Internet Explorer Cannot Display This Blog
This list describes the “10 reasons Ph.D. students fail”, and it bugs the hell out of me.
Okay, I guess the list itself doesn’t bug me; the fact that the list contains the items it contains bugs me. Even had things been better in Vancouver in terms of…let’s just say “interpersonal relationships”…I probably still wouldn’t have stayed on for the Ph.D.
Why?
Read on, dear blog followers, and see all the reasons why I think the pursuit of a Ph.D. has been corrupted to the point where, in my opinion, it can no longer be considered a road to acquiring substantial knowledge of a specific subject and is instead a road to appeasing the “higher ups” in academia and a horribly misguided competition of who can get the most publications the fastest. PLEASE NOTE that while I’ll be ranting about this article, I’m not personally criticizing the author, Professor Matt Might, or his views/opinions. I agree with this list, actually. But like I said, it still pisses me off BECAUSE of its truth.
Professor Might thinks that a student can fail a Ph.D. if they:
1) Focus on grades or coursework. “During the first two years, students need to find an advisor, pick a research area, read a lot of papers and try small, exploratory research projects. Spending too much time on coursework distracts from these objectives.”
I disagree with this—in part. If coursework is so unimportant to the Ph.D. insanity, why do almost all Ph.D. programs require at least two or three classes? If taking classes truly detracts from research/reading/projects, why make it a requirement? Also, I think the importance of classes is underemphasized at the graduate level. I learned more in the seven or so classes I took in grad school than I did in the majority of undergrad (at least in statistics). ALSO also…shouldn’t the objective of a Ph.D. be “learning”?
2) Learn too much. “Some students go to Ph.D. school because they want to learn…but, it requires focused learning directed toward an eventual thesis. Taking (or sitting in on) non-required classes outside one’s focus is almost always a waste of time, and it’s always unnecessary.”
So in other words, learn only enough to get you to that peer-reviewed publication! Don’t waste your time with such frivolities like learning for learning’s sake or trying to expand your knowledge on your topic of choice by seeing how it relates to other areas of study! Don’t even bother with trying to get one step ahead on your subject matter by auditing/sitting in on a class that’s only slightly relevant to your specific project but may make what you’re studying easier to understand in general!
I took two classes in the statistics department that I didn’t need to take for my Master’s. In terms of being able to bend R to my will, one of them was the most useful class I took in the two years I was at UBC.
3) Expect perfection. “Perfectionism is a tragic affliction in academia, since it tends to hit the brightest the hardest.”
I think this is totally subjective. Some people work their best when they aim for perfection; others don’t.
4) Procrastinate. “Chronic perfectionists also tend to be procrastinators. So do eternal students with a drive to learn instead of research.”
I’ll talk about this one later.
5) Go rogue too soon/too late. “Going rogue before the student knows how to choose good topics and write well will end in wasted paper submissions and a grumpy advisor. On the other hand, continuing to act only when ordered to act past a certain point will strain an advisor that expects to start seeing a “return” on an investment of time and hard-won grant money.”
I understand the importance of this point, but not the reasoning behind it. Yes, it’s important to “break free” of your advisor at the appropriate time, but that time shouldn’t be based on grant money or number of publications or anything like that. As I’ve already mentioned, it should be about the learning process. The advisor/student relationship should develop and diverge when both parties feel that the student KNOWS enough to work more on their own, not when the student has PUBLISHED enough or the grant money is near depletion.
6) Treat Ph.D. school like school or work. “Ph.D. school is neither school nor work. Ph.D. school is a monastic experience. And, a jealous hobby. Solving problems and writing up papers well enough to pass peer review demands contemplative labor on days, nights and weekends.”
ASLdjfalgajfoifjdweojsagjafasf. The Ph.D. should not be school. It should not be work. It ALSO should not be “writing up papers well enough to pass peer review demands.” Yes, that’s important, especially in today’s hyper-competitive “if you’re not published you’re nobody” academic world (as sad as that is). But that’s NOT all a Ph.D. should be, and I think you’re screwing yourself over if you go in thinking that’s all there is to furthering your education.
7) Ignore the committee. “Another student I knew in grad school was told not to defend, based on the draft of his dissertation. He overruled his committee’s advice, and failed his defense. He was told to scrap his entire dissertaton and start over. It took him over ten years to finish his Ph.D.”
I can’t really assert my position on this point, as I had a fantastic committee with members who were super understanding of the circumstances surrounding my (slightly delayed) defense and who didn’t flip out and want my draft ten weeks prior to the defense. I think as long as you go to them and make clear what your plans are, then further discourse should be reasonable enough to avoid issues with the committee. Unless you get a bunch of jerks or something.
8) Aim too low. “This attitude guarantees that no professorship will be waiting for them.”
Or, more importantly, “this attitude guarantees that the student will not get out of the learning experience what one would hope one would gather from a 3-5 year stint in graduate school, or that it’s reflective of the fact that maybe they shouldn’t have chosen this educational path in [insert discipline here].” Again, I agree with the point, just not the reason behind it. Is the professorship the ONLY important thing one will get out of a Ph.D. program?
9) Aim too high. “It does not matter at all what you get your Ph.D. in. All that matters is that you get one. It’s the training that counts–not the topic.”
DISAGREEEEEE! Why in the hell would someone spend a good portion of their life pursuing a degree in a specific field while focusing on a single topic in that field that bores them to tears/annoys them to no end/makes them want to curl up in a ball and cry/makes them want to throw themselves off a bridge? How can the topic NOT matter? Of course I know that most Ph.D.s are not world-changing pieces of work that win Nobel Prizes, but should that be a reason for not selecting a topic that interests you? How does one not loathe the training if it is done so via a topic that doesn’t hold their interest? Sure, my research into fit indices used in structural equation modeling may not have saved the world from inevitable destruction, but (once I finally figured out what the hell I was doing) I enjoyed what I was studying. Plus, now I’m not finished with my Master’s and stranded alone without a topic of interest in my field of study.
10) Miss the REAL milestones. “Most schools require coursework, qualifiers, thesis proposal, thesis defense and dissertation. These are the requirements on paper. In practice, the real milestones are three good publications connected by a (perhaps loosely) unified theme.”
