EPTviOLet recognized as Athlete by the US government - Page 7
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
jackslater
Russian Federation604 Posts
| ||
|
seoul_kiM
United States545 Posts
On December 12 2013 04:50 Ctone23 wrote: Nice generalization. Yeah, here in Texas we ride horses to school (only attend school after herding cattle, number one priority) and our women chew tobacco. You might believe that I am ignorant, but you don't realize that your definition of second rate and mine might be completely different. I will admit that I am from the Northeast and you might make the generalization that I am an elitist pig. In my mind, I think there are top tier schools and then second rate schools even among your definition of a first rate school. It's not a long list at all: The Ivy League, MIT, CALTech, Berkeley, Duke, Georgetown, Johns Hopkins, Rice, Vanderbilt, Emory, UChicago, Northwestern, Wash U in St. Louis, Stanford, Williams, Swarthmore, Amherst. (excluding special schools like Juiliard) The schools that you are referring to might be good schools and even great schools in the local area but Nationally they are not as competitive. The school you are referring to does not exist in Texas. It's called Deep Springs College in California and it is super competitive with most of its alumni completing a two year program and attending the world's best universities. So yes, I know my shit. I'm not in high school, I'm not in college, I'm out of college and I work. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On December 12 2013 05:26 seoul_kiM wrote: You might believe that I am ignorant, but you don't realize that your definition of second rate and mine might be completely different. I will admit that I am from the Northeast and you might make the generalization that I am an elitist pig. In my mind, I think there are top tier schools and then second rate schools even among your definition of a first rate school. It's not a long list at all: The Ivy League, MIT, CALTech, Berkeley, Duke, Georgetown, Johns Hopkins, Rice, Vanderbilt, Emory, UChicago, Northwestern, Wash U in St. Louis, Stanford, Williams, Swarthmore, Amherst. (excluding special schools like Juiliard) The schools that you are referring to might be good schools and even great schools in the local area but Nationally they are not as competitive. The school you are referring to does not exist in Texas. It's called Deep Springs College in California and it is super competitive with most of its alumni completing a two year program and attending the world's best universities. So yes, I know my shit. I'm not in high school, I'm not in college, I'm out of college and I work. um your going way off topic here. basically Texas schools are about as good as most public universities in the US and some have strong programs. he was making a joke about stereotypes not trying to talk about a school. anyway back on subject good for violet that this finally got resolved | ||
|
kochanfe
Micronesia1338 Posts
| ||
|
emanresU
Germany393 Posts
| ||
|
Ctone23
United States1841 Posts
On December 12 2013 05:26 seoul_kiM wrote: You might believe that I am ignorant, but you don't realize that your definition of second rate and mine might be completely different. I will admit that I am from the Northeast and you might make the generalization that I am an elitist pig. In my mind, I think there are top tier schools and then second rate schools even among your definition of a first rate school. It's not a long list at all: The Ivy League, MIT, CALTech, Berkeley, Duke, Georgetown, Johns Hopkins, Rice, Vanderbilt, Emory, UChicago, Northwestern, Wash U in St. Louis, Stanford, Williams, Swarthmore, Amherst. (excluding special schools like Juiliard) The schools that you are referring to might be good schools and even great schools in the local area but Nationally they are not as competitive. The school you are referring to does not exist in Texas. It's called Deep Springs College in California and it is super competitive with most of its alumni completing a two year program and attending the world's best universities. So yes, I know my shit. I'm not in high school, I'm not in college, I'm out of college and I work. You made a very generic statement about a state with a lot of great Universities. Sure, it might not be to your standard (I went to college outside of Texas by the way, and I also work) but many top programs exist in varying Texas Universities. Also, it's dependent on what you mean by "competitive" when you are ranking schools. I don't really see the point, but if it makes your degree feel more rewarding, then that's cool. I really don't see the need to get into this further, I was just trying to poke a little fun at such a generalized statement. | ||
