For a while now, I've been at odds with some of my friends because of the fundamental difference in the way they think vs the way I think, and I have come to the conclusion that 1) they value different things as academics and 2) they are just interested in different things. Due to my frustration at the way they think, I have lied about my feelings towards certain subjects (because everything is uninteresting when you are in a bad mood, then you act upon your feelings and say you hate it when you really don't). In this sense, I am a little outspoken, I over think things, and I seriously need to chill.
For now, I see my only solution to be to meditate to chill, and to ignore them for sometime to focus on my own studies and talk to the people in my own major.
So What's brilliance? I've always been called "smart," and I am (arrogantly) taking that as a defining quality of myself, but carefully! It is like a professor who is knows he is smarter than the rest of them, but who knows he is ignorant to the accumulation of his field of study. Unfortunately, being called smart creates a hierarchy in a competitive college like mine. So no one here calls each other smart. but I digress and I don't want to finish this paragraph. Just think of brilliance as being as empty as thin air.
CONCLUSION:
This first part is my own meanderings and epiphany on what I just learned about myself that should've been so obvious to myself long ago. It is what prompted the subject of the next post which will be my main points. I put this separate because this part might not at all be relatable to the reader, yet I bothered to post it because this blog is in part a personal reflection.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Monday, March 25, 2013
Fuck my bad grades (mostly ranting)
So... I go to a well known college and I major in physics. Challenging yes. A pain yes. Interesting yes. Sad. yes.
My grades amaze me. Clearly a C+ reflects above average in one of my classes. There is absolutely no grade inflation, and grad school may or may not understand how this professor grades. Because I did below average on the 1st midterm and then way above average on the 2nd midterm (which averages out to average). I don't know how I did on the final, but my answers seem to match what Mrs.-high-scorer wrote on her test, so I was naturally expecting above average. Maybe unfortunately, he sets his average to a straight C--That's my only guess. The grade distribution wasn't set on view, so I don't know for sure (so maybe sexist grading?). But I can't say I am pissed. I just feel bad. If I did above average and only got a C+, and a D is failing, then I am sorry for those blokes in the lower bracket. AND I MEAN SORRY! The new average should be set to a B (seriously) because a commendable C+ is way to close to a failing D with a narrower average bracket. Trying harder than I ever did and merely getting a C+ is seriously depressing me. I know I didn't study the "wrong" way either. I seriously revised my studying method from the 1st test by doing problems and was rewarded by doing much better than average. I did the same to the 3rd degree for the final and only got a C+!!!! Optimism would lead me to think this grade was 1) a mistake that will be checked over before submitted or 2) will be curved in the end and isn't really the final-"final" grade but was merely the averaged/ raw final grade. It isn't impossible, but it is surely optimistic. BUT I don't want any more of this optimism. Optimism is a mindset for failure for me, but at the same time having my mind constantly meander around the subject of my bad grades is unhealthy and depressing. It may even set me up for worse grades in the future.
START READING HERE IF YOU WANT SOMETHING RELATABLE
subject: PROBLEM OF CHOOSING A MAJOR.
I really like physics, but being judged on the subject by how well I perform on it is very disheartening because I only recently discovered very few of its deeper truths, and grades are pushing me away from even wanting to explore more of this very deep subject. I think you as a college student should think long and hard about the subject matter that they will delve into it because as a college student you are going to be judged on a major you picked as your own/ part of yourself. At the same time, your professor may help you delve into deep topic with you because the subject is inherently interesting to you and to them, but in the end, the grade is all that is going to matter. Your grade is your key to a deeper understanding of a material in say graduate school, and it can be a limiting factor when it comes to job opportunities, and all colleges grade differently. In a sense, you (having been or as a college student) paid to be graded.
FEYNMAN and EINSTEIN and ELITE SCHOOLS, CONFORMITY
In my opinion, the best college illuminates the ignorant sea better than the sun does shine through the cracks in the clouds. It also is at the forefront of risk and discovery, and its people reflect that.
An acquaintance of mine at high school was a physics genius. He got great physics and math grades/ AP test scores and could correct a math professor and an Astronomy T.A if they were ever wrong because he knew the specifics of everything. He's the kind of guy you want to see in MIT, even if you are his competitor, but he didn't make it in. Instead, some other college in California will benefit from his great and unique perspective, while MIT missed out. Like Feynman and Columbia. Take this to heart, grades are another person's judgement of your self worth and will live with you through an intellectual career. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant. Why else does a college use your grades and rank you while giving you a verdict on whether you are worthy enough to attend? But don't take it to yourself that it is your worth. A professor of Feynman remarked that he was of merely respectable intelligence. Also, Feynman didn't get accepted to Columbia. But the institution and the professor were wrong. Columbia was probably regretting the fame and influence that could've came with having educated a great man. Feynman moved on to MIT instead, then to Princeton for grad school, and then to Caltech where he delivered his famous physics lectures while making advancements in quantum. He lived an enormously productive, fun, and creative life that turned into a biography, and he is well respected in (what should be) all physics departments. There's a man who ultimately didn't give up in himself despite the circumstances.
