1. Don't worry about taking millions of APs. I did it. It sucks. Please learn from my mistakes. Ok it didn't suck too too badly, they were at least classes I was remotely interested in. My Mom warned me away from taking six and one dual, she even told my counselor to warn me off. Obviously I ignored her. I did think about it, but there wasn't one I was willing to drop. BUT. Lesson: millions of APs and a good SAT score will not get you into the colleges decked in ivy so don't worry about it. It's not really worth it. I got sucked into working twenty four seven (not really, I didn't have a job even), but I got stressed out easily if I tried to pile anything extra onto what I already had. Like Lacrosse. Senior year would have been my third on Varsity but I had to quit because I couldn't handle it.
1 1/2.More specifically: don't take AP Lit( Liess, the only good teacher, is quitting. Every other teacher gives wayyy tons of work, AP Art (24 pieces is a lot more than it sounds like, and even though I loved it and am now considering a double in art, just take art 4 or something please), AP Physics (the test is inconceivably hard. I'm not even joking. I had like perfects on all the in class quizzes/tests and I think i got 3/45 right on the multiple choice. And I'm not exaggerating. Ok maybe a tinsy bit. But it was laughably hard.) I won't say anything about comp gov.
2. Do early admission. Not necessarily early decision, but knowing early can ease a lot of the stress in the whole process.
3. College: Just because you're qualified to get in, doesn't mean you will. It's a crap shot. More specifically, unless you cannot help but fall in love with a college the minute you step on campus, don't do it. I know it's hard. The guys are so cute, and the dorms are so cool, and the activities sound so fun, but they do not reciprocate your feelings in any way. If you can help it, don't decide which one you really really love until you know which ones sent you the acceptance.You'll just get beat down.
4. Don't feel bad about lying in your application essays. Now I don't mean saying you're Puerto Rican when you're really white, but dont feel bad about embellishing why you love the school or what an experience really meant to you or about why you want to study a particular subject. My brother wrote an entire essay on wanting to create Iron Man to get into the engineering school at UVA, and now he's into electric cars. Your pride or integrity does not get you anywhere with Admissions officers. But don't be fake. It's a fine line.
5. Do a class trip. I went to France with ma art buddees. Best bonding experience ever.
6. Listen to Music. Nuff said.
Monday, June 4, 2012
Sailing
As I mentioned in passing in my last post, I sail. My family inherited two tiny sunfishes from my grandparents when I was little and I learned how to sail on those. Since then, I've worked my way up to 30 ft keel boats. It's all official too, last summer I got keel boat certified and two weeks ago I got Coastal Cruising certified. Yes I do feel important. Since then I haven't been able to wait to go sailing again. I've always enjoyed it, but now every time I think about it it makes me sad I didn't choose to go to College of Charleston just for their awesome sailing team (there was no other reason I would ever go there). Technically UVA has a sailing team but I mean really? Where is there water near UVA? I know sailing is the ultimate prepster sport so it fits perfectly I'm just not really into busing two hours for a couple hours on the water. Oh wait. That's what I do now. Harbor I sail out of, Herrington, is about an hour and a half away, without traffic. Herring bay opens out into the Chesapeake and there's this adorable lighthouse you can sail out to. We go for day trips, so like 5-8 hrs on the water which makes the drive manageable. We used to sail out of Washington Sailing Marina, which was perfect for the little sunfishes being manned by ten year olds because there was a sheltered lagoon where we wouldn't be swept off into the main current of the Potomac. But there's this one huge sandbar straight out from the docks that's gotten worse over the years and maybe clears about three feet deep at high tide. Needless to say it's obnoxious.
But sailing is awesome. It you've never tried it, do it. It's not hard to pick up the basics but the learning curve never ends, it never gets boring. Assuming I don't have to pay for gas, I'm going to be up at Herrington all the time. Aka, this is the other gross majority of my summer plans.
But sailing is awesome. It you've never tried it, do it. It's not hard to pick up the basics but the learning curve never ends, it never gets boring. Assuming I don't have to pay for gas, I'm going to be up at Herrington all the time. Aka, this is the other gross majority of my summer plans.
Summer Plans
I'm going to the beach!!! Woooh! Just like every other senior!
I'm not doing a "beach week" though. I'm just going down to this nice resort near Nag's Head NC with my friend Anne-Marie who goes to south lakes. We've been like best friends since like fourth grade so it should be awesome.
