F's on transcript due to missing chapel

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
It comes across as you being a little too unwilling to compromise on your own beliefs, which is what turns people off. So to compensate, as others have already mentioned, perhaps you can add into the explanation how you HAVE indeed learned to compromise and find commonality and acceptance, how you can follow the system, i.e. joining the school's community service organizations, finding lasting friends with different religious beliefs who inspired you, etc.

The situation is different depending on whether you and your family follow the same religion of this school or if you follow a different religion entirely but attended out of financial incentives. The first can come across as an immature rebellion, the second as an somewhat irksome exploitation of the scholarship that was given to you, such that you took the spot of someone who could have taken advantage of the religious opportunities provided, but your choice to not attend service is more understandable. How you phrase the explanation for the Fs depend on which of the scenarios it is. I think it always helps in an application statement to tell in more detail why you stopped attending, beyond just the vague words of "it made me spiritually uncomfortable", which I understand you cannot do in an online forum. The more you show, the more likely someone is to be able to empathize with you. Did you feel not genuine when you attend before you were pretending to be someone you're not, and the feeling of deception made you feel uncomfortable? Was there a specific aspect of what the course taught that you disagreed with but didn't want to bring up with the administration?

Some people will always disagree with whatever you do, but there will always be people out there too who see from your perspective.
Thank you very much. This is wonderful advice.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Why did you even apply, let alone matriculate to, a university so clearly wrong for you
I explained it a couple times in some earlier posts. TLDR; Money and parents strong-armed me into it.
 
Wrong. I agree that OP was acting on principles, but repeatedly decided to break the rules. S/he knew what they were getting into, and that's problem. The reasonable choice at that point would be to transfer.


To me - that speaks volumes. As an adcom, I wouldn't hold that against an applicant because they have demonstrated maturity by making an informed decision.[/QUOTE]
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Members don't see this ad :)
Why did you even apply, let alone matriculate to, a university so clearly wrong for you

Anyways 3.5 credits does very little to your overall GPA, if they had been all A's your GPA would rise by 0.1
somewhat unrelated:

is a 3.77 vs a 3.87 not that big of a difference in the eyes of an adcom?
 
somewhat unrelated:

is a 3.77 vs a 3.87 not that big of a difference in the eyes of an adcom?
1) Science GPA matters more and is not affected by this
2) you'll have a chance to point it out and mitigate some or all of the damage to cGPA
3) no, a 0.1 difference in cGPA is not likely to make or break you. The biggest danger it poses to you is that you'll talk about it the wrong way and communicate to adcoms that you're so stubborn (sorry, principled) that you'd ignore something you signed up for because you didn't like it.
 
OP: "The course counted for 0.5 credit hours each semester."

If you were to look at OP's transcript you would see a .5 credit course one semester with an A, then you'd see a .5 credit hour course the next semester with an F, then another semester and another .5 credit hour course for an F, etc.

Overall GPA impact is negligible (3.5 credits worth of F's) but those are still 7 separate F's.

Yes but it's still the exact same as one F. That is like saying 1000 grams is different from 1 kg
 
As someone who could be, yet isn't, an adcom, in no way does this demonstrate maturity. It demonstrates the opposite. Maturity would be making the realization you allude to, and either working to change the requirement, or acknowledging the mistake of attending this particular school and transferring. "Nope, I'm just not going to go anymore" and taking the hit of all those F's is the most immature, head-in-the-sand reaction one could have. Not a good look for an aspiring medical professional. Extrapolating into medicine, it leads one to think that should a practice recommendation come down that causes this person mental angst, they'd just ignore it, possibly to the detriment of patients.

gotta agree with 22031 Alum. You could've spun this experience in such a positive light if you had just gone.

You clearly disagreed, yet you could have went anyway. Why? To learn why people believe what they believe, allowing you have a larger grasp of the world.
Society isn't only religious, only agnostic, or only atheist.

I wish I had something like this to write about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
What do I ditch it in favor of? That's the truth. If anything I think the argument could be made that I was willing to forego an incentive in the form of a GPA boost to avoid compromising my spirituality. Heck, it could be spun as a positive.
Yeah, that is not a positive. There is no positive coming from this. Why did you not transfer schools?
 
