F's on transcript due to missing chapel

[efle]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I have yet to see anyone explain the real-world value of them attending chapel. No one has even remotely addressed that.

Attending clearly would not have benefited OP, as they don't seem to feel aligned with that religious service.
It would not have demonstrated academic fitness.
It would not have improved the lives of others.
It was irrelevant academically, religiously, etc.
So what is it that we're so concerned that they skipped out on? Who cares if they aren't religious? As far as judgement goes, they got a good gpa at a great price.

It harms the school to spend a scholarship spot on someone with zero interest in their core values. But regardless as we've said already, it isn't about the credits or GPA or chapel, its about doing what you want vs what you've signed on for.

 

[mehc012]

The real world value is not having seven Fs on your transcript.

Believe it or not, schools do actually look at the transcript, not just the GPA that comes out of it. 7 consecutive Fs, regardless of credit hours, regardless of subject matter, is a red flag.

How big of one will depend entirely on how the OP handles the situation in his application essays and interviews.

I'm saying, what is the intrinsic value of them going to chapel? They don't learn anything, they don't contribute to anyone, OP doesn't seem to gain anything emotionally/religiously from it, and it does not demonstrate any aptitude or help them develop skills. Using their decision to attend or not to evaluate them for medical school admissions is ludicrous. I took a P/F course in juggling during my school's winter break...if I'd failed that, would it be a reason not to admit me to med school? No, because nobody cares if I know how to juggle.
Now, my school valued these P/F courses enough that my graduation was contingent on me passing all of them, so yeah...I learned how to gorram juggle, and I would be SOL for med school if I hadn't. OP's school could easily have done the same thing, but even they didn't place much weight on chapel attendance.

 

[philosonista]

Posing this as a "conflict" is a bit much. It's not like there was a student conduct hearing to which OP didn't show up. There is undoubtedly conflict in medicine. Is this is a conflict? That seems to be a bit much.

 

[mehc012]

It was obviously important to OP's school, so he's letting down his commitment to them.

Also, when I make commitments to myself, even if they don't impact anyone else, I always feel bad if I don't stick to it. At that point, it's a matter of self-discipline, which is important to me.

You don't seem to be getting the point here that mental attitude and how you approach conflict is way more relevant to whether you would be a good doctor than whether you made the best choice strictly as it pertains to your gpa.

If it were actually important to them, they would have assigned more than 0.5 credits to it.

 

[efle]

I'm saying, what is the intrinsic value of them going to chapel? They don't learn anything, they don't contribute to anyone, OP doesn't seem to gain anything emotionally/religiously from it, and it does not demonstrate any aptitude or help them develop skills. Using their decision to attend or not to evaluate them for medical school admissions is ludicrous. I took a P/F course in juggling during my school's winter break...if I'd failed that, would it be a reason not to admit me to med school? No, because nobody cares if I know how to juggle.
Now, my school valued these P/F courses enough that my graduation was contingent on me passing all of them, so yeah...I learned how to gorram juggle, and I would be SOL for med school if I hadn't. OP's school could easily have done the same thing, but even they didn't place much weight on chapel attendance.

There isn't an intrinsic value. It doesn't matter that it was chapel.

 

[mehc012]

It harms the school to spend a scholarship spot on someone with zero interest in their core values. But regardless as we've said already, it isn't about the credits or GPA or chapel, its about doing what you want vs what you've signed on for.

Then the school should reevaluate its scholarship policies. It would be easy for them to say 'any Fs and you lose a scholarship' or 'you must pass all of the xyz units' or even simply assign more credits to the school.

The school makes its policies based on its values. Who are we to reevaluate the importance of this activity to the school?

 

[Cotterpin]

If it were actually important to them, they would have assigned more than 0.5 credits to it.

They required it. They awarded the student seven F's.

I don't understand why you're so intent on justifying this.

 

[philosonista]

It harms the school to spend a scholarship spot on someone with zero interest in their core values. But regardless as we've said already, it isn't about the credits or GPA or chapel, its about doing what you want vs what you've signed on for.

OP's GPA is testament to his ability to do things he likely didn't want to do.

One could easily argue it's good for a school, or anywhere, to have non-religious folk around to diversify the student body.

