The Instigator
Grape
Pro (for)
Winning
31 Points
The Contender
LaissezFaire
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points

For Elite Colleges, Standardized Tests Should Be More Important in Admissions Decisions Then GPA

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/5/2010 Category: Education
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 10,189 times Debate No: 12662
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (8)

 

Grape

Pro

Resolved: The SAT, ACT, and other standardized tests provided more insight into a high school student's preparedness for education at elite colleges and universities than high school GPA and therefore should play a greater role in admissions.

For the sake of argument, any college or university that accepts less than 15% of applicants can be considered elite. That does not mean that there aren't elite colleges that accept higher percentages of applicants, but I do not want my opponent twisted the resolution by coming up with an example of a university with a very low acceptance rate that is not as academically rigorous.

This applies only to US schools. For Oxford, Cambridge, and their lot this does not apply due to the very different educational systems of the US and the UK (or other countries).

Contention 1: Applicants tend to have uniformly high GPA. Last year, Brown University had 2,199 applicants who were valedictorian or salutatorian of their high school class. It ended up enrolling 1,732 students. So, Brown received more applications with nearly flawless GPA then it could possibly enroll. This does not include the thousands of applicants that were third or fourth in their class or the extremely large number that came from schools that do not rank. Making GPA a major criteria is simply not possible because an overwhelming number of applicants have very high grades. The SAT, but contrast, is intentionally designed so that only a limited number of students will get the top scores. Out of the entire nation, less than 300 people receive a perfect score on the SAT per year and only about 10,000 score over 2300/2400. Thus, top scores on the SAT are less common and distinguish students better. To use the example of Brown, they received only 108 perfect ACT scores as compared to the 1,507 valedictorians.

Contention 2: GPA is not consistent between different students. One student at the same school could get a higher GPA than another by taking an easier course load. This is even more of a problem across different schools. How difficult an AP Biology course is at school X might be very different then how difficult it is at school Y. Standardized tests are designed so that they produce consistent results across different places and different tests administrations.

Contention 3: Most high school classes are not hard enough to show that a student is ready for an elite education. This is fairly simple if you think about it. Even a very selective private school cannot offer a math class taught up to the rigor of an MIT math class because no high school has enough students that would be able to handle it. In order to get this kind of student body, they would have to use the same admissions criteria as elite colleges do. Thus, students capable of doing the work at these colleges will always excel as compared to their peers in high school and will not be challenged to a level that would prove their ability. The SAT and ACT are challenging enough that a very small minority of students get very high scores, so a very high score proves a student's potential.

Conclusion: It is of course true that many traits that cannot be measured on a test, such as work ethic and determination, are necessary for success at top colleges. These traits, however, are nearly universal for those who are serious about getting in. Only standardized tests can distinguish these students from one another and prove who has the ability.

Consider a student with a 3.7 GPA and a 2370 SAT from school X and a student with a 4.0 GPA and 2020 SAT from school Y. Which of them would get in to Brown? The student with the 4.0 is one of thousands but the student with the 2370 is one of a few hundred. The student with the 2370, who is clearly more intelligent, should not be considered inferior because his classes may have been harder or he may have gotten few bad grades. Also remember that a .3 different is rather large in high school, which is graded much, much more generously then college.

I will go into more arguments latter depending on what my opponent brings up.

Sources:

http://www.brown.edu...
http://professionals.collegeboard.com...
LaissezFaire

Con

1. Applicants to elite colleges do tend to have uniformly high GPAs. They also have uniformly high test scores. You say that very few people have perfect or very high test scores, compared to the many that have high class ranks and GPAs. What evidence is there that there is a significant difference between the quality of a student with a 2200 SAT and a student with a 2300 SAT? Just because the scores are less common doesn't mean they are a valid predictor of college success.

2. Obviously, a certain GPA doesn't mean the same thing for students taking different classes or students at different schools. However, since elite schools do not just look at the GPA on the transcript alone, this is irrelevant. When looking at GPA, elite schools consider it in the context the difficulty of the classes and the school. They aren't going to admit someone who got a 4.0 GPA, but only took easy classes. They look for students that got good grades in the hardest classes available to them.

