be sent to internment camp for being the same ethnicity as the people America’s fighting in war despite being a law-abiding citizen who strongly opposes the Axis powers
have property stolen while in camp
be left homeless and jobless after release because no one wants to employ you for being Japanese
eventually manage to find a job and work as hard as possible so your children and grandchildren can have a better life
finally make enough for your grandchildren to go to college and get well-paying jobs
Lol at the person saying the tests are race blind. The issues with SAT and the like have had known race, regional, and class issues since basically their inception, while providing little insight into student performance after admission.
That's an absolute falsehood. Unless the test is specific (ie LSAT) the correlation between SAT and like tests for college admission is well within normal variance... Aka a wash when it comes to predictions for post secondary performance. This has been known for decades and why a lot of top and second tier schools have de-emphasised them. Just like IQ tests all it really shows is how good you are taking the test. In fact the only voice still proclaiming the value is the College Board.
Even high school scores are suspect... If a student has massive obligations outside of class and classwork chances are they will perform less well than those that have familial resources to take that burden off to focus solely on school. Which I turn does little outside of the top 5% or so of total students in terms of income potential (as opposed to college educatedvs non).
It sucks but there's no standard meritocratic measure to determine potential or outcomes at age 18 besides family wealth.
You can go on, you still haven't debunked the idea that they're predictive like you originally stated. Now you're just suggesting rich kids are smarter.
More schools are going test-optional to no-test show little difference in graduation rates to test-required schools. To wit:
"Our research clearly demonstrates that these students graduate often at a higher rate," said Steve Syverson, an assistant vice chancellor at the University of Washington Bothell, and co-author of the study.
"When a college considers going test-optional, one of the first reactions that people, including alumni, feel is that the college will be admitting less qualified students," he added. Syverson says the study should reassure admissions officials who've decided to go test-optional.
Syverson and his team of researchers studied 28 public and private institutions that no longer require test scores, and tracked about 956,000 individual student records.
At this point it's up to CB to prove it's worth a damn, as the evidence clearly indicates it does not.
Now you're just suggesting rich kids are smarter.
Naw just easier to pass 2001 English that expects you to do 6 hours of busy work a week when holding down a full-time or two job to provide for yourself and family and pay for school.
That just says it enhances diversity. I did my own research and apparently the studies show that it does correlate to better performance but the performance boost isn't huge.
If you did bad on standardized tests you should just argue that they're racist and the rest of college is also racist instead of wrongly suggesting that there is no correlation between good SAT scores and good college performance.
Dude it says in the article 6that there was no difference in graduation rates or Quality of students.
If you did bad on standardized tests you should just argue that they're racist and the rest of college is also racist instead of wrongly suggesting that there is no correlation between good SAT scores and good college performance.
A) there basically is none. One big factor correlates much tighter to college performance. Saying SAT correlates is like saying the crops grow because there's a full moon. Sure... It might line up 50% of the time, but it's basically hocum that ignores the blaring fact.
B) why are people so hung up on the accuracy of standardised tests the least knowledgeable about them?
Because those of us who didn't bomb them didn't have to do a bunch of research to make ourselves feel better. Like, when we started this conversation, I did a quick search and immediately found an article at the top with studies that confirmed my biases that SATs are great. Done job.
I actually did pretty well on the SAT, got into a top 20 school as excelled there. My issues with the tests came a bit after while getting info from my friends that were admission officers.
Pretty much my point. I dunno if it got better but even the maths portion when I took it expected a very certain method (questions about steps in a problem). I remember it threw me for a loop.
More schools are going test-optional to no-test show little difference in graduation rates to test-required schools
Thats because schools are passing students with barely any skills. You should see the students in college these days, most can't even write at a eighth grade level, or do basic algebra. Saying "hey, look at their graduation rates!" is a poor measure when we know that universities are just letting pass with little or no actual growth in skills. If you were a professor or worked in universities, you'd know this is a common problem.
Also it's adorably naive of you to think that undergrad grades are purely have "smarts" as the determination... Like holy shit have you ever gone to college?
Yep, I'm in law school. I had shit high school grades (never went to school or did homework) and grew up poor but kicked ass on the SATs and then got great undergrad grades. Kicked ass on the LSAT too.
