Changes to BYU Admissions Policy

[Kenngo1969]

36 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

While I'm certainly open to further information, so far as I'm aware she's a random commenter on Twitter with no real public personae. If giving an ill considered tweet entails courting publicity then probably all of us are guilty at one point or an other. I'm not sure that justifies taking her as personifying anything nor this treatment. If that entails 95% of the contributions, so be it. I doubt that but then I also confess I don't read most of the threads either. I'd hope most aren't attacking individuals of little importance as if they were major public figures.

I agree that one should not attack someone personally.  However, if one does not wish one's public comments to come under critique, one should be more circumspect about what s/he says and about where and how s/he says it.  There are plenty of online fora where her comment would have been cheered wildly with little or no pushback.  If she did not wish to encounter such pushback, she could have made it in such a forum with little or no likelihood that it would have come to the attention of anyone other than her like-minded fellows.  I see no reason why Elder Neal A. Maxwell's dictum that critics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should not be allowed "uncontested slam dunks" should not apply to her.

[readstoomuch]

My wife is teaching early morning seminary for the second year.  They were asked last year to give a summary and recommendation for all of their students applying to BYU schools.  They seem to have to give that response in October or November.  Being their first year, they didn’t always know how good of a student they were and they were acting fine at the time.  Several girls started acting very snotty and goofing off after their recommendations were done.  She called BYU in January to ask if she could change recommendations and was told that she could.  She then had a talk with the students and their parents.  The families handled it differently with most very embarrassed by their kids behavior. One gave a bunch of excuses.  My wife got high marks from her students and loves them.  She doesn’t want to give any a bad recommendation, but she almost did.  

My own pet peeve is kids becoming inactive at a Church school.  My oldest son did that and I told him he should withdraw and we spoke to the elders quorum president about his inactivity.  He still graduated so I am assuming the bishop let it go.  I also assume that their education costs 30 to 40 thousand per year, perhaps 90 percent subsidized.  My youngest daughter had four roommates go inactive the second semester.  She would show up with her other roommate to church and  family night.  No guarantees after you graduate about your behavior or even a mission for that matter.  It is not right to continue going to a Church school with a poor attitude or inactivity and I think the Church has a right to try and get the kids who will be the most successful in helping to prepare the earth for Jesus second coming and gathering scattered  Israel.  The argument here probably comes down to how those kids can be chosen.  My BYU education was a real blessing for me and helped immensely in getting my.graduate education.  

[Bernard Gui]

40 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Smac posted her apology in his first post. She stated she didn’t wish President Oaks harm. She said she didn’t want Oaks to be prophet. She said she made a flippant comment (Calm had a very reasonable explanation a page back on why she choose a car crash). It was in poor taste. It was crass. It was rude. But it is not the same as wishing and hoping someone dies a slow and painful death. 

While I completely agree about the bizarreness and incivility, if you are going to get outraged by every bizarre uncivil tweet on Twitter, you are going to live a miserable life. 

A supposedly faithful Saint publicly wishing two ordained Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ die peacefully or violently (as she implied) rather than ascend to the Presidency is more than bizarreness and incivility, crassness, rudeness, and merits outrage. A car crash with fatalities is about as violent as it gets. I don't get why calling it out is controversial. Seems like the epitome of speaking evil of the Lord's anointed. 

In the meantime, as a private institution BYU can impose whatever admission standards it wishes. There are many other excellent schools to attend if one does not wish to comply with the standards or abide by the student code once admitted. To bad mouth it after graduation is ingratitude at its worst.

Edited August 6, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[sunstoned]

8 hours ago, bluebell said:

Your experience with early morning seminary isn't everyone's though.

I loved early morning seminary (but early morning seminary for me was 7.  I know here in Utah they meet at 6, which seems crazy to me!).  Our teachers were really good and I learned a lot of the 'surprises' that people talk about finding out about and losing faith over during early mhorning seminary.   

I didn't mind early morning seminary.  It got me out of chores.  I hated milking the cow in the morning😋

Edited August 6, 2019 by sunstoned

[Kenngo1969]

As an add-on to my previous comment in response to Clark, criticism of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or of its leaders is one thing.  To a certain extent, such criticism is to be expected, here and elsewhere in Cyberspace.  However, affirmatively wishing for ill to befall leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ is another thing entirely.  If it were to happen here, it would violate Board rules, but even if that were not the case, I doubt that very many critics of the Church of Jesus Christ here would sink to such depths.  I think that people of good will, even those who hold varying opinions about the Church of Jesus Christ and its leaders, as well as those who have varying levels of commitment to it, should and would condemn such sentiments as those that were expressed in the tweet.