What about learning-/knowledge-related goals as the REAL milestones? Why shouldn’t “understanding the material well enough to consider yourself able to teach it to others” or “learning enough about the material to become excited about what you’re studying” considered milestones? They may not be as “practical,” but I don’t think that diminishes their importance. I also think such milestones are better in terms of avoiding burnout on your topic. If you’re focused solely on getting three publications under your belt, you’re probably much more likely to burn out than if you’re focused on truly understanding the material and becoming more enthusiastic about it.
[rant complete]
We Found Dove in a Soapless Place
I want to take the SAT again. Actually, I want to (read: need to) take the GRE again, but before that I want to see how I’d do on the SATs now compared to how I did back when I thought college was dumb and thus didn’t care about some stupid standardized test that required me to sit locked in a room for like five hours on a Saturday back in 2005 (2006?).
Oh my, times change.
And so do the focus topics of these blogs (though this is somewhat related to the SAT): why in the hell don’t some colleges accept students pursuing a second Bachelor’s degrees? Taken directly from the University of Chicago’s “transfer students” page: “Students who already have a Bachelor’s degree are not eligible to apply to the undergraduate College at the University of Chicago as the College does not grant second Bachelor’s degrees.” I have found similarly-worded disclaimers on many college’s transfer students pages. I don’t understand.
It’s not like the students getting their second (or third, or fourth, etc.) degrees aren’t going to, you know, pay the school tuition fees. Seriously! It’s not like having that initial degree somehow exempts them from handing the new school thousands and thousands of dollars.
And what other possible issues could there be to preclude already degreed students from returning to further their education? Are they afraid they’re going to take spots away from first-timers? Is it a credit issue? Are these schools afraid that the returning students are going to whip through the curriculum because their core classes/credits/whatever will have already been taken care of during their first degree? If that’s the case, then I see at least one major flaw with this logic: these schools still accept transfer students who have completed some (most often, at least a year or two) schooling at another university or community college. These students have no “upper limit” on how many credits they have already completed. Hell, they could be one class away from a Bachelor’s degree and still be able to be accepted by the new school.
So if it’s a money thing, what the hell? If it’s a credit thing, what the hell? Unless I’m just being dense (which is a real possibility) and missing something major, I really don’t understand why schools don’t let those who have already completed degrees get another degree.
Blarfhslkfsgaherlasfalaksdeegfartfart.
I want more undergrad, dammit!
Tweet and the world tweets with you. Blog and you blog alone.
Alternate title: Kilmer, please don’t haunt me
I think that I shall never glance
a tweet of any relevance
to life, to love, to truth, to function,
but serving only as an unction
to soothe the egos of the masses.
No inkling more than phatic passes
‘twixed the mind and lighted page:
the musings of the pithy sage.
No crux beneath these thoughts exist,
but is this lack of vigor missed?
Nay, but rarely do we an intelligent glitter
expect from a twit that tweets on Twitter!
Die in a fire, Twitter.
Come on, really?
This afternoon I was bored at home and with nothing else to do, I turned on the TV and watched The Doctors. If you’re not familiar with it, it’s an hour-long show featuring a team of medical professionals who respond to themed health concerns such as diabetes or flu prevention or healthy foods.
Usually these guys are pretty reasonable and accurate with their advice (at least in my opinion). But today’s show, which was focused on weight loss (“Six Ways to Weigh Less;” I’ll critique this theme in a minute), opened with an overweight young man talking about how his partner always cooked for him. This wouldn’t be a bad thing, he said, except for the fact that the foods she cooked were always high in calories and fat and she made him feel like he “had” to eat everything she prepared for him. He felt like he had pressure to finish everything she made for him and therefore felt like she was pressuring him into being overweight.
Yeah, okay, I can respect his concerns. However, I did have issues with how the doctors interpreted the situation following the clip. They basically said that the sole reason a partner/spouse would “make” or “keep” their significant other overweight is due to insecurity. Basically, they make their significant other overweight and thus decrease their desirability to others, insuring the already existing relationship against possible outside threats.
Really?
Really?
I have several problems with this statement. Actually, I have several problems with this episode. Bullet point time!
- The Doctors emphasize multiple times that the episode is focused on making people healthier, and yet it is explicitly titled and referred to as “Six Ways to Weigh Less.” Because we all know that weighing less = increased health. Always. Totally. Except it doesn’t. YES, for those people carrying about a significant amount of weight, the loss of this weight can improve overall health. But it has been shown in several studies (that just links to like a summary) that people who are slightly heavier than “average” using the BMI as a gauge (which is screwy anyway) actually live longer than those of low, average, or obesity-level weight. But since we’ve all been told that weighing less = being healthier no matter what, I guess that’s what we’ll have to believe.
- I don’t like the implication that the woman who is supposedly over-feeding her partner is doing so deliberately. Maybe she’s of a background where food = caring. Maybe she is positively reinforced when her partner finishes the large meals and therefore continues to make them large. Maybe she just likes to cook. Who knows? I think it’s pretty bad to assume she has some sort of ulterior motive here.
- Speaking of the idea of an ulterior motive, how about that idea that the motive is as sinister as keeping her partner “unattractive” to others in order to preserve their relationship? I think jumping to this conclusion puts every fat admirer (or anyone who just doesn’t have a problem with larger people) in a bad light. Most of us who like heavier people do not have this insecurity-driven reason for our preferences. If I had a partner, I wouldn’t want him to be heavy unless he wanted to be heavy or didn’t mind being heavy. Like, I’d be all on board with that if that’s what he wanted, but I certainly wouldn’t purposely try to make him fat with the intention of making him “unappealing” to others in order to preserve our relationship. I wouldn’t try to make him fat at all if that’s not what he wanted, because that’s manipulative and wrong. Saying that’s what’s going on in this case is super insulting to the woman and really just irks the hell out of me.
- Oh, and one last point relating to the previous one: FAT =/= UNATTRACTIVE. STOP REINFORCING THE NONSENSE ASLDFJDLGKAVEAFIFJANDFAJGHH.
Okay I’m done.
30-Day Meme – Day 13: How do you think others view you?
Haha, who knows after reading the above rant. I think other people think I’m weird, I really do. I’m short, I wear weird stuff, I’m quiet unless you get me all riled up about something (see above), I like stats, and I’m a band geek. Weirdness is my forte.