Einstein also strikes me as the type of person who would fail Harvard. He got top marks in physics and math, but maybe not the highest in english or other subjects; unfortunately, institutions are very unforgiving about imperfections. He failed the Swiss Polytechnic in Zurich, and later in college, he lived off his friends notes. Because his professor noticed this, he was later refused a position at the college, and ended up in the patent's office instead. It amazes me how many failures a eccentric runs into before becoming someone known to the world, but in a sense, a college needs rebels and eccentrics- someone who isn't good at everything, but really good at 1 or 2 things. College should be the ultimate market place of ideas with the most diversity. Conformity is wrong.
Harvard has the appearance of a good school because its student body are good students. A good school is worthy of its name because it can take any group of students and turn them into intellectuals with overflowing perspectives and curiosity. But how can we call Harvard a good college when it accepts only the good students? Also, Harvard doesn't know to accept brilliant people and give them, rightfully, research grants, education, mentors, and other resources. As mentioned before, Harvard wouldn't have accepted Einstein because they accept perfectionists. The students are complacent with where they are, and maybe even a little arrogant about it. Humility is important in the sciences in order to accept an idea that is proven right from maybe even a state college. However, some students remain ecstatic about their acceptance or accept to themselves that they have made it to the pinnacle of society.
The perfectionist quality of all Harvard's students is a point of conformity. This quality might also lead into other qualities such as mental state, stability, income level, race, conservatism, and docility.
Also, at this point in society, Harvard's education has been taken too seriously such that our nation's leaders are without the greatest perspectives. Exactly how many Harvard Law school presidents have we had?
My grades amaze me. Clearly a C+ reflects above average in one of my classes. There is absolutely no grade inflation, and grad school may or may not understand how this professor grades. Because I did below average on the 1st midterm and then way above average on the 2nd midterm (which averages out to average). I don't know how I did on the final, but my answers seem to match what Mrs.-high-scorer wrote on her test, so I was naturally expecting above average. Maybe unfortunately, he sets his average to a straight C--That's my only guess. The grade distribution wasn't set on view, so I don't know for sure (so maybe sexist grading?). But I can't say I am pissed. I just feel bad. If I did above average and only got a C+, and a D is failing, then I am sorry for those blokes in the lower bracket. AND I MEAN SORRY! The new average should be set to a B (seriously) because a commendable C+ is way to close to a failing D with a narrower average bracket. Trying harder than I ever did and merely getting a C+ is seriously depressing me. I know I didn't study the "wrong" way either. I seriously revised my studying method from the 1st test by doing problems and was rewarded by doing much better than average. I did the same to the 3rd degree for the final and only got a C+!!!! Optimism would lead me to think this grade was 1) a mistake that will be checked over before submitted or 2) will be curved in the end and isn't really the final-"final" grade but was merely the averaged/ raw final grade. It isn't impossible, but it is surely optimistic. BUT I don't want any more of this optimism. Optimism is a mindset for failure for me, but at the same time having my mind constantly meander around the subject of my bad grades is unhealthy and depressing. It may even set me up for worse grades in the future.
START READING HERE IF YOU WANT SOMETHING RELATABLE
subject: PROBLEM OF CHOOSING A MAJOR.
I really like physics, but being judged on the subject by how well I perform on it is very disheartening because I only recently discovered very few of its deeper truths, and grades are pushing me away from even wanting to explore more of this very deep subject. I think you as a college student should think long and hard about the subject matter that they will delve into it because as a college student you are going to be judged on a major you picked as your own/ part of yourself. At the same time, your professor may help you delve into deep topic with you because the subject is inherently interesting to you and to them, but in the end, the grade is all that is going to matter. Your grade is your key to a deeper understanding of a material in say graduate school, and it can be a limiting factor when it comes to job opportunities, and all colleges grade differently. In a sense, you (having been or as a college student) paid to be graded.
FEYNMAN and EINSTEIN and ELITE SCHOOLS, CONFORMITY
In my opinion, the best college illuminates the ignorant sea better than the sun does shine through the cracks in the clouds. It also is at the forefront of risk and discovery, and its people reflect that.
