I'm starting college soon
 

because I'm smarter than most of you morons.

Then you'll fit right in. DOn't waste your money like I did....... or actually, your parents' money. :bonkhead:

So in America, intelligence is judged on whether or not you go to college? Isn't that more proof that your parents have money than anything else? Or did you get a scholarship based on your incredible academic achievement?

Money sadly. Though I did score in the high 90s percentile wise for both reading and writing in Iowa, and mid-high 80s in the U.S.. I'd consider myself fairly intelligent in certain fields but not so much in others (math can eat my ass).

Or you could do like me, and join the military :(

Not really I mean my parents went college having almost no money to their name and two kids. Though I don't think that colleges are crawling with intellectuals.

An exception to the rule then?

I think if you have the grades and you want to go badly enough anyone can go to a public college. They have loans and jobs for things like that.

Did you just point out that Iowa is quite a stupid state, or did I misinterpret this?

Where you goin', son?

One of the better states barring math. However, mathematically retarded.

ISU.

loloo,olloolol IOWAS

i got 99th percentile state and country on both of those ridiculous tests
lol easiest things ever

I want to add that ^ to my sig.

why?

Of course. You're worthless to all the big corporate conglomerate consumer-ass rapers of america if you don't have a masters degree in literature. [/sarcasm]

I don't care.

If you're talking about ACT; that test pissed me off.
I got 95% or something on everything, but 80something% in science.
Ugh.

To The Unfan, you seem too outspoken to go to a college like ISU, it's very conservative, no?

Me too (to starting college soon). I pwn standardized tests.

I'm going this fall to UO. I got some scholarships, my parents are paying some, and I have a bunch of money saved, but I still have to take out a loan.

I could've gone to University of Wyoming for free, but I hate this state and that school blows.

And yes, the ACTs are easy. But I did really well on them and still didn't get much for scholarships, so it all seems pretty pointless.

Thats Iowa in general, I'm used to it.

Cause it was supa lame.

I start college in September. The British system works quite differently to the American, I think. Anyone can go to college here.

It's just a year to **** about before I go to University, tbh.

Only whites can go in America.

And Asian exchange students.

I start in August. Good luck to you.

Um too reasons why you will fail in college :

1) Your inability to start a sentence with a capital letter.

2) You started a sentence with because.


What are you going to major in ?

1. I capitalized "I'm."
2. I started the sentence with "I'm" and not with "because."
3. Two, not too.

I'll be majoring in business administration.

LOL ^


Pshh, you didn't put a comma in between the two clauses. You gonna fail.

That is some stupid **** to say. You know that its EASIER to get in if your NOT a middle class white American or Asian (public schooling anyhow).

College is not a waste of money and by no means is it the most important thing in life. Getting a good education IS important, but you can goto college make good greats and learn nothing. A good argument can be viewed here TED | Talks | Sir Ken Robinson: Do schools kill creativity? (video) as to how the current education system can lead to the destruction of creativity.

I would suggest going to college only if you are willing to learn. Not just academically, but socially and creatively. I goto college and have learned as much outside of the classroom as I have in the classroom, it is all about how you take it.

QUIT BRAGGING ABOUT GRADES. First of all what kind of validity is saying "i scored the top 99th percentile". Its about as valid as me telling you "I slept with Jessica Simpson last night and gave her a facial." Besides that grades are only a way to measure someones ability to take that specific test, which is geared to a certain way of thinking. My friend who I consider to be as smart if not smarter than me, in the same major, has a lower GPA by an entire point. Is he dumber than me? Hell no, I just perform better in certain areas based on what I am being asked to do. Grades can only be used to assist people in assessing intelligence levels, not determine them.

Whenever I hear or read a statement like that I feel like the person should be congratulated for pointing out the blinking obvious like they thought it made them ****ing Socrates. The mark that somebody gets in a test mainly measures how well suited they were for performing that test? REALLY?? How about we extend it to a full universal theory of the bloody obvious which can applied to all tasks in which people participate.

How well somebody performs a particular task can give an indication of how good they are at performing that kind of task.

Christ, I should have been a philosopher.

I was using that description to indicate that a TEST is exactly that, a TEST and it doesnt determine someones intelligence. You, brilliantly, looked past the point i was trying to make by picking one line to insult.

As far as being a philosopher, first you have to UNDERSTAND something correctly. Then you have to be able to express it so that other people might be able to understand it. All you have done is misinterpret and talk ****. And you picked quite a bloody obvious thing to make a comment about. Congratulations on contributing so much to us Plato!

I don't want to start a new thread for this, so I'm putting it in here.

I have to come up with a persuasive essay by Monday. I'm doing it on changing parts of the U.S. government. Just trying to get some feedback on what else I should write about. All I have now is the electoral college and bipartisanship.

imo the executive branch isnt as equally checked as its counterparts... aka has too much power. other than that i would say that amount of campaigning (time and money) and lobbying (all together horrible) is a serious problem with the us government system.

Ah word up with the that. I should be able to atleast squeeze a page or two out of that.

Why does the government not refer to English as the official language of the United States yet require it be written for the citizenship test?

Why are all other languages (even Spanish) grouped into the category foreign languages?

Why are corporations still allowed to donate to political parties whose candidates are running for the Executive branch? Does the country think the two million dollars from Walmart to the Republican Party goes unnoticed?

Why are Congressional hearings so redundant?



All things that came to mind just now.
Whatever.

Because donating to any party (not just political) is a legal act and restricting it in one off case is nonsensical. Corporation b has the right to donate to party b. Its not really all that bad.

It needs to be about the goverment as a whole, not specific laws.

When it causes Americans to think of Presidential elections as choosing the lesser of two evils, then yeah, it is bad.
A little restriction wouldn't be unheard of when these political parties are monopolizing (if you will) mainly the Presidential elections, certainly?

So the "lesser" parties need stronger ad campaigns and support. It is our jobs as citizens to help this process along. I'm sorry that the average American is uneducated about other parties but I don't think the (fair) answer is to tell the other parties to get stupid and quit allowing such great support. The seemingly more correct solution would be to raise more awareness for whatever party you support. You have the right of free speech, use it.

My point wasn't exactly to tell the parties to "get stupid" but to limit the amount of funds able to be given to a certain party in order to reverse a two party election.
I see where you're coming from, but that's like saying phones wouldn't be tapped under the PATRIOT Act if citizens petitioned it.
If the government wills it, it's going to happen (don't take that statement the wrong way, but in this case that holds true, especially when a Democratic and Republican party have been the two main parties for Presidential candidates for 170 years or some ****)
What you said is correct and optimistic, but it doesn't seem very realistic at all.