Though I could be completely wrong.
Dear Moscow Family Medicine:
Are you incapable of hiring a competent physician? I’d need the fingers on both of my hands, the toes on both of my feet, and about seven octopi in order to count the number of times you guys have screwed things up. And I’m not even a difficult case, medically. Sure, I’ve had my (many) ER visits, but that doesn’t excuse the ridiculously ineffectual “family physician” visits I’ve had over the year (and the THREE EEGs it took to get a good pic of my brain activity).
Ugh.
So here are a few easy-to-implement suggestions for the doctors, eh?
1. Spend more than five minutes with your patient. Yearly physicals tend to involve more than “how are you feeling? Good? Okay, see you next year.”
2. Along the same line, don’t be in such a rush that you get angry with a patient if they don’t change into the little examination gown thingy fast enough (and by “fast enough” you mean in under 30 seconds flat).
3. Raising your eyebrows incredulously when a patient says they’re not sexually active? Inappropriate.
4. Order a blood work to be done when you need it to be done. Don’t waste your patient’s time by going over LAST YEAR’S BLOOD WORK RESULTS. They don’t need to know that their health was perfect 12 months ago.
5. Finally, when a patient says a procedure hurts, STOP SAID PROCEDURE.
Fucking Gritman.
Rec Center Etiquette (Or Lack Thereof)
Helpful handy tips for you clueless rec center ladies and gentlemen out there:
- Don’t use the inner/outer thigh machine as a place to park your butt for half an hour.
- Those little spray bottles with the disinfectant in them? There are like five of them in the whole gym. Please don’t take them individually back to your machine when you’re done. Spray the towel with them at the station, and take the towel only.
- The mats are for stretching or situps, not for standing in a circle with your girlfriends gossiping about the basketball team.
- Talking to your friend a machine over is very distracting and obnoxious to the poor soul stuck in between you two.
- Just because your locker is next to the bench does not mean you should spread all your crap out over the entire bench.
- Do you really need the 8, 10, 12, and 15 pound dumbbells at the same time? Please put them back on the rack if you’re going to do more than three reps with a different weight before going back.
- Yes, you’ve got nice arm muscles. Yes, your hair looks fine. Yes, your butt looks hot in those tight pants. Can you please step away from the mirror now so I can work my triceps?
- Can you people pry yourselves away from your cellphones for HALF AN HOUR? Good lord, we can’t be separated from our social crutches for half a second anymore.
That is all.
Every time you fail to staple your homework, God kills a TA.
Dear undergraduates of the world:
So there’s this cool little invention I’d like to tell you all about, ‘cause I think it could really improve your life and the lives of those around you. It’s called a staple and it’s here to reinvent the idea of a cohesive set of homework pages belonging to a single individual.
Let me lead you now through the thought process of an overworked TA as they truck through the grading of 100+ intro stats assignments.
1:23 AM: Only ten more assignments to go, this shouldn’t take much longer!
1:24 AM: Oh look, this group of papers is held together by a folded corner. What genius thought that type of binding would hold up being shoved around in a box with 200 other assignments?
1:24 AM: Surprise surprise, there’s only a name on the first sheet.
1:24 AM: And the sheets are all done in different colors of pen (seriously, this really happens).
1:27 AM: Now that I’ve wasted precious minutes making sure the handwriting looks similar enough across the pages to assume that they came from the same individual, let’s get down to grading.
1:31 AM: Handling grading this with the key would be much more streamlined if these pages were all somehow cohesively bound.
1:36 AM: I HATE THIS STUDENT SO MUCH RIGHT NOW.
1:38 AM: THEY CAN’T SPELL OR ATTACH PIECES OF PAPER TO ONE ANOTHER.
1:38 AM: F-!
1:39 AM: MUST TRY TO LOWER BLOOD PRESSURE TO SURVIVABLE LEVEL.
1:48 AM: Sigh. Okay. That one’s done. Let’s move on.
1:49 AM: Oh look, this group of papers is held together by a folded corner.
Repeat.
Seriously. Not a tough concept. Staples are not an endangered species, nor are they protected under any sort of natural resource safeguard law.
Use them. PLEASE.
Facebook, you inconsistent freak show
Random lighthearted Facebook bitch session – commence!
I know that like half of you people who actually read this already have the new profile, but I don’t ‘cause I hate change.
Facebook itself, on the other hand, can’t seem to get enough of it.
Jerks.
So I get this little warning message this afternoon when I logged on—something to the effect of “because you haven’t manually switched over to the new profile yet, we’re going to do it for you! You have ten days to say your goodbyes to the old layout.”
I actually can’t complain about that last part, considering the current (or old) layout pretty much blows.
But what I can complain about is the CONSTANT DAMN CHANGES WTF FACEBOOK.
(Rage over.)
I think my favorite part is the “about” section wherein they introduce the new layout like Steve Jobs introduces a new product (video, indie music, and shots of someone having a semi-normal existence with [insert new product here]). I mean come on, it’s not like we have a choice here. If we’re staying on Facebook we’re getting the “upgrade” whether we like it or not, so why try to introduce it like some revolutionary new MUST HAVE thing?
Zuckerberg, I am disappoint.
The “F” Word
What “F” word, you ask?
Fat.
Last Monday Maura Kelly, a writer for Marie Claire magazine, posted this controversial blog in which she openly stated her opinion regarding fat people showing public affection (both on TV and in real life). She has since augmented the post with a somewhat lacking apology, but not before hundreds of comments were posted calling her, among other things, shallow, rude, and bigoted. There are now thousands of comments to this article, with a surprising number of individuals stating in so many words how “sizeism” like that displayed in the article should not be tolerated.
Now if you know anything about me (which you may or may not, depending on how you’ve stumbled across this particular entry), you know I have something to say about this. In brief, I like fat. I think fat is sexy. This is not to be confused with the idea that I support people getting/staying fat for cosmetic reasons. Saying to a loved one “you’d look so much better if you gained weight” is equivalently as bad as saying “you’d look so much better if you lost 5/10/25 pounds,” especially if it’s just for vanity reasons.
When I say “I like fat” I mean that if someone is overweight and they are comfortable with it (and the possible health risks associated with it), then I fully support it and have no issues with how they look.
