Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
I'm gonna note to self to reply when I have more time
What you describe is a bit familiar, a bit unfamiliar. Turns out it is adifferent process after all, where I was kinda expecting that all universities worldwide work mostly the same.
Minor (heh heh) note: I'm using the term "university". It's a term with legal meaning around here, above "academy" or whatever, meaning that there's both sciences and humanities. On top of being more prestigious, it's also up for more tax cash. (There's a joke-slash-rumour the local engineering school set up a humanities faculty so they could claim the title.) But I'm using the term in generic way.
Oh, and by the way: medicine has its own crazy set of rules, which I haven't had any experience with. From what I gather it's unitary six years of Master's full of hostile professor clans and gruelling workload, but you don't have to quote me on this.
Around here, we have this thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bologna_Process
I can't say much about how it worked before the system was introduced, but now it's like this. First, you pick a "direction", that's what it literally means in English. Like, for example, physics. You then have a set of classes spread over three years on average (you can receive an allowance to spread it out and you have a bonus seventh semester if it is engineering studies). Near the end, you need to prepare and defend your thesis. If you passed all exams and defended the thesis successfully, you receive a Bachelor's in the chosen discipline.
(Minor edit: some universities - in the generic sense, they don't need to have the legal status of university - which are officially recognized as technical schools, have a right to give out Engineer's degrees. These are usually seen as more desirable than Bachelor's and do not require a strictly technical curriculum, although there's a set of engineering courses like technical drawing that will be inevitable.)
Like I said, you can study two "directions" at the same time, but it's not institutionalized, rather like working two jobs (or like studying and working; the faculty may or not be lenient for working students). They don't need to be on the same university, it's just up to you to pull it off. One of my buddies tried studying physics on another university, on top of studying physics. I dunno why, I guess he either wanted an Engineer's degree, or just to see if it differs.
So, if I understand correctly, that's pretty far from the idea of a major. Now, as for a minor, I think the closest is to start for a Bachelor's somewhere else when you are already working towards Master's in your primary area.
You also usually have a choice of non-obligatory or selective courses, but this is less "hell, I'll take a Creative Writing course on top of my Business Administration" and more "hell, I'll take a Basics of Laser Physics course on top of my Physics". You know, because your faculty will likely offer courses related to its domain. But if you can tackle the bureaucracy, you could probably take any that your university offers.
Some universities also offer "directions" with a widened selection of courses, but you still need to meet the requirements for a degree you try for, so in practice it's just an easier way to worm into a few bonus courses that interest you.
At this level, the thesis is mostly a formality, and while you technically can, few people stop at Bachelor's. (Engineer's, more often, but that'd probably mean you already got a good job.) Usually it's just a first half of Master's level.
That said, if after getting your Bachelor's you decide you've had enough of that sh...tuff, then you are two years ahead compared to having worked for a Master's, and also you have a diploma instead of having simply dropped out. So there's an advantage to the Bolognese system when compared to the old one.
It used to be so that all, or almost all, studies were towards Master's level, but this is where the Bolognese system stepped in and the classes had to be separated between Master's and Bachelor's levels. I heard some complaints that this makes it harder to balance the students' workload, because instead of over five years, you have to do it over three, and then stuff the remaining two with whateverelse you have left.
There's no reason why you couldn't switch to a different area for your Master's, as long as you qualify, but the typical picture is that you continue in the same "direction". On this level there might be a requirement to pick a specialty, though, such as "laser physics" versus "solid state physics" versus "some other sh...tuff physics".
(If you were about to ask, where I studied, Experimental Physics and Theoretical Physics were separate all the way, but they also shared almost every single course for the entire Bachelor's level.)
At this level, the thesis is more serious, but how much do the faculty and the staff care about that varies. You also tend to have periodic reviews of your work.
