Another One Shilling for College Minus

[chaotic life]

Yes, I was incorrect on the percentage, he corrected me last night. Percentage is actually dependent upon any cycle of MCAT scores and not a strict amount. In his testing cycle, his 34 was a 93-94%, not a 97%. Going into the admissions cycle, he was predicted to have a 12% chance of getting into any medical school.

It IS hard for a B student to get into medical school, very, very hard. The very circumstances that led him to medicine were the strengths far beyond mere grades that got him into medical school. In the right circumstances, an individual *can* overcome poor marks and get into professional schools. It's entirely possible that this CP student who got into top law schools had very strong markers outside of her degree that she was able to present. It doesn't make her story a glowing success story for CP. It simply acknowledges that an individual can overcome adversity, even a two-bit CP degree to be successful. That was my ONLY point in sharing his story in the first place.

Indiana Wesleyan in Kansas (figure that out) has a Creationist based Medical School. There is another one working to get opened up as well. I have NO idea what their performance on testing or getting into residencies are, only that they are a Creationism based medical school catering to fundies who want to be doctors but not compromise their beliefs with training.

[OnceModestTwiceShy]

It's true, in my experience, that GRE scores (and test scores in general) do not count for much when applying to a humanities or arts-oriented grad program, least of all an MFA. I am doing a Ph.D. in Slavic lit, and all the departments I applied to told me straight out that they didn't care about my GRE scores, but only required them because the graduate school itself required them for all applicants. What does matter most of all in the arts and humanities is your writing skills, and I would say that while Jasmine certainly has the potential to be a good writer, she's nowhere near being there yet.

As far as lit degrees being "non-degrees", it depends what your career goals are. If you are interested in a high-paying job right out of college, probably it's not the best way to go. But if you are looking to go to grad school for pretty much anything non-science-based at some point, it is great preparation in writing, critical thinking, etc. I know many lawyers, businesspeople, teachers, etc. who got literature degrees. As far as being a waste of money, again, it depends. I was lucky enough to get a very good scholarship for undergrad, so I only had $7,000 of debt for all four years of that first degree. I got a full fellowship for both my MA and for the Ph.D. that I'm doing now.

I usually encourage my undergrad students who are interested in English lit to double-major with Comp Lit or area studies, because then they will have to learn another language or two. THAT is always extremely valuable on the job market, especially since it is much less common in the States that in other countries to be fluent in two or more languages.

[27randomscribbles]

It's true, in my experience, that GRE scores (and test scores in general) do not count for much when applying to a humanities or arts-oriented grad program, least of all an MFA. I am doing a Ph.D. in Slavic lit, and all the departments I applied to told me straight out that they didn't care about my GRE scores, but only required them because the graduate school itself required them for all applicants. What does matter most of all in the arts and humanities is your writing skills, and I would say that while Jasmine certainly has the potential to be a good writer, she's nowhere near being there yet.

As far as lit degrees being "non-degrees", it depends what your career goals are. If you are interested in a high-paying job right out of college, probably it's not the best way to go. But if you are looking to go to grad school for pretty much anything non-science-based at some point, it is great preparation in writing, critical thinking, etc. I know many lawyers, businesspeople, teachers, etc. who got literature degrees. As far as being a waste of money, again, it depends. I was lucky enough to get a very good scholarship for undergrad, so I only had $7,000 of debt for all four years of that first degree. I got a full fellowship for both my MA and for the Ph.D. that I'm doing now.

I usually encourage my undergrad students who are interested in English lit to double-major with Comp Lit or area studies, because then they will have to learn another language or two. THAT is always extremely valuable on the job market, especially since it is much less common in the States that in other countries to be fluent in two or more languages.

Yeah, my math scores for the GRE were one big FAIL, although I did well on the rest, and I got into 3/5 of the schools I was applying for. I'm studying a foreign language, so I guess math scores really didn't matter to them for my MA program.