So after hearing that, it may come as a surprise that, in a weird way, this article made me happy. I guess I was surprised at the number of people who came forward who openly admitted to being angered by Kelly’s words. It made me happy to see so many people as upset by her article as I was.
That being said, of course there was the number of posts that, while not necessarily agreeing with her, cited the ever-popular argument that “being fat is a drain on government money because of the associated health risks” and therefore being fat is bad.
Here’s where I feel I should comment. I understand this concern (and I’ll address it momentarily), but what I don’t see is why these people are making that comment on Kelly’s blog. Nowhere does she discuss the “health drain” that being fat supposedly is; she simply discusses how grossed out she gets by two heavier people making out in public. How is that related to health issues? It’s like trying to argue that because smoking causes high health costs, two smokers making out should therefore be viewed as bad.
Anyway, that was just an aside.
What I really want to address is this idea that being fat is “bad” because it causes higher health costs (at least in the States, where there is a super high percentage of overweight and obese individuals). I can understand this logic insofar as the general reasoning, but I think a lot of people who make this argument fail to see the other important sides of it.
What do I mean? Well, let’s look at it this way. In the extreme version of this argument, people “choose” to be fat by eating too much and exercising to little. Therefore, they choose to become overweight, and this choice, when chosen by a large amount of people, leads to higher healthcare costs. Let’s ignore arguments that take into account genetic contributions or other illnesses that lead to people gaining weight and just focus on this extreme version.
Obviously, such an extreme argument can be applied loosely to other choices that also can lead to higher healthcare costs. A small example: drug consumption. People “choose” to begin to consume, say, prescription drugs that they don’t need, a select number develop an addiction that is often followed by a myriad number of health conditions that, if enough people exhibit these symptoms, can raise healthcare costs.
I’m not equating obesity to prescription drug abuse (‘cause that would be dumb), but I AM trying to make the following point: people seem to place a large amount of the “this is why healthcare costs are increasing” blame on overweight and obese people while, if things were broken down a different way, I think we would see that there are enough instances of OTHER risky health-related behaviors (that are unregulated by the government) that can be seen as raising healthcare costs just as much as the obesity epidemic.
I guess what I’m trying to say is this: obesity is probably chosen as the scapegoat health issue because 1) it IS becoming an epidemic if it isn’t one already, and 2) it’s a very obvious issue, “obvious” meaning that it’s something others can simply look around themselves to see. You can’t just look around to pick out the people that may be drinking too much or abusing drugs or doing any number of other risky health-related things, but you CAN do that with obesity, and I think that’s why a lot of people are so hard on individuals who happen to be carrying extra weight.
I don’t know. This may be total BS, but that’s what Ms. Kelly’s blog reminded me of. It also got me quite upset because of the nature of her tone, but I decided not to blog about that to save my blood pressure from spiking.
Anyway.
Today’s song: Heat of the Moment by Asia
Oh look, PayPal wants me to fill out a survey
Yes, I’m still bitching about this.
So I got this email today from PayPal:
We understand that your PayPal account may have been temporarily limited due to questions or concerns by our Account Review team. Thank you very much for your cooperation during this process. We are pleased that your account has now been reinstated.
LIES!
As part of PayPal’s Commitment to excellence, we would like to ask you to take just a few minutes to answer questions about PayPal’s account limitation process.
Oh PayPal, don’t do this to yourself.
To respond to our survey, please click on the web address below. If that does not work, please cut and paste the entire web address into the address field of your browser.
Ugh. Fine.
Question 1: Would you recommend PayPal to your friends/family as a way to send money electronically?
No.
Your required items needed for account verification are those that are prone to frequent expiry (e.g., address, phone number, etc.). It is made exceedingly and excessively difficult to try and change your verification information without having to verify your identity with even more items that one may or may not have. I understand this, of course, as you are a company that deals with thousands of people sending millions of dollars over the internet. However, when one’s account is seemingly randomly limited, these verification processes cause more problems than they probably prevent.
Question 2: Thinking about your experience, from the time PayPal informed you that your account was limited to the time all limitations on your account were removed, how satisfied were you with PayPal’s account limitation process?
Very dissatisfied.
Then there was a checklist, on which I checked the following:
> PayPal requested information that I cannot provide
> PayPal requested too much information
> The account limitation prevented me from completing pending business
> I do not understand why my account was limited
> The account limitation process took too long to resolve
Question 3: How likely are you to use PayPal in the future?
Unlikely.
Question 4: What one thing could PayPal have done to improve your experience with the account limitation process?
I certainly would have liked to know why my account was limited. However, more importantly, I would have liked to have been able to verify my account without having to go through the frustration of realizing that almost all verification options you provided for me involved proofs that I no longer have. I don’t live at that address anymore, I don’t have that cell phone number, and I don’t have a credit card. Luckily, I had failed to cancel my old bank account over the summer, so I was still able to verify with my debit card.
Question 5: Did this issue cause you a financial loss?
NA – issue still unresolved.
The manner in which I was informed that my account was being limited was professional.
Strongly disagree.
I was informed about the status of my case.
Strongly disagree.
I understood what was needed to resolve the limitation.
Agree.
My account limitation was reviewed in a timely manner.
Disagree.
I was treated like a valued customer.
Disagree.
The amount of information I was required to provide PayPal was reasonable.
Strongly disagree.
The number of times I had to contact PayPal Customer Support in order to resolve this matter was reasonable.
Neither agree nor disagree (there’s nothing I hate more than having to call people about my problems).
I received adequate information explaining why my account was limited.
Strongly disagree.
The responses I received in regard to my account limitation were friendly.
Neither agree nor disagree (I heard nothing from them).
The steps required to have my account limitation reviewed were easy to understand.
Agree.
Based on this experience, I feel that PayPal is a safer, more reliable payment method.
Agree (it sure prevented me from breaking into my own account).
Question 6: Please use this space to provide us with any other comments that may improve our services.
Being a PayPal customer for nearly five years and using it primarily to pay/receive money via eBay, I was surprised after completing a sale to find out that my account was limited. Not only did this prevent me from seeing proof that the buyer had paid (aside from eBay’s confirmation, though you’d probably agree that being able to see the money registering as existing in my PayPal account is much more concrete evidence of their paying), but it also prevented me from transferring said money to the person for whom I sold the item, as well as (and more seriously) prevented me from paying my eBay seller’s fee, causing them to send me several angry emails threatening to suspend my eBay account.
