Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums

scubagirl

Members
  • Posts

    86
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About scubagirl

  • Birthday 12/11/1990

scubagirl's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

10

Reputation

  1. Rejected 3rd year IP 3.77 GPA 37S MCAT I thought interview went well. Oh well!
  2. I'm only applying in Alberta this year because I'd prefer to stay here. If I don't get in, I will just do my fourth year and apply all over after that. This is sort of a trial year for me. I am a full courseload both years. Thanks for all the advice guys!
  3. What are my chances? I'm applying to U of A and U of C only, 3rd year IP. Year 1: 3.80 Year 2: 3.74 MCAT: 37S (13/12/12) ECs are honestly pretty dismal in comparison to most people on here: hospital volunteering, mentoring, camp counsellor, tutoring, shadowing an orthopaedic surgeon, certified scuba diver, TONS of work experience (have been employed since 14). No research I know I'm a little weak GPA wise. What do you think?
  4. Laws cannot change social values. -clicked- The laws of a nation generally reflect the overall belief system of the people—nations in which freedom and equality are supported tend to also enact laws to ensure that this freedom and equality are maintained. Social values, at their most fundamental level, are beliefs about what is right and wrong; these values are often accepted as the norm in a particular society because they are supported by a majority. Often, however, when laws and social values are not aligned, the beliefs of the majority prevail above the law. For this reason, legislation that does not reflect the beliefs of the people rarely holds. In the first half of the twentieth century, Prohibition was occurring in the United States. Alcohol and its sale were banned nationwide and those disobeying the law, when caught, were punished harshly. As a direct result of this, an underground market for the sale of alcohol became rampant across the country to the point where the majority of Americans continued to purchase and consume alcohol. Although the government attempted to put a stop to the use of alcohol, it failed miserably because the laws were unable to change the social values of society at the time. The social values of the Americans, which supported alcohol consumption, prevailed over the laws laid down by the government, and as a result alcohol is widely available in the United States today. Although social values are rarely shaken by government legislation, there are examples of laws put in place that have changed the face of American society permanently. When slavery was abolished in the late nineteenth century, it was met with fierce resistance, particularly from the Southern inhabitants of the United States, where slavery indeed existed as a fundamental social value. After years of being forced to obey this law, however, the Southerners began to see the error in their ways and the innate social values of the culture began to shift away from slavery and towards equality. Although this transition took years, and is indeed still occurring, the abolition of slavery can be deemed a success, as the majority of Americans today believe strongly in equality regardless of race. So what, then, determines the effectiveness a law will have in changing the social values of a society? The difference between the failure of Prohibition and the success of the abolition of slavery may lie in the direct welfare of the people and the right to freedom that all American citizens possess. Prohibition did not directly enhance the standard of living of Americans; in fact, it may be argued that it posed a threat to society with the increase in crime that was seen during this time period. In addition, alcohol use does not threaten the fundamental rights of the American people. The abolition of slavery, however, appeals to the humanitarian in everyone; according to the American constitution, each and every person has a right to be treated as equal. Without this legislation, African Americans were not exposed to the same standard of living as other Americans, and a direct threat to the safety of the slaves was evident. Essentially, social values can be changed by strong legislation, but only when these social values are in direct opposition of the safety, rights and freedoms of a group of people. Thanks
  5. -clicked- Wealthy politicans cannot offer fair representation to all the people. As a general historical trend, the best political leaders are the ones who represent the people in the truest way possible: by sharing their hardships, suffering in their pains, and rejoicing in their triumphs. It is important for a politician to be able to understand the situation his people face because from this understanding he can offer fair representation to the people by making decisions the people themselves would make, which is the defining factor of an effective democratic leader. From this generalization, it can be argued that politicians who are wealthy may have difficulty representing the majority of their people because the majority are, unfortunately, not wealthy. Without an innate understanding of the needs of a large number of his or her constituents, it is likely that the leader will fail in their political endeavors. It is for this reason that each citizen’s vote, regardless of his or her income, is given the same weight at the polls, so as to eliminate the chances of this happening. Politicians who are less wealthy, like the majority, often have more support from their people and are, as a result more effective leaders because they are able to offer fair representation to their people. For example, during the Russian Revolution of the early twentieth century, an ordinary citizen of little wealth or political standing rose to power in one of the most popular leaderships the country has seen to date. Vladimir Lenin was beloved by the oppressed Russians because he too was oppressed and he felt the hardships that his fellow citizens also faced. The Russian Royal family, the Romanovs, did not survive the revolution because of their complete removal from the suffering of their people. There are exceptions to this rule, however, especially in the United States, where money and education come hand in hand, and uneducated political representatives are few and far in between. The former President of the United States, George Bush is a great example of a person of wealth leading a nation successfully and with the support of the majority. George Bush was born into a wealthy family and attended an Ivy League school, unlike the majority of Americans. Despite his wealth, George Bush was able to lead fairly and represent the majority of Americans, perhaps because he was highly educated. What, then, determines if a nation is better led by a poor, but courageous comrade or a wealthy American aristocrat? Both the time period and the leader’s level of education come into play. In the modern world, political leaders are expected to be educated at the highest level in order to afford their people the best decision making and fairest representation. Unfortunately, in most nations, education does not come without a price. This creates a paradox of sorts in that today’s leaders come mostly from at least a minimal amount of wealth, which is not representative of the majority. Education, however, enables these wealthy politicians to make informed decisions for both the wealthy and the poor, and so a compromise can be struck between these two opposing ideologies, resulting in a fair representation for all. Thanks