Yes but it's still the exact same as one F. That is like saying 1000 grams is different from 1 kg

Not really. 1 F = "hmm this person screwed up one time, at least it looks like they resolved the issue and moved on"

F....F...F....F....F....F....F = "this person knew his school was going to slap an F on his transcript every semester and he just kept up his "principled" rebellion anyway"
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
gotta agree with 22031 Alum. You could've spun this experience in such a positive light if you had just gone.

You clearly disagreed, yet you could have went anyway. Why? To learn why people believe what they believe, allowing you have a larger grasp of the world.
Society isn't only religious, only agnostic, or only atheist.

I wish I had something like this to write about.
I have an excellent view of that corner of christianity. I went to a very similar christian high school, which is part of the reason I was so averse to going.
 
Yeah, that is not a positive. There is no positive coming from this. Why did you not transfer schools?
I've explained it multiple times earlier in the thread. Transferring schools is not like waiving a wand when money is a large issue.
 
Yes but it's still the exact same as one F. That is like saying 1000 grams is different from 1 kg

It isn't the exact same thing as one F. It is 7 F's. An ad-com isn't going to say "Tell me about the 3.5 credit hour F you received.", it'll be more like "Tell me why you received an F for 7 semesters straight.". How many F's will OP have on their AMCAS app? Well, at least 7. OP will not input "XXX_101-Chapel, 3.5 credit hours, F transcript grade". It would be closer to "XXX_101-Chapel, .5 credit hours, F transcript grade" 7 times- in different academic terms and academic years.

If you're looking big picture (GPA impact) sure, 3.5 credit hours worth of F's has the same GPA impact as 7 x .5 F's. However 7 x.5 F's is not the same as a 3.5 credit hour F. If I fail a BS, unimportant 1 credit lab course Fall of my Sophomore year and then another similarly unimportant 1cr lab course Spring of my Junior year I have 2 F's on my transcript, I enter 2 F's in AMCAS/TDMSAS/AACOMAS.

As for your 1kg vs. 1000g, poor analogy- If I ask you for 1kg of a substance in lab for an activity and you give me 200g, then during the next semester you gave me another 200g, then the semester after that give me another 200g, etc. until I have accumulated 1,000g of that substance you did not give me 1kg of a substance when I asked for it. You gave me 200g multiple times over many academic terms and academic years. As a result I was unable to complete my experiment because, while I did ultimately get 1,000g/1kg of that substance, it was not in the when I needed it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I don't think you're blameless in this. You can't just skip the prereqs or generals you dislike - skipping university required courses, regardless of your beliefs, can be seen as a lapse in maturity.

I actually go to a uni where there are some required religious classes, and I think they're a bit silly sometimes despite the fact that I belong to that religion! So I see where you're coming from, but you should have toughed it out and gone.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Members don't see this ad :)
In many ways I can empathize with your decision. Given how people unanimously responded to your post, I would not phrase this as a rebellion for your principles in any way. Say you would've felt disrespectful to your classmates and the teacher if you had gone to the course and pretended to believe the whole way through, just for a grade. It was not in your intention to make a point by breaking the rules, but rather that you felt that you have broken the rule already by going to a religious school when you were no longer a believer, so taking on the Fs is the more appropriate penalty. Explain you felt remorse for taking the scholarship and taking the spot of someone who would have otherwise benefited from the religious nature of your college, and that looking back you should have attempted to transfer earlier, but you didn't want to disappoint your parents and your family's financial situation made the decision tougher. Express many times your gratitude for what the college has offered you in terms of financial aid and academic opportunities. Explain how after a while, you began to appreciate the community or activism on campus or the academics or whatever it is that you did like about the school, and sooner than you realized you've accrued too many credits for transfer to be an option. Give examples of how you took advantage of being at a religious school. Talk about how, while you strayed from your family's faith, you do relate to people who are spiritual, and at the same time you have learned to see things from multiple perspectives, etc.

