| Author |
Message |
Hank Murphy
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2004 1:04 pm
Post subject: Re: Rights to academic transcripts |
|
|
Elizabeth P. wrote in message ...
| Quote: | The harassment problem with the woman who did this has been ongoing
for over nine months, and her initial supervisor, who retired at the
end of June, was replaced by someone who seems to be much worse than
she is regarding contempt for the public and the perception that for
most of us, as we are unable to pay for better schools than that one,
that we are effectively this powerless based on their for example,
unlimited access to funds for civil court and to harass plaintiffs by
for example, raining harassment hell on people regarding work
constantly.
|
Elizabeth...without trying to be pejorative, your account lacks enough
details to really form a cogent response.
Constructively - and I hope you will take it that way - I think you need to
seek someone to edit your posts. Having someone else check what you've
written finds all sorts of little oversights - I know it's that way when I
write.
I have difficulty believing that an administrator would take the step of
curtailing access to records arbitrarily. There normally has to be some
external event which provides the reason for this. You haven't disclosed
it.
If there is some blotch on your escutcheon, you need to clean it up. In
whatever way possible. If you owe the college money for, say, parking
tickets, you've got to get that resolved.
If you need to graduate to start a job, and the sum owed is high - if that
is the case - then go ask for a payment plan.
If you have some disciplinary problem - get it resolved. If you've been
caught cheating on an exam - 'fess up. Withholding transcripts is a proven
technique to get the ball in your court.
If you have had some personal argument with the supervisor...that would be a
dumb move. A request for a personal interview with her (I believe you said
it was a woman) direct management might be the right thing to do. If the
college district in question has an ombudsman, or a student trustee, you
might consider going to them.
If none of these describe your situation...then let us know what it is.
<snip>
| Quote: | According to Records at the school, what the woman did was place a
permanent block on my transcripts to keep me, as a very good student,
|
If your line of endeavor does not absolutely require completing the A.A.
degree, perhaps you could consider teacher references when you apply for a
job?
<snip>
| Quote: | And procedure and authority do not permit dumping harassment on people
at all, as the only thing I have ever seen of the school after I got
to the range of courses that are being taught evidently largely by
people who are not happy people or successful professionally
otherwise, whereas the part-timers are all professionals in their area
or have PhDs, and so the wars with the public begin, as it seems to
make them angry for students to be good students and able to handle
the material without endless tutoring and failed classes, or to be
successful use the school for what IETC subsidizes it for, which is to
provide retraining including as paid for by IETC, to return people to
the workforce.
|
You are making some judgements about the faculty which I find difficult to
believe apply across the board. There are unhappy faculty in many, many
schools. There are also bright shining lights whose devotion and enthusiasm
impresses me every time I see them. If there have been any of those in your
experience at this school...talk to them.
| Quote: | So you assumptions do not apply
|
Wouldn't be the first time  )
<snip>
| Quote: | In the distant past, there was no transcript block for any reason, as
students had paid for the classes they had completed, and the school's
rights were limited to those involving attendance of that school,
through suspension and expulsion, not those that would generate power
over attending any school anywhere that might not agree, and I know of
an attorney expelled from SIUC who went on to UIUC, without problems
with the transcripts.
|
Were you expelled?
There's a lot missing from this story.
Hank Murphy
speaking only for myself |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Craig
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:24 am
Post subject: Re: Value of GMAT score |
|
|
I know I am a bit late to post here, but Andreas if you are still
reading... I would disagree with NRF that your score is not a plus.
Let's assume for the moment that the GMAT is the ONLY criterion for
acceptance (bear with me). If 100 people apply to harvard and 10
people are accepted, and of those 10 accepted, 5 score lower than your
690 (assuming that 690-710 is the average at this school) then you
have essentially scored better than 95% of applicants that year. Just
as importantly you have scored better than half of those ACCEPTED.
Remember that is the average of ACCEPTED applicants, not ALL
applicants.
Of course, GMAT is not the only measure of acceptance, but you have
put yourself right in the running in this regard, with a 690. Good
work!
Now, if you had scored a 650-675 I would say that you might want to
highlight other aspects of your application. But still not a negative
and shows you have mental capability to succeed.