 

[mehc012]

They required it. They awarded the student seven F's.

Yes...which had very little impact because they made it worth very little.

 

[Cotterpin]

Yes...which had very little impact because they made it worth very little.

Except for the impact where they are now trying to apply to med school with 7 F's on their transcript. Seriously, do you not get why that's a disadvantage?!

 

[Vespasian]

Yyyeah, you're beyond stretching things, sorry. This is a completely false analogue.

Speaking of a false analogue...

If I make a New Year's resolution to make a fingerpainting every day, and I quit after 3d, I have not honored my commitment, yet somehow I doubt anyone would care even if I told that anecdote at every interview.

I'm sorry you can't see how the two situations are analogous (comparable in certain respects), or how welching on a commitment is reflective of poor character and would give someone pause.

 

[philosonista]

What happens when that student decides there is no intrinsic value in their professionalism course in med school?

What happens when they decide there is no intrinsic value in going to outpatient peds clinic?



Why would they assign more than a half a credit hour to a weekly chapel attendance, which likely consumes a half an hour of time per week? That's kind of how credit hours work, no?

To me, it seems unfair to go that far. Why would OP think there is no value in such things? Many doctors wrongfully choose to not wash their hands before entering/exiting a patient room. Probably because they judged there was no value. Does that mean they saw no value in their professionalism course? No.

(As a side note, now many hospitals are instating checklists that require hand washing, and studies show that following these checklist improve patient outcomes. So, confidence in the value of hand washing restored!)

 

[mehc012]

Except for the impact where they are now trying to apply to med school with 7 F's on their transcript. Seriously, do you not get why that's a disadvantage?!

They're applying with 3.5 credits of F's on their transcript...that's a tiny amount.

What happens when that student decides there is no intrinsic value in their professionalism course in med school?

What happens when they decide there is no intrinsic value in going to outpatient peds clinic?



Why would they assign more than a half a credit hour to a weekly chapel attendance, which likely consumes a half an hour of time per week? That's kind of how credit hours work, no?

Sorry, as a science major I always took it as a given that credit hours have little to no correlation to actual weekly time commitment.

 

[mehc012]

Speaking of a false analogue...



I'm sorry you can't see how the two situations are analogous (comparable in certain respects), or how welching on a commitment is reflective of poor character and would give someone pause.

In this case, I judge the school's character far more harshly for requiring something this ridiculous than the student's for skipping out. It's not a real commitment.

Sorry, you have to look at what was expected and what OP actually 'fell short' (or chose to 'welch') on. In this case, the initial conditions were screwy, so I really dgaf either way if OP followed through. Things change.

 

[philosonista]

Except for the impact where they are now trying to apply to med school with 7 F's on their transcript. Seriously, do you not get why that's a disadvantage?!

Of course it looks bad.

But if I were an ADCOM and I heard why OP chose to do it, I would think differently.

OP has set himself up to explain and be at the whims of the subjectivity of the ADCOM.

Yes, bad move. No denying it.

 

[philosonista]

Those were just two randomly chosen examples.

The best predictor we have of future behavior is past behavior. The OP has a history of blowing off a rather minor requirement that he didn't want to do for 3 years. Not many other applicants have that history



As an aside, you should read more about the actual impact of this, rather than the gawande propaganda.

Many applicants have records of blowing off homework/studying/etc for a slightly lower GPA.

Had to Google him. Didn't get this from Gawande. Yes, luckily, residents are more informed than I am.

 

[mehc012]

Of course it looks bad.

But if I were an ADCOM and I heard why OP chose to do it, I would think differently.

OP has set himself up to explain and be at the whims of the subjectivity of the ADCOM.

Yes, bad move. No denying it.

Exactly. It's not the initial reaction to 7 Fs that's bugging me. It's the reaction to the explanation.

 

[Cotterpin]

They're applying with 3.5 credits of F's on their transcript...that's a tiny amount.

So... no. You don't get it.

 

[nwts]

OP has set himself up to explain and be at the whims of the subjectivity of the ADCOM.

Yes, bad move. No denying it.