Now, onto PhD stuff. From what I can gather, it used to be a sort of apprenticeship-slash-indentured servitude that few could get in, but the Bolognese system transformed it into a few more years of studying. It's easier to get in, professors like to be someone's Massa, so... Well, I don't know the exact numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if the number of PhDs skyrocketed, and not in the good way. Like, the new system allows all manner of eternal students and yours trulys, which is probably not going to have a positive impact on the value of a Doctor's diploma or the state of science in general.
(My personal rule of thumb is: if people go for a PhD without intending to go into science, then something's wrong.)
A minor note: a few years ago the Party came up with yet another change to the system, but I can't say how much the outcome differs. I was already mildly critical before it happened, though.
But anyways. You're required to do science stuff, teach students, go to conferences and the like, but there are the occasional exams. It's kinda like late-stage Master's, except more serious in terms of science, and with a teaching job on the side. You also get paid, but it's in terms of receiving a stipend rather than a salary. Then there's the big thesis defense party, which unlike in earlier stages, is public. You get a diploma, you are a Scientist, you are Elite. Oh, and it's easier to find a job in academia, which you probably aimed for. (Pay's lousy, but social safety is nice, and you can pretend you are a valuable member of society.)
I guess that's how the sausage is made. [/snerk]
(I had to pick between "how the sausage is made" and the double meaning of "baloney".)
I'll read the rest of the post later.
We were required a grand total of three electives, everything else was mandatory, with only three courses being more about humanities than mechanical engineering.
The way I've heard it described, medical school here sounds like military training, with drillings, rigid hierarchies, pecking orders, hazing rituals, etc.
My university was the only local one offering mechanical engineering for some reason, but it's the best university around so I probably would've chosen it even if it weren't.
I imagine for most people it's career first, place second, though I know it's common, in case you're not accepted right away, to apply under some other similar, less competitive career with the intention to get transferred later when you're much more likely to get accepted, e.g. physics -> whatever-engineering, or nutrition -> medicine.
Yeah, there's a bunch of strategies, especially when you don't have to go into debt for a chance at education. I met a person who enrolled into astronomy for a year to have a student's discount in public transit. (Astronomy tends to be the easiest to enroll in, they take everyone in hope some will stay.)
We have a name for these mandatory humanities, in loose translation: "deboorifier". Students tend to treat them as a chore, even if they are "easy A's". Although there was a very popular elective on pop culture.
Context:
1. Opponents of the ACA (which basically means Republicans) had previously sued claiming that the ACA was unconstitutional. SCOTUS ruled that the ACA was constitutional since it fell under the purview of Congress's powers of taxation set out in the Constitution, due to the presence of a penalty fee that would have to be paid if a person did not have health insurance (nor some reason why they couldn't get insurance), which the ACA had alongside setting up a marketplace for buying health insurance.
2. Republicans, when they regained control, lowered the penalty fee to zero. They reasoned that, if the penalty were zero, they could bring another suit to SCOTUS and argue that it is no longer a tax and therefore no longer constitutional ergo the entire law should be struck down. And so they brought another suit to SCOTUS arguing this.
Based on what I heard, here's how it went down, verbally colorized:
(Note that this SCOTUS is supposedly even more conservative than the one that handed down the earlier ruling.)
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-ne-wilton-manors-parade-hit-run-20210620-v7wacvhojzekxip34ks62nk7my-story.html
=(
Meanwhile, here's something else that happened here, a few days ago:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/broward-graduate-decries-asian-american-prejudice-in-speech-is-criticized-for-antisemitism/ar-AAL4RGx
In short, Rachel Cheng wrote a speech about discrimination, and in it she referenced an unspecified "Middle Eastern peers, who have been facing struggle after struggle and are in constant fear of their families and friends being struck down by a militant government, who have had their land stolen and abused".
Various Jewish people/organizations got very angry at this, taking it to be a reference to the Palestinians and a condemnation of the actions of the Israeli government.