The resort sounds awesome from their website. There's a distinct possibility we will never leave it the entire week we're there. It has windsurfing and biking and sailing and restaurants and kayaking and beaching and a bunch of other stuff that I can't remember. Mostly I'm looking forward to the food. There hasn't been good food in my house for ages.
After that I'm hopefully going to be working. I applied for a job as a math tutor at NOVA, and I talked to the guy that runs the Marina where I sail about teaching youth sailing classes there. I'm learning all the ins and outs of being obnoxious enough to remind them to give me a job but not quite so obnoxious that they don't want to hire me.
In between is orientation and a week at my friend's beach house (which involves a lot of tubing and wake boarding and killing brain cells) and hopefully a concert. I've never been to a concert, so that's my goal for the summer.
I'm not doing a "beach week" though. I'm just going down to this nice resort near Nag's Head NC with my friend Anne-Marie who goes to south lakes. We've been like best friends since like fourth grade so it should be awesome.
The resort sounds awesome from their website. There's a distinct possibility we will never leave it the entire week we're there. It has windsurfing and biking and sailing and restaurants and kayaking and beaching and a bunch of other stuff that I can't remember. Mostly I'm looking forward to the food. There hasn't been good food in my house for ages.
After that I'm hopefully going to be working. I applied for a job as a math tutor at NOVA, and I talked to the guy that runs the Marina where I sail about teaching youth sailing classes there. I'm learning all the ins and outs of being obnoxious enough to remind them to give me a job but not quite so obnoxious that they don't want to hire me.
In between is orientation and a week at my friend's beach house (which involves a lot of tubing and wake boarding and killing brain cells) and hopefully a concert. I've never been to a concert, so that's my goal for the summer.
Generic v. Name Brand
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/04/cheap-vs-expensive-drugs/?ref=business
A.k.a cheap v. expensive.
In a paper published recently, it has been discovered that there is a vast difference in the amount of money spent on Medicare Part D (the coverage of prescription drugs) by geographic location. Texas, and each coast consistently spent more even when controlled for income across three different drug types: antidepressants, statins, and ARBs/ ACEIs. While no one is entirely sure why this is unique to these areas, the cause of the spending differences has been attributed to the use of name brand drugs instead of generics. This may be a result of incentives for doctors that encourage them to prescribe the name brand. The problem is in how much mor ename brands cost than generic drugs. As medicare is financed by taxpayer dollars, this is costing them more. The beneficiaries have an interest in buying generic drugs: their copayment is much higher for the name brand version, meaning it is more likely for seniors to refill and take their prescriptions if they cost less. In terms of health, the drug companies claim that the name brand drugs have better results, although research has proven that generics and name brands do roughly the same.
I chose this article because I was curious about it. I have previously read about a psychology experiment in which the participants were told how much the drug they were taking cost (all took the same medicine) and the participants who thought the medicine was more expensive, recovered more than the others. But stress also causes health problems and stressing about money to pay for your medications is not going to make you any better. And yay for less government waste.
A.k.a cheap v. expensive.
In a paper published recently, it has been discovered that there is a vast difference in the amount of money spent on Medicare Part D (the coverage of prescription drugs) by geographic location. Texas, and each coast consistently spent more even when controlled for income across three different drug types: antidepressants, statins, and ARBs/ ACEIs. While no one is entirely sure why this is unique to these areas, the cause of the spending differences has been attributed to the use of name brand drugs instead of generics. This may be a result of incentives for doctors that encourage them to prescribe the name brand. The problem is in how much mor ename brands cost than generic drugs. As medicare is financed by taxpayer dollars, this is costing them more. The beneficiaries have an interest in buying generic drugs: their copayment is much higher for the name brand version, meaning it is more likely for seniors to refill and take their prescriptions if they cost less. In terms of health, the drug companies claim that the name brand drugs have better results, although research has proven that generics and name brands do roughly the same.
I chose this article because I was curious about it. I have previously read about a psychology experiment in which the participants were told how much the drug they were taking cost (all took the same medicine) and the participants who thought the medicine was more expensive, recovered more than the others. But stress also causes health problems and stressing about money to pay for your medications is not going to make you any better. And yay for less government waste.