I think this is at the heart of the matter. It seems from the comments of the adcoms who have commented on this thread that most adcoms would view this negatively. It really doesn't matter what any of us think of this, that's just the way it is. If OP had asked around prior to skipping chapel and receiving the F's, many people probably would have told him/her that many adcoms would not look kindly on it. There are a lot of things in this process that some people think aren't fair (expectation of volunteer service, the value placed on racial diversity, etc.), but it doesn't matter whether any of us think those things are right or wrong because nothing we think on these matters will have any impact on how adcoms think.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that being viewed as a person who blows off commitments by some adcoms is a consequence of this action. The OP probably could have found that out before doing it if he/she wanted. It doesn't matter whether we all think it is right or wrong that this is a consequence, it is. When OP made the decision to accept the F's, he/she should have considered this to be one of the consequences along with the hit to his/her GPA because it IS one of the consequences. I know this does him/her no good now, but it is important for people in the future faced with similar choices to realize that they should view this as a consequence of their actions even if they think it's unfair.

 

[philosonista]

We're looking at this from the perspective of an adcom. We don't always get insight into people's poor decision making. When we do though things like IAs, arrests, or in this case a series of failures in the same course requirement, it creates a red flag.

A red flag indeed. If OP doesn't have an explanation for it in his primary or secondary, I could see many ADCOM's throwing out his app. Plenty of apps. Plenty of reason to throw out the red flags.

But when we're debating now we have the luxury of knowing all the details.

 

[Vespasian]

I don't see how any of this is particularly confusing...

As an ad-com you have to make a judgement on whether someone will succeed in medical school. The only thing you can base your judgement on is past behavior, previous academic performance, MCAT score, EC's, and LoRs.

Will you be able to handle the rigorous courseload? GPA and MCAT can speak to this.
Do you have a realistic appreciation of what lays ahead of you? Volunteer work and shadowing can speak to this.
Do you have the commitment and maturity required? Past behavior can speak to this.

If we look at OP's past behavior we have a verifiable record of something- OP committed to a class schedule at a Christian university which included going to chapel, OP decided not to fulfill that commitment and stopped going to class. OP did NOTHING about the situation, that raises a redflag regarding maturity and commitment. This reflects negatively on OP. If OP had committed to being the treasurer of the school's basket-weaving club and just stopped going to club meetings and dipped out without finding a replacement it would raise similar redflags- a lack of maturity and commitment. Take out the religious component and all the contention goes away.

 

[philosonista]

I think this is at the heart of the matter. It seems from the comments of the adcoms who have commented on this thread that most adcoms would view this negatively. It really doesn't matter what any of us think of this, that's just the way it is. If OP had asked around prior to skipping chapel and receiving the F's, many people probably would have told him/her that many adcoms would not look kindly on it. There are a lot of things in this process that some people think aren't fair (expectation of volunteer service, the value placed on racial diversity, etc.), but it doesn't matter whether any of us think those things are right or wrong because nothing we think on these matters will have any impact on how adcoms think.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that being viewed as a person who blows off commitments by some adcoms is a consequence of this action. The OP probably could have found that out before doing it if he/she wanted. It doesn't matter whether we all think it is right or wrong that this is a consequence, it is. When OP made the decision to accept the F's, he/she should have considered this to be one of the consequences along with the hit to his/her GPA because it IS one of the consequences. I know this does him/her no good now, but it is important for people in the future faced with similar choices to realize that they should view this as a consequence of their actions even if they think it's unfair.

Yeah. SDN confuses itself for a machine that has to justify the system many times, egged on my the nastiness anonymity allows.

It sucks for OP. It was a bad move. I will continue to grind my teeth doing things I don't want see the value in doing for the sake of appearances. Such is the life of a successful pre-med.

 

[Cotterpin]

It's not just being a premed. That's what life is like.

