Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums

Wolvenstar

Members
  • Content Count

    504
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Wolvenstar

  1. Future-Doc, take your time I check more periodically now that exams are comming ups, I just wanted to add some things though. The problems you see in your friends who come from money are not because they have money and therefore personality problems. Money does not confer handicaps in personality/perceptions/etc bad parenting = handicaps in personality/perceptions therefore money + bad parenting = handicaps such as a sense of entitlement. I am saying that your friends have their faults, and it is due to their parents not money. If your friends that have this skewed sense of entitlement had the same parents but not as much money, they would have some other negative personality aspect. Although I must add that some children are so resilent that they come out of a poor parenting atmosphere and are still relatively well-adjusted. You also keep talking about how you never felt impoverished or poor. The impact does not come from how you perceive yourself, but how much actual money is available to you (and your family). Even what you talked about proves what I have been saying. It was your mother's parenting style that most impacted your development, and even if you had money when you came to Canada you still would have turned out the way you did because of how your mother raised you. As for having gotten subsidized private school that sounds amazing. However don't believe this is something that is available to all or even the majority of people in the lower income class. Comming from a family that worked itself from lower class (when I was a young child) where both my parents worked almost full-time (father-fulltime mother damn near), to a upper-middle class family a must say that it sounds amazing. Having come from a small town these were advantages not available to me because my family couldn't afford the cost of private school, and with their rising income couldn't get government support. It has been the problem I have experienced for most my life, and alot of middle class families experience this. They don't make enough to fully support their kids through school (either private schools or university) but they make to much to receive government support. The bank's LOC I have survived on while going to school was the only option available to me, however it has added on the expense of paying monthly interest, and putting me 30g in the hole. I am hoping now that I have lived on my own long enough to be considered an independent by the government that I can get financial support, and maybe even decrease my bank debt. I really don't know how you can view intelligence as pure biology. That completely discounts the number of years one attends school, the support and demands given by family, friends, and teachers. The teaching style of your teacher. What school you went to, etc. I mean kids from low SES are less likely to graduate high school, and even less likely to go on to post-secondary education (ignoring immigrant/recent immigrant families.). Looking at the other side, you also see a higher percentage of kids graduating who attended private school (usually from higher SES families, unless they have subsidization) as compared to public school. Kids from private schools are more likely to continue on in post-secondary education. These are just common stats that the government keeps. Intelligence is not pure biology. The potential limits of intelligence are, what impacts how intelligent you become is social and developmental factors. and if going by biology and genetics, two very intelligent parents will most likely have intelligent offspring. There are studies which have shown correlations between intelligence of the parents and intelligence of the children, if still have my one textbook I might even be able to refer you to those studies.
  2. Lol, I really have to laugh at all the people talked about how comming from wealth leaves kids with these serious handicapps. Yet the statistics show that a higher percentage of kids from private schools (high school) graduate and attend some form of post-secondary education that those in public schools. Attendance at private schools is also correlated with family wealth. In comparing public school statistics, children from families that have recently immigrated (either the child and parents immigrated, or the parents did and the child was born in Canada) have a higher rate of attendance in post-secondary education than those that have not recently immigrated. Now tie this together with many people's experiences of the spoiled rich kids, and theories that show a family can go from riches to rags in three generations. You should see two major variables in this; Money and Parenting. Many people who don't come from wealthy families tend to get hung up on the fact that these kids come from money and that money must somehow run their life (either making or breaking it). The truth is that money can confer an advantage to a person. This makes sense as it can provide an individual with many benefits. However money is an inanimate object, it doesn't have a bias, that depends on how it is used. What makes or breaks you is your parents, and what you learn from them. Why do so many kids comming from money end up screwing it up in life? Because their parents did a crappy job of raising them. Their parents have been influencing their thoughts, beliefs, perceptions, and overall personality since they were toddlers. Now money might give parents a little more leeway in that it won't be until later on that one sees their child being screwed up because the family wealth buffered them for a time, but it is still how good or bad your parents raised you that has the major impact on life. In so many areas of life I see people looking for dozens of reasons to explain why people do things but completely ignore and overlook those adults who had a chance to make an impact in that individual's life. I am so tired of people not being willing to take the blame, or place the blame on people. This is why recently children of immigrated families have higher rate of attending post-secondary education, because of their parents. It is not the struggling against poverty, makes these individuals go to post-secondary school it was the family beliefs, and values, and the way their parents raised them. In many ways money can give you an advantage that will put you ahead of the game. In so many more ways having experienced poor parenting and not learning the correct lessons from it can cripple you. (I say not learning the correct lessons, because some children raised with poor parenting practices do make it somewhere in life, because they learned the right lessons from the poor parenting, the ones that are harder to learn and less likely to be learned) In all honest truth if we had more money we would have the opportunity to focus more on school and have more free time for ECs and not have to work part-time (or at least work as much). There is an increased probability that we would be able to afford a better quality of diet, and engage in more activities that would contribute to our well-roundedness.