The fact that my only communication from you regarding this matter consisted of “your account is limited” with no other information explaining why or when this happened makes me very wary of doing any future business with you, and the fact that you fail to provide any account verification steps that don’t require some things that, generally, are transient enough in peoples’ lives that they change perhaps every 4 or so years (phone number, address, etc.) is yet another reason why I’ll probably not use your services again for quite a long time.
Of course, all of this could have been avoided had you provided me with either an email stating that my account had been limited before I had begun a $500 transaction over eBay or provided me with a verification technique that I could have confirmed over the phone or made it possible to update my address/phone number without your having hang-ups about the fact that I’m now living in Canada. As I stated, I’ve been a PayPal account holder for nearly 5 years, thus my great surprise at finding my account limited seemingly out of the blue. I don’t appreciate the unprofessional way that this limitation was handled, and I will definitely be taking my business elsewhere for the time being.
At this point I was reaching the 2,000 character limit, so I quit bitching and sent off the survey. I hope they actually read it.
Buttfaces.
Today’s song: The Universe is Laughing by The Guggenheim Grotto
This blog is worth 60% of your final grade
I have a bit of an issue with this article. Not because I’m like “oh hey, I got straight A’s through college and I don’t regret it one bit LOL,” but because half the things he cites as reasons to “regret” the experience are things that can be easily avoided.
1. No one has ever asked about my GPA.
Not after you graduated, probably not. But did you ever apply for scholarships? GPA certainly matters for financial reasons while still in school, so if some scholarship/funding/what not requires high grades in order to hand you cash, why not give it a shot? Research supervisors also look at this before they decide whether or not they want to work with you.
2. I didn’t sleep.
The only time I really had the “there’s physically no way I can fit sleep into my schedule” problem was during the 25 credit semester of doom, but that was also because I would spend four hours a night watching YouTube videos, talking to Sean, making dumb Flash, and just generally dinking around. Honestly, you CAN sleep and get a 4.0.
3. I’ve forgotten 95% of it.
If what you’re studying isn’t important enough to you for you to even attempt to remember it past the tests, you’re probably studying the wrong thing. Hell, I know I didn’t retain anything from my core requirements classes ‘cause I was like “pfft, this stuff is boring and irrelevant and I feel like making dumb cartoons instead.” But if I had been like that in every class, I would think I would have realized that I was not studying the right thing.
4. I didn’t have time for people.
Take a class with some friends (band, anyone?). Organize study sessions with those people who fall into the “we know each other from class fairly well” group of friends. Make one day of each week a day where you don’t do anything school-related (for me, this was and still is Saturday…it kept me sane, and it IS possible to do).
5. Work experience is more valuable.
It depends on the major, really. The physical sciences and engineering? Sure. Business and law? Definitely. The fine arts and things like philosophy? Maybe not so much. Also, it’s pretty difficult to find relevant work experience for some majors.
What about Graduate School?
Haha, yeah, no kidding. I think this should have been listed as a preface. “Does grad school apply to you? Ignore this entire list.”
Today’s song: American Cowboy by Jada
Dear Bra Manufacturers:
(Or Wal-Mart, I can’t tell whose fault this is):
This may come as a surprise to you, but there are ladies today who have tiny boobies. I know the average breast size has increased over the past 15 years or so, but the itty bitty titties are still out there.
Just like larger-cupped ladies, we need to buy new bras every once in awhile. It would be super awesome for us to have close to as many options as women with C- and D-cups. Actually, it would be super awesome to have more options than:
1) exercise bras, or
2) bras that have enough padding in them to qualify as already containing boobs.
If I have to go to the last rack of bras in Wal-Mart to even FIND A-cup bras, and then have to feel up 4 different styles to find one that doesn’t have a metric ton of “your boobs aren’t adequate so here’s some help” padding, there’s a problem.
Plus they were all white.
Plain white.
If the larger cups get fancy fabric, lace, colors, and lasers* to decorate their baby feeders, A-cups should, too.
I miss ShopKo. ShopKo knew how to stock a good amount of styles in all sizes.
That is all.
*This needs to happen
Today’s song: Push Me to the Floor by the Parlotones
Automatic Toilets: A (random) Rant
I hate automatic toilets.
I hate them with a passion.
Here’s why.
1) They’re louder than hell. What is it about the difference between the manual flush mechanism and the automatic one that requires an additional 100 dB for the latter to operate properly? I don’t know if it’s because I have sensitive hearing or what, but I hate going to the bathroom where automatic toilets are equipped, because it means I’ll have to be ready to plug my ears at any time. This is because…
2) They go off randomly no reason. It’s like some sort of chaos theory in toilet form. I thought people wanted control over their lives? How do passive-aggressive automatic toilets help with this?
3) They waste water. Related strongly to the second point. Whatever premature flushing disorder these toilets have cause them to flush at least once too many times per use (if you’re lucky). And that’s totally what we need.
4) The reason they even exist pisses me off immensely. I’m sure you all know about the anti antibacterial soap argument, and I think society’s germ-phobic tendencies are getting a bit out of hand regarding other things as well. Oh no, GERMS! We can’t have contact with any of THOSE! Oh, how much our lives would be improved if we had some sort of IMMUNE SYSTEM TO HELP PROTECT US! Have people not read the literature on exposure to germs in early childhood leading to stronger immune systems?* I’m not saying go into the bathroom and lick the toilet seat or anything, I’m saying that the fact that we’re so paranoid as to not be willing to press a metal handle for about 2 seconds in order to flush a toilet in order to avoid germs is pretty freaking pathetic. Disagree? Okay, fine. But still, aren’t those sinks in the bathroom there so we can wash our hands after we use the facilities? I’m assuming people generally wash their hands AFTER they flush, so…
What’s the point of automatic flushing toilets, then?
Gr.
Sorry, rant over.
*Exposure to foreign bodies throughout one’s life strengthens the immune system too, I think.
Today’s song: Bolero as conducted by Andre Rieu
Dear Everyone on the Planet:
My last name is “Mahler” and is NOT pronounced with a long “a.” I could see where the pronunciation difficulties would arise if it were spelled “Maler,” but it’s not. Is there something about that “h” that makes things difficult for you all? Seriously, it’s probably in the top 5% easiest last names to pronounce, and people still manage to screw it up about 80% of the time.
