Psycho-Babble Administration | about the operation of this site | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: security problem ert

Posted by alexandra_k on February 10, 2019, at 13:31:52

In reply to Re: security problem, posted by ert on February 9, 2019, at 2:18:12

>learning numbers such as price tags

why do you say that?
I don't think I'm particularly good with numbers -- but I don't think that is a requirement.

if I am told I must hand over a sum of money before the university will look at passing me... a sum of money in excess of the up-front amount (1 years fees for one years study) then that seems like extortion to me... nobody expressed concern about my lack of progress. they can say 'people normally take 1 1/2 years' all they like or 'people normally pay us 10 years of fees before we pass them' all they like. the issue is whether they CHOOSE to do these things or whether they feel threatened into HAVING to do these things. if they wanted to FAIL me and to basically say I need to repeate the year they should have told me they were concerned about my lack of progress in time for me to have done something about it.

it's just a strategy to get me to slow down and take 2 years.

we will see what the ombudsman has to say about their thinking they are conducting their business acceptably.

i think there indeed is an element about the good doctor that is implausible. they would have found some way to rule him out. if there was an interview required then he would never have been selected. people would have gone to themselves, as they do, 'other people will not find this person acceptable therefore it is my duty to make sure he doesn't get to do it so saving him from them'. i don't know if the US requires interviews for med school admissions... but if it wasn't med school admissions then he would not have matched with his interview.

the idea that he meet his work collegues for the very first time when he arrives to take up his new job is... implausible.

one might say... that's precisely why we have interviews where we meet the candidate and think abuot how they are likely to fit... precisely so we never find ourself in the position of never having accidentally hired someone like that into our team.

so... the show is a sort of an interesting hypothetical about how bad would it be really if someone like that were to be on our team.

it is strange to me that many people do not think that is is discrimination against a person (in a way that is unacceptable) that people would discriminate against him on such superficialities about his communication / interpersonal skills.

what it is that medicine has with the way they have defined communication and interpersonal skills...

is he really falling short / lacking in those?

there is a difference in his communication style, to be sure. but is it a difference that is likely to obstruct his practice of medicine?

only when / if other people judge him to be unacceptable, seems to me. but then how is that different from people justing people to be unacceptable to them because they don't like their race or whatever.




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 Administration | Framed

poster:alexandra_k thread:1103125