  3. Hey guys, I haven't posted in months, and just lurk this page every couple of weeks. I did my first 2.5years at one university and started as a biology major. I powered through my pre-reqs and took on alot of science courses at once. My GPA varied but generally increased to mid-level grades (from 3.25-3.5 after 3 semesters). However I really bombed one semester trying to take four science courses all with labs and a math course with a tutorial. That one semester has really bombed my overall GPA. I am finishing my last two years at another university (grad after this spring semester finishes). I didn't apply to any med schools my third year but this year I have, my plan if I don't get in is to take on an english degree on my second degree. I have to admit frustration with the way admissions is handled. If i had thuroughly researched it before starting my undergrad I would have realized that the way to maximize my chances would have been to take on an english degree which is a cakewalk for me, and taken on science electives. I would have had slack 5 course semesters and a lofty GPA, with alot less effort actually put into it. However when I went into my undergrad my thoughts were; (1) I am more interested in a career in the sciences, and if the science relates to human biology/development/body/whatever that excites me more, and (2) if i get an undergraduate in a science degree I should be able to have a fallback job I can work at until I get into med school. Mind you had I started at a different school that may have changed everything but you do what you can. I hope I don't have to join most of you in doing a second degree (no offense), but I do think less of any of you for not getting in to med school yet, and admire your determination, and willingness to go into huge debt.
  4. My guess is that it won't hurt nor hinder your application. The admissions committees are entirely made of all eco-enviro nuts and while some people think hunting it evil and it generally is given a bad rep alot of people see it as a healthy, active hobby that gets you into the great outdoors. Well this didn't surprise me at all, always one of you somewhere.
  5. here's a question nobody asked (at least I dont think it was when i breezed through it). What is your significant other doing and can they work?
  6. Well I have been busy this summer working and house hunting so i have not posted much lately, but this topic stole my attention. The first thing that I wish to speak of is the idea of euthanasia, which to my knowledge no form of which is legal in Canada. However even though it is illegal, I do have extended-family who have had to deal with family members who were extremely sick (and old), who were slowly dying in a very painful manner. assisted suicides while not allowed are occuring, and they were able to put a grandmother to rest rather than living out a few more weeks in extreme pain. From what I was told the doctors tend to stay far away from such things, probably for both ethical and legal reasons, and that it is mostly nurses that are giving "under the table" assistance. in terms of "pulling the plug" I agree with future_doc that should not be decided by someone who has a conflict of interest in the matter. However the only real solution to this is to have a mandatory writing of medical instructions (DNRs, etc) to doctors once people reach a certain age. It is hard for any relative to have an unbiased opinion about these things. I know that if I am in a vegetative state and the doctors don't know when/if I will come out of it that I would want them to pull the plug, but my family would be strongly opposed to this. Back to the main idea, I really do believe that there is a limit to the amount of money the health care industry should invest in one patient before it becomes unethical. Yes I am saying that at some point, giving a patient too much care is unethical. Some people have stated what would some say about a normally able person who had complications in surgery needed to be in the ICU for 6months or so and a large amount of money being spent on her to live. This is very distinct in my mind in that she is; her quality of life, her ability to contribute to society, how much she can potentiall recover from the complications. Now I am sure someone will throw some example at me but lemme give you a strong example. If I were to become a quadripelgic, couldnt use my arms or legs, and have no chance of becoming mobile again, rather than having the government spend almost half a million dollars on keeping me alive so that I can live for another decade or two trapped in a wrecked body. My life isn't important only in the number of years but also in the quality of those years. I do believe it would be better if the government spent less money people with these mental disabilities caused from some trauma during development. I ask myself if it is ethical to spend money making one person comfortable that could help 100 people or potentially save 10 lives, and I have to say no. Mind you I am also of the belief that somewhere in the next 20-75 years we will develop new methods in which we will be able to reverse/mitigate the damage that has been dealt to people with these who have mental handicaps, bringing them to a level that is close if not caught up to the average human being. I know some people question whether that is ethical, and say that it is horrible to describe these people as being less than average. However it is the truth the average human has two legs, two arms, ten fingers and toes, a standard range of height, health, and intelligence. Most mental handicaps are natural, or how someone is supposed to be, it is the result of some sort of trauma at some stage of development. People with mental handicaps, have had some sort of trauma and one day this will be able to be fixed the same as a broken bone. The only limiting agent is our knowledge and technology in dealing with trauma. One question that interests me, is say that we know that eventually, within a hundred years we can realistically predict that a technic will be developed to heal those who have mental handicaps so that they can function on a similar level to an average human being. However this is reliant on those with extreme handicaps being institutionalized for 30,000 a year and the 250,000 that is saved being invested in researching this technic to heal these people. Is it better to institutionalize severe mental handicaps for a several decades or allow them to live more comfortably but delay the development of technics to heal mental handicaps for over 100 years? (i did not read every page of this thread only the first two pages and the last 3 or 4 pages, so I am hoping we are still argueing about those who have severe mental handicaps)
  7. I won't bash people who feel the need to work abroad, indeed the idea of spending a couple of years in europe or australia/new zealand while making good money is very appealing to myself. The middle east not so much but everyone has their cliches. At the same time I can completely understand what some people say about feeling a need to give back to their country. I love Canada, have applied to the military reserves for part time work during my undergraduate and plan to go through the military to finance my medical education and then serve my four years proudly. I think very highly of others who decide to give back to the country that has given us so much. It is not that I look down upon those who don't feel the desire to give back to their country, only that I have increased respect for those who do.