MALL-er.
Not MAY-ler.
If you type it in to the FREAKING ONLINE RHYMING DICTIONARY you get rhymes like caller, dollar, and scholar.
NOT jailer, sailor, or tailor.
Not that difficult, ladies and gentlemen.
Today’s song: The Mass by Era
Jupiter is changing, as are the Internet Giants
Part I. Jupiter
OH CRAP!
Apparently this is a fairly frequent thing, but I don’t ever remember hearing anything about it before.
Part II. The internet
What is this, the Information Age Paradigm Shift into Tab Land? Or are all the big websites having a mid-digital-age crisis and wanting facelifts?
What is the big deal with tabs, anyway? Seriously. I don’t see their appeal. Now Wikipedia has jumped on the “let’s change shit up for no reason” bandwagon and added that overplayed “we’re modern now!” tab-and-pointless-fading-color-crap to their site. They also decided to move their search box across the page.
Somebody needs to explain to me why this is all happening at once.
Haha, maybe there’s some sort of cosmic connection between Jupiter losing a stripe and the big players of the Tubes deciding to change things up.
Like Google’s head scientist (because you know they’ve got some sort of “Google Jupiter” machines flying around in the ammonia clouds taking pictures) goes into a board meeting and says to their head designer: “Um, sir…it appears we’ve got some shocking news from Jupiter.”
Head Designer: “What is it, Doctor?”
Head Scientist: “Well, it appears that the SEB has gone missing from our view.”
Head Designer: “So?”
Head Scientist: “That means that the largest planet in our solar system has just changed its layout!”
Head Designer: “OH CRAP! We’d better get on that NOW! INFORM WIKIPEDIA, THIS SHIT’S GOING TO GO DOWN FAST!!”
Etc., etc.
Hahaha, I know it’s not a big deal. I just like to bitch about it. I just don’t see a valid reason for it, especially for it all happening at once.
Also, for whatever the hell reason, today we switched to Leibniz’ notation in calculus. Not that I’m complaining.
Today’s song: Parlez Vous Francais? by Art vs. Science
Claudia the Angry Blogger Presents: Yet Another Rant against Pretty Much Everything
Alternate title: I’M ALL FIRED UP, WHAT’RE YOU GONNA DO ABOUT IT?!
I had a frustrating day today for various reasons. This little rant was inspired by a Google search (and Facebook). Haha, it’s a LOT longer than it was originally intended to be, so ignore it if you don’t want to read my incoherent ramblings about stuff that really doesn’t matter at all.
Perhaps the large businesses, website designers, and marketing department heads are familiar with the old adage, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” If they are, I truly doubt that they actually know what it means, as it is quite obvious by the state of change things are in nowadays that they currently have no intention of heeding its message.
I have a Bachelor’s degree in Psychology. It may not sound like much (and it’s not), but there’s one thing in particular that stuck with me throughout my undergraduate education that has, now that I think about it, been backed up by pretty every situation I’ve ever been in: people dislike change. I’m not talking about change that brings about better circumstances, either immediately or in the distant future (though usually we’re more apt to appreciate change that leads to things improving immediately, as we as a species pretty much suck at appreciating delayed rewards). I’m also not talking about change that occurs because something is broken or something isn’t working to the best of its capability. Of course they should change the design of, for example, a hammer, if the way it’s designed now causes people to take two hours to pound a nail into a board. I’m not talking about that kind of change.
I’m talking about change for the sake of change—changing stuff just because it’s felt that a new layout is needed, or “modernization” must occur. There’s no real payoff from it, so there’s really no reason to do it—and yet it’s done anyway. I know everyone knows what I mean because as of late, websites, companies, and everybody else who gets their hands on their own logo all seem to be really desperate to do this. I noticed it a few years ago with brand logos and designs suddenly changing to look more “modern”—in particular, I recall the old M&M’s packages being replaced with the newer, hipper, 90’s versions (more flashy text, a more ‘animated’ package background).
Why? No real reason whatsoever. I know that logos and packages are a somewhat different field than websites (and actual products themselves), but every time I see a newly re-designed package with a sticker that claims something to the effect of “new design, same great product!” I have to wonder, “then why change the packaging?”
As I said, though, packaging and brand logos are in a different league than websites. Web design is something that, when it’s done right, is not noticed at all. Herein lies the problem with sudden unnecessary change, and I will show you why:
Pick a website whose design you admire for its simplicity and ease of use. This whole thing started with Google’s desire to change things up for no reason, but let’s pick another website just for the sake of demonstrating my point with even more strength: Facebook. I was not on Facebook myself until it underwent its first (and possibly second, I can’t remember) layout overhaul2. I wasn’t really interested in what it had to offer, but I do remember that the tabs at the top weren’t yet present, the “mini-feed” still existed, and things ran pretty smoothly and information was easy enough to locate.
Not long after this, however, things began to change for no reason other than to…well, I still don’t know why they thought changing stuff around was a good idea. The tabs arrived, and if I recall correctly they were met with such opposition that I had, at one point, multiple friends inviting me to join multiple groups that either protested the new layout or that claimed they had a way to change your profile back to the “old Facebook.” Then the “news feed” thing came, along with its ability to seemingly randomly switch between the “most popular” and the “most recent” feeds. Same story, same opposition.
Deny it all you like, there’s no getting around the fact that there are a lot of people who dislike the changes Facebook has made (and, for reasons seemingly unknown, keeps making). It doesn’t take much to realize why. When I first started using Facebook, I really didn’t pay any attention to the layout, mainly for this reason alone: it worked. It did what it was supposed to do, and it was fairly efficient at doing so. I got all the information I wanted to see on one page with no unnecessary fluff or clicks.
When Facebook suddenly made the tab change, I (as well as everyone else) was forced to “retrain” our methods of navigating the website. Whether the new design was in actuality more efficient than the old one was not the point in question—when the mini-feed vanished on us, we had to expend extra effort to retrain our brains to recognize that it was now under the “wall” tab and not right in front of us when we went to our profile.