I'm fully funded for the two-year program and am at a state university and also had very little debt from my undergraduate program. Despite this, so many people respond negatively when they hear what I'm studying. I'm used to the "what exactly are you going to do with that?" and "why would anyone pay you to do this program?". Meh. I plan on teaching high school in the US and doing a Fulbright teaching assistantship for a year abroad before that.

And as for languages, IF I planned to continue for the Phd (which at this point I don't...I need a break from school) I would be required to have reading knowledge in two languages BESIDES my native language and the one I'm studying. I'm ok with that since I already do, but it'd be nice if high school and undergrad taught a variety of languages as standard curriculum (not just two minimum years of one language).

And my writing isn't that great, in my opinion. But I guess it was good enough, and probably better than Jasmine's. :)

[Nesomja]

I find it sad and telling that her dad calls her degree a 'non-degree' - whatever we might think of CP, that isn't the comment of a supportive parent. That's the sort of comment my (undermining and extremely controlling) FIL specializes in.

[Buzzard]

I find it sad and telling that her dad calls her degree a 'non-degree' - whatever we might think of CP, that isn't the comment of a supportive parent. That's the sort of comment my (undermining and extremely controlling) FIL specializes in.

I'd call it a "non-degree", "waste of time," "waste of money" and various other names. I dont think that being a supportive parent means you have to bless every stupid decision your child makes. I think a decent parent tells their child when they're doing something dumb. Hell - its what the rest of the world thinks!

[YPestis]

Indiana Wesleyan in Kansas (figure that out) has a Creationist based Medical School. There is another one working to get opened up as well. I have NO idea what their performance on testing or getting into residencies are, only that they are a Creationism based medical school catering to fundies who want to be doctors but not compromise their beliefs with training.

I looked it up and it looks like the Indiana Wesleyan is hoping to open an osteopathic school (D.O). I'm not sure what the osteopathy criteria is for accreditation but it can't be too far off from the allopathic accreditation requirements. However, I don't see anyone that states it will teach creationism...? I only see mention of a Christian med school which is pretty common:

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2011/nov/3 ... opening-c/

http://laurendeidra.com/?p=40

Can you direct me to the article that mentions they want to teach creationism? I'd be really surprised they would get accreditation if they can't fulfill a basic required curriculum.

[Aurora]

Her dad is a PREACHER. And he's making comments about non-degrees? WTF?

[YPestis]

That's where creationist keywords like "macroevolution" and "microevolution" come in handy. You endorse the "microevolution" of viruses but draw the line at "macroevolution." I'm not sure exactly where you draw that fuzzy line, but I do know a few MDs who are creationists. They're good MDs, too, though they're flat-out wrong about what they'd call "macroevolution." If you asked around, you might be surprised at how many people with professional degrees don't fully endorse evolution in the usual sense. Creationism really did a number on '80's evangelicals.

I also have heard of MD creationists (funny enough, they tend to be surgeons?!). However, there's a difference between personal belief which overrides what your taught and trying to EXPLAIN why we have third generation antibiotics or why we have VRE with some bogus "macroevolution" crap. And that's especially hard to do when some of the class will be engaged in research.

I remember one creationist MD who acknowledges that what he believes in does not jive with the medical literature in regards to evolution. He says he just "compartmentalizes" the two. At work, he utilizes the principles of evolution to explain the medical aspect of what he's dealing with, at home/church, he....doesn't. To me, that's fine because they are still using science to treat patients. It's different when you tell students that magical beans fell out of the sky and spread disease. That's why I'm skeptical of a creationist based medical school....because there's such a huge anti-creationism bias that no accrediting body would allow such things to be taught. There are plenty of medical fields that are "Christian", none of them got accredited by saying they teach creationism....

[Spider Burps]

I also have heard of MD creationists (funny enough, they tend to be surgeons?!). However, there's a difference between personal belief which overrides what your taught and trying to EXPLAIN why we have third generation antibiotics or why we have VRE with some bogus "macroevolution" crap. And that's especially hard to do when some of the class will be engaged in research.