  8. Jehovah's will be fighting this and causing a ruckus over this till the end of time. The fact is that life is our society's highest priority next to freedom, where with Jehovah's staying true to the rules of their religion tops both life and freedom. While you may being able to convincingly argue to me that 16year olds or older may actually have experienced enough in the world to have made decisions for themselves and have gone through the phase where they rebel against their parent's decisions and start to make their own beliefs and decisions about life and the world. A fourteen year old has only experienced what her family, friends and community has socialized her into. Being jehovah that means that she has been socialized by her family that Jehovah is right, by her friends that Jehovah is right, and by her community that Jehovah is right. The poor child hasn't been given any alternatives, she has had fourteen years of being told that not that jehovah is a way of life but that it is the way of life and they do not accept family members doing otherwise. I believe that this is a 14yr old girl who can speak eloquently and has advanced speaking and english skills. I do not believe that she is mature enough to have made decisions for herself and she is only trying to fight for what everyone else has told her is the one true way.
  9. Well I am a caucasian male, and not a racist...although really who would actually admit to being one on here? lol Anyways I am rather shocked on what I have heard. I agree with what a single post out of all of everyone's said about it being nice to experience a couple different cultures. After that one it was just bash white people day here. Mind you it is not just on this forum that we see this, I also had to agree with my kines prof that white people can experience the negative side of racism too. Most of you seem more concerne that everyone is white instead of the fact that it is only one culture there, or that you may experience racism...which does occur in every city on this planet. Not only that but being Caucasian, I have been part of the majority in many cities and still have experienced racism, and have heard how other caucasian friends of mine have experienced racism. I have had east indian women turn me down solely because I was caucasian and it was unacceptable for them or their families that they/their daughter date a causasian person. I have been blamed by Indians while at work that I am rascist and that I am the cause of all of their problems. Friends of mine have been excluded from people of Asian heritage because they have chosen only to hang out with other asians. I have had friends not make footballs teams because the position they tried out for was a stereotypical "black position" and the coaches picked an African person for it although my caucasian friend had both height and weight on him. The point of this is that many people in this world and this country will experience racism regardless of their skin colour. You are not special in this, and racism is not something that is only dished out by white people. Past histories such as slavery and a few bad caucasians have given the average caucasian person a reputation of being rascist. The fact that so many people buy into this idea that racism is something only white people are responsible for disgusts me. Sure some Caucasian people have prejudiced views about the visible minorities but my personal experience in life and showed me early on that this is the same with other ethnicities and it has been my believe about this has been reinforced every year since I realized it.
  10. lol I totally agree with you, and I am a guy too. It's kinda odd that we have to state that we are guys because we're saying that we want to spend time with our families?
  11. Lol start a thread about women, men and the feminist movement and we get talks about the 10 character rule. I love us. Lol seriously though, my prof (female, kines) was telling me that pretty much the only campus whose woman studies' department doesn't just attack men universally is Xavier over in NS. There are several times where I have had profs that have defended males, and talked about how society abuses them nowadays. Humourously enough they were both females, one teaching an addictions counselling course, and the other a kines prof teaching a course on sexism/racism in sports and society. Shim you brought up some good points. I never want women to be like men...mostly because I don't want to have relations with a man, but also because I tend to be rather competitive with members of my gender. Equality of rights is what should be strived for. I have said it in other threads, but the most awesome moment of my undergraduate life so far was in my sociology class where the old feminists (40s) and the young feminists (20s-early30s) just about came to blows. the old feminists said they had fought for equality and then began bashing these new feminists for trying to gain an advantage over men and started ragging the young feminists. Man was that ever awesome, I thought we were actually going to have to physically start restraining them.