  6. -clicked- To be effective, government officials must have completely crime-free pasts. One reason that government is so important in today’s society is that it provides guidelines, or laws, by which its citizens may live. The government and its officials ensure that these laws remain intact and are followed so that order may be kept. Government officials such as political leaders and elected representatives can be equated to law enforcers in an indirect way, as they are responsible for creating the laws and making sure that they are enforced. Since these officials are responsible for creating and maintaining the laws of a particular nation, it follows that they should be expected to uphold these laws in their own lives as much as any other citizen. Stephen Harper, the Canadian Prime Minister, is a good example of an elected official who has upheld the laws at all times. His success at the polls can be attributed partly to the image that he portrays to Canadians—one of honesty, hard work, and most of all, respect for the laws of his nation. As a leader, it is Prime Minister Harper’s responsibility to uphold the laws just as any citizen would, as it provides a good example for fellow Canadians. It is for this reason that Stephen Harper is rarely questioned in his ethics—he conducts himself according to the law and as such, is respected by his people. Although it is an elected official’s responsibility to maintain the law at all times, there are exceptions. Barack Obama, the President of the United States, has openly admitted to using cocaine, an illegal stimulant, in the past. Despite the electorate’s knowledge of this blatantly illegal activity, he was still elected as President and is very much respected by his nation for his morality and his ethical conduct. Barack Obama is an example of a political leader who has not always obeyed the laws of his nation but is still an effective leader. The fine line between these two leaders may lie in the fact that President Obama did not participate in illegal drug use during his time as an elected official. Although criminal activity is not excusable at any time, it can be argued that a politician should only be held accountable for his actions during the time of his leadership. Government officials should be responsible for their actions, but only when these actions are representative of the leader as a leader, and not as a person. The quality of a leader should not be judged on past mistakes, but rather on his ability to uphold his duties to the law as a responsible leader. President Obama is a fine example of a fit leader who has completely upheld his duties to the law as a President, which is all that anyone can ask.
  7. Advancements in communication technology have reduced the quality of human interaction. My response: Human interaction is a necessary part of our species’ survival—it provides us with a satisfaction that cannot be replaced by any other. As technology advances, so too can the quality of our relationships proceed in the opposite direction. Gone are the days in which a couple in a rough spot meets up to discuss their issues: they have been replaced by a drawn-out text messaging conversation that confuses emotions and leaves one or both parties with a feeling of unsatisfaction. Some students rely solely on an online curriculum to complete their high school or post-secondary education, never hearing an explanation from a live teacher or forming lifelong friendships with classmates. Physical interaction with others can be severely limited by technology, and one must be mindful of the consequences of losing such a fundamental part of being a human. But what about the husband who is serving his country in Afghanistan? Are him and his wife truly hindered by the technology that allows them to talk in real time via video chat sessions on programs such as Skype? I think not. It is obvious that these technologies are vital to the maintenance of relationships in the case of the previously mentioned soldier and his wife. It could even be argued that technology has saved many of these relationships from complete failure. So, has technology then enriched the quality of human interaction? It depends. When technology is used in replacement of physical human interaction, then it is detracting from the quality of relationships. Nobody can argue that a smiley-face sent via text message will make them feel better than a hug and a shoulder to cry on. It is when we are separated by large distances or are unable to be with our loved ones physically that technology plays an irreplaceable role in today’s society. We are able to let our close friends know that we are thinking of them even when we are thousands of miles away, and we are able to see the face of our safe and healthy newborn son even in the middle of a war zone.