I remember one creationist MD who acknowledges that what he believes in does not jive with the medical literature in regards to evolution. He says he just "compartmentalizes" the two. At work, he utilizes the principles of evolution to explain the medical aspect of what he's dealing with, at home/church, he....doesn't. To me, that's fine because they are still using science to treat patients. It's different when you tell students that magical beans fell out of the sky and spread disease. That's why I'm skeptical of a creationist based medical school....because there's such a huge anti-creationism bias that no accrediting body would allow such things to be taught. There are plenty of medical fields that are "Christian", none of them got accredited by saying they teach creationism....

I'm only responding to this to say that you made me laugh out loud, YPestis. I'm often told by doctors that they don't know what's wrong with me, but now I finally have an answer! It's the magical beans!! :clap:

[gardenvarietycitizen]

I'm not sure exactly where you draw that fuzzy line...

You need to google around the word "baramin" and the topic of "kinds" as relates to it. Get your popcorn ready.

Basic version: Microevolution means things adapting to their environment or being selectively bred. So we have many kinds of dogs, and various hoofed animals that came from the proto-horse. The line that can't be crossed is that one KIND (or baramin) can't "evolve" or "adapt" to become a different KIND. And the various baramin are enumerated in Genesis (that's the part that makes this entirely unscientific, of course!). So a cat has never been the same as a dog, and cats can't evolve into dogs.

Of course humans are their own group too above all the rest, so there is no way we have anything to do with monkeys.

So there were apparently proto-kangaroos in Israel way back when. You can read about that on Conservapedia (or at least you could before that site was discovered by the wider world, I'm not sure what has survived). Just look up "kangaroo" over there.

[slickcat79]

You need to google around the word "baramin" and the topic of "kinds" as relates to it. Get your popcorn ready.

Basic version: Microevolution means things adapting to their environment or being selectively bred. So we have many kinds of dogs, and various hoofed animals that came from the proto-horse. The line that can't be crossed is that one KIND (or baramin) can't "evolve" or "adapt" to become a different KIND. And the various baramin are enumerated in Genesis (that's the part that makes this entirely unscientific, of course!). So a cat has never been the same as a dog, and cats can't evolve into dogs.

Of course humans are their own group too above all the rest, so there is no way we have anything to do with monkeys.

So there were apparently proto-kangaroos in Israel way back when. You can read about that on Conservapedia (or at least you could before that site was discovered by the wider world, I'm not sure what has survived). Just look up "kangaroo" over there.

And of course, all this "microevolution" happened in the 4000 or so years since the Flood...but even millions of years is not enough time for early primates to evolve into both humans and apes. Because you can jog around the block but you can't run a marathon :roll:

[browngrl]

I've met the occasional fundie doctor - most of them are very reasonable and will refer patients when any conflict of interest arises - so the patient is always appropriately cared for. However I have met the occasional one who just makes my blood boil. Once one of them told me "AIDS is god's punishment on homosexuals" (no patient was involved -this statement came up after a teaching session) - and another fundie MD berated a woman requesting an abortion (I know because I heard him from my office and don't worry I made sure the woman got appropriate care). In both of those cases, you can rest assured that I was QUITE vigorous in refuting their actions/beliefs.

[mockingbird]

As far as lit degrees being "non-degrees", it depends what your career goals are. If you are interested in a high-paying job right out of college, probably it's not the best way to go. But if you are looking to go to grad school for pretty much anything non-science-based at some point, it is great preparation in writing, critical thinking, etc. I know many lawyers, businesspeople, teachers, etc. who got literature degrees. As far as being a waste of money, again, it depends. I was lucky enough to get a very good scholarship for undergrad, so I only had $7,000 of debt for all four years of that first degree. I got a full fellowship for both my MA and for the Ph.D. that I'm doing now.

I would agree.