Edited August 6, 2019 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

 just an observation but you're digging a really deep hole you'll never get out of. Carry on.

Confucious say, if in really deep hole and man give you shovel and ladder, make sure use right one in order to get out of hole.  

[Kenngo1969]

50 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

... While I completely agree about the bizarreness and incivility, if you are going to get outraged by every bizarre uncivil tweet on Twitter, you are going to live a miserable life. 

No, not every bizarre or uncivil tweet on Twitter ... this one is particularly beyond the pale, so it's especially deserving of condemnation.  Indeed, it ought to be condemned even by people of good will who hold absolutely no brief for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or its leaders.

Crap, I just realized I interrupted my nap to respond to you.  Don't bother replying, as I don't wish to be disturbed.  

 

[Scott Lloyd]

47 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Smac posted her apology in his first post. She stated she didn’t wish President Oaks harm. She said she didn’t want Oaks to be prophet. She said she made a flippant comment (Calm had a very reasonable explanation a page back on why she choose a car crash). It was in poor taste. It was crass. It was rude. But it is not the same as wishing and hoping someone dies a slow and painful death. 

 

Calm made a suggestion, but she was only surmising. I don’t think she knows any better than you or I what the writer of the tweet was thinking  

As I read the tweet and the subsequent “apology,” I don’t believe in her initial state of mind the author cared what kind of car crash or other form of death it would be so long as it got the two despised leaders out of the way so someone of her preference could take over. She acknowledged she hadn’t thought it through. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 minute ago, Kenngo1969 said:

No, not every bizarre or uncivil tweet on Twitter ... this one is particularly beyond the pale, so it's especially deserving of condemnation.  Indeed, it ought to be condemned even by people of good will who hold absolutely no brief for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or its leaders.

Crap, I just realized I interrupted my nap to respond to you.  Don't bother replying, as I don't wish to be disturbed.  

 

Don’t worry. While you were sleeping I condemned it at least 5 times in this thread including the post you quoted.  You’d have to actually read my posts to know that though, so carry on 👍. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Calm made a suggestion, but she was only surmising. I don’t think she knows any better than you or I what the writer of the tweet was thinking  

Yet you carry on like you know exactly what she was wishing and hoping for!

Quote

As I read the tweet and the subsequent “apology,” I don’t believe in her initial state of mind the author cared what kind of car crash or other form of death it would be so long as it got the two despised leaders out of the way so someone of her preference could take over. She acknowledged she hadn’t thought it through. 

Yes this is correct. Which makes it crass and stupid. Worth condemning? Certainly . Worth imputing motives and calling evil, that seems overwrought. 

Edited August 6, 2019 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Yet you carry on like you know exactly what she was wishing and hoping for!

Yes this is correct. Which makes it crass and stupid. Worth condemning? Probably. Worth imputing motives and calling evil, that seems overwrought. 

I can’t think of a person I hate intensely enough to wish death upon him/her, much less death by a violent cause. Yeah, I’d call it evil. 

[Kenngo1969]

12 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Don’t worry. While you were sleeping I condemned it at least 5 times in this thread including the post you quoted.  You’d have to actually read my posts to know that though, so carry on 👍. 

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Both men are old, making for a higher-than-usual likelihood of death by natural causes. So no, I’m not mollified about her wishing for or musing about such a horrible fate as death by car crash. 

I am not suggesting anyone be mollified.  People can choose however they want to react.

I find the idea it is a good thing for anybody to die in a car crash disturbing.  Even those with nasty terminal diseases or truly evil dispositions I wish could have a chance to say goodbye and die peacefully.  

I was just suggesting a possible, likely very superficial (in the sense she probably spent a few seconds coming up with it) thought process of how she arrived at “car crash” rather than “food poisoning at a shared lunch” or “terrorist bomb”.

