Just got into this school based on a friend's recommendation. What do you guys think of the great books program...

>not going to a cc for smaller classes and professors who actually want to teach and then transferring to a four year

See you there this fall little faggot :^)

That's fucking insane

kek

parents paying i'd hope

>america

>average discount rate is 70 percent
I bet you think people also have to pay $750 for daraprim. Financial aid at most colleges basically boils down to having to pay what you can afford.

>smaller classes
doubt it buddy, because of the importation of pedros, every CC that's not in the middle of nowhere has massive class sizes, SJC has an average class size of 16

>professors who actually want to teach
>CC

really sounds like someone did bad in high school and is trying to justify not getting into a decent school

thanks for this post user

They also have a lot of tuition assistance and need based aid. Most kids go there fairly cheap.

I'm going there on GI Bill and Yellow Ribbon like a lot of vets do. Free babyyyyy

Good info. Not poor so wouldn't know.

nop, just saving money dumbfuck

sounds like ur insecure about your college's 84% acceptance rate and tuition but ok

pretty much this, st johns is easy shit. that means you will be surrounded by second-tier students, probably because you are second-tier yourself.

go to real university. the great books program is hilarious. read that shit on your own time.

Please tell me you're not going to pay
For basically having a higher-than-usual high school curriculum?

That's based. Are you a warrior poet?

Santa Fe or Annapolis?

see
>second-tier students
>St. John's is in the top two percent of all colleges and universities in the nation for percent of alumni who go on to earn PhDs
>About 50% of kids don't even graduate
>easy shit

OK

college threads bring out the envy, regret & misery every time

This curriculum doesn't worth 1,000$, man.

who /wellesley/ here?

>going to a school founded by four of the signers of the declaration of independence
based

OP, what the fuck. If you made up your mind already then why did you make this shitty masturbatory thread? If you wanna go then fucken go.

i go to a college that's better than st. johns. i'd bash st.johns any day of the week

we're on Veeky Forums

>masturbatory thread
>general university thread

it's almost like OP didn't intend for the entire thread to be about SJC

...

nigger please. he's defending sjc to the max.

i got a cc in dallas texas and my class sizes have not been over 30

>expecting an 18 year old to not be defensive about the $30,000+ decision he made that he is uncertain of

do you also let toddlers watch after infants for you?

>subtle

Now this is subtle bait

i despise 18 year olds. i'll take any opportunity to shit on them.

boy, this really got me going for a second

keep screaming at babbies grandpa

you don't have to tell me kid, i'm already doing it =^)

Got accepted to Princeton. Should I go?

My other option is Stanford.

Anybody /Grinwell/ and ready for finals week

Just graduated from SJC Annapolis, so take this for what that's worth.

One, the dropout rate is only about 33%-- the national average is 41%.

The acceptance rate at St. John's is around 80%.

And, from my own personal experience:

The vast majority of my classmates should not have gone to St. John's. Most of them shouldn't be doing classics or philosophy. Some of them shouldn't have gone to college straight out of high school at all.

The problem with St. John's is that there is virtually no written homework, there are no exams, and absolutely no guidance at all on how a seminar style class works. We talk big about our ideals of asking tough questions, hitting dead ends together, working through ideas, and clarifying everything in common; in practice, since most of these kids have no idea how to read deeply or really question themselves (and because there's really no way to make sure they even do the damn reading), most of class time is spent either clarifying basic questions and doing the work of reading comprehension IN CLASS, or bullshitting and obfuscating, avoiding difficult questions, or just staying silent. These are DEEP books, so it's pretty easy to bullshit.

What I just described is how classes can go at their worst; I won't say it was all that all the time. Rarely, we rose to the level of our ideals.

But it's demoralizing and fatiguing. Everyone wants to be able to say their doing good work and meaningful work. So they bullshit themselves as much as they bullshit their classmates. The alternative is not just hard (doing all your readings well means doing them at least twice), it's also no guarantee that class will go well. And the discussions are the HEART of the program. There's basically nothing else. Your grade is around 80% participation. There's no way to measure yourself or hold your feet to the fire.

To make your time here worth it, you have to find a handful of friends who are serious about the program. If you're a sperg, that's hard. And they won't always want to focus as much or as little as you want to focus. So much here is dependent on what you share in common with your friends and classmates. Most young, sloppy people are not ready for this kind of COMMUNITY of learning. Most of them would have done better at a school were you work on your own, get easy-to-digest feedback in the form of homework and paper grades.

Good luck, kid.

Of the NESCAC, which schools are the most literary?