Craig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mrsriley72
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:34 am
Post subject: Re: Colleges make me sick to the stomach |
|
|
"Peter" <go@away.com> wrote in message news:<4003a2dc.0@news1.mweb.co.za>...
| Quote: | I fucking get sick every time i am around colleges. I feel this sickness
because of the inequality in the world and how colleges do not reflect
that
the world as whole. They mostly reflect rich people who can afford better
life styles than others. I especially hate honors programs, which are
like
even more rich people than the rich people who go to school and are not in
honors.
Perhaps you should be around colleges more often - it might improve your
English-writing ability? (Task for those of you who are bored: see how many
grammatical and/or stylistic errors you can find in the above paragraph.)
|
I do not think we have a need to be formal in BBs postings or
emails... give this person a break. Your sarcasm, judgement, and
arrogance point out that you yourself are hardly an intellectual
fountainhead.
Sheesh. Play nice, or don't play at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KSG
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 2:56 am
Post subject: Re: Colleges make me sick to the stomach |
|
|
"Out West" <byer5@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message news:<Uy4Nb.8313$1e.4662@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
| Quote: | "Spockie Hendrick" <spockie@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Xns946ED2EB29D21spockieverizonnet@199.45.49.11...
The troll? Interesting because what he brings up in layman terms is
exactly what many in education policy are working to address...
The inequality is not just in colleges, it is everywhere. Groups are
seperated and the inequality is not shown because the poor people live
with
poor and rich live with rich. Expensive automobiles are driven by the
rich, little if none are given to poor people at a percentage based on
their salary. Poor people live in shitty old houses, and around them are
other poor people. The rich do not live there. Therefore, I ask where is
the inequality? It is fucking hiden all fucking over and people keep it
well hiden because the real world is probably more sad than they can deal
with. Yes, colleges are fucking full of privileged people all fucking
privileged. In addition, the colleges they fucking try to be more diverse
by having different races and background, but the it still remains than
all
those people are privileged. What is the solution? How can there be less
inequality in money and privileges? I do not know, but it all makes me
fucking sick to the throat, and i feel very uncomfortable in places where
there is no real world reflection as a whole.
I know people who put themselves through school the long way with no
parental help. Junior college part time at night (four years) to state
school part time (three years) to good paying job and paid off their loans
in less than ten years, had kids and are now paying full price for those
kids to go to college debt free without having to work their way through. In
the United States, College is there for anyone (and I mean anyone) who wants
to do it. The only way to pull yourself out of those crappy houses in the US
is to do it yourself or you could go live in a socialist society. For
example, Denmark with enormous taxes for which you get free health care,
college, etc....but then people get really lazy (heck, it's given to
you...why try?) and they also have all these mechanisms in place to keep
people from making their house look better than their neighbors, for
example. The more you earn the gianter your taxes become so it is near
impossible to 'get ahead' in a socialist country because no matter how much
you make your net won't change very much. Maybe you'd like a socialist
economy better? Then all the houses would look about the same as your
neighbors and the difference between you and he would be minimal and you
could go to college for free (depending on if you were deemed smart enough
by the government to spend the money on).
|
That's a fallacious argument. The problem is that we don't have a
meritocracy. We have a system where if you're rich you can be lazy
and your many makes you money, and opens your doors. If you're poor
you have to work twice as hard to get half as much. It's like saying
that Paris Hilton and a child raised in the projects both have
opportunities for being a millionaire since every 7-11 store sells
lotto tickets.
This isn't about socialism. It's about having a system that gives
everyone an EQUAL opportunity from birth to death. But really no one
cares about that issue. The only issue that most care about is that
white males, at age 17, can leverage all associated socio-economic
status and power to get into the college of their choice (and it's not
your local community college that they want to get into).
KSG |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nrf
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 3:38 am
Post subject: Re: Value of GMAT score |
|
|
"Craig" <craig@ubbusiness.com> wrote in message
news:534ded30.0401141024.10e3fa06@posting.google.com...
| Quote: | I know I am a bit late to post here, but Andreas if you are still
reading... I would disagree with NRF that your score is not a plus.
Let's assume for the moment that the GMAT is the ONLY criterion for
acceptance (bear with me). If 100 people apply to harvard and 10
people are accepted, and of those 10 accepted, 5 score lower than your
690 (assuming that 690-710 is the average at this school) then you
have essentially scored better than 95% of applicants that year. Just
as importantly you have scored better than half of those ACCEPTED.