An acquaintance of mine at high school was a physics genius. He got great physics and math grades/ AP test scores and could correct a math professor and an Astronomy T.A if they were ever wrong because he knew the specifics of everything. He's the kind of guy you want to see in MIT, even if you are his competitor, but he didn't make it in. Instead, some other college in California will benefit from his great and unique perspective, while MIT missed out. Like Feynman and Columbia. Take this to heart, grades are another person's judgement of your self worth and will live with you through an intellectual career. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant. Why else does a college use your grades and rank you while giving you a verdict on whether you are worthy enough to attend? But don't take it to yourself that it is your worth. A professor of Feynman remarked that he was of merely respectable intelligence. Also, Feynman didn't get accepted to Columbia. But the institution and the professor were wrong. Columbia was probably regretting the fame and influence that could've came with having educated a great man. Feynman moved on to MIT instead, then to Princeton for grad school, and then to Caltech where he delivered his famous physics lectures while making advancements in quantum. He lived an enormously productive, fun, and creative life that turned into a biography, and he is well respected in (what should be) all physics departments. There's a man who ultimately didn't give up in himself despite the circumstances.
Einstein also strikes me as the type of person who would fail Harvard. He got top marks in physics and math, but maybe not the highest in english or other subjects; unfortunately, institutions are very unforgiving about imperfections. He failed the Swiss Polytechnic in Zurich, and later in college, he lived off his friends notes. Because his professor noticed this, he was later refused a position at the college, and ended up in the patent's office instead. It amazes me how many failures a eccentric runs into before becoming someone known to the world, but in a sense, a college needs rebels and eccentrics- someone who isn't good at everything, but really good at 1 or 2 things. College should be the ultimate market place of ideas with the most diversity. Conformity is wrong.
Harvard has the appearance of a good school because its student body are good students. A good school is worthy of its name because it can take any group of students and turn them into intellectuals with overflowing perspectives and curiosity. But how can we call Harvard a good college when it accepts only the good students? Also, Harvard doesn't know to accept brilliant people and give them, rightfully, research grants, education, mentors, and other resources. As mentioned before, Harvard wouldn't have accepted Einstein because they accept perfectionists. The students are complacent with where they are, and maybe even a little arrogant about it. Humility is important in the sciences in order to accept an idea that is proven right from maybe even a state college. However, some students remain ecstatic about their acceptance or accept to themselves that they have made it to the pinnacle of society.
The perfectionist quality of all Harvard's students is a point of conformity. This quality might also lead into other qualities such as mental state, stability, income level, race, conservatism, and docility.
Also, at this point in society, Harvard's education has been taken too seriously such that our nation's leaders are without the greatest perspectives. Exactly how many Harvard Law school presidents have we had?
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Glee: Warning negative review!
It strikes me as incredibly unappealing granted I haven't fully watched one episode of it. I tried, but couldn't even get through the first one, and so while my roommate has it on while I watch Running Man. I suppose the story is okay covering topics on sexuality (?) The whole idea of being in high school seriously did not appeal to me though having not enjoyed high school. Anyways, story aside, covering popular songs bothers me most.
From here on "Original" is just a title to contrast from "Glee." It may not be the 1st interpretation of a song.
Particularly: Renditions of "All that Jazz" from Chicago.
Compare this "Glee" version to the movie:
Catherine Zeta Jones is smoking HOT!!!
Completely out of context which one seems better?
Personally: the second. Then again I am speaking on a bias (who isn't?). I knew about Glee before I watched Chicago but I actually watched Chicago.
I know I am taking this out of context, but I am evaluating these videos as Youtube presents it: as a music video of its own. I say that the Glee version doesn't measure up.
I know that even the movie version isn't the "original," but Glee's version sucks overall.
Another f***'d up "Glee" version:
Original:
Gangnam style by Psy
Clearly one is better than the other.
1) Glee does not introduce a person to new music. It only utilizes popular music for its own purposes. I never heard of a Glee rendition of Daft Punk music as of 1/26/2013.
2) Glee is an organization or cast of people represented as a show that degrades popular music. I don't like the fact that Glee profits off of using popular music on a large scale compared to individuals doing Youtube Covers. This regurgitation of everyday popular music makes the songs/show stale.
3) I don't like the fact that people actually prefer to listen to the Glee version. Why? Because when the Glee production crew interprets popular music, they add in a popular music twist to it thus normalizing the music to the age. i.e. When you listen to the original interpretation of "Gangnam style" or "All the Jazz"(movie or broadway records) or Queen songs, you can see that they are all different than when they are presented on Glee.
"Original": "Piece of my Heart" by Janis Joplin.
There is a CLEAR difference here. Janis Joplin is known for her voice which I think is throaty, and rock hard. Clearly a singer for a particular genre. However, the glee project destroys "Piece of my Heart" with a probably auto tuned voice common for pop songs.