Of course, substitute with whatever the actual situation is in your case, but my point is that one tends to be better received if s/he always express gratitude for what has been given and stay with the positives. Don't make it seem like anything was about yourself (as I'm sure it was not), talk about how you gave thought to how it'd affect other people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Another thought: if your school has a premed committee or if you have a premed adviser whom you've close with, it may be worth bringing this up and sorting this out with them in advance. If they can write about how you're not normally a troublemaker, that you can follow directions and is a conscientious person, it will help assuage any fear on the part of the adcom that they'd be admitting someone who doesn't follow rules when it doesn't suite him/her.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Your decision was the most ethically sound. It's outright scary that some universities still enforce active religious practice.

That being said, the average person -even smart, formally educated people- will lack the perspective and critical thinking acumen to see this for was it is, thus the responses in this thread.

You should have expected the backlash. Now is a bit late for regrets...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
At least your GPA is still great.
 
Your decision was the most ethically sound. It's outright scary that some universities still enforce active religious practice.

That being said, the average person -even smart, formally educated people- will lack the perspective and critical thinking acumen to see this for was it is, thus the responses in this thread.

You should have expected the backlash. Now is a bit late for regrets...
Nope. You're speaking as if his decision to apply to and then matriculate to this university was involuntary. For whatever reasons - even if it's pleasing parents - OP chose a university with this practice and is not on an ethical high ground skipping what is clearly intended to be an integral part of studentship at this institution. If OP is so principled and willing to buck the system, should've done so by going to a college that fit them instead of their parents.

I love condescending to people as much as the next neckbearded atheist pseudophilosopher but come on. OP put themselves in this situation and should have just toughed it out in the stupid chapel class.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Wrong. I agree that OP was acting on principles, but repeatedly decided to break the rules. S/he knew what they were getting into, and that's problem. The reasonable choice at that point would be to transfer.
I hate to say I agree because I can totally relate to not wanting to do Chapel, but if you sign up for something, you better show up for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Your decision was the most ethically sound. It's outright scary that some universities still enforce active religious practice.

That being said, the average person -even smart, formally educated people- will lack the perspective and critical thinking acumen to see this for was it is, thus the responses in this thread.

You should have expected the backlash. Now is a bit late for regrets...

It's outright scary that a secular (private?) university require you to attend chapel? Yes, how unreasonable that a college founded on a particular theology/faith expect you to observe that theology/faith in order to attend that school and receive aid. Why, that's as absurd as a women's college catering to women!(sarcasm)

OP accepted financial aid to go to a religious university knowing the chapel requirement, OP then decided against attending chapel but still wanted to receive that financial aid and graduate from a secular college. Meanwhile, that spot and aid could have gone to someone who was willing to fulfill their obligations. There was nothing ethical about it, this isn't a Rosa Parks-esque situation. No one held a gun to OP's head and forced OP to attend. OP made a mistake and OP's transcript reflects that.

If I were OP I would follow some of the advice in this thread which emphasizes admitting you made a mistake, that you matured and you can color within the lines.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
It's outright scary that a secular (private?) university require you to attend chapel? Yes, how unreasonable that a college founded on a particular theology/faith expect you to observe that theology/faith in order to attend that school and receive aid. Why, that's as absurd as a women's college catering to women!(sarcasm)

OP accepted financial aid to go to a religious university knowing he had to attend chapel, he then decided that he didn't want to attend chapel but still wanted to receive that financial aid and graduate from a secular college. Meanwhile, that spot and aid could have gone to someone who was willing to fulfill their obligations. There was nothing ethical about it, this isn't a Rosa Parks-esque situation. No one held a gun to OP's head and forced him to attend. OP made a mistake and his transcript reflects that.

If I were OP I would follow some of the advice in this thread which emphasizes admitting you made a mistake, that you matured and you can color within the lines.
You just lack the critical thinking acumen to understand that religion is evil lies and it is always ethical to skip church!
 