 

[mehc012]

I think this is at the heart of the matter. It seems from the comments of the adcoms who have commented on this thread that most adcoms would view this negatively. It really doesn't matter what any of us think of this, that's just the way it is. If OP had asked around prior to skipping chapel and receiving the F's, many people probably would have told him/her that many adcoms would not look kindly on it. There are a lot of things in this process that some people think aren't fair (expectation of volunteer service, the value placed on racial diversity, etc.), but it doesn't matter whether any of us think those things are right or wrong because nothing we think on these matters will have any impact on how adcoms think.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that being viewed as a person who blows off commitments by some adcoms is a consequence of this action. The OP probably could have found that out before doing it if he/she wanted. It doesn't matter whether we all think it is right or wrong that this is a consequence, it is. When OP made the decision to accept the F's, he/she should have considered this to be one of the consequences along with the hit to his/her GPA because it IS one of the consequences. I know this does him/her no good now, but it is important for people in the future faced with similar choices to realize that they should view this as a consequence of their actions even if they think it's unfair.

Yeah, well just because I appreciate the adcoms' contributions on here and recognize that their opinions are the most similar to how apps will be viewed during the cycle doesn't mean I think they are actually correct all of the time.

There are many, many areas where I feel that the 'overall' adcom stance* is, at a minimum, problematic. I'm not debating how this will be viewed - as you say, that is the way it is and we cannot change that. However, that doesn't mean I can't argue over how it should be viewed.

*recognizing that this is a general, subjective average based on SDN responses, and that individual adcoms have widely varying opinions, most of which are probably not reflected on this site.

 

[mehc012]

If OP had committed to being the treasurer of the school's basket-weaving club and just stopped going to club meetings and dipped out without finding a replacement it would raise similar redflags- a lack of maturity and commitment. Take out the religious component and all the contention goes away.

See, I highly doubt that.
I see the two as highly similar - probably the best parallel that has yet been raised in the thread, lol - but I would bet you hundreds of dollars that the reaction would not be anywhere near as harsh in the above scenario. That is really what bugs me the most. It's a school deciding that basketweaving club matters and adcoms going "oh, OK yeah" instead of giving it the same weight they would otherwise.

 

[Vespasian]

See, I highly doubt that.
I see the two as highly similar - probably the best parallel that has yet been raised in the thread, lol - but I would bet you hundreds of dollars that the reaction would not be anywhere near as harsh in the above scenario. That is really what bugs me the most. It's a school deciding that basketweaving club matters and adcoms going "oh, OK yeah" instead of giving it the same weight they would otherwise.

Up and quitting after committing to something would definitely demonstrate a lack of commitment and maturity. Would it be weighed as heavily as OP's situation? No. One situation is graded and, whether it should be or not, considered to be a class, the other is something you elected to do in your free time.

 

[Mad Jack]

I miss Dave as much as the next guy. Never got an F on my transcript for it though.

 

[Affiche]

A few things:

1. My o-chem lab was 1 lousy credit, yet it's one of the core courses that will be looked at when I apply (same as physics lab and gen chem lab). Credit amount=\= importance or value.
2. 3.5 credits might not be a large hit on a cumulative gpa, but 7 F's is. A mature student would have recognized the cost of ditching and figured out an alternative solution. To me, sitting in the back of a chapel is less painful than 7 F's on my record. OP obviously disagreed and is now scrambling because the cost wasn't just 7 F's, it was potentially not getting into medical school.
3. I strongly believe this was a case of laziness and not inherently different beliefs. As others have said, OP did nothing to stick true to her beliefs (seeking an alternative spiritual project, seeking a waiver etc) but ditched out of apathy of the consequences. The only reason this thread started is because now that the consequences have snowballed the OP is no longer apathetic and is looking for a positive way to spin this despicable display of character.

 

[Affiche]

I'm sorry but allowing yourself to have 7 F's is, quite frankly, stupid. Even if it's in basket weaving. I can see why a chronic case of stupidity wouldn't bode well.

 

[mehc012]

OP did nothing to stick true to her beliefs (seeking an alternative spiritual project, seeking a waiver etc) but ditched out of apathy of the consequences.

This, I highly, highly, strongly disagree with. Some people's true beliefs ARE nothing. If you tried to make me do any spiritual project, I would walk out on you. If there was a penalty for it, so be it. And yeah, maybe they were apathetic to getting a poor grade on something that they absolutely did not care about, that would be absolutely useless to them in the future. Why wouldn't they be? It is a worthless grade that reflects nothing of importance. What better time for apathy?

 

[osckey]

That might be worth mentioning in the "Anything else you want to tell us" prompt of the secondary.