The point I’m trying to make now is the fact that unnecessary layout changes are not only, you know, unnecessary, but they draw the attention to any shortcomings that may have, by accident, been included with the new layout upgrade. All of a sudden our ability to rate videos has disappeared on YouTube. Though there are claims that the overall “clutter” of the site has been reduced3, how many people notice anything other than the fact that they can’t rate something as having five stars (or still notice that the layout is still not the greatest)? That’s the point I’m trying to make: when website layouts or designs change for no obvious reason than to just change, we don’t notice the good things. We notice the failures. So what do we do? We do what only comes natural: we bitch about it.
Note, however, that this bitching does absolutely nothing. And now we come to the reason why I went on this long rant in the first place: Google. There are several things that I have always expected to remain constant (or at least, said to remain constant) within my lifetime. Among such things are:
– the speed of light in a vacuum
– Planck’s constant
– the gravitational constant
– Google
So imagine my surprise when I Googled something this afternoon and, upon viewing the search results, found that I was privy to Google’s experimental (and possibly soon-to-be-permanent) sidebar. Immediately annoyed by its intrusion into my search results, I did a search on it itself and within the top few results were—guess what?—people bitching about the experimental sidebar. “I hate this format- I like Google because it was clean and simple and now it’s all cluttered like every other search engine out there4.” There appear to be pro-Google individuals in digital tears over the possibility that a sidebar will be a permanent addition to their search results pages.
And now we come very quickly to the second point I wish to make: bitching does absolutely nothing (most of the time). Again, this has to do with the fact that people are both creatures of habit and lazy, as well as the fact that there are about five websites, in my opinion, that most people use without thinking much about it. I have friends in another country; I log onto Facebook to see if there’s any recent news about them. No real thought, it just happens. It’s like this with all the big and popular sites, and no amount of changes will probably mess with that.
When a member of the Internet Axis of Power (Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, YouTube, those such sites)1 pulls a change on the public, of course there is going to be outrage. There certainly was when YouTube changed its format and not too long ago. Comments of “the new YouTube layout sucks!” were quickly thumbed up and became the most liked comments on quite a few of the videos I’ve watched.
Why does this happen? I reiterate: if something’s working fine, and there is a sudden change that doesn’t really do much to improve aesthetics, functionality, or ease of use, it generally messes with peoples’ minds in a way that makes them upset. They have to expend effort, either getting used to a whole new way of navigating a website in the most extreme cases (Facebook), or just getting their brains used to a new visual cue on their search results page in the milder ones (a la Google’s experimental sidebar). And people don’t like effort.
But these websites are still the strongest ones out there. YouTube could make us have to type a captcha to comment on a video or Facebook could make us do the same to post on our friend’s wall, and we’d probably still use them. Why? Because they’re there. Because they’re the websites we’ve grown to love and depend on and automatically scroll to in our list of bookmarked sites. It’s basically a battle between putting up with pointless, needless site changes, or changing ourselves to not go to those sites. And we all know what side wins every time.
I’m certainly not suggesting that these websites are the bourgeoisie oppression to our proletarian desires to breeze about the internet unheeded. I’m simply saying that we can bitch all we like—if we continue to use their sites, and those in charge see no significant drop in web traffic as a result of the changes they made, then really, what’s been accomplished but a lot of angry video comments, irate Facebook groups, and upset Google users posting “it’s the end of the universe!” on forums?
One or two user casualties will ultimately do nothing, and I’m nearly stating fact when I say this: is there really anything that Google, YouTube, or Facebook could (in their right minds) do to their sites to render a huge drop in web traffic? Will a sidebar on Google’s results pages actually cause us to go elsewhere if we want to search for something? And for those of us Facebook addicts (or Facebook addicts in training), will a more-difficult-to-navigate interface really deter us much from checking the news feed every five minutes?
I started this rant with the intention of complaining about the problems of superfluous changes in web design—specifically, I wanted to point out that websites that change their layout for no other apparent reason than to simply change things up a bit get negative feedback and may lose some of their credibility (though that’s not the word I’m looking for, but I can’t think of a better one at the moment). However, the point I seem to have made in the end is that we’re pretty much tied to the major websites—and to any website we use with consistency, really—to the point where these little changes, as frustrating as they may be, will do little to deter us from partaking in the
services said websites offer. So I guess the best we can do is hold our little bitch-fests and hope the web designers happen to read video comments.
Edit: I also just came across this tidbit of information while researching for this little rant.
“‘There is nothing wrong with the logo,’ said Google product manager Nundu Janakiram. ‘We wanted to brighten it up and make some tweaks to it.'”
“There is nothing wrong with the logo.”
“There is nothing wrong with the logo.”
“There is nothing wrong with the logo.”
Sigh.
1 By traffic: http://mostpopularwebsites.net/
2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook
3http://techcrunch.com/2010/01/21/new-youtube/
4 http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Web+Search/thread?tid=67f6459e09a827ee&hl=en
Today’s song: Pompeii by E.S. Posthumus
Facebook and I broke up because I was seeing another layout
I’m on a (most likely temporary) hiatus from Facebook. Reasons are as follows:
1. The constant status updates were getting to me. I really don’t care that much.
2. The sheer amount of time some people spend on it is disturbing, and I don’t want that to happen to me (that’s what MySpace is for, haha).
3. THE LAYOUTS, FREAKING STICK WITH ONE YOU PICKY BASTARDS
The third item mentioned obviously carries the most weight. I logged in yesterday morning to find my “info” page changed around YET AGAIN (be warned, I think they’re just starting to phase this in and I was one of the unlucky first to get it).
Unfortunately, I’ll probably be back at some point, as a few of my friends I only have contact with via Facebook, the SHAPE-SHIFTING SOCIAL NETWORKING SITE OF ETERNAL TRANSFORMATIVE CHAOS!
Another point of worth:
It really is impossible to make a bad remix of Sleepyhead. The song is like audible Prozac for me, I listen to it (or a remix, or a cover, etc.,) and everything but the happies in my pants disappears. Yayzorz.
Today’s song: Save by The Rocket Summer (the new remix is technically tomorrow’s song, so you’ll just have to wait)
Yo blog title, I’mma let you finish, but this entry holds one of the best blogs of all time
iTunes Hates Canada and All Who Move There (And So Does PayPal): a True Story
Today I will narrate to you the scenario I experienced a few days ago when I tried to make a truce between iTunes and Canada. I log on to my iTunes account and notice that I’ve finally almost used up all my gift card money. The rest proceeds rather “nicely.”