Law school? Hooo boy you better specialise and fucking quick. I know ppl that do real well in international A&M, IP, small town attorneys, and boutique corporate but outside that it's a mine field sadly. Good luck!
Already got a job in corporate but thanks. Honestly it's not really as viciously competitive as everyone says it is anymore. The big glut of people going to law school was awhile back now and numbers have stabilized.
. Just like IQ tests all it really shows is how good you are taking the test.
And that, right there, is how I know you don't understand anything about what you're talking about. IQ is THE most studied construct in the social sciences, and its because its the best known predictor of educational performance, employee performance, as well as a great predictor of health outcomes and income. This is seriously basic stuff you're incredibly ignorant about.
The issues surrounding those studies are well fucking documented and to devine most claims by the hyper proponents is the equivalent to taking tea leaves and ignoring outright the "messages" that don't conform to previous readings. It's a fucking joke to extrapolate outcomes in longitudal studies, even if the test schema is useful in determining the extremes (the difference between 90 and 110 is negligible).
This article lays out clearly fundamental issues with the studies that proclaim predictive attributes of the schemas. It's super useful in certain cases on both ends, but there's little concrete about the normal distribution (90% of test takers) that is replicable.
(the difference between 90 and 110 is negligible).
Only at an individual level. At the population level, its anything but. Thats a 20 point difference, which is larger than the difference between whites and blacks or between ashkenazi jews and whites. This creates huge disparities at the tails of the distributions.
This article lays out clearly fundamental issues with the studies that proclaim predictive attributes of the schemas. It's super useful in certain cases on both ends, but there's little concrete about the normal distribution (90% of test takers) that is replicable.
that article is full of errors, as it was written by two nonexperts in the field of intelligence. They are not researchers in IQ, nor have they any publishing record on IQ broadly speaking.
Here, let me give you a good introduction to IQ as published by the American Psychological Association. Or is the APA 'hyper proponents' (wtf does that even mean) of IQ?
Read what I posted. IQ, and I repeat IQ, longitudal studies suffer from incomplete and missing data that get wrapped up in meta analysis, and all also more times than not ignores derogatory studies (because they should be outliers despite being the most common mode).
This also isn't even touching on the thorny issue of bias within the test, or differences in types of intelligence that are inherit in the analysis. Think the fish out of water thought. A banker might know less about engines than a mechanic, even though a mechanic might know more about the banker's world than vice versa. It's not a hard fucking concept tbqfh
IQ, longitudal studies suffer from incomplete and missing data that get wrapped up in meta analysis, and all also more times than not ignores derogatory studies
The American Psychological Association disagrees with you, but surely you, random crank 20something on the internet, know more about IQ than the APA. /s
This also isn't even touching on the thorny issue of bias within the test,
IQ tests do not suffer from much, if any, bias. They are among the most reliable and valid psychological tests we have, and are in fact more reliable than many medical tests. You should read Bias in Mental Testing by Arthur Jensen (rated as one of the 50 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century)
It's not a hard fucking concept tbqfh
Concepts such as 'reliability' and 'validity' aren't that hard either, but you seem to have a hard time grasping basic psychometric 101 concepts it seems
The American Psychological Association disagrees with you, but surely you, random crank 20something on the internet, know more about IQ than the APA. /s
Sigh... Like I said it's useful just not as predictive as often soldby non-current pros in the field. As a diagnostic tool at the bounds (mostly lower for reasons) it's a valuable measurement and tool. Outside of that the data gets dicey when trying to pin differences to anything but SES correlations in populations. That's all I'm saying, and the APA makes this point very clear. You're arguing the exact opposite than the APA, and even they have massive astericks next to those guidelines.
IQ tests do not suffer from much, if any, bias. They are among the most reliable and valid psychological tests we have, and are in fact more reliable than many medical tests. You should read Bias in Mental Testing by Arthur Jensen (rated as one of the 50 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century)
The tests have historically have starting with the inception which started getting noticed in the 70s... This isn't controversial and there have been slow changes to include other intelligence areas like emotional and creativity.