I am very forward in classroom discussions. Since Elementary School I have been raising my hand to challenge teachers and often I speak in opposition to the entire class. I kind of enjoy being in diametric opposition to a large group of people. Do you think that I can still enjoy SJC? Will my very aggressive presence in the classroom make a difference with the depth of discussion, or will we be doomed to focusing on the students who have trouble with reading comprehension?

OH, I see you may be going to Sante Fe, since you cited a 50% dropout rate. Yes, that's around the rate for the Sante Fe campus.

The Santa Fe campus's acceptance rate is around 90%.

So...

Also, there's alot more flakiness and drug use on that campus. Godspeed.

Lightin' up the hill all night long nigga

But actually, Tufts has a lot going for it by virtue of location. Boston's an amazing college town and people at the rural NESCAC schools get bored.

probably amherst, wesleyan, and hamilton

yeah I was referencing santa fe

>...often I speak in opposition to the entire class. I kind of enjoy being in diametric opposition to a large group of people. Do you think that I can still enjoy SJC? Will my very aggressive presence...

St. John's will break you.

It will happen in one of several ways, it partly depends on you:

One, either you're as you described AND you're enthusiastic and intelligent and eager. In that case, you'll piss off all the lazy students and even some of the tutors for being too dominate. It's not a debate, it's a discussion. You can't have a discussion when no one wants to talk to you, either because they can't get on your level or because they feel like you're a bullying show off. You'll have to work with your good classmates through difficult ideas and not leave anyone behind- you'll have to listen and take them seriously, really try to communicate (and that means LISTENING), understand where THEY are coming from and HOW they think, incorporate their ideas into your own, talk in language they'll understand, find common ground and common language. Or you'll be sitting alone surrounded by people who think you're an ungracious loudmouth.

Or you're as you described and an idiot, to boot. In that case you'll be just a loudmouth, and then the TUTORS will hate you just as much as your classmates.

Quick test:
Would you describe yourself as good at debating?
Do you like a good argument?

If you answered yes to both of those questions, you're not going to fit in while in your natural mode. "Debate" and "argument" are the farthest things from the St. John's ethos that I can think of, next to silence.

Yes to both of your questions, I have won Moot Court Awards, statewide debate competitions, and medalled in Academic Decathlon for speech. Debate and Argument is kind of my lifeblood. But, SJC would certainly be preferable to a traditional college, would it not?

Thanks for the insight, I agree that SJC might require that I tone down my behavior a little bit and try to appeal a bit more to the crowd. It's a skill I've been wanting to work on anyways. I'm very good at getting about 70% of a room to hate me while 30% loves me, I kind of see SJC as practicing grounds where I can change those numbers. My primary goal is engineering, but I want to follow that with a career in politics.

I can't tell if you're trolling.

St. John's is a community of learning. It's not a popularity contest or test lab for politicians. Even the dumbest people there can tell when they're talking to a future rhetorician, a double-talker, a condescender, or a high functioning sociopath.

If you're not going because you want to stand in awe of the greatest books by the greatest minds of the West, admit you know nothing, doubt yourself, examine yourself, and learn to listen to other sensitive thinkers, you're wasting your time.

You sound like you like to win. That you like to persuade or to force. As though power, not knowledge, is your true desire. Go somewhere else. There are better schools for your needs out there.

College question for you all: I'm transferring out of my local County College and I have offers from UConn, Villanova, and American for Poli Sci. I'm out of state for all three and it doesn't look like I'll be getting any financial aid because they don't gibs transfer students shit, apparently. Where should I go, senpai?

I've been debating for the entirety of my life. I learned a long time ago that the vast majority of people can not be reasoned with rationally. I am beyond capable of rational discussion, my views are not decided by what I think people will like or dislike, but by my own rational analysis and having a rational discussion with the people I surround myself with. I am not some kind of brute or mindless animal. I can tell when someone is empty-minded and will follow charisma and confidence and I'll use those as tools to convince.

I'm not a sociopath, or someone who likes to win for the sake of victory. I'm passionate about policy and political philosophy and I have a broader knowledge of these topics than anyone I've ever met. I regularly debate Democratic Party Officials as well as Fox News Pundits. These are, for the most part, rational people, who you can try to convince with logic and reason, but as I'm sure you know very well most people will quickly abandon both of these things when a charismatic leader like Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders comes along to snake charm them. There is no reason to feel guilty about manipulating an irrational fool in the aims of a just cause, just as there is no reason to feel guilty about manipulating a dog into sniffing drugs at security checkpoints by giving them treats.