3. While few high school classes are as difficult as the classes at elite universities such as MIT, that doesn't mean they don't show college readiness. As almost all the students that go to MIT and similar colleges manage to do well, their current system seems to be pretty good at measuring readiness. It's also interesting that you're arguing that one's grade in, say, AP calculus, should be less relevant than one's score on a multiple choice test consisting of 8th grade level math questions.

Conclusion- Elite schools know what they're doing. Their admission philosophy is basically that anyone who scores above a certain score is smart enough to do the work. They then look at their high school record to see if they are willing to work hard. Is someone with a 2300+ SAT score smart enough to do the work at elite colleges? Certainly. But so is someone with a slightly lower score. It isn't enough to be smart enough to do college level work. Colleges want to know that the students they admit will actually do the work. How do they determine this? They look at how hard the student worked in high school. They look at if the student was willing to put in the effort required to get good grades in their high school courses. If someone has a high test score, but a relatively low GPA, colleges see a bright but lazy student, which isn't what they want.

Sources:
http://professionals.collegeboard.com...
http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
Grape

Pro

Introduction:

The first thing I'd like to note is that we are discussion what elite colleges SHOULD do, not what they do. There is absolutely no way to know what elite colleges actually consider important because that information is typically not release to the public (in much the same way a company would not release it's hiring policies to the public.) Also, we are talking about only whether GPA (a number) should have more of role than SAT score (a number). Other factors, though very important, are not the subject of the debate.

Argument 1. Abundance of Scores

In the previous round I argued that high test scores were more rare than high grades. The College Entrance Exam Board publishes its distribution of scores each year, proving that the highest scores are hard to come by. My opponent has argued that college success is not likely to difference considerably between students who have scored sufficiently high (over 2200 by his example). The admissions committees of elite universities seem to uniformly disagree with this assumption. Consider the following statistics:

1. At Stanford, applicants with 800 on the Critical Reading section of the SAT are 64% more likely to be admitted than applicants with 700-790.

2. At Princeton, applicants with 2300-2400 on the SAT are 130% more likely to be admitted than applicants with 2100-2290.

3. At Dartmouth, applicants with 800 on the Critical Reading section of the SAT are 122% more likely to be admitted than applicants with 700-790.

4. At Brown, applicants with 800 on the Critical Reading section of the SAT are 39% more likely to be admitted than applicants with 750-790

5. At Brown, applicants with 36 on the ACT are 119% more likely to be admitted than applicants with 33-35 and 273% more likely to be admitted than applicants with 29-32.

These universities considered perfect scores to be astronomically better than even slightly lower scores. Elite colleges continue to consider increases in standardized test scores important enough to distinguish between students up until the perfect score is reached. In fact, studies show that the odds of admission increase exponential as the score approaches perfection (reasonably, because the rarity of the score increases exponentially according to the bell curve).

Argument 2. GPA vs. Course Rigor

I will note here that were are comparing GPA to test scores. We are not comparing GPA to course rigor, and we are not comparing test scores to course rigor. It creates a 3rd variable that is very difficult to measure. Which is a better, a 95% in AP Biology or a 100% in Regular Biology? This is very hard to judge. My opponent's answer to this is that elite colleges are mainly selecting from students who took the hardest courses, and those who took easier courses are not being considered. In a perfect world this might make sense, but there are too many other variables to consider. What if a student was not able to schedule AP Biology due to other classes and took Regular Biology instead? These students would still need to be comparable to one another. The way to do that, of course, would be through the SAT Subject Tests.