She probably asked herself what is the most likely scenario where both Pres Nelson and Oaks are removed from leadership at the same time as quickly as possible.  The stupidity and jerkiness of the remark (not the person) for me is not that she went there (I would too for a realistic scenario for quickly removing two or more people from permanent positions), but that she didn’t self censor as ‘some thoughts are better left unsaid’.  She could have simply phrased her opinion as ‘best thing would be for both Pres Nelson and Oaks to no longer be in leadership however that happened’ (range could be ‘Church goes to retirement at age 70 for all leaders, not just Seventies’ to ‘both dying in their sleep due to overdoing it’ for nonviolent ideas).  She could even had turned it into more of a positive poke by saying best thing for the Church would be if Pres Nelson and Oaks were both translated tomorrow as that would imply as individuals they were good people deserving a good fate, even if she saw their leadership as detrimental in some fashion.

So there are definitely better ways she could have conveyed her opinion without the negative imagery of violent death. That she didn’t care enough at the time to try and find a less abrasive phrasing since she knew it would be in the public view is disturbing, though I am not going to label her as evil for it. Foolish and self centered in that moment I will go to. I have no idea if it is typical behaviour or something was really frustrating her at the time, so not judging her personality in general either. 

Edited August 6, 2019 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

29 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

A supposedly faithful Saint

CFR (friendly, is she really presenting herself that way!? - I was unaware)

29 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

publicly wishing two ordained Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ die peacefully or violently (as she implied) rather than ascend to the Presidency is more than bizarreness and incivility, crassness, rudeness, and merits outrage. A car crash with fatalities is about as violent as it gets. I don't get why calling it out is controversial. Seems like the epitome of speaking evil of the Lord's anointed. 

What it boils down to, if you don’t want a senior apostle to become president, then under the current system of church governance they have to die before they become prophet. This is morbid to think about.  I personally don’t care who is prophet, but if I did, I might hope Elder Oaks doesn’t become prophet, and I might really hope Elder Uchtdorf does. This seems like an okay preference to have, similar to A hypothetical hope Elizabeth Warren doesn’t become President, and An equally hypothetical desire to see Senator Cruz elected.

I might even express the opinion that the best thing for the church would be a change in leadership. Again this shouldn’t be a controversial thing. But the way things work, a change in leadership means death in the church. Elder Uchtdorf becoming prophet means certain people die before others. Publicly musing about the death of people is crass rude and condemnable, but paradoxically death is the only way leadership changes in the church. That is why I take her at face value that she doesn’t wish any actual harm to Elder Oaks. What she said is ugly and rude, but hardly worthy of the outrage expressed in this thread. 

29 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

In the meantime, as a private institution BYU can impose whatever admission standards it wishes. There are many other excellent schools to attend if one does not wish to comply with the standards or abide by the student code once admitted.

I completely agree. 

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Oh you are allowed to explain yourself but clearly jaycln cannot. You meant a peaceful quick natural death and she meant a horribly painful death 🙄

What flashed through my mind was being taken out  by a massive truck coming at you sideways so not even enough time to be fearful. Or my favorite thought on some depressed days in my teens driving into a mountain cliff and going out in a massive fireball so all that is left is ash....before I started thinking about things people have to investigate or clean up after the main event or how some friends and family react to violent deaths, even if quick ones. 

Edited August 6, 2019 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Actually, I'll credit you for the idea of JSU - ha - although I'm sure there have been others with the thought. Yeah, SVU is essentially LDS according to what I know, but is still quite private, officially unaffiliated school, and somewhat expensive. It is kinda out in the boonies though, so I think some other place would be better. I figure perhaps there is no time like the present to get started on the New Jerusalem...  hence my suggestion of the Independence area. Nevertheless, my personal guess (Unresearched)  is that there will be more schools available further East. That is essentially what Duke did. He bought Trinity College, and then built a whole new campus to the west, and made it one of the preeminent universities of the nation. Rather than trying to make the main BYU campus bigger or limit students more, I think the Church would be better off starting a new University back East - buying a pretty little liberal arts campus is not a bad way to start. I would have considered BYU if it was closer - at the time I wanted to attend a school within one day's driving distance from home.

Yes, it would be nice to have at least one serious research university in Utah.  The notion that anyone in Utah wanting to do serious biblical or ancient Near Eastern study must go to Berkeley (UC, GTU), Chicago, Princeton, or Massachusetts is absurd.