Concepts such as 'reliability' and 'validity' aren't that hard either, but you seem to have a hard time grasping basic psychometric 101 concepts it seems
I think we're talking past Each Other. I'm only questioning the predictive value of the test batteries for the long term, when SES of patents tracks much more closely. Not to diagnostics of individuals, which is the real value tbh.
Honestly I used to be against affirmative action hurting Asians, but seeing the chinkies and japs lose their shit over it all the time makes it all worth it.
It's a sad reality that I'm glad is finally being addressed. Admissions into these schools is a zero-sum game: there are only so many seats. When you tell these schools to make up their student body based on a representation of the US population as a whole, that takes all qualifications (academic, athletic, and other talents) out of the equation at a certain point and forces a university to take students almost purely based on their race. However, they can't pick purely based on race according to Supreme Court cases, so they do things like the "personality score" and just score all asians low on them so they can say, "see! It was a metric!"
I can't believe anyone would argue that this isn't racist. We can understand the meaning for it (systemic and historical racism against african and hispanic americans), we can understand the rationale (zero-sum game; if one gains, someone must lose), but we can still call it what it is despite understanding it: racist. This policy discriminates against people that would be qualified and granted entry if they weren't a member of a certain racial class.
The schools are not required to implement a diversity policy, Harvard implemented one itself.
that takes all qualifications (academic, athletic, and other talents)
You forgot the talent of legacy admission. That's a big one that nobody seems to want to talk about for some reason.
I'm just wondering why everyone in a rich family who went to Harvard isn't constantly derided 100% of the time and considered totally unqualified for their job because a certain percentage of them got in with much reduced scores due to legacies? That happens for some other group, but not rich whites. Weird man.
However, they can't pick purely based on race according to Supreme Court cases, so they do things like the "personality score" and just score all asians low on them so they can say, "see! It was a metric!"
So they should just be required to consider nothing besides SAT scores?
Legacy admission is a problem people complain about all the time. Literally the only people who do not complain about it are those who benefit from it. Saying that people don’t complain about it is patently false.
To your point about the SAT score: of course not, and that’s clearly not the conclusion I was hinting at. Don’t put words in my mouth. A holistic acceptance methodology is obviously preferable. One that creates an arbitrary “personality score,” which coincidentally scores all Asians low so as to create a solid alibi as to why so many are denied, is not.
Asians are also hurt a lot by legacy admissions. That's actually why legacy admissions were put in place in the first place, Harvard in the 10's wanted to keep out those Jews and mediterraneans. Somehow they've stuck around all this time. But these totally grassroots groups of asian americans never talk about that, weird, wonder if someone who's funding their group and promoting it like crazy likes legacy admissions and told them to shut their mouth? Nah that's crazy talk.
59 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2018-08-30
Providing a Safe Space™ from SRD since 2009!
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 ImJustaBagofHammers 2018-08-30
mfw
1 wisty 2018-08-30
1 RecallRethuglicans 2018-08-30
1 Ennui2778 2018-08-30
Oh shit, AngryDM is back!
1 TenDeez 2018-08-30
​
1 AutoModerator 2018-08-30
You have to go back...
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 AutoModerator 2018-08-30
out
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 AutoModerator 2018-08-30
OUT
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 AutoModerator 2018-08-30
OUT!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 dootwiththesickness 2018-08-30
Are you actually retarded? It clearly says he got into Stanford.
1 Bucklar 2018-08-30
If Saved by the Bell taught me anything, it's that Standford is California's Harvard.
Wait, or was it Princeton?
Alright it didn't teach me anything.
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-08-30
/r/comedycemetery.
1 Mother_Jabubu 2018-08-30
Seething
1 QuantumFreakonomics 2018-08-30
This is the real long con
1 DoctorFahrenheit 2018-08-30
Why does this surprise anyone?
1 DistortedLines 2018-08-30
They'll never learn lol
1 1999-2017 2018-08-30
You know Japanese got reparations unlike back people
1 ImJustaBagofHammers 2018-08-30
Doesn’t change how ridiculous accusing Asian Americans of having white privilege is.