These problems increase dramatically when you consider applicants from different scores. At my score, the percentage of students who earned 5's on the AP Biology test was 58.3 (7/12). That means students who were ranked in the bottom half of the class according to GPA scored 5's. A 5 is considered equivalent to an A in a college class, but the grade range for students who scored 5 was 88%-99% (B+ to A+). What is the cause of this? Obviously, it makes much more sense to assume that the class was harder and therefore provided a better preparation for the test than to assume students who scored 5's were not in the top of the class because they were lazy. At a "typical" school that followed the distribution, someone might be in the top half of the class and receive a 3 (equivalent to a C+, B-, or B) while still receiving a 90%-95% grade (A- to A) as is typically necessary to be in the top of a class. Obviously comparing grades between two schools that have drastically different results on the same test is problematic.

The solution? Use the AP scores to determine whether or not the grades are be awarded fairly. The SAT Subject Tests do an even better job of this because they provide more exact scores. A high Subject Test score always indicates mastery of the subject materiel. If a student with a high Subject Test score has less then perfect grades in a class, the Subject Test should be considered much more important. It is most reasonable to conclude that the grade was due to the rigor of the course. Exceptions, of course, could be made for students with a huge disparity between test and grade performance (indicating that the student was, in fact, lazy).

Argument 3.

First, note that I am not just talking about the SAT when I refer to standardized tests. One's grade in AP Calculus should certainly be less relevant than one's score on the Calculus BC test. A student scoring a 5 on this test is more proficient in math then a student scoring a 3 regardless of their grades in the classroom. Any disparity would likely result from different grading methods across different classes.

Now, what I am really arguing here is that student's need a means of distinguishing themselves against a more difficult level of competition than they could encounter in a typical classroom. The average MIT math student is going to be the best out of his AP Calculus class. In fact, he's probably not even going to be terribly challenged by it because students who are "only" good in math have to be able to pass the class with respectable grades. The class may adequate prepare him to succeed at MIT, but it does not enable him to distinguish himself from the thousands of other applicants that were the best in their Calculus class as well.

That is were standardized tests come in. Some standardized tests are administered for competitions, and the awards and scores earned on these tests allow even the best students in a subject to distinguish themselves. These include the Biology and Chemistry Olympiad tests and the AMC test (in mathematics). From personal experience, I can say that these tests are much harder than any of the College Board's tests (AP, SAT, SAT II) which are criticized for being so easy. They are specifically designed to distinguish the best of the best. Similar tests exist for foreign languages as well.

Conclusion:

A test is capable of of objectively measuring a student's knowledge, reasoning, and problem solving skills. Two (or a million) people can take the same test, and the results are comparable. A properly designed test is extremely fair to all individuals. Grades don't achieve any of these goals. All they do is tell us how well a student did in a class. For elite colleges, the answer is almost uniformly "very well" so no distinction is made between students. Also, imperfect but still high grades are often caused by things that should not count against the student (a very bad teacher or, often, a very good teach that made the class harder.) There are a wide variety of standardized tests, and together they can paint a much better picture of an top student's capabilities than performance in highly nonstandardized high school course. As it stands, the only real use of grades for top universities is to cut out students who have a huge disparity between grades and tests as too lazy. Once grades reach a level that shows a solid work ethic, test scores become the supreme gauge of ability.

Sources:

http://talk.collegeconfidential.com...

http://amc.maa.org...

http://apcentral.collegeboard.com...

Peace out homeslices.
LaissezFaire

Con

Re: Introduction
Yes, we are discussing what colleges should do, rather than currently do. But since I am arguing that the way they currently do things is the way they should do things, what they currently do is relevant to this discussion.

"There is absolutely no way to know what elite colleges actually consider important because that information is typically not release to the public (in much the same way a company would not release it's hiring policies to the public.)"
Actually, that information is released to the public. They are vague, because they rely on subjective evaluation rather than some formula, but they still state what they consider important.

