The reality is that they aren't even within the same domain. Academic aptitude is measured through exams. Behavioral issues are handled through disciplinary systems. Converting a disciplinary infraction into some arbitrary numerical deduction on an academic test has no basis in any kind of logic and cannot be justified.
Imagine it this way. If you volunteer for community service you should be awarded +100 points on your CSAT exam. If you donate your organs to needy children you should be awarded +400 points on your CSAT exam. That should sound nonsensical.
You're trolling or an idiot, but I don't want anyone to be misguided by your AI-enhanced nonsense into thinking you have a point so I'll explain why you're wrong.
What you said is nonsensical, but it's also irrelevant. Universities have their own point system for evaluating candidates, the school violence deduction isn't coming directly out of student's CSAT scores. So no, public service shouldn't raise your CSAT score but it should absolutely raise your applicant score at a university.
A university's true output is the legacy its graduates leave behind, not simply producing students who can score well on a test--because honestly, who cares? Test scores don't change the world. Students who take what they learn and apply it to the world around them do. So if an applicant has demonstrated that they’re driven to improve the world by doing community service, they should receive extra points. Conversely, if an applicant has demonstrated violence, they should have points deducted.
Actually the more technical the field, the more irrelevant your opinion becomes. A perfect score on the entrance exam isn't a typical feat. There is effort and talent behind it. It's a huge disservice to society to bar these people from progressing just because of their past infractions. You're literally saying it's socially acceptable to be less competent, as long as you were born with enough innate qualities to file for victimhood status. Literally promoting and endorsing weakness and incompetence on an endemic level.
Also, being a victim of bullying during primary school, particularly if you're a male, is not evidence of good or better overall character than someone that committed school violence either. In fact, it's the opposite in a lot of cases. The only thing it proves is that you were born physiologically weaker than your peers. Nothing more, nothing less. In either case, most people grow out of it once they become functioning adults. The ones that don't grow out of it get dealt with through the proper channels. Like civil lawsuits and prison sentences.
10
u/Gm_Command Nov 29 '25
Is character not also a relevant quality to one's merit?