1 1999-2017 2018-08-30
It does when you choose Japanese people
Black people don't face the same systemic as asians
1 Whaddaulookinat 2018-08-30
Lol at the person saying the tests are race blind. The issues with SAT and the like have had known race, regional, and class issues since basically their inception, while providing little insight into student performance after admission.
1 Marcus_Brolius 2018-08-30
SAT scores have long been known to have predictive validity, as they have high correlations with academic aptitude in later college performance.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2018-08-30
That's an absolute falsehood. Unless the test is specific (ie LSAT) the correlation between SAT and like tests for college admission is well within normal variance... Aka a wash when it comes to predictions for post secondary performance. This has been known for decades and why a lot of top and second tier schools have de-emphasised them. Just like IQ tests all it really shows is how good you are taking the test. In fact the only voice still proclaiming the value is the College Board.
Even high school scores are suspect... If a student has massive obligations outside of class and classwork chances are they will perform less well than those that have familial resources to take that burden off to focus solely on school. Which I turn does little outside of the top 5% or so of total students in terms of income potential (as opposed to college educatedvs non).
It sucks but there's no standard meritocratic measure to determine potential or outcomes at age 18 besides family wealth.
1 DoctorFahrenheit 2018-08-30
Nah, what he says is actually correct. SATs are actually a better predictor of success in college than grades last I checked.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2018-08-30
The College Board doesn't even make "predictions" beyond first year perforance (to the point of random distribution when studied closely and openly), as well should only play a part in admission process per their own guidelines, and there are many other studies that track with the data that correlates much more closely with family income rather than test scores.
I could go on if you'd like.
1 DoctorFahrenheit 2018-08-30
You can go on, you still haven't debunked the idea that they're predictive like you originally stated. Now you're just suggesting rich kids are smarter.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2018-08-30
More schools are going test-optional to no-test show little difference in graduation rates to test-required schools. To wit:
https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2018/04/26/604875394/study-colleges-that-ditch-the-sat-and-act-can-enhance-diversity
At this point it's up to CB to prove it's worth a damn, as the evidence clearly indicates it does not.
Naw just easier to pass 2001 English that expects you to do 6 hours of busy work a week when holding down a full-time or two job to provide for yourself and family and pay for school.
1 DoctorFahrenheit 2018-08-30
That just says it enhances diversity. I did my own research and apparently the studies show that it does correlate to better performance but the performance boost isn't huge.
If you did bad on standardized tests you should just argue that they're racist and the rest of college is also racist instead of wrongly suggesting that there is no correlation between good SAT scores and good college performance.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2018-08-30
Dude it says in the article 6that there was no difference in graduation rates or Quality of students.
A) there basically is none. One big factor correlates much tighter to college performance. Saying SAT correlates is like saying the crops grow because there's a full moon. Sure... It might line up 50% of the time, but it's basically hocum that ignores the blaring fact.
B) why are people so hung up on the accuracy of standardised tests the least knowledgeable about them?
1 DoctorFahrenheit 2018-08-30
Because those of us who didn't bomb them didn't have to do a bunch of research to make ourselves feel better. Like, when we started this conversation, I did a quick search and immediately found an article at the top with studies that confirmed my biases that SATs are great. Done job.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2018-08-30
I actually did pretty well on the SAT, got into a top 20 school as excelled there. My issues with the tests came a bit after while getting info from my friends that were admission officers.
1 DoctorFahrenheit 2018-08-30
I definitely think parts of the SAT, especially the English portions, suffer from extreme class bias which I noticed while helping my brother study.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2018-08-30
Pretty much my point. I dunno if it got better but even the maths portion when I took it expected a very certain method (questions about steps in a problem). I remember it threw me for a loop.
1 Marcus_Brolius 2018-08-30
Thats because schools are passing students with barely any skills. You should see the students in college these days, most can't even write at a eighth grade level, or do basic algebra. Saying "hey, look at their graduation rates!" is a poor measure when we know that universities are just letting pass with little or no actual growth in skills. If you were a professor or worked in universities, you'd know this is a common problem.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2018-08-30
Also it's adorably naive of you to think that undergrad grades are purely have "smarts" as the determination... Like holy shit have you ever gone to college?