"The single most important document in the application is the high school transcript. We look for students who have consistently taken a broad range of challenging courses throughout their high school careers. There are no score cut-offs for standardized tests: the median scores of admitted students on the verbal and mathematical portions of the SAT generally fall in the mid 700s, and ACT composites in the low 30s, but successful applicants present a wide range of test results. While there is no hard and fast rule, it is safe to say that performance is relatively more important than testing. A very strong performance in a demanding college preparatory program may compensate for modest standardized test scores, but it is unlikely that high standardized test scores will persuade the Admissions Committee to disregard an undistinguished secondary school record." -Yale

"Because we believe it is the best forecast of what kind of Brown student you will be, what you have done as a high school student will have the most influence on our admission decision. In that regard, the transcript showing your courses and your performance in them is a key source of information, but no single part of the application can tell a complete story." -Brown

"Also, we are talking about only whether GPA (a number) should have more of role than SAT score (a number)."
Are we? Well then your argument that GPA (the number) should play a smaller role in admissions and SAT should play a larger role is logically invalid, since the actual GPA number has no role in college admissions. How could it be relevant? Different high schools use different GPA systems; there are 4, 5, even 15 point scales, as well as 100 point scales rather than a traditional GPA number. Not only that, but some high schools weight honors or AP classes when calculating GPA's, and some do not. Some schools grade classes on different scales (100-90=A, 89-80=B, etc. vs. 100-93=A, 92-86=B). And if we aren't talking about the raw number, then we must be talking about what colleges actually look at: grades in the context of the high school and the classes.

If you are arguing against elite colleges using the numerical GPA, out of context, then you are arguing against a straw man, since they don't actually do that.

Re: Argument 1.
So, you're saying that the rarity of the score increases exponentially according to the bell curve. And that for admissions at elite colleges, chances of admission increase exponentially as the score increases. I didn't know that this was the case, but it seems fair enough. In this debate, I am defending this, the status quo, and it seems from your post that you also think that this treatment of test scores is reasonable. I fail to see the argument that test scores should play a greater role in college admissions in this part of your post.

Re: Argument 2.
You argue that colleges should use SAT subject tests to compare students taking the same class at different schools. Well, that is what they currently do. That's why most elite colleges require or strongly recommend SAT subject tests. I think that the role they currently play is just fine, and they should not be more relevant. SAT subject tests scores represent a students ability to do a laughably easy 1 hour multiple choice test. Grades in classes reflect labs, essays, problem sets, etc.

In some cases, yes, SAT subject scores/AP scores may be a better indicator of mastery of a subject. However, mastery of a specific subject has little to do with success in college, especially at elite colleges. Many elite colleges don't even give credit for AP scores, or only give credit for a couple classes. They do so because the material tested for on the AP test is so different from the material of actual college classes at elite colleges. These elite colleges rightly see that mastery of irrelevant material should play a limited role in admissions.

Instead, they look for how well you did in the classes that were available to you. Getting top grades generally takes effort. The best way to predict whether or not students will put forth the effort to do well in their college classes is to look at how hard they worked in high school. If they get all A's or almost all A's, it shows colleges that they are willing to work hard. If a student isn't willing to work hard enough to get A's in high school classes, how can a college know that they are going to do well in college classes that require much more work?

Re: Argument 3.
Here you say that a typical student qualified to study at MIT should have no problem with their AP Calculus class. I agree. Therefore, getting less than an A in a simple high school math class should be looked down upon in elite college admissions. But what about the AP test score? There are two problems with giving it greater relevance. One, a student may simply get a low score because they were sick, or having a bad day or something on the test day. Someone is unlikely to have this problem over an entire semester, making an evaluation based on grades less susceptible to random chance. Two, a student may not be able, because of school rules or the classes available to him/her or some other thing beyond the student's control, to take AP Calculus and similar classes before their senior year. Since AP test scores come in July, it would be impossible to use scores from tests taken senior year in admissions. However, grades, in the form of mid-year reports, can be used in admissions.

Those who score well on things such as the AMC and AIME already do get a boost in elite college admissions. For example, International Math Olympiad contestants can get into pretty much any college they want. I completely agree that elite colleges should continue to use the scores on these test in admissions.