Another thought: if your school has a premed committee or if you have a premed adviser whom you've close with, it may be worth bringing this up and sorting this out with them in advance. If they can write about how you're not normally a troublemaker, that you can follow directions and is a conscientious person, it will help assuage any fear on the part of the adcom that they'd be admitting someone who doesn't follow rules when it doesn't suite him/her.
It does, and her and I have a really good relationship. I'll make sure to bring this up when I'm applying. Thank you, that's a really great idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Your decision was the most ethically sound. It's outright scary that some universities still enforce active religious practice.

That being said, the average person -even smart, formally educated people- will lack the perspective and critical thinking acumen to see this for was it is, thus the responses in this thread.

You should have expected the backlash. Now is a bit late for regrets...

I disagree. The OP continued to attend a religious university and accept a "very large scholarship" from them even though he disagreed with the principles that school stands for including Chapel attendance. That scholarship money could have been given to plenty of other willing and needy students.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Nope. You're speaking as if his decision to apply to and then matriculate to this university was involuntary. For whatever reasons - even if it's pleasing parents - OP chose a university with this practice and is not on an ethical high ground skipping what is clearly intended to be an integral part of studentship at this institution. If OP is so principled and willing to buck the system, should've done so by going to a college that fit them instead of their parents.

I love condescending to people as much as the next neckbearded atheist pseudophilosopher but come on. OP put themselves in this situation and should have just toughed it out in the stupid chapel class.

Awareness that you are putting yourself in an abusive situation does not make the situation less abusive, and does not imply you are looking for it or any other nonsense you are implying.

And often the best way to enact change is from the inside. Perhaps if enough students stop attending church the university will start reconsidering its educational purposes (less propaganda and more scholarship, for instance?).
 
You just lack the critical thinking acumen to understand that religion is evil lies and it is always ethical to skip church!

Be very still. They can't see you if you don't move.

Awareness that you are putting yourself in an abusive situation does not make the situation less abusive, and does not imply you are looking for it or any other nonsense you are implying.

And often the best way to enact change is from the inside. Perhaps if enough students stop attending church the university will start reconsidering its educational purposes (less propaganda and more scholarship, for instance?).

lolwut?

You're trying to make it sound like he led an active movement on campus. He didn't.

Let me help the OP start his *Most Important* activity on the subject:

I shouldered the criticism as my friends and peers made their way into the chapel. Standing in bitter silence, I knew others felt like me. Oppressed by an aged practice....




.... My hope is that one day, equitable worship will be available. Our commitment to the cause is more tempered now than ever. Every Sunday, forty-seven of us stand outside as brothers and sisters in arms; we fight for those without a voice -- those still trapped inside.

*KAPPA*
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Awareness that you are putting yourself in an abusive situation does not make the situation less abusive, and does not imply you are looking for it or any other nonsense you are implying.

And often the best way to enact change is from the inside. Perhaps if enough students stop attending church the university will start reconsidering its educational purposes (less propaganda and more scholarship, for instance?).
Oh my. You really want to call this situation, where a student enrolled in a school with a half credit chapel class, abuse? Is it abuse that my university requires us to study a language? Was it abuse that my parents expressed wishes for me to go to school near home? What's nonsense is your criteria for abusive.

Ah, religion in education is propaganda? Ouch! I cut myself on that edge

Be very still. They can't see you if you don't move.
What's especially funny is that I'm pretty anti religion myself. I have family members who were homeschooled so they could be taught from the bible every day and could only spend time with other children through their church. But even I can't keep quiet when someone calls a half credit course at a voluntarily attended religious school "abusive propaganda"
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Oh my. You really want to call this situation, where a student enrolled in a school with a half credit chapel class, abuse? Is it abuse that my university requires us to study a language? Was it abuse that my parents expressed wishes for me to go to school near home? What's nonsense is your criteria for abusive.

Abuse (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/abuse):

1. To use improperly or excessively; misuse

Education (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/education)

1. The act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the powers of reasoning and judgment, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life.

Propaganda (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propaganda)

1. ideas or statements that are often false or exaggerated and that are spread in order to help a cause, a political leader, a government, etc.