Sunday, June 3, 2012
"I don't Twitter"
But religious leaders do.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/02/technology/christian-leaders-are-powerhouses-on-twitter.html?ref=technology
Twitter has become a powerhouse for christian evangelical leaders to get their message across. One example is of Bishop T Jakes' post that generated 2,490 responses, comparable to Katy Perry's 2,491 for a message about jet lag But the main difference here is the in the vast disparity between the number of followers each person has- Katy Perry has 20 million, and the Bishop only has 450000 followers. The Twitter researches have contributed this to the :engagement" factor, which has nothing to do with fame, as they initially expected it would. Subsequently, the company is courting religious leaders to begin using the social networking site and teaching them how to use it. Apparently "twitter was made for the bible" according to many pastors. The 140 character limit make succinct bible verses and inspirational words of faith perfect tweets. However the christian world now has to navigate a whole new world of public verses private when sharing things that should "be pondered in the heart" but not necessarily tweeted with the rest of the world. The distinction between sharing faith and building a platform of popularity blurs with the advent of social networking.
I personally don't do twitter. It's like texting on the interwebs; not the best form of communication. But I agree it is perfect for sharing bible verses or inspirational sayings that people like to hear. I thought it was amusing though that Twitter was exploiting these new form of congregations for business reasons. While it's mutually beneficial for both the religious leaders and the company, I can't help but feel that this is only geed for the company in the long run. The potential for this to backfire comes with any increase in publicity that puts each of these religious leaders at risk. While I hardly expect them to post things that are inappropriate, Lady Gaga just got burned for making a joke about salad. Clearly, you can never take people having a sense of humor for granted.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/02/technology/christian-leaders-are-powerhouses-on-twitter.html?ref=technology
Twitter has become a powerhouse for christian evangelical leaders to get their message across. One example is of Bishop T Jakes' post that generated 2,490 responses, comparable to Katy Perry's 2,491 for a message about jet lag But the main difference here is the in the vast disparity between the number of followers each person has- Katy Perry has 20 million, and the Bishop only has 450000 followers. The Twitter researches have contributed this to the :engagement" factor, which has nothing to do with fame, as they initially expected it would. Subsequently, the company is courting religious leaders to begin using the social networking site and teaching them how to use it. Apparently "twitter was made for the bible" according to many pastors. The 140 character limit make succinct bible verses and inspirational words of faith perfect tweets. However the christian world now has to navigate a whole new world of public verses private when sharing things that should "be pondered in the heart" but not necessarily tweeted with the rest of the world. The distinction between sharing faith and building a platform of popularity blurs with the advent of social networking.
I personally don't do twitter. It's like texting on the interwebs; not the best form of communication. But I agree it is perfect for sharing bible verses or inspirational sayings that people like to hear. I thought it was amusing though that Twitter was exploiting these new form of congregations for business reasons. While it's mutually beneficial for both the religious leaders and the company, I can't help but feel that this is only geed for the company in the long run. The potential for this to backfire comes with any increase in publicity that puts each of these religious leaders at risk. While I hardly expect them to post things that are inappropriate, Lady Gaga just got burned for making a joke about salad. Clearly, you can never take people having a sense of humor for granted.
High Fructose Corn Syrup by any other name...
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/no-new-name-for-high-fructose-corn-syrup/?ref=health
The FDA recently rejected a request made by the Corn Refiner's Association submitted in September 2010 to change the name of high fructose corn syrup to the more benign "corn sugar". I do believe a bit of sass crept through in the refusal, but the FDA cited many technical and health reasons to bar the change. The term "corn sugar" has apparently already been claimed by the sweetener dextrose, the term "sugar" is reserved for the crystalized solid and since HFCS is a syrup it would be a misnomer, and that people with HFCS intolerancies have learned to associate the term "corn sugar" with eatable and HFCS with not eatable and to change the name would be detrimental to their health. The Corn Refiner's Association's response was to remind everyone that recent research has shown the HFCS is "nutritionally" the same as any other sugar. Except they didn't mention that sugar has little "nutrional" value anyway, and that it doesn't matter what you call it it still makes you fat.
I enjoyed the article because I am wholeheartedly glad that the FDA stuck it to the Corn Refiner's Association. It wasn't particularly well written it was more entirely factual and I think I projected that sassyness onto the FDA but all's well that ends well. Personally I don't even like how HFCS tastes. Not that it tastes the same in everything. But like real non diet soda is disgustingly sweet to me (althought the fake sugar is just as bad for you but in a different way). And that's my only example that has a direct comparison. And might I add that corn does not need to be subsidized anymore thank you very much.
The FDA recently rejected a request made by the Corn Refiner's Association submitted in September 2010 to change the name of high fructose corn syrup to the more benign "corn sugar". I do believe a bit of sass crept through in the refusal, but the FDA cited many technical and health reasons to bar the change. The term "corn sugar" has apparently already been claimed by the sweetener dextrose, the term "sugar" is reserved for the crystalized solid and since HFCS is a syrup it would be a misnomer, and that people with HFCS intolerancies have learned to associate the term "corn sugar" with eatable and HFCS with not eatable and to change the name would be detrimental to their health. The Corn Refiner's Association's response was to remind everyone that recent research has shown the HFCS is "nutritionally" the same as any other sugar. Except they didn't mention that sugar has little "nutrional" value anyway, and that it doesn't matter what you call it it still makes you fat.
I enjoyed the article because I am wholeheartedly glad that the FDA stuck it to the Corn Refiner's Association. It wasn't particularly well written it was more entirely factual and I think I projected that sassyness onto the FDA but all's well that ends well. Personally I don't even like how HFCS tastes. Not that it tastes the same in everything. But like real non diet soda is disgustingly sweet to me (althought the fake sugar is just as bad for you but in a different way). And that's my only example that has a direct comparison. And might I add that corn does not need to be subsidized anymore thank you very much.
Is Gaydar Real? Absolutely.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/opinion/sunday/the-science-of-gaydar.html?ref=opinion
The Science of Gaydar" by Joshua Tabak and Vivian Zayas, presents the theory that gaydar is in fact, real. Citing an experiment in which participants judged sexual orientation solely on facial features, the results were 60% accurate. That's not a whole lot more than a 50/50 guess, but it is enough to be statistically significant. The hairstyles, piercings, clothing were all removed so that the only thing participants had to go off of was facial features. The photos were only presented for a grand total of 50 milliseconds, a brief glance, making intense scrutiny impossible. Yet the participants "gaydar" was more than fifty percent accurate. Based on the findings, it is suggested that we use configural face processing (ratio of facial features' postitioning to one another and width/height ratio) rather than featural face processing (the examination of a single feature such as eyes). So a a more masculine trait like a wider face, or larger width/height ratio, would tip off gaydar for a woman, while an effeminate, smaller ratio would designate a man as gay. But, the findings were consistently more accurate when judging women's faces (64%) than men's (57%). This was the cause of "false alarms", the tendency to guess more men were gay than actually were. The article suggests this may be because the perception of gender roles: a boy playing with barbies is more likely to be gay, while a girl playing sports is not any more likely to be. Gender roles for men are much stricter, making any effeminate feature a red flag.
_
I picked this article because I thought it would be interesting, and I am interested in the psychology involved in the differences in sexual orientation between men and women. It was humorously written, and went into detail as to what this might suggest for discrimination in the workforce against the LBGT community, that a "Don't ASk Don't Tell" policy would be ineffective because we can make those judgements for ourselves with reasonable accuracy. I enjoyed that the author made a distinction between "ability" and "proficiency", reminding the reader that 60% accuracy is still fairly low in the grand scheme of things.
The Science of Gaydar" by Joshua Tabak and Vivian Zayas, presents the theory that gaydar is in fact, real. Citing an experiment in which participants judged sexual orientation solely on facial features, the results were 60% accurate. That's not a whole lot more than a 50/50 guess, but it is enough to be statistically significant. The hairstyles, piercings, clothing were all removed so that the only thing participants had to go off of was facial features. The photos were only presented for a grand total of 50 milliseconds, a brief glance, making intense scrutiny impossible. Yet the participants "gaydar" was more than fifty percent accurate. Based on the findings, it is suggested that we use configural face processing (ratio of facial features' postitioning to one another and width/height ratio) rather than featural face processing (the examination of a single feature such as eyes). So a a more masculine trait like a wider face, or larger width/height ratio, would tip off gaydar for a woman, while an effeminate, smaller ratio would designate a man as gay. But, the findings were consistently more accurate when judging women's faces (64%) than men's (57%). This was the cause of "false alarms", the tendency to guess more men were gay than actually were. The article suggests this may be because the perception of gender roles: a boy playing with barbies is more likely to be gay, while a girl playing sports is not any more likely to be. Gender roles for men are much stricter, making any effeminate feature a red flag.
_
I picked this article because I thought it would be interesting, and I am interested in the psychology involved in the differences in sexual orientation between men and women. It was humorously written, and went into detail as to what this might suggest for discrimination in the workforce against the LBGT community, that a "Don't ASk Don't Tell" policy would be ineffective because we can make those judgements for ourselves with reasonable accuracy. I enjoyed that the author made a distinction between "ability" and "proficiency", reminding the reader that 60% accuracy is still fairly low in the grand scheme of things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)