AsmodeusXI
United States15536 Posts
| ||
|
Alryk
United States2718 Posts
On December 12 2013 05:26 seoul_kiM wrote: You might believe that I am ignorant, but you don't realize that your definition of second rate and mine might be completely different. I will admit that I am from the Northeast and you might make the generalization that I am an elitist pig. In my mind, I think there are top tier schools and then second rate schools even among your definition of a first rate school. It's not a long list at all: The Ivy League, MIT, CALTech, Berkeley, Duke, Georgetown, Johns Hopkins, Rice, Vanderbilt, Emory, UChicago, Northwestern, Wash U in St. Louis, Stanford, Williams, Swarthmore, Amherst. (excluding special schools like Juiliard) The schools that you are referring to might be good schools and even great schools in the local area but Nationally they are not as competitive. The school you are referring to does not exist in Texas. It's called Deep Springs College in California and it is super competitive with most of its alumni completing a two year program and attending the world's best universities. So yes, I know my shit. I'm not in high school, I'm not in college, I'm out of college and I work. Both Texas A&M (11) and the University of Texas at Austin (11) are ranked higher in engineering than Johns Hopkins (25), U Penn (22), Harvard (23), Princeton (17), and the majority of the others you listed who might not even make the list. MIT, Caltech, Berkely, and Stanford among the competing ones. And engineering is a big field, by the way. Don't know what you mean by second rate. Law? Sure. The northeast has a greater quantity of equally good schools. But for engineering, I pay a fraction (literally less than 20%) of what I would pay to get a better education at A&M than I would at an Ivy League (I was accepted into U Penn as well as Notre Dame and Cornell with scholarships. Didn't apply to anywhere else although I doubt I'd get into MIT). Some Law stats: UT Austin ranked 15th, behind 14th Georgetown and obviously Ivy league schools are ranked generally in the top 10. It outranks Vanderbilt, Emory, Wash U, and Rice (which isn't even in the list). Others you mentioned aren't on this list or engineering. Business: UT Austin is ranked 17th, ahead of (again among those you listed): Wash U, Emory, and Georgetown. Texas A&M's Business school wasn't even accredited until 1972, or named until 1996, and it's ranked 35th and has been rising since then. We may not have 15 ivy league universities in Texas, but the two "flagship" schools of Texas (A&M and UT) slot pretty well into your "shortlist," considering they dominate most of those schools in Engineering, while UT is also more than capable of beating a good number of those schools in your list in both business and law (Texas A&M's business school is relatively new and we apparently JUST acquired a law school in Fort Worth as of 2013. Can't really expect much from that). If top 15 in 2 of the big three and top 20 in the third aren't "Nationally competitive," maybe you are just elitist. Still doesn't explain those engineering stats though. You go northeast for law, sure. Want a better engineering degree? Northeast ain't gonna serve you so well then. So making your list as you did leaves you either unnecessarily elitist, or extremely biased, for no particular reason if only to hate on public schools. http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-engineering-schools 2013 lists. Additional notes: Texas A&M ranks top 10 in several undergraduate engineering disciplines, and ranks 18th as "best value" nationwide. UT Austin has the 8th ranked undergraduate business program nationwide, with two top 3 rankings, and 10th in undergraduate engineering. Please, enlighten me as to where top 5's, top 10's, top 15's, and top 20's doesn't qualify as first rate, "nationally competitive" universities. We may not have as many as you do, but the best ones here (even though they're silly public schools) are as good as the best ones anywhere. | ||
|
Dreamsmasher2
Canada38 Posts
On December 12 2013 02:43 Gorlin wrote: Wow, what a dick move by MLG. I'm sure it would not have been difficult to write a damn letter or something, they could have helped a ton with the process. i am not surprise by MLG doing something like that, it was always about the money for them. After the tournament they probably didnt give a rats ass about violet | ||
|
Dreamsmasher2
Canada38 Posts