Based on these definitions, religious education is not necessarily propaganda or abuse. There are things to be learned, and reasoning to be developed, by studying religions in a critical and objective environment.

Active practice of religion almost systematically -if not always- involves propaganda, however. The Holy Bible is a mythological book presented as irrevocably truthful and infallible by its partisans, and its message is spread to gain followers for the Christian movement. It is occasionally taught critically by some progressive followers, but only in parts and even so quite rarely.

By this logic, OP's obligation to attend chapel is an act of propaganda (yes, even if does not have the obligation to attend the school itself). Because education is, by definition, irreconcilable with propaganda, the university has "misused" its authority/purpose and is actively abusing its students.

 
Last edited:
Abuse (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/abuse):

1. To use improperly or excessively; misuse

Education (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/education)

1. The act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the powers of reasoning and judgment, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life.

Propaganda (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propaganda)

1. ideas or statements that are often false or exaggerated and that are spread in order to help a cause, a political leader, a government, etc.


Based on these definitions, religious education is not necessarily propaganda or abuse. There are things to be learned, and reasoning to be developed, by studying religions in a critical and objective environment.

Active practice of religion almost systematically -if not always- involves propaganda, however. The Holy Bible is a mythological book presented as irrevocably truthful and infallible by its partisans, and its message is spread to gain followers for the Christian movement. It is occasionally taught critically by some progressive followers, but only in parts and even so quite rarely.

By this logic, OP's obligation to attend chapel is an act of propaganda (yes, even if does not have the obligation to attend the school itself). Because education is, by definition, irreconcilable with propaganda, the university has "misused" its authority/purpose and is actively abusing its students.

*tips fedora*
 
Abuse (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/abuse):

1. To use improperly or excessively; misuse

Education (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/education)

1. The act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the powers of reasoning and judgment, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life.

Propaganda (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propaganda)

1. ideas or statements that are often false or exaggerated and that are spread in order to help a cause, a political leader, a government, etc.


Based on these definitions, religious education is not necessarily propaganda or abuse. There are things to be learned, and reasoning to be developed, by studying religions in a critical and objective environment.

Active practice of religion almost systematically -if not always- involves propaganda, however. The Holy Bible is a mythological book presented as irrevocably truthful and infallible by its partisans, and its message is spread to gain followers for the Christian movement. It is occasionally taught critically by some progressive followers, but only in parts and even so quite rarely.

By this logic, OP's obligation to attend chapel is an act of propaganda (yes, even if does not have the obligation to attend the school itself). Because education is, by definition, irreconcilable with propaganda, the university has "misused" its mission and is actively abusing its students.
Using a bit more legit of a dictionary, in my case Oxford, you'll see abuse used referring to a person as "Treat (a person or an animal) with cruelty or violence, especially regularly or repeatedly". "Abuse" simply doesn't describe a school failing students that do not attend mandatory parts of a curriculum they signed up for. This one can't be escaped with linguistic technicalities.

Re-read your definition of propaganda. The university is not attempting to convince anyone of anything - it welcomes voluntary matriculants who already believe a certain way. It is also very possible to meditate on lessons in the bible without bringing any falsehood or exaggeration into the picture. And many times the teachings are unrelated to conversion or spreading faith. So, it's untenable to call the class propaganda without knowing the contents of the lessons. If a group of students is told a biblical parable highlighting the morality of consideration for the less fortunate, they have not been exposed to propaganda any more than if they were reading such a parable in philosophic texts.

Education is not "by definition" irreconcilable with religious coursework. Even your cherrypicked definition of education fails to disagree here; you can acquire knowledge, develop reasoning and mature intellectually through religious coursework.