A Little Word of Wisdom from Everybody's favorite:
I hate Simon Cowell, but he does make a point in this video. "It is a wrong thing to do to impersonate a boy band that no longer matters," he said. True. This generation is ready for something new. For someone who constantly judges these singing competitions, it must be tiring to constantly hear the same rotation of pop song covers good or bad. And for those who win, it is important to realize that there are many good singers in this world-that isn't uncommon. Those singers should learn to create for themselves. Likewise, instead of ripping off someone else's, Glee should create their own music.
From here on "Original" is just a title to contrast from "Glee." It may not be the 1st interpretation of a song.
Particularly: Renditions of "All that Jazz" from Chicago.
Compare this "Glee" version to the movie:
Completely out of context which one seems better?
Personally: the second. Then again I am speaking on a bias (who isn't?). I knew about Glee before I watched Chicago but I actually watched Chicago.
I know I am taking this out of context, but I am evaluating these videos as Youtube presents it: as a music video of its own. I say that the Glee version doesn't measure up.
I know that even the movie version isn't the "original," but Glee's version sucks overall.
Another f***'d up "Glee" version:
Original:
Gangnam style by Psy
Clearly one is better than the other.
1) Glee does not introduce a person to new music. It only utilizes popular music for its own purposes. I never heard of a Glee rendition of Daft Punk music as of 1/26/2013.
2) Glee is an organization or cast of people represented as a show that degrades popular music. I don't like the fact that Glee profits off of using popular music on a large scale compared to individuals doing Youtube Covers. This regurgitation of everyday popular music makes the songs/show stale.
3) I don't like the fact that people actually prefer to listen to the Glee version. Why? Because when the Glee production crew interprets popular music, they add in a popular music twist to it thus normalizing the music to the age. i.e. When you listen to the original interpretation of "Gangnam style" or "All the Jazz"(movie or broadway records) or Queen songs, you can see that they are all different than when they are presented on Glee.
"Original": "Piece of my Heart" by Janis Joplin.
There is a CLEAR difference here. Janis Joplin is known for her voice which I think is throaty, and rock hard. Clearly a singer for a particular genre. However, the glee project destroys "Piece of my Heart" with a probably auto tuned voice common for pop songs.
A Little Word of Wisdom from Everybody's favorite:
Simon Cowell
Saturday, January 5, 2013
Warning: Personal rant: fucking mom
I can't put this on Facebook, so I'll just say it here.
Oh my fucking mom.
Today you have come to meet me 2 hours late.
Then when I ask you to make a reservation at a very popular place you don't listen to me saying instead that by the time we get there, we won't have to wait.
Then the people tell us to wait and I say I don't want to talk to you and you explode.
Like you exploded many times before.
In fact my whole unhappy childhood was all because of you.
those hours and hours wasted at a many different learning center.
My shyness, my explosive anger, my irrationality at times were all because of your
explosive anger. Oh how I hated you. and I still hate you.
Sometimes I am good with you.
But most times I legit-ly forget about you.
How you tried to pick my major for me.
And told me I couldn't make it into the college I am in now.
How you told me I should drop out of the honors program
while making me take after school classes.
Being rich is great. Just great.
I learned no value of money.
As long as I appear obedient.
like you made your husband your lap dog.
And recently you blamed your sister's death
on herself and not her cancer.
You didn't go to her funeral because
you called her foolish.
what a kind, loving, caring mother till the end.
We applaud you.
As a final work I have to say:
fuck you.
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Getting shot- work in progress
looking back:
My mind focused on my eyes which were fixed on his gun. When he repeated his command, my eyes shifted to his bright brown eyes. I was like a deer in head lights. He whispered for me to get into the car around six times, but I wouldn't move. He must've taken my inaction as retaliation because his command for me to get in came out harsher the seventh time, and he moved his pistol forward this time telling me he would seriously shoot. But his words only caused me to moved back a step. And he was serious, so he shot. I fell.
I've read on the internet that being shot is like a glowing iron stake being shoved into the area you were shot. Though I've never had a stake though me, I felt as though this pain description was accurate. Because even when I fell, I couldn't hear the thud or feel myself fall over the pain in my knee.
Anyways, the guy who was at shot gun moved to the back seat, opened the side door of the car and forced me in by my collar.
To edit:
It sounds a little bit rushed as I read it. and sometimes doesn't seem to connect. want to put in details some places, but don't know how at moment. Want to flow in thought/ make sense.
At the moment:
I wanted to do a present tense narrative of a scene but it's difficult and not often done because it would sound more like a conversation.
______________________________________________
It sucks I know. I updated it recently 4/14/2013 with work in progress 2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)