Though, it is important to note that this sentiment is not shared by all Jews. Here are some opinions reacting to the speech, including one from someone speaking on behalf of the organization Jewish Voice for Peace South Florida, which praises Cheng's comments: https://www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/letters/fl-op-letters-graduation-speaker-rachel-cheng-brave-hero-20210617-ar2rhqojvff6hhvp6oedx3ye2m-story.html
Anyhow, Cheng then faced various bigoted remarks directed at her (N.B. not necessarily from the same people who criticized her over the Israel/Palestine issue). I also heard elsewhere (from my parents discussing an article in a local newspaper that prints in Chinese) that even her Instagram account was taken down for a while, though later reinstated.
Well, specifically, there's a primary election for the mayoralty; the general election will be this November I think. Early voting for the primary just started. There are like 10+ different Democratic candidates who are competing against each other for the Dem nomination, and two Republican candidates who are competing for the Repub nomination.
Given the lay of the land these days, it's generally expected that most of the action will be in the Dem primary. But the entire slate of candidates is generally regarded as rather underwhelming. Or more accurately, they each of their good points, but they each also have drawbacks, for whatever reason.
By hanging out on an elections-related server, I've had more than my fair share of reading about this election. Here's my attempt at a fair assessment of the candidates. (Note: I don't live in NYC.)
Eric Adams: Has some of the political establishment backing him. Unfortunately also has some weird controversies involving being okay with cops using excessive force or something. Says he lives in a basement apartment, but that's sus because his son seems to live there while he lives in New Jersey.
Andrew Yang: Last seen running for president. Ideas guy, best known for his Universal Basic Income idea. Seems kinda clueless about how to properly run the city. Also tends to put his foot in his mouth (he managed to offend both gay people and disabled people).
Kathryn Garcia: Boring candidate but probably competent.
Scott Stringer: The darling of progressives, until some sort of sexual assault thing came to light.
Maya Wiley: The new darling of progressives, but can't seem to get traction.
Shaun Donovan: Some guy who worked with Obama before. Less talked about, so much so I almost misnamed him Scott.
Ray McGuire, Art Chang, etc.: some other people who are running in the race, or something like that. No one seems to be talking much about them.
Fernando Mateo, Curtis Sliwa: Republicans. Not on the Dem primary. No one seems to be talking much about them.
Of note is that this election will be using ranked-choice voting, also known as instant-runoff voting. This means that everyone gets to rank as many candidates as they want, and all first choices votes are added up, and whoever has the least is eliminated, then those people who first-choiced the eliminated candidate get counted as their second choice. Rinse and repeat until someone has a clear majority of the votes.
So this makes the election is a little bit unpredictable, and also leads to some novel tactics such as Yang and Garcia campaigning together (with Yang telling his supporters to rank Garcia second) and Adams getting very angry at that.
Anyway, here are some evil, and inaccurate, but potentially entertaining, unofficial campaign posters created by some people to mock the candidates: http://www.seemoreevil.com/extra-exclusive-election-endorsements/
Ahhh, a man after my own heart. Would definitely cast my vote for him over the sexual assault guy.
----
As of in here, the weird shit of the day has been, over the last week, related to matters of education, although one of the go-to crazies apparently felt unattended, which resulted in an angry anti-Swedish rant on twitter. (There's an upcoming footy game against Sweden, and we had a war with them in mid-17th Century. A good reason for revanchist screeching.)
If I recall correctly, they're transgender.
Not like it matters either way since they're not a frontrunner at this point, so you can add them to the bin of "people no one talks about". (Though to be fair to Ray McGuire, he actually made it to the debate stage.)
Oh, I also forgot to mention Dianne Morales. I don't know what happened but apparently basically her entire campaign staff resigned one day and there was big drama.
I don't know whether this was intentional.
...and for now I cut the political talk, wanted to share this time.
Sounds like enough fun stuff happens over there to justify it.
Besides, if I wanted to note every piece of stupid shit that goes on in here, it'd only keep me pissed off. It's like, this kinda doesn't work for me as a coping mechanism. Oh, and it feels kinda awkward to complain about politics in front of Storm, heheh.
YES
VERY YES
An article I wanted to share.
But I'm posting this: