Psycho-Babble Politics | about politics | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: Hi Alex

Posted by alexandra_k on May 4, 2019, at 18:21:58

In reply to Re: Hi Alex, posted by alexandra_k on May 2, 2019, at 0:18:44

I resent the thesis, actually.

Undergraduates have a 120 point workload for 1 year of study. That involves 30 working weeks and 12 weeks grading. There are strict times that grades need to be finalised by so that the students can do other things. Enrol in other courses with the University or whatever.

I enroled in a 120 point research degree and I was clear that my intention was to complete it within 1 academic year. So, 30 working weeks and 12 weeks grading. I submitted it after around 20 working weeks (to allow up to 10 weeks to make changes with a 'accepted subject to significant revisions' outcome of examination) and I submitted it on time.

So then I was told that since the examiners required me to make significant revisions the graduate school of the university decided it would be appropriate for me to 'revise and resubmit' which means I cannot submit a thesis for examination for 6 months.

6 months.

But the entire degree was supposed to take less than 12 months.

An entire academic year is only around 9 months (including examination) you see.

Somehow the whole thing is going to take 2 years and I am required to pay 2 months additional fees. When I protested this treatment I was told that they wouldn't let me re-enrol (pay more fees) then, instead I just wouldn't get the qualification at all.

The Dean of the School of Graduate Research said 'since you wanted to do Medicine we thought you would be more compliant'

I said 'really... this is what you want from your doctor? compliance?'

My supervisor turned out to be a big f*ck*ng idiot. She has no f*ck*ng idea what she is doing. She says that work is 'rubbish' and 'crap' when it is... Stuff that was commissioned by international organisations and the like. I mean... THe best stuff in the field, basically. She genuinely seems incapable of telling the difference. She wants me to say the same thing over and over and over and over and I am not allowed to say anything that is complex enough that she might actually have to read it again or think about it a little bit. They want me to have a thesis statement that is so simple an idiot could understand it (without having expended any energy or effort at all in understanding it) and the like...

It's like this idea they have of giving the best marks to the most inept / most incompetent students who submit their work late and failing the students who demonstrate capacity or intelligence or ability or motivation or whatever.

This is genuinely what our 'Universities' have become.

It is genuinely unclear to me whether or not Auckland will say 'you aren't eligable to even apply to medicine / have your application to medicine considered since you were incapable of completing your 120 point qualification on time!'

The level of corruption here is too much.

I think.

I don't think people will let me through because I am not their kid / I can be differentiated from their kid therefore must be culled.

The English UCAT...

Seems about as bad as the UMAT, actually.

I see they do want me to believe it is about fast math. Only that's a mere section of the thing. My issue with the UMAT was the verbal stuff / interpersonal skills stuff.

The Australians didn't copyedit all the typographical errors out of their disability statement. Which kind of suggests they didn't take it seriously at all. The English didn't copyedit all the typographical errors out of their ethics statement. I won't let them know until after I have my score. I don't think I will score well.

They say it isn't about background knowledge -- but then they ask questions like 'what kind of argument is this'. They present the 'teleological argument for the existence of god' which is a paradigmatic example of 'argument from analogy' if you have ever studied critical reasoning, introduction to philosophy, philosophy of religion. Students studying English learn what an analogy is. But the information that it is an argument from analogy (or that a similie is an analogy) is not contained in the text.

So it is about background knowledge.

Then they appeal to information about Dawkins argument in their explanation as to why a certin answer is correct. But none of that information was contained in the text so couldn't be a reason for a student selecting that answer -- unless they were relying on knowledge gleaned from outside the text, again.

When faced with a decision on whether it is better to consider there are rules witthout a rulemaker or whether there are rules that include chance we are supposed to consider... That there are rules of probability, I guess.

God does not play dice... Playing dice violates rules??? There are rules of dice??? God would not make rules that governed the playing of dice???

The whole thing comes down to:

There isn't good reason to pick between two options so we have our 'high end distinguisher'.

Seems to me.

On the basis of their own explanations.

I mean I can try and engage in apologetics on their behalf...

But I suppose the only sensible thing to conclude is not to spend too much time studying for it. Brush up on basic maths because that is most likely to have pay-off and practice their strategies for the pattern stuff... But the only things it could possibly be getting at is years of dedication to curriculum... So certain features are salient only because they were the focus of geometry, or whatever...

It's a crap shoot.

To what advantage is conveying / projecting the idea that it is random?

I guess an alternative idea is that people are picked because they are the best.

My problem is that we aren't honest in what the job is / what the requirements for the job is so that people can make informed decisions about what it is that they want to pursue.

Then... If people were actually allowed / encouraged to pursue what it is that they wanted to pursue we would actually find (I would bet) that more people could do what they wanted to do in life.

People here seem determined for me to be all like 'oh wow, you fooled me! you tricked me into paying additional fees and taking longer than normal so you get more money for yourselves! you are so very very much cleverer than me! you got me! i got nothing! you have all the power and i have none!'

Being... Happy... About this situation is somehow something that makes them feel better.

See see see! Now you feel just like me!

And, uh, better medical treatment for us all?

It makes no sense.

That's what the ethics lady suggested in my interview.

People don't think.

I just think... It is strategic for people not to think, sometimes. Convenient.

But perhaps her way of viewing it is the way that enables you to keep on...

YOu aren't allowed to treat your 'friends' anyway.

I see why.

For the good of us all.

Access is limited. Something something about the things people could do to help themselves. And to help others help them.

The trouble is that people say these things.. Then they all get misinterpreted somehow.

Like it is fashionable for the managers to spout 'it's not sustainable!' while continuing to have endless meeting and conferences and hiring still more managers and so on and so on and so on... Instead of listening to (for example) what the royal training colleges say they must do in order to have accreditation to teach students in the specialist field (e.g., hire 3 specialists (we can't afford it!) maintain this and that equipment (we can't afford it!)... Why oh why don't we have doctors in our community?

Because nobody listens to them so they get the things they need in order to do what it is that the community would supposedly have them do.

There is this whole... Incomprehension of the way the world works. Of causal chains. Of pychologically realistic. Of plausibility. Etc.

WOrse over time.

You have people raised on photoshopped video and pictures so they don't know about reality.

You have people whizzing about on electrically powered bicycles so people don't know what people are capable of doing.

You have television shows that present things unrealistically oftentimes.

You can't have refrigerated medications if your staff cannot put things back in the fridge. It's unclear why you would need an autoclave if your staff cannot wash their hands. If you can't distinguish the staff who can wash tehir hands from the staff who can't adn understand that is a good reason to hire and fire then... We can't help you.

You don't need to be able to read. You need to be able to identify the others who can read to varying degrees. Then you can hire the people who can take them from not reading to reading. If the people in charge can't tell who can read and who can't then you can't help them help their people develop literacy.

There is an inability to focus...

Just a couple more months.

I am supposed to feel afraid that they won't give me my qualification that I earned by writing the thesis that I did. Because there doesn't seem to be any accountability for them doing their fuckign job if they think they can get away with not doing it.

There have been an endless succession of meetings already where they try and figure out how they can fail me and so on...

The only thing that stopped that was my turning up in person and showing everyone that I don't have 3 heads. I resent the fact that it is about that for them.

Just get it done and get out.

I don't know why they are so hell bent on ruining things for everybody.




Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post

Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.


Start a new thread

Google www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Politics | Framed

poster:alexandra_k thread:1103714