Monday and Friday: 7:00-3:30 Work
Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday: 8:00-4:30 Work; 5:10-7:50 Calc I
Sixteen weeks worth of Calc I in six weeks.
Some school better fucking accept me. If I don't get my PhD after this hellacious term, I'ma be pissed.
Yes, I did CHOOSE to do it this way, but I have my reasons, mostly having to do with the maintenance of my sanity. I don't think I can stand to work this job three more years, so I've accelerated my pre-PhD schedule. I'll do Calc I this summer, Calc II and III next academic year, Linear Algebra next summer, and then use the following year to re-take the GRE and apply to as many schools as I can afford.
I have a good handle on which schools I'm DEFINITELY applying to, but I still need to figure out a few "safety schools." Speaking of, is there even such a thing as a safety school when it comes to PhDs???? I mean, I've already got the "I have no chance in hell, but let's give this Asian female thing a ride and see where it takes us" schools picked out, but something tells me I also need to be a bit realistic, too.
On to bed. Big midterm this Tuesday. Am still exhausted from weekend.
Promise to get back to updating re: race weekend soon.
Showing posts with label temple. Show all posts
Showing posts with label temple. Show all posts
28 May 2009
15 May 2009
Wow - WHAT just happened????
Yesterday, I went downstairs to Mahogany Hall (where all the VIPs' offices are) to pick up our paycheques.
By the time I left, I had somehow been signed up to participate on Temple's Dragon Boat team. I'm still not sure how that happened.
Not sure what a dragon boat is? Check it out here.
By the time I left, I had somehow been signed up to participate on Temple's Dragon Boat team. I'm still not sure how that happened.
Not sure what a dragon boat is? Check it out here.
21 February 2009
In which I try to decide whether to throw in the towel
Some of you have heard me talk about my Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS professor. I hate him. He's an asshat.
He didn't make a good first impression on me when during the first session when he referenced his "contract with Temple" no less than three times (he's an adjunct). He didn't change the impression on the third meeting when he showed us a movie for the entire two hours. Folks, this is a grad-level course. After the movie, he told us that we didn't get to the point that he really wanted us to see (it's called a DVD, moron, and you can start or ffwd to that section). Then he went around the room and asked half of us what we thought about the movie. Not, mind you, "Does anyone have any thoughts about the movie?" or "Does anyone have anything they'd like to discuss about the movie?"
Today was the fifth meeting of the course. Before today, he has blamed the high prevalence of HIV/AIDS in Haiti on bisexuals. Then last week, he asked us to discuss the following case study: Tony is a homosexual male who has had three sex partners in the past six months, two of whom he did not know well. Pam has been married to John for ten years. John is the only person Pam has had sex with. They use oral contraceptives for family planning. Who is at greatest risk for contracting HIV and why?
Some people said Tony because he had multiple sex partners. Some said Pam because we don't know if John is stepping out on her. I asked if we can say that they're at equal risk because they're both sexually active and we don't know who's using condoms. He said no. Then since we were all arguing about it, he decided to make it an assignment. No more than one page, double-spaced.
After talking to several people about it, I decided to phrase my answer thusly: In terms of population statistics, a homosexual male with multiple sex partners has a greater risk of contracting HIV than a heterosexual female with one sex partner does. However, when assessing the individual risk of Tony and Pam, I would need information on whether Tony is having oral or anal sex, whether John is monogamous, whether any of them are using condoms, whether any of them are using drugs, etc., to make an accurate, informed decision.
Today, he started class by asking us how we answered the paper. He told those of us who chose Pam that we were wrong. He told those of us who answered both or neither, that we were wrong. He took his laser pointer and circled "homosexual," "three sex partners," and "didn't know well." Then he told us that since Pam was using oral contraceptives that she and John are "responsible." WTF???
He then spent the next 20 or so minutes explaining to us that homosexuality is a risk factor for HIV. One woman in class and I vehemently argued against him. Our argument is that sexual orientation (or "sexual preference," as he refers to it -- ASSHAT) is not a risk factor. The BEHAVIOUR is a risk factor. A gay man could have protected sex and a straight woman could have unprotected sex. It's the use (or not) or safer sex precautions that makes on at risk, not eh mere orientation. He told we were wrong.
I hate him.
Nancy had talked me out of dropping the course last week, but I'm 95% sure now that I will drop it.
And I had SUCH high hopes for this course.
He didn't make a good first impression on me when during the first session when he referenced his "contract with Temple" no less than three times (he's an adjunct). He didn't change the impression on the third meeting when he showed us a movie for the entire two hours. Folks, this is a grad-level course. After the movie, he told us that we didn't get to the point that he really wanted us to see (it's called a DVD, moron, and you can start or ffwd to that section). Then he went around the room and asked half of us what we thought about the movie. Not, mind you, "Does anyone have any thoughts about the movie?" or "Does anyone have anything they'd like to discuss about the movie?"
Today was the fifth meeting of the course. Before today, he has blamed the high prevalence of HIV/AIDS in Haiti on bisexuals. Then last week, he asked us to discuss the following case study: Tony is a homosexual male who has had three sex partners in the past six months, two of whom he did not know well. Pam has been married to John for ten years. John is the only person Pam has had sex with. They use oral contraceptives for family planning. Who is at greatest risk for contracting HIV and why?
Some people said Tony because he had multiple sex partners. Some said Pam because we don't know if John is stepping out on her. I asked if we can say that they're at equal risk because they're both sexually active and we don't know who's using condoms. He said no. Then since we were all arguing about it, he decided to make it an assignment. No more than one page, double-spaced.
After talking to several people about it, I decided to phrase my answer thusly: In terms of population statistics, a homosexual male with multiple sex partners has a greater risk of contracting HIV than a heterosexual female with one sex partner does. However, when assessing the individual risk of Tony and Pam, I would need information on whether Tony is having oral or anal sex, whether John is monogamous, whether any of them are using condoms, whether any of them are using drugs, etc., to make an accurate, informed decision.
Today, he started class by asking us how we answered the paper. He told those of us who chose Pam that we were wrong. He told those of us who answered both or neither, that we were wrong. He took his laser pointer and circled "homosexual," "three sex partners," and "didn't know well." Then he told us that since Pam was using oral contraceptives that she and John are "responsible." WTF???
He then spent the next 20 or so minutes explaining to us that homosexuality is a risk factor for HIV. One woman in class and I vehemently argued against him. Our argument is that sexual orientation (or "sexual preference," as he refers to it -- ASSHAT) is not a risk factor. The BEHAVIOUR is a risk factor. A gay man could have protected sex and a straight woman could have unprotected sex. It's the use (or not) or safer sex precautions that makes on at risk, not eh mere orientation. He told we were wrong.
I hate him.
Nancy had talked me out of dropping the course last week, but I'm 95% sure now that I will drop it.
And I had SUCH high hopes for this course.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)