Remember that is the average of ACCEPTED applicants, not ALL
applicants.
|
Well, your analysis oversimplifies things. Yes, I know what you're talking
about when you say that you want to simplify your model to only look at GMAT
scores, but the fact is, doing so makes things too simple. The reality is
that plenty of people with tremendously high GMAT scores, higher than the
average, and some with 800's, will be rejected from Harvard because of
weaknesses in the rest of the app. You therefore cannot make the simple
conclusion that you are outscoring a tremendously high number of applicants.
The average score for the rejected applicants may well be higher than
Andy's. I don't know if it is, but it's certainly possible for a place like
Harvard.
Furthermore, in the case of Harvard (and the othe schools we talked about),
the scores are quite a bit above what Andy got. In the case of Harvard
class of 2005, the average was 708 for the entering class. Yes, the
entering class is not quite exactly the same as the admitted class but for a
place like Harvard that has an extraordinarily high yield ratio (very few
people who are admitted to Harvard will turn it down), the 2 classes are
going to be very close. It's therefore difficult to see how to construe a
690 as an advantage when 708 is the relevant average. Obviously it's an
advantage when compared to people who have a 650 or a 600, but in this
context, I don't think it can be construed as an advantage, all things
considered. Yes, he will be better than a lot of other rejected candidates
and some admitted ones, but unless you happen to have a score that is above
the mean, it's still not really an advantage. He's in the running, but he
doesn't have a "special weapon".
| Quote: |
Of course, GMAT is not the only measure of acceptance, but you have
put yourself right in the running in this regard, with a 690. Good
work!
|
See above. I agree he is in the running, but to me that's not the same
thing as saying he has an advantage.
| Quote: |
Now, if you had scored a 650-675 I would say that you might want to
highlight other aspects of your application. But still not a negative
and shows you have mental capability to succeed.
Craig |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 4:43 am
Post subject: Re: Colleges make me sick to the stomach |
|
|
| Quote: | I do not think we have a need to be formal in BBs postings or
emails... give this person a break. Your sarcasm, judgement, and
arrogance point out that you yourself are hardly an intellectual
fountainhead.
Sheesh. Play nice, or don't play at all.
|
I'm not the one who posted an off-topic and illiterate rant. This newsgroup
is about college admissions, and is not the correct forum to bring up one's
misgivings about perceived social injustice. In fact, even if it were, this
post would still be out of line - for example, I know a number of people in
so-called "honors programs" that are far from wealthy. One could argue that
such programs are elitist, but not that they're a haven for "rich kids". The
author's post was a rant, pure and simply, and I gave it the scorn I believe
it deserves. If you think otherwise, I respectfully disagree, and we'll
leave it at that.
You are right one count - I'm most certainly not an "intellectual
fountainhead", as you put it, but at least I follow online etiquette when
posting to newsgroups by not posting off-topic, poorly thought-through
messages that serve no purpose to the people who frequent such fora.
Peter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Abe Kohen
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 8:49 am
Post subject: Re: Colleges make me sick to the stomach |
|
|
"KSG" <ksg619@hotmail.com> wrote
| Quote: |
That's a fallacious argument. The problem is that we don't have a
meritocracy.
|
Well we used to, BEFORE affirmative action, and AFTER the end of quotas.
Even in the 70s we had a meritocracy, when a poor boy like me was able to
bootstrap himself and earn a MERIT based fellowship for grad studies at Cal.
| Quote: | We have a system where if you're rich you can be lazy
and your many makes you money, and opens your doors.
If you're poor
you have to work twice as hard to get half as much.
|
Welcome to the real world. Some of us learned this BEFORE we went to
college, so we were motivated to excel academically, and NOT sit on our lazy
asses.
| Quote: | It's like saying
that Paris Hilton and a child raised in the projects both have
opportunities for being a millionaire since every 7-11 store sells
lotto tickets.
|
There are a lot of people who are not born with the wealth of a Hilton, who
have realized the American dream. It usually takes HARD WORK.
| Quote: | This isn't about socialism. It's about having a system that gives
everyone an EQUAL opportunity from birth to death.
|
Too many people who get FREE (taxpayer paid) education from K-12 put it to
waste, and then expect a good ole socialist handout when it comes to
college. Thanks to Justice O'Connor, they have another 25 years to be held
to a lower standard.
| Quote: | But really no one
cares about that issue.
|
Really? What are you doing to maximize the education of poor students in
K-12?
| Quote: | The only issue that most care about is that
white males, at age 17, can leverage all associated socio-economic
status and power to get into the college of their choice (and it's not
your local community college that they want to get into).
|
Replace "white male" with "all applicants held to a higher standard."