Think about how your reasoning would apply to general education requirements. If I'm a diehard utilitarian and I'm required to take a Phil 101 class that has us study Kant, am I being abused and force fed propaganda counter to my ideals by my university? Please. I'm sympathetic to views of religion as often being negative, but again, it's nonsense to say a voluntarily chosen curriculum including religious study is abusive propaganda.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
By this logic, OP's obligation to attend chapel is an act of propaganda (yes, even if does not have the obligation to attend the school itself). Because education is, by definition, irreconcilable with propaganda, the university has "misused" its mission and is actively abusing its students.
Except you don't know what the mission of OP's university was. For instance, Pensacola Christian College; "Our mission is to promote the cause of Christ by providing a distinctively Christian-traditional, liberal arts education that develops students spiritually, intellectually, morally, culturally, and socially.". Therefore students attending this school who are required to attend chapel (and know it) are not being "misused" since attending chapel is in-keeping with providing a distinctively Christian liberal arts education.

I personally don't see a point in religion or attending chapel but OP wasn't acting ethically by essentially saying "Yeah, I'll take that money and abide by your rules! Oh wait, except that one...".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Didn't read the entire thread, but several F's can translate negatively. Especially in the same course over several years.

Only thing I can add, is what have you learned from this? Did you learn things about yourself? If you haven't learned anything, it'll be hard to spin this positively.

Good luck OP.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Using a bit more legit of a dictionary, in my case Oxford, you'll see abuse used referring to a person as "Treat (a person or an animal) with cruelty or violence, especially regularly or repeatedly". "Abuse" simply doesn't describe a school failing students that do not attend mandatory parts of a curriculum they signed up for. This one can't be escaped with linguistic technicalities. Honey, what a mess. You literally just "escaped" this one with linguistic technicalities, proclaiming your definition was better than mine and using this judgment to invalidate everything I said. I don't even know what to reply... I guess I'll just stick to my guns and say that, by the definition I quoted, abuse necessarily occurred.

Re-read your definition of propaganda. The university is not attempting to convince anyone of anything - it welcomes voluntary matriculants who already believe a certain way. Apparently it welcomes just anyone; see OP. It is also very possible to meditate on lessons in the bible without bringing any falsehood or exaggeration into the picture. And many times the teachings are unrelated to conversion or spreading faith. So, it's untenable to call the class propaganda without knowing the contents of the lessons. If a group of students is told a biblical parable highlighting the morality of consideration for the less fortunate, they have not been exposed to propaganda any more than if they were reading such a parable in philosophic texts. It is possible. I did admit that. In practice however, in religious settings, it never happens.

The Christian leaders -see the second Vatican council, for example- have proclaimed numerous times that the Holy Bible is entirely truthful in its every detail (barring translation inadequacies, mannerisms of the writer, etc). Therefore, any mention of God, Jesus Christ as his avatar, the Virgin Mother, or any of the thousands of factual impossibilities present in the Bible as being truthful is automatically propaganda. I have attended probably a hundred+ religious meetings in my life, and these inaccuracies were systematically present to a degree or another. (In this context I think it is safe and in good faith to assume spreading faith is a goal. Religious organizations are political entities whose main way to gain power is to gain followers. It's literally their #1 goal at all times.)

Philosophy students presented with a Biblical parable would be analyzing the passage for its philosophical worth, not its historical or factual accuracy (no philosophy student believes Plato's cave or Lafontaine's animal race to have existed/occurred). Religion CAN be studied objectively. Just not in this case.


Education is not "by definition" irreconcilable with religious coursework. Even your cherrypicked definition of education fails to disagree here; you can acquire knowledge, develop reasoning and mature intellectually through religious coursework. Convenient that I didn't claim that, then, uh? Religious coursework can potentially be educational. I did state THAT. Might want to reread my last post.

Think about how your reasoning would apply to general education requirements. If I'm a diehard utilitarian and I'm required to take a Phil 101 class that has us study Kant, am I being abused and force fed propaganda counter to my ideals by my university? Please. I'm sympathetic to views of religion as often being negative, but again, it's nonsense to say a voluntarily chosen curriculum including religious study is abusive propaganda.

Utilitarianism is a philosophy. Kant is a philosopher. How can I be "wrong" or "right" by stating that happiness of the greatest number should come before happiness of the self? It is a moral judgement. There's a difference with religion, which contains philosophy but is not a philosophy, and therefore can be false.

That being said, the situation you describe could potentially be described as propaganda, if Kant was presented at the expense of every other philosopher and proclaimed as the only viable way of thinking (because that is obviously false/exaggerated).