Re: Conclusion
1.Here, you state that "Grades don't achieve any of these goals. All they do is tell us how well a student did in a class. For elite colleges, the answer is almost uniformly 'very well' so no distinction is made between students."
2.And that since tests are "capable of of objectively measuring a student's knowledge, reasoning, and problem solving skills" and "extremely fair to all individuals," so they should be given greater weight in admissions.
3.If you accept 1, then since students uniformly get top grades and no distinction is made among them, then you logically cannot be arguing for grades to be given less weight in admissions, since virtually no distinction among all of the top students is made.
4.Looking at 2, you argue that tests should be weighted more in admissions. But because of 3, you cannot be arguing that test scores should get more weight in admissions at the expense of grades.
5.Since you are arguing that test scores should get more weight in admissions, but not that grades should get less weight, logically, you must be arguing that test scores be given more weight at the expense of other factors such as extracurriculars. Therefore, since your thesis is that test scores should be given more weight in admissions at the expense of grades, this section is, logically, irrelevant to the discussion.

Sources:
https://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu...
http://www.yale.edu...
http://www.b...
Debate Round No. 2
Grape

Pro

Introduction:

Just because I'm not sure if this has been properly understood: the status quo is irrelevant to this debate, the topic is what should be done. What is actually done is inconsequential.

Now, with regards to my statement that, "There is absolutely no way to know what elite colleges actually consider important because that information is typically not release to the public (in much the same way a company would not release it's hiring policies to the public.)" I think that this was an overly absolute statement, but the point that I was making stands. Yes, colleges provide some idea of what they are looking for. But they do not release their exact policies, and despite that they say about test scores they seem to strongly favor the perfect over the very high. PR statements designed to encourage students and draw more applicants cannot be trusted over the statistical data. The data is quite clear: elite colleges think scoring extremely well on standardized tests is VERY important. We can debate whether or not they think it's more important than GPA but that's a waste of time because the topic of the debate is what they should do.

My opponent's point about the fact that I referred to GPA as a "number" is a needless nitpick. To be more precise, I should have referred to it as a value. What I meant was, test scores as a non-subjectively evaluated numerical indicator should be ore important than grades as a non-subjectively evaluated numerical (or letter or whatever, however it is computed) indicator. The exact way the GPA is computed does not matter at all. When Yale talks about considering the "transcript" they also mean the difficulty of the course is important to them, but that's subjective. I am talking only about the GPA, which is objective. The fact that GPA must be understood in terms of subjective factors such as "course difficulty" and "ability of peers" is one of the principle charges I bring against it. Test scores are not affected by subjective factors nearly as significantly as GPA.

Argument 1:

My opponent is NOT defending the status quo. We are talking about what should be done, and what should be done is independent of what is done. The purpose of those statistics was to refute my opponent's baseless claim that after a certain point in the score curve a test can no longer distinguish between the ability of students. But on a properly designed test (and the ETS tests are all properly designed, of course) the difference between, say, a 2200 and a 2400 should be the same as the difference between a 1500 and a 1700. Thus, the rarity of high level test scores does create a sufficient scarcity that they are useful in distinguishing the brightest applicants from one another. The admissions statistics I provided in the previous round clearly should that elite colleges agree with this conclusion and employ it in their admissions policies. The fact that the most selective admissions committees seem to agree with my argument based on their practices is strong evidence to support its validity.

Argument 2.

My opponent's claim that Subject Tests are laughably easy is completely absurd. The difficulty of the Subject Tests is fairly well documented and great care is made by professions to insure that the tests are of the appropriate difficulty. The information is available here:

http://professionals.collegeboard.com...

With the exception of language tests (that are often taken by native speakers) perfect scores on these tests are fairly rare. I don't see how the Literature test can be called "laughably easy" when students who score in the 99th percentile do not receive perfect scores. You can't just call a test easy to attack it's validity when objective evidence shows that it is very difficult. This is true of the SAT also: a student could receive a score in the top 1% on each section and end up with a total score of only 2290 (http://professionals.collegeboard.com...).