Meantime, it would also be nice to have a good small liberal arts college like JSC somewhere (best in association with or neighbor to already existing school, like St Paul School of Theology) -- East Coast or middle America.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Just out of curiosity, I did a little search. Here is one that went cheap. It was very small but had nice modern buildings. It was an hour from both Louisville and Lexington, KY:

SOLD: Former St. Catharine College, St. Catharine, KY

Bid Deadline: November 27, 2018
Auction Date: November 30, 2017
Minimum Bids: College Property Tracts (4 Tracts – Offered Collectively) - $1,300,000
Bypass Property Tracts (3 Tracts – Offered Individually or Collectively) - $3,000 per acre
All Properties as a Package - $1,420,000

That is cheap for 90 acres and 8 mostly modern buildings. The corporation which bought it apparently plans to do organic/sustainable farming classes.... maybe another sale will be in the works.. 

It seems small religiously affiliated liberal arts schools are having some of the most difficulty. 

incredible.  These other denominations are losing members and money at an increasing rate, and have no choice but to unload such properties.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Smashed body bleeding out while rescuers unable to find a usable vein frantically applying the jaws of life to get the bent metal away that is crushing you and keeping you from breathing. Seeing your unrecognizable brother next to you broken, moaning in pain, delirious and calling for loved ones. Yep. That’s a great way to go.

It is how I plan to go out.

Last time I went over the statistics it was about 50/50 “instantaneous” to lingering deaths. The former are not all immediate but most of them mean you never regain consciousness.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think that’s a bad rap. Smac, in my estimation, is the most thoughtful, intelligent contributor in this board. My impression is he seldom, if ever, makes thread derails. 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I can’t think of a person I hate intensely enough to wish death upon him/her, much less death by a violent cause. Yeah, I’d call it evil. 

Yeah, what kind of a crazy person would wish such a thing?

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Rather than trying to make the main BYU campus bigger or limit students more, I think the Church would be better off starting a new University back East - buying a pretty little liberal arts campus is not a bad way to start.

Not going to happen. My mission president before his assignment had been a regional representative in the eastern United States and had actually been approached by another Christian faith that hoped to unload a 'pretty little liberal arts campus' for a very reasonable price. According to what he told me personally, he rang Church headquarters to inquire how he should respond to this offer, helpfully labelled by the sellers as 'BYU-East'. He was rung back by Pres Hinckley, who, I was told, said, 'For heaven's sake tell them no! We have enough problems already with our three campuses; we don't need to compound those troubles with a fourth'. He then explained that if the Church could figure out how to divest itself of BYU, it would already have done so.

Quote

I would have considered BYU if it was closer - at the time I wanted to attend a school within one day's driving distance from home.

Firsthand account this time: I completed my BA and MA degrees in America, and at one point Pres Hinckely visited our campus. He said, to the best of my recollection, 'It's always a good sight to see so many Latter-day Saint young people doing what we wish all Latter-day Saint young people would do: attending a non-Church-owned institution close to home where they can build up the Kingdom of God locally'.

[Calm]

I suppose it may be possible that attitudes towards having church schools may change over time as college culture changes especially if marriage rates within the Church drop significantly for those attending nonlds schools, so Pres. Hinckley’s pov might be outdated sometime sooner or later. I would be interested to see comparison of rates between attending the byus, online Pathway schooling and other options.

It has only been a few years since they decommissioned NZ iirc, so possibly going with getting out of the business as much as possible still. 

Expanding online availability is likely the trend of the near future imo as it makes schooling accessible to more Saints than building more campuses. 

Edited August 6, 2019 by Calm

[Stargazer]

18 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Apparently BYU has been instituting these changes for the past couple of years, striving to move away from "activities checklists" and reliance on GPA and ACT scores (only).

The article discusses how BYU is looking to find people who better align with the school's/church's mission. That makes sense.

I find this interesting and a bit disappointing but I'm curious what your thoughts are. I've heard the question asked many times, "Does BYU require seminary graduation?" This new approach doesn't really answer that question but it does require a recommendation from a seminary teacher. I'm assuming it's in addition to a standard ecclesiastical endorsement and it seems like maybe it's a bit redundant, or maybe BYU isn't as trusting of the bishop's endorsement. I don't know. But basing college admissions on a student's engagement in seminary at one point in time during that student's senior year doesn't seem all that helpful. 