Something we have talked a lot about in some of my English classes is that college was not originally conceived to be a technical or trade school - to give you specific skills that would lead to a good job - and that a lot of people now see that as the purpose of college. English lit fits in more with the liberal arts definition - giving you general skills in critical thinking, writing, analysis, etc. that don't directly translate into most jobs but at the same time are useful.

At the same time, it is good to have a realistic plan of what you want to do after college because English is probably not going to get you a job the way something like nursing or engineering could.

I'm going into medicine but I do think my English degree will be useful. For one thing, I can write - I've heard a lot of complaints that a lot of medical students have sub-par writing skills. I also took a lot of courses relating to feminism and postcolonial studies (othering, race relations) and I think these really helped me learn how to think critically about what I and others write/say. My thesis is about stereotypes of leukemia patients in fiction and I found a bunch of psychology articles that support these stereotypes existing in real life too. So I think even if all that does for me is identify patterns of speech that could serve to stereotype or other my patients and I learn to avoid saying(/writing) those things or behaving in a certain way - that's a really good thing.

I've never met a fundy doctor. I've been to a LOT of doctors so that is a little disappointing! LOL ;) I think a lot of my doctors are Catholic. They've never really shared their beliefs with me but every so often they'll be in the news or a hospital publication and it will mention that in their personal biography. I don't think I've really had anything that controversial come up at an appointment though.

[Lostie]

I would agree.

Something we have talked a lot about in some of my English classes is that college was not originally conceived to be a technical or trade school - to give you specific skills that would lead to a good job - and that a lot of people now see that as the purpose of college. English lit fits in more with the liberal arts definition - giving you general skills in critical thinking, writing, analysis, etc. that don't directly translate into most jobs but at the same time are useful.

At the same time, it is good to have a realistic plan of what you want to do after college because English is probably not going to get you a job the way something like nursing or engineering could.

I'm going into medicine but I do think my English degree will be useful. For one thing, I can write - I've heard a lot of complaints that a lot of medical students have sub-par writing skills. I also took a lot of courses relating to feminism and postcolonial studies (othering, race relations) and I think these really helped me learn how to think critically about what I and others write/say. My thesis is about stereotypes of leukemia patients in fiction and I found a bunch of psychology articles that support these stereotypes existing in real life too. So I think even if all that does for me is identify patterns of speech that could serve to stereotype or other my patients and I learn to avoid saying(/writing) those things or behaving in a certain way - that's a really good thing.

I've never met a fundy doctor. I've been to a LOT of doctors so that is a little disappointing! LOL ;) I think a lot of my doctors are Catholic. They've never really shared their beliefs with me but every so often they'll be in the news or a hospital publication and it will mention that in their personal biography. I don't think I've really had anything that controversial come up at an appointment though.

Your thesis sounds fascinating (and unlike something a College Minus grad would/could write). Out of quick curiosity (not to derail the thread), but what are the stereotypes of leukemia patients in fiction?

[mockingbird]

Your thesis sounds fascinating (and unlike something a College Minus grad would/could write). Out of quick curiosity (not to derail the thread), but what are the stereotypes of leukemia patients in fiction?

Thank you! Okay, I had it typed out, but since I'm not done yet I don't know if I want to post basically what is my thesis statement/paragraph online? (We're not pubishing them, but I don't know who reads here.) I'll send you a message :)

In general the main issues are portraying these characters as too perfect and not letting them experience character growth.

[fluttershies]

Thanks! The four I identified are:

-The characters are static (they don't grow or change) - instead, they serve as a basis for inspiring change in other characters.

-They are portrayed as almost mythical/supernatural beings (vs. humans).

-The characters I'm looking at are all either have a rare, treatment-resistant form of leukemia or have exhausted treatment, when the most common form of childhood leukemia, ALL, has a survival rate today of about 90%. So they are being melodramatic (which feeds into using the characters for another purpose instead of letting them be their own characters). I'm also going to argue that this is bad because the books are highly influential (all best-sellers and major movies) so people are going to walk away with the wrong idea and might think childhood leukemia is still the death sentence it was in the 50s.