I see St. John's as a place where I can read a text, come to a conclusion and present rational arguments for those conclusions but by doing so in as convincing of a way as possible. A 45-minute classroom session with 16 people trying to get a word in edgewise does not seem like the optimal place for in-depth rational discussion. While I'm sure I'll come to all kinds of new conclusions about things I hadn't considered while in seminar, what I really look forward to, in terms of advancing as a thinker, is the discussion that occurs outside the classroom, as you yourself mentioned.

you sound extremely unpleasant

Good things we'll never be friends then, I wouldn't want to keep someone around who found me unpleasant :)

and insecure

no problem with someone who doesn't agree with me or thinks I'm dumb or anything like that. I pity you if you actually think someone is insecure for not spending time with people who find them unpleasant

it's the nature of the responses. You seem like a sociopath who's unaware of being one.

should i go to bard?
never got good enough grades to get into wesleyan

That's funny, I'm transferring out of Tufts.

>I see St. John's as a place where I can read a text, come to a conclusion and present rational arguments for those conclusions but by doing so in as convincing of a way as possible.
>come to a conclusion

This is were you're missing the point. If you walk into a discussion with a conclusion to argue for, you'll be getting the way of the pursuit of knowledge.

Persuasion always presumes some you have some knowledge and you wish to teach or lead for the sake of some end other than knowledge. But knowledge is exactly what you're supposed to be seeking in the first place.

Let's say you're correct about something (and there's nothing more boring than being "correct"--or thinking and acting like you are); what do gain by convincing someone? The best thing to do is join Socrates in humbly acknowledging that you know nothing, and therefore you at least know what you don't know.

You're supposed to learning how to learn, and I mean that in the most serious, earnest possible way that cliche could be taken.

You may be clever. You may be great at forming provisional conclusions and arguing for them. But you're not wise, and you'll be wasting your time at St. John's without a serious change in the things you're fundamentally passionate about.

You're supposed to have gone through this phase in school.

you are probably just not used to people actually being honest about themselves and that's why you think I'm a sociopath. Everyone engages in manipulative behavior, whether it's a girl who gives a sperg a little bit of attention so that he can comfort her and provide her with bounds of attention and compliments and self confidence. Or if it's an employee who is extra nice to his boss around the time when pay review happens or during a layoff period. If you were to leave this imaginary idealistic bubble you see yourself in, and critically analyse your behavior, you would realize you engage in all kinds of self-interested manipulations of other people. Just because you are not conscious of it, does not mean you are not doing it. I'm just a person who is extremely introspective and what I mean by manipulation is any kind of appeal to emotion or something that isn't purely rational. If you want to try to live a life where you don't appeal to people's emotions and behave a certain way just because you know someone is watching and you want to leave a certain impression, then you are going to have to live some kind of hermetic life and you will not be very happy because most people are very emotional about most things that aren't their area of expertise. I, for example, am very emotional about friendship. I don't determine friendships rationally, based on how much attention someone gives me, or how often they can hang out, or how good looking they are, or any kind of tangible measure. My friends are mostly people who make me feel a certain way. The sooner you are prepared to admit this about yourself and recognize your own manipulative nature as well as that of everyone around you the sooner you'll be happier. You can still be a man of principle, and someone who does not abuse or harm other people, someone who takes great care to ensure the happiness of the people around himself, and a good person while recognizing the need to appeal to emotion

yeh, you're definitely a sociopath

did you not read what I said?

I didn't say that my conclusions would be correct. Merely, that I would feel a certain way, or have a certain hypothesis about a text, and it's very unlikely that the short time for discussion that seminar allows will change my mind, because I don't come to conclusions without thinking of every counterargument I can conceive of, and I am skeptical the discussion will be as in depth as the analysis that I do on my own. That being said, I'm confident there will be plenty of people at St. John's who are much brighter than I am, much more capable, and who can prove me wrong on all kinds of things in one-to-one discussions where we can go in depth

So, you're telling me you never appeal to people's emotions for your own personal gain in your life? Or that nobody has ever swayed you by appealing to your emotions?

I wonder, when you see an attractive woman, are you attracted to her because you are guesstimating the width of her hips and size of her breasts and coming to a rational conclusion about how fertile she is? Or, are you attracted to her because she just, deep down, makes you feel a certain way?

Do you also treat your professors and bosses just like all of your friends? Or are you careful to *manipulate* them into having a certain view of you that is to your benefit?