Abe |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Abe Kohen
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 9:07 am
Post subject: Re: CMU more affordable to low-income whites and Asian-Ameri |
|
|
"Ram Lau" <ramlau@cc.no-spam.gatech.edu> wrote in message
news:bu2ikp$ah7$1@news-int2.gatech.edu...
| Quote: | Hell no. I used to be a professional "upstairs" trader.
Daytrading is for losers.
True, daytrading is for losers who lose money. I don't mind making some
tuition
money every now and then doing daytrading though. There are a few
daytraders I
know who retired before 35 and are enjoying life now. Them "winning
losers"
still daytrade sometimes for their charities though.
|
Some of my professional colleagues, after being laid off from Wall Street,
have taken up daytrading for various periods of time. One trader who was
eventually rehired by her old firm, confided to me that she did not make
sustainable profits daytrading. A former quant confided that he was not
making money, but that daytrading gave him an opportunity to put on a suit
and sit in an office.
The ugly truth about daytrading is that the profits go to the clearing
(daytrading) firm and not to the trader.
For example you buy 1,000 shares of MSFT and pay 27.50. You then turn around
and sell it for 27.51. Theoretically your profit should be .01 * 1,000 =
$10, but that ignores clearing fees which range from .01 - .03 per share. So
your $10 profit is now a wash to a $20 loss. So assume that your picks are
right 50% of the time. However, with clearing costs you are bleeding money.
In the parlance of gambling, the clearing firm is "the house," and the odds
are always stacked in favor of the house.
If you really want to get technical we can discuss margin calls, and the
clearing firm liquidating your positions for a major loss to the trader, and
a major profit to the clearing firm.
If you want to gamble with your money, be my guest, but I would be remiss if
any innocent reading this ng would take up daytrading believing in the myth,
especially of they would gamble away their parents' hard earned tuition
money.
Abe |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hank Murphy
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:43 pm
Post subject: Re: Colleges make me sick to the stomach |
|
|
In fairness to the other poster, Spockie has posted here before. There is
some history. Enough said.
Hank Murphy
speaking only for myself |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SJG
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 3:22 pm
Post subject: Re: Colleges make me sick to the stomach |
|
|
On 1/14/04 5:49 PM, in article bu4rjc$du771$1@ID-102750.news.uni-berlin.de,
"Abe Kohen" <akohen@xenon.stanford.edu> wrote:
| Quote: |
"KSG" <ksg619@hotmail.com> wrote
That's a fallacious argument. The problem is that we don't have a
meritocracy.
Well we used to, BEFORE affirmative action, and AFTER the end of quotas.
Even in the 70s we had a meritocracy, when a poor boy like me was able to
bootstrap himself and earn a MERIT based fellowship for grad studies at Cal.
|
I love how people think that race and gender preferences are the only
preferences at universities. What about athletes, alumni, big donors (or
"regent inquiries" as the UCs call them), and geographic preferences, just
to name a few. Oh yeah. You, too. Your lower socioeconomic status surely
gave you a few bonus points.
And Cal still has merit scholarships. I, personally, think merit
scholarships are ridiculous. Financial aid should be the only scholarships
available. Getting into a good college should be reward enough (although
some schools like Wash Univ need those merit scholarships to get top
students -- heh, I admittedly applied there for undergrad b/c they had a
great scholarship that was very alluring).
| Quote: | We have a system where if you're rich you can be lazy
and your many makes you money, and opens your doors.
If you're poor
you have to work twice as hard to get half as much.