1 DoctorFahrenheit 2018-08-30
Yep, I'm in law school. I had shit high school grades (never went to school or did homework) and grew up poor but kicked ass on the SATs and then got great undergrad grades. Kicked ass on the LSAT too.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2018-08-30
Law school? Hooo boy you better specialise and fucking quick. I know ppl that do real well in international A&M, IP, small town attorneys, and boutique corporate but outside that it's a mine field sadly. Good luck!
1 DoctorFahrenheit 2018-08-30
Already got a job in corporate but thanks. Honestly it's not really as viciously competitive as everyone says it is anymore. The big glut of people going to law school was awhile back now and numbers have stabilized.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2018-08-30
That's good. I know when I was looking as an option it was super dicey, but that was a while ago
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-08-30
That's not what he's saying; I think he's saying that you think they only take academics into account.
1 wayback000 2018-08-30
Bullshit
1 Whaddaulookinat 2018-08-30
Nopes. I've provided articles in the other thread and a few of my friends were admittance officers for a pretty well respected unis.
1 Marcus_Brolius 2018-08-30
And that, right there, is how I know you don't understand anything about what you're talking about. IQ is THE most studied construct in the social sciences, and its because its the best known predictor of educational performance, employee performance, as well as a great predictor of health outcomes and income. This is seriously basic stuff you're incredibly ignorant about.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2018-08-30
The issues surrounding those studies are well fucking documented and to devine most claims by the hyper proponents is the equivalent to taking tea leaves and ignoring outright the "messages" that don't conform to previous readings. It's a fucking joke to extrapolate outcomes in longitudal studies, even if the test schema is useful in determining the extremes (the difference between 90 and 110 is negligible).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4557354/#!po=23.5714
This article lays out clearly fundamental issues with the studies that proclaim predictive attributes of the schemas. It's super useful in certain cases on both ends, but there's little concrete about the normal distribution (90% of test takers) that is replicable.
1 Marcus_Brolius 2018-08-30
Only at an individual level. At the population level, its anything but. Thats a 20 point difference, which is larger than the difference between whites and blacks or between ashkenazi jews and whites. This creates huge disparities at the tails of the distributions.
that article is full of errors, as it was written by two nonexperts in the field of intelligence. They are not researchers in IQ, nor have they any publishing record on IQ broadly speaking.
Here, let me give you a good introduction to IQ as published by the American Psychological Association. Or is the APA 'hyper proponents' (wtf does that even mean) of IQ?
https://www.mensa.ch/sites/default/files/Intelligence_Neisser1996.pdf
1 Whaddaulookinat 2018-08-30
Holy shit you ate a lottttttt of lead apparently.
Read what I posted. IQ, and I repeat IQ, longitudal studies suffer from incomplete and missing data that get wrapped up in meta analysis, and all also more times than not ignores derogatory studies (because they should be outliers despite being the most common mode).
This also isn't even touching on the thorny issue of bias within the test, or differences in types of intelligence that are inherit in the analysis. Think the fish out of water thought. A banker might know less about engines than a mechanic, even though a mechanic might know more about the banker's world than vice versa. It's not a hard fucking concept tbqfh
1 imnotagayboy 2018-08-30
At this point it's pretty obvious you're acting retarded to annoy people
1 Whaddaulookinat 2018-08-30
Naw I just read and am curious.
1 imnotagayboy 2018-08-30
The only curious you are is curious about your sexuality
1 Marcus_Brolius 2018-08-30
The American Psychological Association disagrees with you, but surely you, random crank 20something on the internet, know more about IQ than the APA. /s
IQ tests do not suffer from much, if any, bias. They are among the most reliable and valid psychological tests we have, and are in fact more reliable than many medical tests. You should read Bias in Mental Testing by Arthur Jensen (rated as one of the 50 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century)
Concepts such as 'reliability' and 'validity' aren't that hard either, but you seem to have a hard time grasping basic psychometric 101 concepts it seems
1 Whaddaulookinat 2018-08-30
Sigh... Like I said it's useful just not as predictive as often soldby non-current pros in the field. As a diagnostic tool at the bounds (mostly lower for reasons) it's a valuable measurement and tool. Outside of that the data gets dicey when trying to pin differences to anything but SES correlations in populations. That's all I'm saying, and the APA makes this point very clear. You're arguing the exact opposite than the APA, and even they have massive astericks next to those guidelines.