Unless you are directly translating your internal monologue to external behavior all the time and with everyone then you are being "manipulative". You are behaving in a way to manipulate the emotions of someone else to perceive you as something different than the reality of your internal self.

again, it's the nature of your responses.

plus, why would guessing her fertility not be manipulation but being attracted by feeling be manipulation. I've not even made any contact with her yet in both these scenarios

I used to read classics and philosophy to my buddies when we were laying around the CHUs and stuff. Not much poetry.

I'm not going to tell you. Last thing I need is a sweaty 18 year old trying to find me while I'm trying to graduate high in the class.

Why?

I'm concerned for you because you can't say anything other than things about the nature of my responses. My responses might seem strange because very few people are honest about these things and it's quite jarring when most people see someone being honest about these things for the first times but you can't point out a single thing I've said that's untrue, or a single behavior I'm engaging in which is either bad or unhealthy, or that other people don't engage in.

My point was simply that an appeal to human emotion is taking advantage of human irrationality which is something that most people, when faced with explicitly, will look down upon or attack as evil, without realizing the hypocrisy of the attacks on this behavior.

I am in no means a sociopath. I don't even come close to meeting the DSM-V criteria for sociopathy. I am an empathetic and compassionate person. I am motivated by the benefits I might provide others. I try to spread political ideas because I genuinely believe these ideas will be to the benefit of the vast majority of people. I don't harm others for the sake of self gain and I would obviously see someone who does that as abhorrent. I have never stolen or cheated on an exam, and I have contributed hundreds of hours to my community. You have been indoctrinated into thinking that someone who is conscious of the details of social behavior must be a bad or evil person, and you make those accusations when I've said nothing to make you think that. All I ever said, was that I would like to practice my ability to be a charismatic and persuasive speaker who can appeal to a wider audience

I hope you end up going to sjc and I see your obnoxious ass in a class. Shouldn't be hard to spot.

lol, there are plenty of people on this board and in this thread that have admitted they go to sjc, you are not revealing anything by saying what campus you go to

Santa Fe or Annapolis?

You're mistaking producing a reaction with genuine a manipulation. You don't manipulate a tree by predicting kicking it will make an apple drop.

I am going to annapolis btw, I chose the campus because I've been rowing for a few years

Annapolis. I'm also the other guy. I hope I see you there you dweeb.

Ok, so what do you define as manipulation, and how have I met that definition?

I'm not the person you're responding to, I was merely pointing out what I read. I don't think you manipulate anything, and honestly, you seem to be a bit blind about your environment.

I guessed your ex-military ass would be in annapolis. You can find me wherever the nerds are playing DnD, don't beat me up too bad =)

Dude. Just let me give you some advice. Because you need it. You sound like a really bright kid. But you gotta remeber you are still a kid. The way you are now and the way you think now are not how you will in 5 years. You need to unwind a bit, realize you have a lot of life to live and absorb everything you can.

Trust me. There is more to life than being vocal and competitive. Learn to love listening and you'll be a lot wiser.

Just calm down. Channel that intelligence you have positively. You guys are the reason I want to go to sjc. Young kids a lot smarter than me.

Sucks about your debt tho lmao.

>My point was simply that an appeal to human emotion is taking advantage of human irrationality which is something that most people, when faced with explicitly, will look down upon or attack as evil, without realizing the hypocrisy of the attacks on this behavior.

How did the fertility vs attraction thing demonstrate this? If that was not it's purpose what was it's purpose.

Also, people's internal monologues seems a very odd measure of authentic feeling. A person's internal monologue may be 'oh, dear, better think of a lie, ok say X'

If you agree this is true then how does:

>Unless you are directly translating your internal monologue to external behavior all the time and with everyone then you are being "manipulative"

hold up?

Your charm and persuasiveness could use some work I'd say

Also, you're assuming a whole lot. I've just said that the nature of your responses makes you seem like a sociopath, you're the one assuming why.

Having said this, you remind me of Lance Armstrong, he talked about empathy and so on in his interviews, particularly with Joe Rogan. Still get the sense he's a sociopath.

I do not think anything of their great books program. I did not attend St John's College. Anyone else spouting their opinion about that program without firsthand knowledge should be disregarded in kind.

I listened to the Lance interview too, you're definitely right about him, but that has nothing to do with me. It's definitely hard to trust a guy who says "5 years ago I would have lied straight to your fucking face" without skipping a beat and then take him for his word that he is reformed, definitely one of the better JRE's though, a lot of the recent ones have been boring as fuck.

>How did the fertility vs attraction thing demonstrate this? If that was not it's purpose what was it's purpose.