  8. An understanding of the past is necessary for solving the problems of the present. Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which solving a current problem might not require an understanding of the past. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the past should be considered in solving the problems of the present. My response: Learning from our mistakes is encouraged in today’s society as a way to model our behavior and make our choices. Using the past as a tool to guide our future behavior is extremely useful because it provides a template we may use to predict the outcomes of our possible choices, and select the most fruitful choice from these possibilities. Often, to make an informed decision, past experience with a situation may be necessary, as in the case of new technology. In the case of the American invention of the Atomic bomb, the lack of prior knowledge about the effects of the technology proved tragic. In an effort to put an end to World War II, the Americans dropped an Atomic bomb on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not only causing the deaths of millions of men, women, and children immediately, but also for generation to come due to radiation from the bomb. In this case, the American government had no experience with the bomb and no way to tell how much damage would be caused by the bomb, resulting in a horrific number of casualties. Clearly, in this case, an understanding of the past would have had a profound effect on the American’s decision to drop the bombs in Japan, and likely would not have resulted in such a bad ending. There are cases, however, in which past experience is not necessary to facilitate problem solving, for example current issues surrounding genetic engineering and cloning in humans. Although history has never seen a situation like this before, North American scientists and government agencies alike are able to make informed, cautious decision in terms of the regulation of this new and potentially dangerous science. Scientific rather than historical knowledge has provided a base for us to make accurate predictions of the future, and from this, we are able to make the best decisions possible. Although generally making predictions and basing decisions on the outcomes of the past is the most accurate way to solve problems of the present, there are cases in which this information is not available, and we are forced to take an alternative route to make our decisions. The scientific method is a great example of this alternative route: ideas are tested in a safe environment before they are executed in real life situations. Without past examples to support our decisions, we must rely on careful, accurate processes and weighing the options before we come to a conclusion. It is through this method we are able to progress and excel as a species regardless of what boundaries we approach. I really appreciate the feedback
  9. Second attempt. "Violence is never a real solution to a political crisis" Violence has played a major role in national and international politics throughout history. Only recently, however, has the general consensus swayed to favor negotiation on peaceful terms and the avoidance of war and bloodshed. This change in ideology is likely a result of the realization that in general, war and violence is but a temporary solution, causing oppression: obedience from the defeated but not real change. The high cost of violence as a solution to political crisis does not match the benefits of the outcome; further, it is rare that one act of violence will cause an end to a crisis, but rather violence, or the threat of violence, is required to maintain order and obedience in the oppressed group once achieved. There is evidence, however, that violence can be beneficial, and is even required in some situations; for example, the American occupation of Iraq. Unfortunately, the American troops were required to use some means to protect themselves, resulting in bloodshed; in the troops defense, violence was used as a last resort and not a first choice. In this situation, it can be argued that violence was the only option the American government had, because the Iraqi people were governed by a group that itself promoted violence and oppression. The Iraqi government at the time was not open to negotiation, and in the name of both American and Iraqi people, invasion was the only option. While violence should usually be discouraged, there are clearly cases in which it is necessary to restore peace and order. Violence should only be used when all other peaceful efforts have been exhausted. In addition, violence should be resorted to only when it is to protect the immediate and future safety of a large amount of people; If we maintain our personal and political policies according to these guidelines, we can ultimate reduce violence and promote peace. Thanks so much!
  10. Hi! This is my first practice written response, it feels really short to me, so any feedback at all would be appreciated. "The best kind of education encourages students to question authority" Write a unified essay in which you accomplish the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which encouraging students to question authority is not the best kind of education. Discuss what you think determines when students should be encouraged to question authority. My response: Education in which students are encouraged to question what they are taught often produces adults who are able to think for themselves. It can be argued that these are the types of people who later become great scientists, politicians, and innovative educators themselves. Without education of this type, our worldviews would be confined by the principles and ideas of the past, and progress would be limited significantly. This situation can be likened to the style of government of the former Soviet Union, in which strict guidelines were placed on what the people were allowed to learn, prohibiting creativity and out-of-the-box thinking. The economic and social stagnation that arose from the Soviet regime is evidence of the negative effects of imposing authority and discouraging free thinking among people. Although generally free thinking and the questioning of authority is a necessary aspect of the cultivation of a growing society, there are drawbacks to encouraging this behavior. At an extreme, students encouraged to question authority in a negative manner will often participate in violence and destructive behavior. The numerous examples of riots and violent protest throughout history speak to the dangers of allowing students to question authority and take action against it. It is the manner of education provided to growing minds that determines whether questioning authority will be productive or destructive. Students must be taught to think for themselves and share their ideas with peers in a peaceful way; in turn their peers must be taught to receive these ideas with an open-mind. Violence is rarely the answer, nor is oppression. The teachings of Ghandi are an excellent example of this: taking a stand against authority must be accomplished in a peaceful manner, for violence is but a temporary solution. Each worldview has a valid point, and it is this that students must be educated to understand; we must take each and every idea presented to us and evaluate it thoughtfully, taking into account evidence both supportive and contrary.
×
×
  • Create New...