  12. I will try to find a reference. It was something I had learned about in my class during the spring semester, and had also learned about it earlier too. I am busy as the summer semester I is over next week so it will take me a bit. I will pm you with a reference for it. Shim, Introducing a curfew would not be a viable solution to that. Not because there are some who can stay up longer than others, but because sleep patterns are different between people. I would not say we need to introduce a law against driving while fatigued. I would however, say that if your fatigue is visibly affecting your driving and yet you have chosen to drive anyways there should be more severe consequences than what is in place right now for it, (at least in some places, I do not know the consequences of such actions in every province).
  13. Well I am not a female, but I do plan on being a doctor and having a family. I think it is feasible, if you and your hubby can work on time tables, and are willing to share the responsibility of watching the kids more evenly between the two of you. I plan to not be a workaholic, and spend a good amount of time with my family, afterall they come first. Personally regardless of gender, I think the best scenario for a kid to develop in is to have a homemaker (either gender), who does stay at home while the kids are young. This person could be of either gender, so either a traditional housewife, or a househusband. When the child is older and becomes more independent/spends for time with friends, it is easier to for the homemaker (either gender) to pick up work/extra hours. Although I stated either gender several times, i am willing to bet that at least three people (either gender) will label me as sexist, if only in their minds.
  14. If you search the forums, this question has been asked before, and people have commented on it.
  15. lol this reminds me of when I was taking a three-hour class in the fall. We got a break halfway between and my friend and I usually went for some tim horton's. Well one day I held the door for a pair of old ladies, and then we continued on to tim's. The awesome part was that the ladies, whom I had just helped, just lifted up the cloth divider for the line, and cut in front of us. Take this as a lesson, go be a doctor and help children.
  16. Wow I am impressed with the amount of controversy this has created. I am glad to see how many people are against drunk driving. Most of the places I have lived, the police has been so busy or blind that most get away with driving around drunk. Personally I am on the fence about what constitutes a DUI right now. There are so many variables in how easy or hard it is for someone to become intoxicated. Muscle content in the body makes it easy for the body to absorb alcohol and keep someone sober longer, and yet some people just have what seems to be a genetic tolerance or vulnerability to alcohol. I agree that lowering the rate back down to a 0.05 will reduce accidents, however on the flip side of that, I know several people who can drink till they blow a 0.05 and they will still be stone cold sober. I mean I will knock back 9 or 10 doubles before I start getting a buzz, drinking whiskey. Malkynn, I understand that you have had several bad experiences with alcohol, and I agree that if your friend was obviously intoxicated he should not have been driving regardless of what he would blow. If you are too impaired to drive you should not be driving, however the idea of what the limit should be on drinks is a complicated one I believe. As for deeman, I would say something but I think Law has summed it up nicely.
  17. of course, my motivation was to clearly show what I believed, (without misinterpretation). I find it to be a waste of energy to try to change another's philosophy in this matter.
  18. It sounds like you know what your biggest stumbling block is, and that it is your MCAT. Indeed if you could improve that you would be able to apply out of country...if you are willing to move. Personally my plan for applications is this: 1st attempt: In Canada schools only, 4 in ontario plus 2 in BC 2nd attempt: Same schools in Canada, plus a couple in UK and the States. 3rd attempt: same as before with the addition of schools in israel that have been discussed in another post. I know that will end up costing me, but it will be worth it if it means getting into med school. I will probably also apply to U of C but haven't decided on whether to do it in the second or third attempt. After the third attempt, I will continue applying if not accepted but not add any more schools to my list.
  19. Perhaps it is just the grammar, I am sure I wouldn't get my point across as well if we were doing this in french. No no, I am saying it is different. The point I am making with my example of a racist man who loses his racial bias, is that his experience in life alters the way he perceives the world, and changes the his way of thinking. I say that the same can be applied to humans as whole. Human's way of thinking is the past was different, and that is why we once found it acceptable to have duel's to the death to solve disputes. Over the course of time we have come to realize certain things about life and the world. It is this realization that changes the way human's perceive the world. It is the way in which a man perceive's the world around him that influences the way in which he processes information. Therefore if the way a man perceive's the world changes, so does the way he processes information. New experience ---> new realization ----> change in perception ---> change in thought process. So in the case of the man with racial prejudice. His experience with people of african decent showed that his beliefs about africans were incorrect. The realization that his line of thought about africans were wrong changes the way he perceives other races in the world. This change in perception about people of various ethnicities changes the way his way of thinking.