While the analogy wasn't perfect, what I was trying to show was that if our measure of manipulative versus not manipulative is rational honesty as opposed to an appeal to emotion than a woman's body would be manipulative. It's not a great example because the shape of her body is obviously not a consciously decided behavior the way that for example, a girl who starts crying for her friends to comfort her might be, but you get the point

>how does it hold up
My point is that the person who's monologue goes "oh, dear, better think of a lie, ok say X" is, according to the definition of the term manipulative I've been using manipulative. Because they are intentionally misrepresenting themselves or the truth for personal gain, which I think most people would classify as manipulative behavior.

Sure I'm making assumptions, but it's certainly hard to respond to an accusation that was entirely unfounded by evidence. The only reasonable response to such a thing would be to call you a moron for making such a character attack with no evidence to support your claim, but I guess I have nothing better to do than to defend myself to stranger's on the internet so I took the bait and tried to fill in the blanks of what I thought you were trying to get at.

>My point is that the person who's monologue goes "oh, dear, better think of a lie, ok say X" is, according to the definition of the term manipulative I've been using manipulative.

Exactly, so in this case someone's internal monologue is being directly translated to external behaviour and is being manipulative by your definition which negates:

>Unless you are directly translating your internal monologue to external behavior all the time and with everyone then you are being "manipulative".

Which was how you classed manipulation just a while ago.

I do not remotely understand your woman point: if measuring her fertility is deemed rational honesty, how is it not tied up in desire to have sex and have children which would also be some form of manipulation as it is based in emotional desire by your standard. If that's not your point then I really don't know what you're trying to say.

And how does anyone coldly and rationally decide anything without emotion as a guiding force.

Plus, the girl crying could well reflexively cry when put in a situation of distress as she learnt it worked for comfort when she was a child. If you start crying in many scenarios it is not a conscious choice, you can't help but cry so is that manipulation? But then again it may be that you only cry because you were conditioned to do so when younger so is that manipulation?
Plus when children are very young they haven't any concept of other people's minds but they still cry out in what seems to be an attempt to receive attention, is that manipulation? If so, why?

have fun paying for superficial direction in your lives college shills ^_^

>I learned everything I need to know in Sunday school, welding school and the school of hard knocks!
Okay buddy

I'm in college but I don't see anything wrong with that at all

not talking about a baby who cries in distress, but research has shown that babies as young as 7 months old will cry in order to receive attention. I am specifically talking about someone who cries with the conscious motivation of getting attention, we've all seen someone do this. Younger Children who haven't reached their teens yet are very bad at disguising this behavior and it's pretty obvious.

No, the person's monologue is not being translated because while they are acting on the conclusion they have come to as to how they ought to behave internally, what I meant by representing your internal monologue was not to come to conscious conclusions about what should be verbalized but to verbalize your entire internal thought process. Effectively to be 100% honest with the external world about what is going on internally.

Yes, at the end of the day if you follow human intentions for long enough you will find that they end up at some point where emotion comes into play and you are satisfying arbitrary human desires. I never denied that, and if anything that only serves to defend my argument because if you follow any argument or justification for something to it's logical conclusion or end, you will find that it is related to some satisfying some human emotion or desire which has no relationship to rational thought, other than the fact that I can rationally conceive that it feel good when food goes in my mouth and when I hear a joke and when I go to sleep. This si certainly a worthwhile discussion to be had but has nothing to do with your baseless claim that I am a sociopath

Well now you're just changing your definitions, no point in arguing against that.

And even if we take this definition of internal monologue, there are people who reflexively lie without any awareness of their internal thought process, are they exempt considering even if their thought process was broadcast to the world, they would have parts not broadcast.

Well then you may change your definition to just 'somehow' broadcasting how one truly feels. But it is a fairly well believed idea that we haven't access to the vast majority of how we process things and that it involves unconscious parts of ourselves in huge part. If we are not conscious of so much of what drives us are we still manipulators and if so, how can we prove it?

So if at the end of the day it all comes down to emotion then why isn't everything manipulation. And if it is then why did you make a distinction in the first place?

p.s. you still seem like a sociopath

Sad that you still haven't managed to come up with one argument, good night.

sad that you refuse to deal with the part of the discussion you deemed 'worthwhile' about 15 mins ago and decided to cop out

night night

>sjc debate in a nutshell

gi bill fag here

you're a dumbass- gi bill only covers like, 20,000 per semester. you're footing the rest of the bill

I go to pic related. It essentially has a similar "Great Books" program through the Core.

Would highly recommend it