-The characters are "inspirational", "wise", "mature", etc. Although these are all positive labels they are still stereotyping because they only focus on the person's disease and not the reality of their situation or the character as a whole person. This is one I read/hear a lot in real life - both in the media and in my own life. I have a lot of medical problems and hear stuff like this a lot and it drives me nuts, because the people who tell me I'm "inspirational" usually haven't taken the time to get to know me. My experience with being "inspirational" is kind-of what inspired [ha] my thesis. I've never had leukemia, it's just a popular disease to write about.

I'm looking at A Walk to Remember, The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants, and My Sister's Keeper (which I am arguing is purposefully subverting these stereotypes). Not all of the books have all of the stereotypes (for example, Walk is set in the 50s so its plot is more realistic) but they all have most. Jodi Picoult hates Nicholas Sparks so I think I might send her a copy when I am done - since I'm going to argue that her book is being more progressive than his ;)

I hope that wasn't too long/derailing :)

That sounds really interesting. Did you come across the children's book Becky Bananas by Jean Ure?

I am amused that Jodi Picoult hates Nicholas Sparks too :lol:

I'm starting a Politics degree in September and I want to eventually work in sustainability in the developing world, but after I get all my postgrad nerd stuff done :)

[mockingbird]

Ahh, you quoted me before I changed it. That's ok - I have the topic claimed, so it's not like anyone can steal it. Sorry for seeming dramatic if I did!

I have never read Becky Bananas... I'll have to look it up. I also want to read Drums, Girls and Dangerous Pies. My sister's middle school adapted it for their play and it has a character with leukemia. I wanted to do Sadako and the Thousand Paper Cranes but it's nonfiction :( I found out we have the same birthday though!

Edit: I forgot, another book I read somewhat recently was the picture book The Lemonade Club. It was about a girl whose best friend is diagnosed with cancer. I can't remember if the girl had leukemia but I thought it was really well-done. It would be the type of book I might recommend to a child who knew someone who had cancer.

Edit 2: It's by Patricia Polacco and I removed what I think was a spoiler.

[doggie]

I remember one creationist MD who acknowledges that what he believes in does not jive with the medical literature in regards to evolution. He says he just "compartmentalizes" the two. At work, he utilizes the principles of evolution to explain the medical aspect of what he's dealing with, at home/church, he....doesn't.

that has to screw with your mind you see what you don't believe in while working them go to church and deny it??? how fucked up is that?

[NurseNell]

I've never met a fundy doctor. I've been to a LOT of doctors so that is a little disappointing! LOL ;) I think a lot of my doctors are Catholic. They've never really shared their beliefs with me but every so often they'll be in the news or a hospital publication and it will mention that in their personal biography. I don't think I've really had anything that controversial come up at an appointment though.

My old neighbor growing up has a son who is a fundy M.D. He did is premed at Roberts Wesleyan College in NY. His medical school was Marshall University Joan C Edwards School of Medicine. According to someone I know who has gone to him he is quite fundy and brings up religion when you are a patient. He prays with patients and staff. His paternal grandfather was a Free Methodist minister. His maternal grandparents, my old neighbors, were Baptist but pretty conservative. One of his maternal aunts went to Bob Jones University. His mother was an extremely quiet, almost withdrawn girl in high school. His father was a jerk, probably still is.

I can't find anything on line about his practice. He used to be in a group but he left over some philosophical differences.

This is the group he used to be in :http://www.wfpweb.net/index.php

Here's their mission statement:

Motivated by God's love for us, and sharing

His view of all people as His unique

and precious creation,

Westfield Family Physicians will strive

to use our talents, abilities and

resources to meet the medical needs

of those entrusted to our care.

[samurai_sarah]

I would agree.