Welcome to the real world. Some of us learned this BEFORE we went to
college, so we were motivated to excel academically, and NOT sit on our lazy
asses.
|
Unfortunately, many people don't realize this, and they're not sitting on
their lazy asses. They're working their asses off in jobs -- it's hard to
realize the present value of college. And it's not so easy to pay for
college if you do realize it when financial aid these days is hardly
supportive (even when colleges claim to provide full aid).
| Quote: | It's like saying
that Paris Hilton and a child raised in the projects both have
opportunities for being a millionaire since every 7-11 store sells
lotto tickets.
There are a lot of people who are not born with the wealth of a Hilton, who
have realized the American dream. It usually takes HARD WORK.
|
And many Americans do work very hard. Unfortunately, working hard does not
necessarily equal success.
| Quote: | This isn't about socialism. It's about having a system that gives
everyone an EQUAL opportunity from birth to death.
Too many people who get FREE (taxpayer paid) education from K-12 put it to
waste, and then expect a good ole socialist handout when it comes to
college. Thanks to Justice O'Connor, they have another 25 years to be held
to a lower standard.
|
There are many benefits to education beyond the obvious one for the educated
person (externalities, much?). Education provides socialization which is
necessary for any functioning democracy (maybe that's why California
politics are out of hand??) and society in general; there are human capital
spillovers, which (by definition) benefit those around the educated person;
balances capital market failures (in that, unfortunately, parents may not
make the best decisions for their children in investing in their futures);
and on and on.
Furthermore, I think that you're confusing financial aid with affirmative
action here. When you say "they" in "they have another 25 years...", I'm
assuming you mean minorities and women. Well, affirmative action may help
minorities and women in admissions, but it does not give them more financial
aid. So I'm not sure what socialist handout to which you're referring.
And, as a person that went to Cal, who do you think subsidized your
education? Taxpayers.
You mentioned before that you were a "poor boy". Would you have been able
to afford a private school as a child? If yes, you weren't that poor. If
no, then how can you criticize public education?
| Quote: | But really no one
cares about that issue.
Really? What are you doing to maximize the education of poor students in
K-12?
|
I'm in grad school in education policy.
| Quote: | The only issue that most care about is that
white males, at age 17, can leverage all associated socio-economic
status and power to get into the college of their choice (and it's not
your local community college that they want to get into).
Replace "white male" with "all applicants held to a higher standard."
Abe
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kile
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 4:31 pm
Post subject: Re: Colleges make me sick to the stomach |
|
|
| Quote: | This isn't about socialism. It's about having a system that gives
everyone an EQUAL opportunity from birth to death.
Too many people who get FREE (taxpayer paid) education from K-12 put it to
waste, and then expect a good ole socialist handout when it comes to
college. Thanks to Justice O'Connor, they have another 25 years to be held
to a lower standard.
|
I have a feeling that you've never spent time in one of the many
public schools in which the majority of students were poor (by the
federal definition of poverty). If you did, you would know that
whatever happens in these institutions, it certainly could not be
called education. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KSG
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 2:02 am
Post subject: Re: Colleges make me sick to the stomach |
|
|
"Abe Kohen" <akohen@xenon.stanford.edu> wrote in message news:<bu4rjc$du771$1@ID-102750.news.uni-berlin.de>...
| Quote: | "KSG" <ksg619@hotmail.com> wrote
That's a fallacious argument. The problem is that we don't have a
meritocracy.
Well we used to, BEFORE affirmative action, and AFTER the end of quotas.
Even in the 70s we had a meritocracy, when a poor boy like me was able to
bootstrap himself and earn a MERIT based fellowship for grad studies at Cal.
|
You honestly think we had a meritocracy ever in this country? Abe,
are you really that naive or are you just playing Devil's Advocate?
You really seem to have that Ann Coulter type of perspective.
| Quote: | We have a system where if you're rich you can be lazy
and your many makes you money, and opens your doors.
If you're poor
you have to work twice as hard to get half as much.
Welcome to the real world. Some of us learned this BEFORE we went to
college, so we were motivated to excel academically, and NOT sit on our lazy
asses.
|
Yeah, tell that to all the people that busted their butts, but had to
support their brothers and sisters. Tell that to people who couldn't
go home to study, because of their parents drug habits.