 

https://magazine.byu.edu/article/beyond-checkboxes-byu-admissions-changes/?fbclid=IwAR15MwtGDGSE2DuHeP9FtEaNCSnph7hB6OWRcqwMaDFSk6PqHFheaeLzXtI

I applied to and was accepted by BYU while I was serving my mission in 1974.  In my opinion my academic performance at that point in my career should have resulted in a polite letter declining my admission and a suggestion to start out at whatever local community college I happened to end up near.  I don't know if my status as a FTM counted overwhelmingly towards my acceptance, but I suspect it played a large role. Another factor would have been this: despite my poor academic record (because I was a very lazy pupil) I did learn a lot in school and got a 97th percentile pass in the GED and a high ACT score.  My education had also been rather eclectic, with some US, some Canadian, and some UK high school.  Given that the Canadian and UK school ranking systems were completely different from the US (Canada used percentages, and the UK's would have been nearly incomprehensible in comparison), maybe they were giving me the benefit of a rather large doubt, probably due to the FTM thing.

In the event, I ran out of money before the first semester was over, and joined the Army.  I didn't have a lot of choice, with a baby on the way and all that.  Besides which I had always wanted to be a soldier.

The letter BYU sent me confirming my withdrawal said that I was eligible to return under academic probation anytime I wished, so there's still hope!  

Edited to add:

I see that I have blabbered on about my personal ancient history and haven't addressed your request for thoughts on the seminary recommendation issue.  So here they are:

Unless I miss my guess, there is a huge demand for BYU attendance, and there has to be some way to filter applicants in some rational way to fill the limited number of new Freshman places.  Requiring Seminary recommendations (where it's appropriate) seems rational enough to me, as it's a Church school, after all, and Seminary (and Institute) is part of the Church Educational System, just as BYU is.  I have no objection.

Edited August 6, 2019 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

15 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Because early morning seminary is stupid. (Sorry - it just is. I learned nothing from the time and all it did was make my own studies harder since I was more tired)

But there are other reasons such as being in a small ward/branch that doesn't really offer it. Of course there's independent study seminary. I wish it was easier to get here in Utah rather than having to go the seminary route at High School. I should also note that it's a problem for those going to private school or home school even in Utah.

Odd. I got a lot out of early morning seminary.  And I'm not even a morning person.  Of course, I was also a new convert, so perhaps I was more of a sponge than you were at the time.  I was quite enthusiastic about learning the gospel in those early years.

[Stargazer]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

Quote

The church may now consider me to be a "nominal" member but I sure wasn't when I served my mission, attended BYU, married in the temple, served in multiple church leadership positions for decades.

Oh, brother.  Again, I referenced "nominal members of the Church who, upon graduating, turn around and bash BYU, the Church, its leaders, its members, etc. for any and every grievance under the sun."

And for the edification of all who might be thinking that "nominal" is necessarily a pejorative term, allow me to point out that "nominal" comes from the Latin nōminālis meaning "of, belonging to a name".  In a more neutral usage, we have lumber, whose dimensions could be referred to as "nominal" or "dimensional".  The standard US 2x4 is a "nominal" 2x4 -- because while we call it that, it's actually a half inch less in each dimension.  If I have a "dimensional" 2x4, however, it is actually 2 inches by 4 inches in cross section.  My house in Washington state is over 120 years old, and most of its 2x4s are dimensional, which causes me trouble whenever I do a remodel using nominal 2x4s. I have to make or buy 1/2 inch thick shims to compensate.

And the 2x4s in the UK?  They're not 2x4s either, they 47mm x 100m. Nominally and dimensionally, but some outlets call them 2x4s. Thus they are "nominally" 2x4s, but dimensionally they are 1 27/32" x 3 15/16", which differs from the US standard of 1 1/2" x 3 1/2".  This country is confused, I have to say.  Besides having a Queen with no real power, they're metric in some ways, Imperial in others.  I drive 5 miles to get to church, but put 5 liters of petrol in the tank.

But I digress.  Using the lumber analogy I introduce above, I consider myself both nominally and dimensionally a Latter-day Saint. The folks smac97 call "nominal" LDS are perhaps dimensionally not LDS.  Is @HappyJackWagon nominally but not dimensionally LDS?  I have no idea.  It is for him to decide.

"Nominally" is what you are called.  "Dimensionally" is what you actually are.  You can be both nominal and dimensionally something.  IMHO.

Although I suppose that in a Venn diagram sense, dimensional might be seen as comprising nominal, so using both is redundant?