To address the "mastery" point. It is not the knowledge of subject material they demonstrate that makes Subject Tests and AP tests important. It is the fact that they demonstrate a student's ability to learn material relative to their peers. To make an example: Cornell University is known for being extremely strong in biological science and does not give credit or placement for the AP Biology exam. The Subject Tests and AP are still important in this area because they let the admissions staff know that the applicant is able to perform well over the level that is expected and therefore stands a strong chance of succeeding in their program. Should Cornell disregard a 5 AP and 800 Subject Test in biology because their department is so much harder? Of course not, they should take it as a sign that the student has a better chance of success in the department than 99% of their peers. By comparison, it's likely that a lot more than 1% of their peers have A's in AP Biology and would not be cut out for the program.

Argument 3.

A few notes about "bad days" on tests:

1. Tests can always been retaken, though with AP tests it is somewhat inconvenient. With SAT and ACT tests there are many chances to retake the test.
2. A guidance counselor can note on a student's application that there was a problem with a particular test score and that it thus does not reflect the student's ability. This is relevant only with AP's typically because the SAT and ACT can be retaken easily. AP tests also typically count less than Subject Tests anyway because they are less exact and designed more for placement (they are called Advanced Placement tests, after all).

If an AP test needs to be taken senior year, it simply wouldn't be included in the application. In this case, midyear grades would be more important (since there is nothing to compare them to, the test has not been taken). This is a practical consideration and does not detract from my overall point (tests are more objective and better for distinguishing the best of the best from one another).

My opponent does not seem to have made an argument about AMC and AIME tests. Remember, I am not arguing about the status quo. I am arguing that a result on a test such as this gives a better indicator of a student's math ability than a math class. Someone's ability to prepare for and take an extremely difficult math test is a better gauge of their skills than their ability to maintain perfect scores on relatively easy tests for an entire semester.

Conclusion:

When I say that grades are uniformly high, I do not mean that in a literal sense (that would be silly). I mean that there are lot's of 3.97's and 3.95's. There are also lots of 99%'s and 97%'s. Can we say that a student with a 99% in AP US History is a better history student than one with a 97% from a different school? It would take a lot of extrapolation and use of subjective judgment and even then we wouldn't be sure. Can we say that a student with a 790 on the US History Subject Test is a better history student then one with a 750? Yes we can, and it requires no subjective judgment. If the College Entrance Exam Board is worth the national recognition it is given for producing statistically valid tests, we should be right just about every time.

I'm not going to waste my time breaking down the logical construction my opponent set up here because it's nothing more than an attempt to nitpick. I am obviously arguing that tests should be given more weight at the expense of grades. As I said above, I don't accept one since I wasn't being literal. I never mentioned subjective factors such as extracurriculars so there's no reason to say I "must be arguing that."

Grades and test scores are objective, that's why they're being compared. Test scores are a much more valid guage of student ability.

The End.
LaissezFaire

Con

Gender Bias-
According to a study by the College Board, the group that makes and administers the SAT, males score 33 points higher on the SAT-Math than females who earn the same grades in the same college math courses, because a fast-paced, multiple-choice format favors males over females. [1]

Racial Bias-
I won't discuss the racial gaps in SAT/ACT scores, because there is no conclusive evidence that they aren't the result of other factors. However, there is evidence that standardized tests' predictive ability is far less for minorities than for whites. ACT explained only 6.8% of the differences in first-semester college grades for African Americans, while for Whites the ACT predicted approximately 28% of the differences (high school grades predicted equally well for both groups). [2]

Coaching-
The fact that these tests can be easily 'coached' for sheds serious doubt on their fairness, objectivity, and predictive ability. For example, the Princeton Review tutoring service advertises that it can increase students' SAT scores by an average of 100-150 points. First of all, the fact that this coaching, which obviously has nothing to do with success in college, can increase one's score on a test that is supposed to predict success in college casts doubt on that test's accuracy. Second, these coaching services are expensive. They offer an artificial and unfair advantage to affluent students.