Sure that is the real world. Just like the real world in Germany in
30s didn't look so great for the Jews, nor the real world in 1800s for
Blacks. You seem to excuse injustice by shrugging and saying "that's
the real world". If it weren't for people who stood up to the system,
you probably wouldn't be here today.
| Quote: | It's like saying
that Paris Hilton and a child raised in the projects both have
opportunities for being a millionaire since every 7-11 store sells
lotto tickets.
There are a lot of people who are not born with the wealth of a Hilton, who
have realized the American dream. It usually takes HARD WORK.
|
Ah yes, the hard work line. As my dad puts it... it's the biggest lie
his mom ever told him. If you think yuo get ahead with hard work, let
me introduce you to the janitor at my office who literally works 16
hours a day (two janitorial jobs, and the nicest guy you could meet).
There are millions of people that work harder than you (or me for that
matter) by 6am than you've ever done in your whole life, but they
couldn't afford Paris's lip liner. I think we both know quite a few
millionaires... I can safely say that none I've met has the work ethic
of the people in my family -- of course they all had lighter skin than
my family though.
| Quote: | This isn't about socialism. It's about having a system that gives
everyone an EQUAL opportunity from birth to death.
Too many people who get FREE (taxpayer paid) education from K-12 put it to
waste, and then expect a good ole socialist handout when it comes to
college. Thanks to Justice O'Connor, they have another 25 years to be held
to a lower standard.
|
Who exactly are these people? I want examples of these people who put
their education to WASTE and then received a handout.
| Quote: | But really no one
cares about that issue.
Really? What are you doing to maximize the education of poor students in
K-12?
|
Well if you've ever read my posts, you'd see I've done a bit, although
I could always do more. I've done free SAT tutoring, I've also
mentored science programs elementary school programs, ran the Southern
California Camping Conference for high school students.
| Quote: | The only issue that most care about is that
white males, at age 17, can leverage all associated socio-economic
status and power to get into the college of their choice (and it's not
your local community college that they want to get into).
Replace "white male" with "all applicants held to a higher standard."
|
Do you hold rich white males to a higher standard? Do you factor in
societal benefits to measure what people really have achieved or to
measure potential? I didn't think so. You only want to make sure
that you get into your business school of choice, because of course
Abe deserved it... you worked hard.
KSG |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2004 3:44 am
Post subject: Re: Value of GMAT score |
|
|
Not to belabour the issue, or to over-simplify, since I do not
disagree with what you say. I just wanted to reinforce a point that
average GMAT scores represent the average of those accepted, not of
all those who apply. Therefore, if you score at or near the average,
you are in pretty good shape - insofar as the GMAT is concerned.
Scoring below the average student body should not be a discouragement,
as many applicants see it.
Ultimately, what I am getting at is that a 690 is a very good score
(better, in fact, than 50% of students accepted to top-10 schools). Of
course, other meterials will need to be outstanding to be admitted to
harvard, but 690 is a good start.
Craig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ram Lau
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2004 3:28 pm
Post subject: Re: CMU more affordable to low-income whites and Asian-Ameri |
|
|
| Quote: | If you want to gamble with your money, be my guest, but I would be remiss if
any innocent reading this ng would take up daytrading believing in the myth,
especially of they would gamble away their parents' hard earned tuition
money.
|
First, what kind of idiot would buy MSFT the turtle? The pros retired before 35
for a reason. They know very well about swing trading and daytrading. For
example, this week they discovered the following stocks:
Monday:
CBMX UP 26.24%
DFCT UP 18.84%
SYMM UP 16.30%
KERX UP 13.15%
Tuesday:
ZTEL UP 17.55%
CRIS UP 12.91%
CMRC UP 10.23%
Wednesday:
RCNC UP 15.08%
VLNC UP 12.35%
CMRC UP 9.28%
Thursday:
SVVS UP 23.08%
GIGM UP 8.15%
Friday:
CIEN UP 20.57%
SONS UP 16.02%
INSG UP 18.22%
All bought at between 9:30-10am and sold from 3-4pm. Assume there is $45k as
initial capital, i.e. $15k for each trading day, one can make at least
$15k*0.06*5 (let's just say a very modest 6% gain a day on average) = $4,500
last week. After capital gains tax and fees, still more than $3,000 in 5 days.