Me: Oh hey, it looks like I’m down to 78 cents on my US iTunes account. I guess I’d better credit my account with more money.
iTunes: We can’t process your payment.
Me: Why?
iTunes: I’m not going to tell you.
Me: I’ll go check what PayPal has to say about this, then.
Paypal: Don’t ask me, it takes me five to seven business days to process anything. And it’s Friday, so good luck with that.
Me: Fine, I’ll just credit my account with my bank here.
iTunes: Wait, you’re using a Canadian bank account.
Me: No shit.
iTunes: You can’t do that unless you’re in Canada.
Me: I AM in Canada!
iTunes: But you’re not in iTunes’ Canada store.
Me: Okay, then I’ll switch my country on my profile.
iTunes: You can’t do that.
Me: Why??
iTunes: Because your current account is using a US bank account.
Me: So…I can’t use my US bank account because I’m in Canada, but I can’t switch to the Canadian store to use my Canadian bank account because my current account is linked to a US bank, even though my US bank won’t work for payment anymore?
iTunes: Makes perfect sense to us.
Me: Then I’ll make a new iTunes account with my Canadian bank account.
iTunes: Are you sure? You’ll have to use the Canadian iTunes store.
Me: I JUST WANT MUSIC.
iTunes: Okay, let me just process your info. Oh, and by the way, Canadian iTunes blows.
Me: Thanks.
iTunes: It looks like I can’t process your payments from your Canadian bank account.
Me: WHY.
iTunes: I’m not going to tell you.
Me: Ugh, FINE, I’ll make my old PayPal link to my Canadian bank.
Paypal: Welcome to Paypal.ca! Would you like to set up a new account?
Me: Oh screw this.
So I just quit and am downloading from justmusicstore.com until Paypal gets off its butt in nine to twelve business days (that’s the conversion to Canadian days from US days, in case you were wondering).
You think they wouldn’t make it so complicated for me to pay them money, but I guess not.
Today’s song: Cliffs of Dover by Eric Johnson
It’s time for your daily Claudia rambling! Put on your blog bonnets!
I haven’t given you guys a good old-fashioned rant in awhile, save the one on TA-ing a few days ago and the several on how much grad school is a waste of time. However, those don’t really count, since they actually got my blood pressure up to the point where I could feel my heartbeat in my eye. My usual blog rants are mainly about things that just don’t matter at all, but about which I feel like complaining; thus, they are semi-entertaining (at least, I like to pretend they are).
So tonight I give you a good old-fashioned Claudia rant, ‘cause it’s been a while. And because light-hearted ranting is good for the soul.
Today’s example: Facebook. As I think I’ve mentioned before, I’m kind of jaded with Facebook, and here are a couple of reasons why:
1. The layout(s).
Pick one! Freaking hell! What is it about trying to stay “modern” that makes websites/programs/everything want to change their layouts? Office 2007 did it and it was a disaster. Facebook decides to do it like every other week. Now YouTube did it, too, and it looks like crap. When Google eventually decides to change their homepage, I’m going to start shooting people.
2. The fact that they don’t capitalize “Facebook.”
I know, MySpace does this too, but for some reason that lowercase “f” really bothers me. You are a proper noun. Give yourself the respect you think others think you should deserve.
3. Poking.
Why?
4. The applications.
There are two types of people in Facebook land: those who subscribe to (or play/join/what the hell ever) 50 or so applications, and those who just absolutely hate them. Yes, I’m fully aware you can hide application notices. I’m also fully aware that the point of Facebook was so that you wouldn’t have to put up with hiding application notices you got on MySpace.
5. The people who update their status 5+ times per day.
“_______ just woke up!” “________ had a bagel!” “_________ exists!” “________ needs a self-esteem boost, and therefore is posting another status update to get noticed!” Really? That’s what Twitter is for.
6. The people who basically use their profile as a showcase for their baby.
I have a friend on there who has 16 albums dedicated to their kid, each with about 30 pictures. They also fall into annoyance sector #5, except 90% of their status updates are about…guess what? “________’s baby is teething! ________’s nipples hurt!”
7. The ability for everyone to make fan pages of just about every stupid occurrence, enjoyment, or annoyance in human history.
These include pages about how much “the little triangle that the windshield wipers never get” plagues people in their sleep, how amazing sex is, redoing high fives if they’re not good enough the first time, using cellphones as flashlights, etc., etc., you get the idea. I get it, you’re a fan of the little things in life. Do you have to let the world know? Joining the group was one thing, but now you must jump on the bandwagon of becoming a fan of something just because you’ve laughed at the occurrence once in your life? Is this really a productive way for the human race to spend its time?
So…Facebook has slowly developed to include and/or involve: inability to commit, poor capitalization habits, promotion of poking people, tons of time-wasting stuff that clogs up your life, egomaniacs, and promoting stupidity via mass-promotion of fads.
Hm.
Sounds like high school.
Freaking hell, people.
Today’s song: Viva la Love Story by Jon Schmidt
Claudia vs. The Unstapled Assignments: Round 2
Why don’t these people staple their homeworks?
Seriously, is it that hard to do?
Is a sighting of a stapler that rare up here? It’s not like they don’t sell them at, say FREAKING STAPLES. You can buy small ones that FIT IN YOUR DAMN PENCIL CASE!
Hell, I have one. It probably cost me at most $7. I can’t remember, since I bought it so long ago.
And l love how people think “folding the corner over” works. None of the 300 or so variations of “can I just fold the papers over?” have worked, especially when you have to shove your assignment into my mailbox, which may contain as many as 49 assignments already.
These SPSS assignments are about 20 points each. I think “staple your goddamn work” should be a 2-point demand on the next one.
Haha, they should devote an entire lab to it: “Today we’re not going to look at SPSS. Instead we’re going to look at this device: it’s a STAPLER. It HOLDS PIECES OF PAPER TOGETHER, which has been shown in empirical studies to help slow the progression of TA insanity. Practice with staplers may also improve your manual dexterity and help you look like less of an idiot by demonstrating that you understand the concept of binding things together with a small piece of metal.”
OH MY GOD.
Today’s song: Toe Jam by The BPA
Eigenblogger 