Something we have talked a lot about in some of my English classes is that college was not originally conceived to be a technical or trade school - to give you specific skills that would lead to a good job - and that a lot of people now see that as the purpose of college. English lit fits in more with the liberal arts definition - giving you general skills in critical thinking, writing, analysis, etc. that don't directly translate into most jobs but at the same time are useful.

At the same time, it is good to have a realistic plan of what you want to do after college because English is probably not going to get you a job the way something like nursing or engineering could.

I'm going into medicine but I do think my English degree will be useful. For one thing, I can write - I've heard a lot of complaints that a lot of medical students have sub-par writing skills. I also took a lot of courses relating to feminism and postcolonial studies (othering, race relations) and I think these really helped me learn how to think critically about what I and others write/say. My thesis is about stereotypes of leukemia patients in fiction and I found a bunch of psychology articles that support these stereotypes existing in real life too. So I think even if all that does for me is identify patterns of speech that could serve to stereotype or other my patients and I learn to avoid saying(/writing) those things or behaving in a certain way - that's a really good thing. (snip)

A lot of first semester courses in social sciences and humanities are "merely" aimed at getting students to "think". In that way, I don't think an English degree is useless, on the contrary! As you said, you end up with transferables skills and the ability to think laterally about issues, and assessing them critically from all possible sides. In degrees like English, you're going to get challenged all the time, so your work needs to be "waterproof". You have to learn how to make a reasoned argument for your opinion at the drop of a hat, and defend it. If it isn't waterproof, you get crushed, admit defeat and have learnt something for the future. Aren't the humanities and social scienes great? ZOMG, you need to be able to see all sides, and take defeat graciously. ;)

[mockingbird]

Aren't the humanities and social scienes great? ZOMG, you need to be able to see all sides, and take defeat graciously. ;)

Hahahaha. For some reason I feel like CP is failing to impart this lesson?

Had to experience that one pretty harshly last week myself, when the piece I submitted for creative writing workshop failed miserably! At least we get to edit before we turn it in, lol!

[samurai_sarah]

Hahahaha. For some reason I feel like CP is failing to impart this lesson?

Had to experience that one pretty harshly last week myself, when the piece I submitted for creative writing workshop failed miserably! At least we get to edit before we turn it in, lol!

For some reason, I feel you might be right about CP imparting that lesson. ;)

The humanities and social sciences are a free for all, as far as I know. :mrgreen: But hey, at least, you will know how to argue against them all. Fundies don't know how to edit and amend! Or to graciously admit that their arguments might be lacking.

But, I doubt that CollegeMinus provides that soul-destroying experience. ;)

[Mommy22alyns]

Almost everybody gets turned down from their first-choice school. I am planning on it. Boston U is a long shot, UW/other highly rated state schools could totally happen, and I have back-up schools.

At least that is how it works on my academic path. Maybe fundies do not set their goals too high. I bet a lot of people who did not want to put their butt in a seat for undergrad have similar feelings about grad school and are choosing less reputable distance ed/for-profit schools.

Jasmine is about to finish a BA in English and this is how she writes. CollegeMinus should make her take her testimony down, she is not a great spokesperson.

I read her book, Joyfully at Home (don't ask), and it was riddled with errors. I got rid of it as fast as I could.

[Adam C]

And yes, I would absolutely argue that Social Sciences are harder to accomplish via online degrees. After searching for a non-profit ability to complete a Sociology degree online for years, I finally bit the bullet and went back to a classroom rather than settle for a "Social Sciences" degree. I did take a few online classes through my University, including Sociology classes. However, finding a full degree in Sociology strictly online is hard.

I really think it depends on who you are and how you learn best. For me, my online classes in Sociology were easier than those in the classroom because I have a very short attention span. Spam removed by admin. There's lots of information about different programs and schools you can consider and it really helps to weigh your options. Another great resource is the Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research site, Spam removed by admin. , if you are interested in reading about the most recent research.

[fluttershies]

Using the forum in order to flog your website is not appreciated.