Reply in red.
 
I'm pointing out your definition is grammatically incorrect. You can speak of misuse of an object as abuse; he abused his powers as president. When you speak of a person (or animal) being abused, it instead means repeated cruel treatment.

There are certainly many sects that proclaim literal interpretation, and many (in fact these days most) which do not. I have seen education happen in religious settings. Mandatory religious studies classes can absolutely cover the philosophical aspects of the text. You should know better than to speak in absolutes on personal/limited experience anyways.

You claimed all religious text is propaganda; not true unless you're a literalist. I'm merely pointing out that your second conclusion falls apart when that first one is taken out.

Most of the teachings of christ could be written entirely as a moral philosophy. Most religious education settings include teachings on other religions and on major non-biblical contributors to theology. You've got no grounds to make such an absolute claim as "all religious education, including voluntary, is abusive propaganda". You just don't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I'm pointing out your definition is grammatically incorrect. You can speak of misuse of an object as abuse; he abused his powers as president. When you speak of a person (or animal) being abused, it instead means repeated cruel treatment.

There are certainly many sects that proclaim literal interpretation, and many (in fact these days most) which do not. I have seen education happen in religious settings. Mandatory religious studies classes can absolutely cover the philosophical aspects of the text. You should know better than to speak in absolutes on personal/limited experience anyways.

You claimed all religious text is propaganda; not true unless you're a literalist. I'm merely pointing out that your second conclusion falls apart when that first one is taken out.

Most of the teachings of christ could be written entirely as a moral philosophy. Most religious education settings include teachings on other religions and on major non-biblical contributors to theology. You've got no grounds to make such an absolute claim as "all religious education, including voluntary, is abusive propaganda". You just don't.
Ya, behind you on this one. Doudline clearly has his own interpretation of what abuse and propaganda are. By his logic, voluntary education in literally any system of beliefs that excludes other theories is propaganda. o_O
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
What if OP actually converted to Wahabi Islam?!?

I think you've discovered the best spin here. "I couldn't attend chapel, they'd behead me."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Clearly, you have to address this issue. It isn't something that you can just not talk about and hope they ignore, but it seems like you realize that. Many strategies have been suggested for discussing this. My general thought is not to paint yourself like a victim. In any circumstance where there is anything bad on your application, you should never try to come off like a victim, it just doesn't look good. I'm not saying that you were ever intending to paint yourself as a victim, I'm just suggesting that you read anything you write on this matter very carefully and look specifically for anything that could come off as trying to play the victim card. I would suggest that you explain that you realize that it was not the right thing to do, and that you would do something different if you could go back and do it again. How exactly you do that is up to you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
This is also hard to spin positively. How can you learn from something you never went to? You feel bad that you got failing grades? That's not a ethically sound response.

As mentioned, you are also conveying: I'll take your money, but I won't do something you are giving me the money for.

You don't want to blame this on the school or talk negatively about any religion with. You knew what you signed up for and continued on that path.

The way I would handle this in that position, is to say I made several mistakes, overlooked a few aspects, and it won't happen from this point on. How you prove them these things is difficult but getting a recommender is one way. You'll need to show ADCOMS more than that though.

I would not take this situation lightly. You need to actively address this
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I say just suck it up and attend the chapel classes. I was in an international school for 7 years with mandatory chapel lead by some loon (made even the evangelist students cringe)... , so I understand where you are coming from.


Regardless of whether you transfer or not, you'll still have to send the transcript from all the unis to medical schools... they'll see the 7 Fs regardless. So you would have to explain it very well in your application as others have suggested.

This could run in your favor if you decide to attend chapel again (although, I'm not sure where you are in the application process). You could talk about how you struggled to accept the religious views at first but later learned to reconcile ideological differences. You can then talk about how the experience is applicable to your work as a physician working with a diverse community.

If you went back in time to redo all the Fs into an A, you wouldn't be able to tell a very interesting story.
 
Guys drop this. OP completely screwed up and won't acknowledge it at all. From his responses, it seems he was way too young for college anyway. You all have answered to him enough already.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Agnostic/atheist chiming in here.