  20. lol I did go on a tangent in regards to your first post. Your second one doesn't make much sense to me either, but I will try to counter argue. (I dunno if it's the way you are wording things but I had a hard time reading things. I am not sure if english is your first language or not, but I apologize if what I read is not what you were meaning to say) I agree tooty was talking about the value of life and laws, and did make the point that this value is something that changes. In terms of the environment, you asked how I wanted these people to have opposite opinions and due consideration? I am not sure what you are trying to get at. My point with environment was that at one time, Humans didn't care about the enivornment. In the begining we were not aware of how industry affected the environment and then later humanity was uncaring as to whether pollution damaged the atmosphere and wildlife. Nowadays humans are very aware of this,(not everyone) and realize there are serious reprecussions that will be involved with continued dumping of pollution into the environment. It seems as if your trying to argue that those people back then never had a change in the their thought processes or how they viewed the environment. However when you say that human's way of thinking never changes, you are refer not to individual's but to human's as a whole. Thus the lifetime of certain individuals is negected and we look at the point of views, and thought processes of humans as a whole. Even if we were to argue about the way in which an individual perceives the world, and their ways of thinking we can still see it is possible for people's ways of thinking to be changed. A good example of this is someone who is raised to be prejudiced against a certain ethnicity. Someone from the 1910 might have a certain way of thinking about Africans which degrades them and sees them as being inferior. However if that person ends up in a situation where they are on equal footing with a African person, and the two develop some sort of working relationship, there may be a change in which the racist drops his former beliefs and ways of thinking about Africans and adopts new views and new ways of thinking about people who are different from himself.
  21. Slavery was deemed to be immoral. It wasn't immoral before humanity decided it to be immoral. Some people have a difficulty realizing that just because there is something (such as slavery) which is absolutely abhorrent to them that the wrongness of it isn't concrete. Violence and murder are considered immoral and many people believe this to always be the case and that people of the past were just horrible, immoral beings. Yet for many generations it was socially acceptable for two guys to whip out swords or pistols and duel to the death. Nowadays such actions would be considered abhorrent to others. That is why things change, some acts becoming acceptable and others becoming unacceptable. There are some people who truly believe that showing too much skin is very immoral in women, and they believe this has always been the case. Morality isn't like the laws of physics. Gravity existed before we knew what gravity was, but killing another human was generally immoral until humanity as a whole decided it was. Morality isn't set in stone, it is not a concrete law of reality. A very religious Christian would view many of my behaviors as immoral, and yet I consider myself a person with a strong sense of principles/morals. However I see no moral wrongness in pre-marital sex, drinking, showing of the human body, or questioning of the bible. Human nature doesn't change? Human's never change? There is nothing new to our way of thinking???? Wow...so how do you explain the shift from pagan beliefs to christianity? How do you explain the change in beliefs about science? How do you explain the change in views about race/ethnicity? How do you explain the condemnation of sexuality by christians (which was previously absent)? How do you explain the reemergence of sexuality being acceptable? How do you explain the change in views about slavery? How do you explain the change in views about women's rights? How do you explain the change in views about various political systems? How do you explain the change in views regarding was is appropriate parental care of children? How do you explain the changing views on personal health in the world? How do you explain the changing views about the environment? I don't really need to continue, but really wow. I was floored by that post you got me there. Human thinking doesn't change, lol. Human's don't change lol. I am trying to be understanding and put some weight behind what you are trying to say but really!? People don't change? Our morals can't change? Where did you get this stuff?
  22. My questions: How many schools have you applied to? Have you considered applying to out of country schools?
  23. I am wondering how bad the culture shock is though. It might be a tempting plan to apply there if I don't get accepted anywhere the first two years I apply.
  24. Didn't know where else to post this. I had applied for a transfer to Uvic in may, only a couple weeks before the deadline for application. I hadn't thought much of my chances but figured that if i get accepted that it means I am on the right track wanting to switch schools. the only downside was that I knew admissions was going to be very busy seeing as how close to the deadline it was, and that I probably wouldn't hear about a possible acceptance until late july/August. It was something I would have been willing to accept, having a short deadline to find a place, and move everything there from Alberta. However I just got an offer of acceptance, and needed to tell someone. Lol I am estatic right now. I am finally comming home to British Columbia!!!
×
×
  • Create New...