Feb

13

QuickSpec – Quicker Picker Upper Edition

Written by

22 Comments

  1. abba  

    I don't understand why Caitlin Shure writes that neuroscience article, and every week I get offended when I see the name "Neuro? Shure-o!!!!" Not fucking funny. If I had to take a stab, I imagine the column's existence has something to do with getting into graduate school.

  2. hmmm  

    I don't think it's supposed to be extremely funny. It's just a title for a column....

  3. uhhhh...  

    caitlin was asked to write the column because she's smart and also hilarious. she didnt go seek it out to build her resume. the real question is can anyone do anything at this school without someone else being unnecessarily critical?

  4. it is possible  

    that maybe she actually likes writing the column and doesn't have prestige particularly in mind. It IS possible.

    • in which case  

      that would be fine. but it's depressing to see so many people on bwog who seem to be base opportunists. why a liberal arts education at all? preprofessional, vocational institutes would see to fit their interests...or even schools without the diversity of a core curriculum.

  5. Tom  

    I think a lot of people write columns and such precisely because they DON'T know what they want to do with their career and are making something of their time while they're still unsure. Then again, I'm posting on bwog instead of listening to my professor...that may be indicative of far more troubling career thoughts (or lack thereof).

  6. pms  

    Yo, Tom. I'm posting on Bwog instead of doing my work, at work. So... right there with ya, buddy. As for the column, it's funny, well-written, and if she's doing for "future aims" then Science Times, meet Ms. Shure. As for love, there's nothing wrong with love.

  7. my issue with Shuro  

    is that she says nothing new. You mean brain chemicals dictate my feelings? You don't say! Anti-depressants might decrease libido? Millions of people have already figured that one out. Could love be chemical? Well, DUH. A little more insight would be nice. People generally know that romance has a chemical, sexual component. Psychology Today has some recent articles about love and flirting that were a lot more engaging, perhaps she could have done some research (they aren't long articles). That's my issue with the column, I don't care why she's writing it, I just think that she can do better.

  8. ADAM SMITH  

    Invisible hand!!!!!!

    Maybe it's for resume building but who cares?

    Each to his own ends will help us all. Your ends of whining though probably doesn't produce or amount to much.

  9. well...  

    if i already was interested enough in science to read psychology today, i wouldnt need the bite-sized pieces in which caitlin serves up her information. however, for all intents and purposes, i am distinctly UNinterested in complicated science, which is why i filled my core requirement with surfaces and knots, and only want a simple, snuggly explanation to justify my bitterness about valentine's day. thanks, caitlin, for giving me exactly what i need!

  10. catfood  

    and yes i understand that is flaming, but flaming the flamers is like shooting a rapist

    • flaming?  

      these people are quite open about having pawned their souls, dont even understand the idea of an education for its own sake... i dont think they have anything to argue with you about

© 2006-2015 Blue and White Publishing Inc.