I don't buy that you felt offended at these services. As an agnostic, I've been to services in all different faiths, and all of them have been welcoming of me despite my open skepticism of their beliefs. I've done my fair share of suffering through services, and I get that it's boring, but a responsible adult would have used this as an opportunity to learn something. You don't need to be part of a religion to learn something from it. From every religion I've studied, I've learned a great deal about how to treat myself and how to treat others. I've tuned out the drivel that I don't believe in and focused on the morals that are being taught. You could have done the same, but instead you chose to be lazy and skip. For seven semesters.

At the very least, you could have recognized that you were in a rough financial situation and been grateful for the opportunity to receive funding for your education. All you had to do was sit your ass in a bench for an hour each week. Instead, you took the money and didn't uphold your end of the deal. Nope, there's no positive way you can spin this. Accept that it was a mistake and own it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Agnostic/atheist chiming in here.

I don't buy that you felt offended at these services. As an agnostic, I've been to services in all different faiths, and all of them have been welcoming of me despite my open skepticism of their beliefs. I've done my fair share of suffering through services, and I get that it's boring, but a responsible adult would have used this as an opportunity to learn something. You don't need to be part of a religion to learn something from it. From every religion I've studied, I've learned a great deal about how to treat myself and how to treat others. I've tuned out the drivel that I don't believe in and focused on the morals that are being taught. You could have done the same, but instead you chose to be lazy and skip. For seven semesters.

At the very least, you could have recognized that you were in a rough financial situation and been grateful for the opportunity to receive funding for your education. All you had to do was sit your ass in a bench for an hour each week. Instead, you took the money and didn't uphold your end of the deal. Nope, there's no positive way you can spin this. Accept that it was a mistake and own it.
Where, in any of my posts, did I say I was offended by it? Why are you fabricating verbiage?
 
You took an F every semester because of your principles right? You protested because it offended your code in some way

fabricating verbiage

ah, I remember when I thought a thesaurus made my writing seem smarter. Misusing "verbiage" here is especially funny since doing so is itself verbose!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
but I decided it made me really spiritually uncomfortable to attend, so I took the hit and stopped going.
If anything I think the argument could be made that I was willing to forego an incentive in the form of a GPA boost to avoid compromising my spirituality.

Christ, you aren't even following your own logic anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
You've got no grounds to make such an absolute claim as "all religious education, including voluntary, is abusive propaganda".
Hey, what does probationary status mean? That you are close to being banned? Haha if so, I wouldn't post anymore in response to that guy. Additionally, just make sure to include punctuation inside of quotation marks ;)
 
Hey, what does probationary status mean? That you are close to being banned? Haha if so, I wouldn't post anymore in response to that guy. Additionally, just make sure to include punctuation inside of quotation marks ;)
I usually don't punctuate my final sentences at all it feels odd
 
Reiterating what the others have said, this reminds me of when I was watching one of those reality TV shows about misbehaved teens who live with a strict host family in order to better discipline them. I remember in one of the episodes, one of the kids was asked to mow the lawn.

The kid said, "I don't want to do this!"

the host father replied, "well, doing things that you don't want to do is part of growing up!"

but I guess also, OP you should have known when to pick and choose your battles

Any-who, as many have said before, luck to OP
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Hey, what does probationary status mean? That you are close to being banned? Haha if so, I wouldn't post anymore in response to that guy. Additionally, just make sure to include punctuation inside of quotation marks ;)
I don't know what it means I've gotten it several times and it's never been clear to me why I get sometimes and not others, or how thin the ice I'm on is
 
You took an F every semester because of your principles right? You protested because it offended your code in some way



ah, I remember when I thought a thesaurus made my writing seem smarter. Misusing "verbiage" here is especially funny since doing so is itself verbose!
Is that a big word for you? I chose verbiage because it is exactly the correct word to use in this situation.

Also: incorrect usage of verbose:
ver·bose
vərˈbōs/
adjective
  1. using or expressed in more words than are needed.
 
Top