Of course, you have to do you own DD before you buy the stocks. (That's
precisely what they are good at.) It's been very profitable to them since April
03. A few of these "losers" had made millions of dollars by last November, and
they donated half of the money to their charities. So far they have not had a
losing day since the formation of the brilliant team. And I believe tight stop
losses (8% is the norm, said IBD's O'Neil) will guide them through even a major
correction this year.
They use Ameritrade, Power E-Trade, and Scottrade mostly. I don't always get a
chance to speak with them. But a couple of them would throw me a bone every now
and then. Let's say today, I made some nice money buying CIEN and AMCC.
Last words... I do NOT encourage daytrading, especially to those who don't know
much about stocks. You really have to know what you are doing in the stock
market.
Ram Lau |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Abe Kohen
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 6:48 am
Post subject: Re: [Way Off Topic: Follies of Daytrading] [was:] CMU more a |
|
|
"Ram Lau" <ramlau@cc.no-spam.gatech.edu> wrote in message
news:buarnl$s26$1@news-int2.gatech.edu...
| Quote: | If you want to gamble with your money, be my guest, but I would be
remiss if
any innocent reading this ng would take up daytrading believing in the
myth,
especially of they would gamble away their parents' hard earned tuition
money.
First, what kind of idiot would buy MSFT the turtle?
|
Strawman! It was an example of how transaction costs impact profit and loss,
not a stock pick.
| Quote: | The pros retired before 35
for a reason. They know very well about swing trading and daytrading. For
example, this week they discovered the following stocks:
Monday:
CBMX UP 26.24%
DFCT UP 18.84%
SYMM UP 16.30%
KERX UP 13.15%
|
After the horse race, anyone can read the racing sheet and "pick" the
winner.
Furthermore, when you write that CBMX was up 26.24% on Monday, what you mean
is that CBMX closed on Friday Jan 9 at 4.23 and closed on Monday, Jan 12 at
5.34. Now when did you get your signal to buy? On Friday or on Monday? Why
do I ask because CBMX gapped open on Monday to 4.90, so there is no way in
hell that you bought it at 4.23 if you got your signal on Monday.
Notice, I have not yet mentioned bid-ask spreads and round-trip
transaction/clearing costs, which further erode your purely imaginary
profit.
| Quote: | All bought at between 9:30-10am and sold from 3-4pm.
|
Oops, if you bought CBMX on Monday between 9:30-10am, 4.70 was the absolute
best price you could have bought it for, 5.5 is the best you could have sold
it for (between 3-4 pm), so (5.5 - 4.7)/4.7 = 17%, before spreads and
round-trip transaction costs. Oops. Oops. Oops. No 26.24% at all!
I could of course pick apart all your post-race "picks," but I'll leave it
to the student as an exercise.
| Quote: | Assume there is $45k as
initial capital, i.e. $15k for each trading day, one can make at least
|
$45K -> 15K per day? 25% haircut?
| Quote: | $15k*0.06*5 (let's just say a very modest 6% gain a day on average) =
$4,500 |
6% is a very modest gain? 6% per day is a tremendous gain, especially on
your leverage. I don't know of a single hedge fund, returning such
tremendous gains.
A more likely "gain" for daytraders, is between 0 and negative. This
reflects the lack of a crystal ball.
Even professional statistical arbitrage traders cannot pick ALL winners.
| Quote: | last week. After capital gains tax and fees, still more than $3,000 in 5
days.
Of course, you have to do you own DD before you buy the stocks. (That's
precisely what they are good at.)
|
You need a crystal ball or a time machine to do what you claim they do.
| Quote: | It's been very profitable to them since April
03.
|
Who is "them?"
| Quote: | A few of these "losers" had made millions of dollars by last November, and
they donated half of the money to their charities. So far they have not
had a
losing day since the formation of the brilliant team. And I believe tight
stop
losses (8% is the norm, said IBD's O'Neil) will guide them through even a
major
correction this year.
They use Ameritrade, Power E-Trade, and Scottrade mostly. I don't always
get a
chance to speak with them. But a couple of them would throw me a bone
every now
and then. Let's say today, I made some nice money buying CIEN and AMCC.
Last words... I do NOT encourage daytrading, especially to those who don't
know
much about stocks. You really have to know what you are doing in the stock
market.
|
I encourage you, and all others, to NOT daytrade.
Let's not forget the Atlanta daytrader who went postal after losing about
$400K.
Abe |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in