your life at Carleton in general. You'd claim you'd really changed this time and didn't do skeezy sketchy stuff anymore, then turn around a day later and be right back to your same old self with the same old antisocial, narcissistic behaviors. When you'd get called on it, you'd claim the negative response was your reputation trailing you, but it was never your reputation. It was simply your actions.
|
|
Date: November 13th, 2006 8:31 PM Author: titillating slate private investor I thought it was a pretty fair response.
I was "flinging shit" when I realized he'd respond to the neutral (if somewhat bizarre) claim that the interview came down to luck. (In reality, interviews are always preparation more than anything else-- luck or temperament-- but I felt like arguing an obviously wrong point because it's fun.)
Speaking of shit-flinging, exactly what purpose does this moniker of yours have other than insulting me anonymously? In fact, what other purpose do you have in life? Face it, you may not like me, but this interchange is the closer to significance than you'd otherwise ever get. |
|
Date: November 13th, 2006 8:41 PM Author: galvanic coral fortuitous meteor I've never insulted you.
This moniker exists because my other moniker never talks to you. My other moniker has silently watched what you do to those who disagree with you and wishes to avoid getting shit flung at it.
By the way, it seems to me that temperament matters a great deal in interviews. No one wants to work with an asshole or give an asshole scholarships and no amount of preparation can turn an asshole into a rose scented perfume fountain. |
|
Date: November 13th, 2006 8:44 PM Author: titillating slate private investor "I've never insulted you."
The entire point of this moniker is to pester and libel me.
"No one wants to work with an asshole or give an asshole scholarships and no amount of preparation can turn an asshole into a rose scented perfume fountain."
There are lots of assholes in investment banking. IB interviews are notoriously difficult. How do you think they get there? Hint: preparation.
It's easy to come across extremely well for a few hours. The true test of social skills comes over the long term or when a person is under some sort of adversity. |
|
Date: November 13th, 2006 7:23 AM Author: narrow-minded excitant crotch Joe hasn't been "indignant" or "upset" throughout this entire thread. In fact, none of his posts have reflected that. Instead, Joe keeps on topic with a poise and charisma that can only have come from Cecil Rhodes's De Beers diamond mine. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#6982198) |
|
Date: January 28th, 2008 9:55 PM Author: Well-lubricated address (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#9236581) |
|
Date: January 28th, 2008 10:09 PM Author: flirting passionate foreskin stag film joe really is a sanctimonious cunt; and he has that same desperate desire to control every situation, every conversaton as every rhodes, always dressed up with apparent reasonableness. they particularly thrive on showing how measured and rational they are when their antagonist is being loud and irrational. he needs pensive to feel extraordinary. otherwise, he's just another smart guy with a pathologically bloated resume (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#9236646) |
|
Date: April 28th, 2008 1:31 PM Author: Flatulent boyish shrine yeah i was totally wrong to accuse you of being pensive. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#9698313) |
|
Date: January 28th, 2008 10:30 PM Author: Exhilarant french half-breed (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#9236744) |
|
Date: January 28th, 2008 10:44 PM Author: Harsh generalized bond school cafeteria Tim Tebow (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=523810&forum_id=2#9236802) |