the credit transfers, but does it count towards your gpa? if not, it doesn't matter. i got As in all the classes i took over the first couple of summers of college when i would come back home for the summer, but none of them actually counted towards my gpa.
Oh, interesting. Didn't know that. All I know is I need a 2.0 or better to be eligible to transfer. So my GPA starts all over next fall, right?
it probably depends on the exact classes, where you took them, and where you are going but if you're going from a community college to a university, i'd say your gpa is probably going to start over. though your past gpa could probably still matter if you're trying to get scholarships or something like that before you've taken classes at your new school.
Why is that funny? Is it funny for somebody to work hard to get themselves through school? What did I miss?
You paid for a Stanford education out-of-pocket with self-made funds? Color me impressed. I take it back. You are a true outlier and you have every right to criticize others for their sense of entitlement because you NEVER used the system.
I never said I paid for all of it out-of-pocket. I worked through college, and I also worked hard enough to earn and find academic merit scholarships.
So you merited financial aid because you were going to school. But is a living stipend(food, housing, gas) considered by you an entitlement? Is dealing with adversity outside of academia considered merited work to someone like you? In essence, your merit scholarships were awarded to you so that you could become a productive member of society. Are you opposed to helping others out who by nature of adversity, need to work much harder than you to stay above water? Or are they not entitled to the same benefits in trying to become a productive member of society, simply because they aren't in a program? You say you earned academic merit scholarships. Well, I know there are people out there who've earned a hell of a lot more than you by working through adversity, and the likes of you look down upon them as if you weren't once, yourself, given a mighty helping along the way. You're blind to your own determinants and you take far too much credit for your efficacy. That is, at least, how I've interpreted your understanding.
I really wish I could interpret YOUR understanding. Perhaps I am just failing to see my determinants?
My point is really simple. Stanford boy lacks empathy and genuine introspection. Stanford boy assumes responsibility for a myriad of determinants that put him in a position to succeed, rather than acknowledging his fortuitous circumstance to be in a position to succeed in the first place. Stanford boy measures a person's worth by their efficacy because Stanford boy is wont to believe that HIS efficacy is what separates him from the pack. Where others fail in their efficacy is simple to him; a result of not working hard and/or smart. Stanford boy is so myopic that he doesn't appreciate his opportunity enough to see that others might not have had such fortune; by calling out others who might demand a similar opportunity that he was afforded. I'm kind of tired. That's all conjecture and may or may not be true with regard to Stanford boy. I just don't like people who use life just the same as others - yet fail to see it - and still have the gull to assume total responsibility for their place in life. In Jargon Town, we call them hypocrites.
That's one of my favorites: [video=youtube;y-AXTx4PcKI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-AXTx4PcKI[/video] But I don't think it's saying everything is negotiable. It's saying make the grade or taking a fucking hike. But... since I actually teach part time at a community college as a hobby, I'm inclined to say your teacher is a bit of a fuckwad. I structure my class grading system to give me judgment to bump up a grade if someone is right on the border. I say so right there in the syllabus. In fact, I had this exact situation this semester, where someone was a point away from an A, had worked hard in the class and gotten it. It's not a matter of not having standards. It's a matter of applying a set of standards and recognizing the overall goal. Just like evaluating basketball. If you're looking at an individual player, looking at PER or +/- will typically tell you something. But the better approaches are to combine them, and every other metric you can get your hands on, to get the best picture you can get. At the end of the day, some of that comes down to judgement, but it'd be pretty silly to arbitrarily limit your metrics too.