The SAT vs. GPA on predicting success in college-
According to a College Board study, the SAT alone predicts 22% of the variation in freshman year GPA, while high school GPA alone (not counting subjective evaluations of course difficulty) predicts 30% of the variation in freshman year GPA. [3] Bates College decided to make submission of standardized test scores optional in 1990. Comparing those that submitted to those that didn't, their study found that although non-submitters averaged 160 points lower on the SAT, their freshman GPA's were only an average of five one-hundredths of a point lower than submitters. [4] "If one looks beyond college grades, information from The Case Against the SAT by James Crouse and Dale Trusheim actually points to the SAT I's poor utility in forecasting long-term success. Data they analyzed demonstrated that using the high school record alone to predict who would complete a bachelor's degree resulted in "correct" admissions decisions 73.4% of the time, while using the SAT I and high school GPA forecast "correct" admissions in 72.2% of the cases." [5]

[1] http://professionals.collegeboard.com...
[2] http://www.education.com...
[3] http://www.fairtest.org...
[4] http://www.maguireassoc.com...
[5] Crouse, James, and Dale Trusheim. The Case against the SAT. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
I like how P_L gave six points to L_F even though L_F himself gave all seven points to Grape.
Posted by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
Yeah, I should've addressed those. I guess I was just a bit flustered after finding out I had been debating the wrong thing for the past two rounds.
Posted by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
Okay. I was quite annoyed at first because I thought you had done that on purpose to prevent me from making counterarguments.

There is a good debate to be had about the bias and predictive power in these tests, but the end of round three was a little too late to bring it up.

Also, you did forget to address the three original arguments. Unaddressed arguments are typically considered forfeited.
Posted by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
You're right. I misread your proposition and was arguing the wrong issue for most of the debate. I would have posted my last 4 arguments earlier had I been arguing against the actual proposition. For my carelessness and poor conduct, I apologize.
Posted by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
Waiting until the last round of the debate to bring in four new arguments while ignoring the entire rest of the debate? Very classy.

I would like to note to voters that ALL of my arguments stand because my opponent chose not to address them in the final round. I'll leave it to the voters to decide if the new arguments my opponent brought in when I could not address them should count.
Posted by PARADIGM_L0ST 6 years ago
PARADIGM_L0ST
Awesome debate!
Posted by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
Thanks, Nags.

Also, the last part of my post was cut off by the character limit. My third link is http://www.brown.edu...
Posted by Xer 6 years ago
Xer
Great debate thus far.
Posted by Spaztoid 6 years ago
Spaztoid
I appoligize for letting my time expire. I took the debate, and then had to travel for the weekend, and so I was unable to complete my post. If you reinstate the challenge, I can pick it back up now.

@Loserboi

The problem you had is that you took a shotgun approach to extra curriculars. Top of the line colleges don't want to see someone who is trying to fluff up thier application with extra curriculars and sports, they want to see a dedicated and hard working individual with a passion for what he/she does. Thy don't care what you do, they just want you to do it. I had a decent GPA, two extra-curriculars, and excelent SAT scores, and that was all it took for me to get accepted into five of the six colleges I applied to.
Posted by Loserboi 6 years ago
Loserboi
extra cirriculars dosent really say much, technically I was in 6 clubs being the treasurer, secretary and vice preident in 5 of them and we really did nothing except like raise money. I was also in 3 sports teams cross country, basketball, and Track but my GPA was not like WOW high so I did not get into any of the colleges of my choice. I think colleges mainly look at GPA and nothing else well at least the ones i applied to I don't know about the IVYs some of you are probably trying to get into
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by ethopia619 6 years ago
ethopia619
GrapeLaissezFaireTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Vote Placed by TallIndianKid 6 years ago
TallIndianKid
GrapeLaissezFaireTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
GrapeLaissezFaireTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by erbelgerbels 6 years ago
erbelgerbels
GrapeLaissezFaireTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by tnsarah08 6 years ago
tnsarah08
GrapeLaissezFaireTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
GrapeLaissezFaireTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
GrapeLaissezFaireTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by PARADIGM_L0ST 6 years ago
PARADIGM_L0ST
GrapeLaissezFaireTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06