【蛋疼】和申请无关，简单维个权。（对面表示不再回应 那么See you in America）

申请UWMadison的CS PMP项目被拒了，这倒是没啥，不过当知道很多没有一年全职工作经验还未毕业的童鞋们拿到ad了，我发现自己上当了。
这是他家项目官网admission requirements中的一段
"Applicants to the PMP must also satisfy the above requirements. In addition, they must have at least one year of prior or current working experience (by the time they enroll in the PMP), either in the U.S. or abroad.
Working experience is defined as full-time employment at a company/startup, organization, or government agency, after finishing the undergraduate program".

竟然你用了must一词，并且和别家的professional项目不同，特别标明了如何去定义这个“一年工作经验”，
而最后你不按照条rule去执行，那就不能怪我，我正好蛋疼，得和你们好好讨个说法。

于是昨天我给项目小蜜发信并抄送给CS department director要求给出解释并且赔偿申请费损失，因为如果没有这条信誓旦旦的rule来截住大量申请者，我不会费钱申请他家。

今早收到小蜜回复：
“As usual, for any program there is a set of rules. But the rules can't cover all the cases, so there is always a freedom given to the people on the admission committee to make exceptions, for various reasons.
This has been the case for the regular MS/PhD program. It has been and will be the case for the PMP as well. ”

主体思想就是：这是行规，有各种原因，你懂的。

懂你妹！
你回复我的这些话怎么不和admission requirements放在一起，不是误导是什么？别家项目能写清楚为啥你不能？敢情说一套做另一套现在已经可以成为行规了？
我看你的白纸黑字还得细细揣摩你背后的故事，看看明线之后是否还有暗线？一直没人找你们讨说法还给你们养肥了是不？

于是下面chinglish了一封再次回复了回去：
Hmm...I got it.
Your program has a special skill of misleading applicants.

You should put
"Working experience is just a plus for admission but not a must."&
"There is always a freedom given to the people on the admission committee to make exceptions"
clearly with the admission requirements. Just learn from other universities' professional programs, and then you tell me what you should do before you rightly claim "As usual, ...".

Another thing I have learned is that as usual, your university can't guarantee your own words, and as usual, there are always other meanings to understand by ourselves from your words.

Oh, interesting! It's a paradox, how can I know whether your words replied me are what you really mean or not?

随意吐槽我的渣英语，等待回复继续更新，哈哈～

-------------------------------------------------------Update： 2014.03.26------------------------------------------------------------------------


我补充提出要求：
Actually I do not wanna my money back, what I hope to get from you are:
1. Revise the requirement of working experience in admission requirements to avoid misleading applicants. (You may refer to my last reply.)
    I will not benefit from that, but next year applicants like me won't be misled and students with no working-experience can know they have a chance to join this program.
2. An apology.

Thanks!

主要就是
1、修改有误导性的描述语句，今年已经结束，但你不能来年再坑一批人啊。（这里坑表示像我一样的工作选手，和因为这条tule没申请失去机会的在校童鞋们）
2、事实就是很多人被误导了，不只我一个，你们应该做个道歉。OK，你们不愿意道歉那承认一下错误。OK，你们不愿意承认那是错误那承认一下措辞还可以商榷。OK，你认为你们的措辞完美无缺，那我只能认为你就是想误导申请者，有意而为之


收到回复，来自AnHai Doan，PMP项目的director（越南裔）：
Once we had admitted all applications with work experience, we admitted some additional applicants with outstanding record, as long as there were still slots.

So you were not competing with people fresh out of school. Even within the group of professionals applying, your app was rejected. I just looked at your app, you had a very low GPA of 3.2, very low GRE verbal of 24% and low analytical score of 14%. On top of this, you have a very low TOEFL of 85. Even if you have very strong letters and graduated from a top school, we still couldn't have admitted you with this record. Our admitted applicants typically have a 3.4 GPA or higher, and TOEFL of at least 92. I think it is fair to say that you didn't get in solely because of your record. It is not fair (and professional) to blame other people in this case.

I hope this sheds some light on your case, and this is my last email on this subject. AnHai

整篇没有一句关于我所提出的误导申请者的回复，反而是傲慢地把我的三维一一阵列举来表明即使按照我说的只有工作经验的申请者参与审核我也是个渣，他们有多不屑看到我这样的申请者。
神逻辑！
我的条件是达不到录取，但和我要他们修改requirement的误导性描述有个毛关系。而且还转嫁到我“blame other people in this case.” 有病吧，我明明是在blame you！
还直接“this is my last email on this subject”？ 真牛逼！

根据他的回复，他家采用的是先从有工作经验者中进行筛选，不够的从无经验者中在进行筛选，其实这件事本身并没有问题。而我的要求也只是你得把这个流程给大家说清楚，
不要造成误导（而且已经造成误导是既定事实了，不管是我这样的，还是想申请但因为遵守rule而没有申请的在校生），我觉得这个要求很简单也很明确。。。
你作为第一年新开professional项目不懂如何表述，好的，你可以去参考别家如何写关于工作经验的要求的，没有一家像他家这么写的，至少补充一句“以上规则仅作为参考，录取决定权归委员会所有”，这样我们就知道你上面所说的都是shit，不用太当回事。
补充一下他提到fair，其实可以从我回复看到我不仅仅为我这样的有工作经验的选手被误导鸣不平，还为更多的被他所写的明确的工作经验要求限制而没申请的学生们鸣不平，对这部分人而言其实更不公平。
遵守规则的人反而失去机会，这是成功学自传看多了不管做啥事都要去打破常规？这很合理吗？或者是传递一个信号我们UWM的rules中如果出现“绝对”类的词语，大家不要相信它，呵呵？


我这人从来不好战，但是你非要开战，好吧，来吧！！

-------------------------------------------------------Update： 2014.03.27------------------------------------------------------------------------

好吧，在program director表示不回应之后，他家果然发给谁不管是dept chair还是chancellor再不回复了。逼格够高的 等去了美帝，再找他们哔哔哔去

zelong430 发表于 2015-2-27 09:43
后来在US见到这个教授了嘛？

还没顾及到这件事。现在努力学习，人要强大了才有话语权，但我不会忘了这件事 :)

must to preferred

“从来如此，便对吗”
世界还是变得美好了一点点，
十年前的我也很可爱呢

geng77 发表于 2015-2-27 06:53
any update about this??
support you

Not for now. :)

支持迅哥。用了must还说有商量余地，太扯了

支持一下！
虽然很难得到满意的答复。但是这种质疑的精神还是值得的！

cc给dean!

七叶 发表于 2014-3-25 12:37
支持迅哥。用了must还说有商量余地，太扯了

是啊，你要用个preferred或者plus根本没问题～

cleverley 发表于 2014-3-25 12:41
支持一下！
虽然很难得到满意的答复。但是这种质疑的精神还是值得的！

最讨厌把as usual作为不按照规矩办事的理由，而且还是你自己定的规矩，你要做不到就别写啊

lunachild 发表于 2014-3-25 12:47
cc给dean!

坚决恶心到他们项目主管给个道歉！

鲁迅 发表于 2014-3-25 12:58
坚决恶心到他们项目主管给个道歉！

小蜜不管或者态度恶劣还蛮正常，回邮件的时候cc给dean，或者直接forward给dean

前排占座顶鲁大师

lunachild 发表于 2014-3-25 13:03
小蜜不管或者态度恶劣还蛮正常，回邮件的时候cc给dean，或者直接forward给dean

哈哈，一开始就cc的Department Chair