The tests have historically have starting with the inception which started getting noticed in the 70s... This isn't controversial and there have been slow changes to include other intelligence areas like emotional and creativity.
I think we're talking past Each Other. I'm only questioning the predictive value of the test batteries for the long term, when SES of patents tracks much more closely. Not to diagnostics of individuals, which is the real value tbh.
1 Marcus_Brolius 2018-08-30
Actually shared environmental differences (such as SES) contribute 0 percent of the variance in IQ scores
1 MtheDowner 2018-08-30
Impressive. This might be the most obfuscatory way of saying the whole "prejudice + power" bullshit I've seen so far.
1 DoctorFahrenheit 2018-08-30
It's obviously now because it's a spokeswoman. I've genuinely never met a guy who was racist against Asians, but I've met a ton of women who are.
1 Baconlightning 2018-08-30
Honestly I used to be against affirmative action hurting Asians, but seeing the chinkies and japs lose their shit over it all the time makes it all worth it.
1 [deleted] 2018-08-30
[removed]
1 GreasyPeter 2018-08-30
They're not low-personality, they're just oppressed. not by mayos, but by their parents. im suprised more of thrm aren't school shooters.
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2018-08-30
"Only 3 dead and 7 injured? Why not 10 dead and zero injured? V Tech man get 32. You disgrace your family"
Pretty sure this thought is what keeps them in line.
1 Penguinproof1 2018-08-30
So you doctor yet?
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2018-08-30
Fuck
1 LawsCoolStudent 2018-08-30
It's a sad reality that I'm glad is finally being addressed. Admissions into these schools is a zero-sum game: there are only so many seats. When you tell these schools to make up their student body based on a representation of the US population as a whole, that takes all qualifications (academic, athletic, and other talents) out of the equation at a certain point and forces a university to take students almost purely based on their race. However, they can't pick purely based on race according to Supreme Court cases, so they do things like the "personality score" and just score all asians low on them so they can say, "see! It was a metric!"
I can't believe anyone would argue that this isn't racist. We can understand the meaning for it (systemic and historical racism against african and hispanic americans), we can understand the rationale (zero-sum game; if one gains, someone must lose), but we can still call it what it is despite understanding it: racist. This policy discriminates against people that would be qualified and granted entry if they weren't a member of a certain racial class.
1 watermark02 2018-08-30
The schools are not required to implement a diversity policy, Harvard implemented one itself.
You forgot the talent of legacy admission. That's a big one that nobody seems to want to talk about for some reason.
I'm just wondering why everyone in a rich family who went to Harvard isn't constantly derided 100% of the time and considered totally unqualified for their job because a certain percentage of them got in with much reduced scores due to legacies? That happens for some other group, but not rich whites. Weird man.
So they should just be required to consider nothing besides SAT scores?
1 LawsCoolStudent 2018-08-30
Legacy admission is a problem people complain about all the time. Literally the only people who do not complain about it are those who benefit from it. Saying that people don’t complain about it is patently false.
To your point about the SAT score: of course not, and that’s clearly not the conclusion I was hinting at. Don’t put words in my mouth. A holistic acceptance methodology is obviously preferable. One that creates an arbitrary “personality score,” which coincidentally scores all Asians low so as to create a solid alibi as to why so many are denied, is not.
1 die_rattin 2018-08-30
Gosh golly gee, I wonder why progs have been quiet on this issue over the last decade
You do realize Barack was a legacy admit, right?
1 1999-2017 2018-08-30
So?
1 watermark02 2018-08-30
Asians are also hurt a lot by legacy admissions. That's actually why legacy admissions were put in place in the first place, Harvard in the 10's wanted to keep out those Jews and mediterraneans. Somehow they've stuck around all this time. But these totally grassroots groups of asian americans never talk about that, weird, wonder if someone who's funding their group and promoting it like crazy likes legacy admissions and told them to shut their mouth? Nah that's crazy talk.
1 Wordshark 2018-08-30
Funding and promoting them to what purpose?