Psycho-Babble Social | for general support | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

there's nothing here

Posted by alexandra_k on May 18, 2019, at 16:16:15

I don't think it is just that I have grown. I think things have become objectively worse, here. There's nothing here.

I think one of my panelists -- the most senior person -- is actually physically incapable of reading my thesis. He keeps saying that it should be shorter. He has given me no indication that he has read beyond the second paragraph of a version I did back last October. It is all marked up. Like, he takes issue with every single sentence.

I remember one of the guys in Aussie was like that. I have him a chunk of work and we never got to discuss the content of it because he got all hung up over the first sentance and wanted to use it as an opportunity to lecture me about stuff I actually knew...

I suppose just to mask the fact that he didn't take the time to read it.

Maybe he is a slow reader? I don't know. I don't know what the deal is.

I don't actually care if he reads it, or not. I mean it would be terrific if he was actually helpful. But all he actually needs to f*ck*ng do is to sign me off. He doesn't get to not sign me off becuase he's not willing / able to read graduate level work. Only... He seems to think that is actually the case. I handed my work in: They tried to have me thrown out of the University unless I agreed to throw more money at the University for the pleasure of... Sitting back and letting them take 4+ months in which to read it. They don't even need to read it. The examiners need to read it. They just need to check I've made the changes required by the examiners. But instead of doing their f*ck*ng job they decide a better use of their time is to have committee meeting after committee meeting after committee meeting about... Well... F*ck knows what.

The point was supposed to be an increase in quality research. Everything is supposed to be working towards that end. But they choose to hire people who aren't particularly productive in it and who aren't particularly helpful in extracting it from their students.

We have this public health health star rating system. It is supposed to be targeted towards the most vulnerable people in society. Vulnerable people who are unable to read an ingredients list or decide what is healthy... The people who need extra help. The star rating system rates food / beverages (sometimes -- I think you have to pay for a star rating for your product) and 1 star is worst and 5 starts is supposed to be best.

5 stars - peanut butter (known allergen for many people)
4 stars - many breakfast cereals like coco pops that are around 20-25 percent sugar. i found hot chocolate mix that has sugar as the first ingredient.
2 stars - some bottled waters

i find it hard to imagine the diet that one would have to eat such that a *better* diet would be one that selected more foods with a higher star rating.

it seems to me that the star rating system is more about *exploiting* people who are not able to read / understand ingredients lists.

it is unfortunate because they are people who care about their health enough to care about what the public health people say they should eat more of if they care about their health.

the stated aims of the rating system was to help consumers eat less sugar and fat and so on. apparently water did badly because it is low nutrient. apparently the drinking cocolate (high sugar) was low in cocoa solids (the healthy ingredient ironically enough).

like... saying that tuna with the fish oils extracted out is healthier than tuna because it is low fat.

what kind of idiocy is this?

apparently it is a kind of idiocy that gets a big boost in funding over the next 5 years. apparently that is the problem. we need to throw more money at it.

i really don't think that's the problem.

are they so very bad at doing a good job? or are they so very good at doing such a bad job? i don't suppose it makes so very much of a difference...

then you get nutritionists and this is the only sort of job they can get.

well done government hand-outs.


i did not come back here to do philosophy.

things have gone backwards / downhill.

they made the hiring decisions they made.

part of the problem is what it is that the people aspire to... they aspire to... positions / roles where that isn't what is good for the field. they look at what some of the senior people have. x and y and z. and they want those things for themselves. only, x and y and z aren't good for the profession. the profession has gone backwarsd and downhill with them in charge...

I mean, they can't organise a single journal in the field for the whole country. i mean... not even a graduate student journal showcasing the best of their graduate students work.

The university cannot really manage a student magazine... I saw a fairly decent article / spread in the last one was... Well... No authors were listed... It was a write up on what a guy was saying who visited and gave a talk from Princeton... Not credited to him... But the sort of thing you would expect students to be coming up with / engaging with on campus.

Instead our magazine is mostly (week after week) about alcohol and about trashy / rubbishy student flats and about how everyone is bored or asleep in class and about how students don't actually do any actual work.

There are glimmers of otherwise, but mostly not.

There is not much of a university.

it's a complete f*ck*ng babel.

If I get to do med I know already / I already know: Theres nothing there.

If I get picked it will be that I am picked for all the wrong reasons. If I get to be a surgeon it won't be because I turned out to be skilled / handy in the operating room. It will be because of a whole bunch of completely irrelevant stuff. Over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Was that a part of it?

I guess it was. I do remember thinking to myself: There's no way I would want a job in philosophy in New Zealand. I would feel like shooting my face off most every day at how backwards and f*ck*ng nonsensical the field and people working in the field and the aspirations of the field and so on and so forth are in this sh*t hole.

I remember thinking to myself: If I am to be happy in New Zealand I will have to pick something I'm not particularly good at. That way I'll fit right on on.

But then...

I actually turned out to be alright at science.

I am learning we really can't pick them. The world over. All these intelligence tests and the like... Such a f*ck*ng farce.

They can be used to distinguish people with problems...

But not high end distinguishers.

That aspect is visible... By way of life... Not really testable.

Most people can't distinguish / tell the difference.

Minimise time spent

What a f*ck*ng waste of a life




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 Social | Framed

poster:alexandra_k thread:1104460