Saturday, January 22, 2005
a rarity: i'm sitting at home on a saturday night with nothing to do. same story as last semester: its just the first week and hence the lull before the storm; "before you get hammered with all the assignments and papers" in the words of my PI. (She also has a curiously neighing horse laugh. its a obvious marker when she's around. but i digress. another blog post i suppose)
one of my resolutions was to slow down my life and take time to smell the roses; i don't know whether its been true or not. maybe is too early to tell. two credit courses (as opposed to the standard three courses) imply that less coursework is required, but the sum of parts don't add up to their whole, especially when graduate courses are concerned. and having spotted some faces from McArdle in lecture on Friday, I don't know whether I'd be safe from the 3.8 monster this semester.
its a deplorable creature, this 3.8 ogre. it is the primary leash to which i'm bound to my surrogate sponsor agency/paymaster/slavedriver (i'd give other names, but u know what i mean.) whenever i choose courses, there's always this question at the back of my mind that sez ("will i get screwed? is it possible at all to be safe?"). Even if i scoff at the damned things, it somehow makes its presence felt even after the euphoria of finishing the finals. 2 weeks on and waiting for the results, i will be subject to the full rage of its power, striking me when i least expect it.
"shit man, did i make a really bad gamble choosing history? its not a definite A you know..."
"... the worst thing is that i'd be freaking working as a lab tech if i get screwed, and all those smiling bastards, those that took the straight and narrow road, the it'd-better-be-easy-to-score-or-else-i-won't-take-this-course dicks, exactly the type that would take Introduction to Voice 101 or some shit course like Ballroom Dancing or Wine tasting 101.. they'd be traipsing off to grad school. goddamn*@)(u_*)_*@&(!^@^$!*()!)&$!*_!09
one of the profs told us "if you had to purely use statistics to do an experiment, then you're doing the wrong experiment"
so why the hell am i held at mercy by a piece of meaningless data? How do you tell one is a better scientist? By their freaking undergraduate GPAs, or by the number of papers they actually published? And they call themselves a scientific agency.
one of my resolutions was to slow down my life and take time to smell the roses; i don't know whether its been true or not. maybe is too early to tell. two credit courses (as opposed to the standard three courses) imply that less coursework is required, but the sum of parts don't add up to their whole, especially when graduate courses are concerned. and having spotted some faces from McArdle in lecture on Friday, I don't know whether I'd be safe from the 3.8 monster this semester.
its a deplorable creature, this 3.8 ogre. it is the primary leash to which i'm bound to my surrogate sponsor agency/paymaster/slavedriver (i'd give other names, but u know what i mean.) whenever i choose courses, there's always this question at the back of my mind that sez ("will i get screwed? is it possible at all to be safe?"). Even if i scoff at the damned things, it somehow makes its presence felt even after the euphoria of finishing the finals. 2 weeks on and waiting for the results, i will be subject to the full rage of its power, striking me when i least expect it.
"shit man, did i make a really bad gamble choosing history? its not a definite A you know..."
"... the worst thing is that i'd be freaking working as a lab tech if i get screwed, and all those smiling bastards, those that took the straight and narrow road, the it'd-better-be-easy-to-score-or-else-i-won't-take-this-course dicks, exactly the type that would take Introduction to Voice 101 or some shit course like Ballroom Dancing or Wine tasting 101.. they'd be traipsing off to grad school. goddamn*@)(u_*)_*@&(!^@^$!*()!)&$!*_!09
one of the profs told us "if you had to purely use statistics to do an experiment, then you're doing the wrong experiment"
so why the hell am i held at mercy by a piece of meaningless data? How do you tell one is a better scientist? By their freaking undergraduate GPAs, or by the number of papers they actually published? And they call themselves a scientific agency.