On December 12 2013 03:18 Levistus wrote: damn i forgot about violet. i thought this was kt violet. glad he got his visa and will return. i wonder how far he will go now that more koreans play foreign tournaments. anyone got any idea what they used to prove violet was internationally recognized without the use of videos? also what kind of visas do the koreans on foreign teams have like jaedong? they don't seem to have visa problems or do they stay in korea and only go abroad when there's a tournament? thanks O.O isnt KT Violet dead? Sadly  | ||
|
GinNtoniC
Sweden2945 Posts
| ||
|
seoul_kiM
United States545 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On December 12 2013 05:55 Dreamsmasher2 wrote: i am not surprise by MLG doing something like that, it was always about the money for them. After the tournament they probably didnt give a rats ass about violet That isn't true, they have helped out players. Recently the manager of Speed gaming(rencent MLG champs) has a total public melt down and during the event. MLG helped get the team flights home and Adam went to bat for them on reddit when their ex manager started talking trash. Writing a letter of representation to the federal government is some serious stuff. Unlike TB and the other guys who wrote letters, MLG is a larger company who would likely have to run that by an attorney. I am sure they wanted to, but they can't write a letter for every pro that competed in every one of their events. | ||
|
-niL
Canada1131 Posts
| ||
MLG_Adam
United States994 Posts
We only endorse players that are attending MLG events for liability reasons. We cannot put our ability to help attain player visas for events we sanction in jeopardy. This is not an issue exclusive to Violet or to SC2 players, it applies to anyone: If we're not operationally liable for the event, we do not endorse visas. | ||
|
Homework
United States283 Posts
On December 12 2013 04:05 Nerevar wrote: Polt is actually studying at the University of Texas at Austin, not A&M. That's actually a pretty big difference among us Texans, so don't go around mixing the two up if you're ever down here  ahhh so he picked the worse of the two schools | ||
|
XaMaXaM
Germany113 Posts
| ||
|
Wuster
1974 Posts
On December 12 2013 06:20 MLG_Adam wrote: I addressed this on the reddit thread on /r/starcraft. We only endorse players that are attending MLG events for liability reasons. We cannot put our ability to help attain player visas for events we sanction in jeopardy. This is not an issue exclusive to Violet or to SC2 players, it applies to anyone: If we're not operationally liable for the event, we do not endorse visas. It's a shame the article didn't go more indepth on this issue, like they did for why Kim Rom didn't want to get involved (although from the comments, he felt that giving his reasons was breaching his privacy...), because most people aren't going to understand the legal complexities. That said, it's a little surprising that MLG couldn't at least give a reference based on their *history*. But I suppose pulling up the old MLG press-releases would have been something CSA could do on their own to proof Violet's legitimacy as an SC2 competitor. | ||
|
MLG_Adam
United States994 Posts
On December 12 2013 06:31 Wuster wrote: It's a shame the article didn't go more indepth on this issue, like they did for why Kim Rom didn't want to get involved (although from the comments, he felt that giving his reasons was breaching his privacy...), because most people aren't going to understand the legal complexities. That said, it's a little surprising that MLG couldn't at least give a reference based on their *history*. But I suppose pulling up the old MLG press-releases would have been something CSA could do on their own to proof Violet's legitimacy as an SC2 competitor. Agreed. I took umbrage with the article in that it did not objectively outline the risks a corporation like MLG takes on when endorsing someone to a government agency. If something were to happen while an endorsed player was here, MLG would not be 'liable' but we would/could face scrutiny when attempting to endorse other people in the future. For that reason, we only endorse people when we are operationally liable for the event they are attending. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On December 12 2013 06:20 MLG_Adam wrote: I addressed this on the reddit thread on /r/starcraft. We only endorse players that are attending MLG events for liability reasons. We cannot put our ability to help attain player visas for events we sanction in jeopardy. This is not an issue exclusive to Violet or to SC2 players, it applies to anyone: If we're not operationally liable for the event, we do not endorse visas. I hope you're getting a Christmas bonus for all the cheap PR flak you've had to deal with over the last year. I don't envy your job for a second. | ||
| ||