I suggest that you don't apply to Loma Linda or LUCOM.

Goro, don't forget about Campbell. Campbell's religious background is kind of one of the reasons I'd like to go there myself.

 

[Affiche]

This, I highly, highly, strongly disagree with. Some people's true beliefs ARE nothing. If you tried to make me do any spiritual project, I would walk out on you. If there was a penalty for it, so be it. And yeah, maybe they were apathetic to getting a poor grade on something that they absolutely did not care about, that would be absolutely useless to them in the future. Why wouldn't they be? It is a worthless grade that reflects nothing of importance. What better time for apathy?

Spiritual =/= religious, but my point was that if the OP really felt strongly, she could have sought out another independent project. She didn't. She didn't do anything, thus I perceive this moral obligation to ditch as insincere and lazy. But, that's just my opinion.

It's obviously not a worthless grade if it's potentially keeping her out of medical school lol. I get that you think chapel is worthless, generally I do as well, but that doesn't excuse apathy towards one's academic record. Personally, I think the women's studies class I had to take to fulfill a BS requirement was worthless and made me uncomfortable, but I did what was required of me to get a respectable grade. Hell, I thought 90% of physics was pretty effing useless, too. Does that mean my laziness in the class should be excused? Nope. If you choose to be apathetic towards your academic record, then don't be surprised when it isn't received well.

I think what bothers me the most about the OP ditching for 7 semesters is 1. she thought herself above a requirement and 2. she comes off as close-minded. From her reasoning, I strongly get the impression that she has no interest in culturing herself or ever experiencing things outside of her comfort zone. For someone trying to get into a career that requires interacting with people from all walks of life, this doesn't portray her as a particularly promising candidate. There are plenty of applicants that have sucked it up, immersed themselves in cultures and religions outside of their own and walked away with increased knowledge and an improved perspective. Personally, I prefer the mature, cultured candidate over the lazy, how-can-I-spin-this one, and I'll leave it at that.

 

[WingedOx]

We often see things through a different lens.

Like a magnifying glass torching an insect under the summer sun.

 

[Affiche]

Lol one more thing:

Usually this forum makes me ultra nervous about my own chance of admission, what with everyone under the sun having a 37+ and all, but then I read some of these threads and think, ''well, at least I didn't forge my professor's signature, get busted for drugs or fail seven classes''. So I guess thanks for that, OP!

 

[Goro]

Rachie, YOU will do just fine!

Lol one more thing:

Usually this forum makes me ultra nervous about my own chance of admission, what with everyone under the sun having a 37+ and all, but then I read some of these threads and think, ''well, at least I didn't forge my professor's signature, get busted for drugs or fail seven classes''. So I guess thanks for that, OP!

 

[mehc012]

From her reasoning, I strongly get the impression that she has no interest in culturing herself or ever experiencing things outside of her comfort zone. For someone trying to get into a career that requires interacting with people from all walks of life, this doesn't portray her as a particularly promising candidate. There are plenty of applicants that have sucked it up, immersed themselves in cultures and religions outside of their own and walked away with increased knowledge and an improved perspective. Personally, I prefer the mature, cultured candidate over the lazy, how-can-I-spin-this one, and I'll leave it at that.

They did experience it...for a semester. Then they made their decision. That seems like giving it a reasonable shake to me.

And yes, I am aware that spiritual ≠ religious...that changes nothing about what I said above. I meant spiritual when I said it.

Clearly, the better option would have been to find a way to avoid the Fs. But if someone with a string of Fs from 'I used to be young and irresponsible' would get reasonable looks, I find it ridiculous that a string of Fs from "I abstained from a religious experience I found uncomfortable" would not.

 

[WingedOx]

That's great for you guys that it doesn't make you feel uncomfortable. For some people, it really does. I would rather be punched in the face repeatedly every Sunday morning than attend services. I have gone, on occasion, when asked by a friend, when asked "in order to really see what it is about," and for special events such as weddings. But dedicated, consistent attendance? *shudder*

OP did attend his first semester. Maybe they thought that, like you guys, it was no big deal for them...and after a semester they found themselves unable to continue attending. At that point, one of the options available to them was to cede 0.1 grade points to mitigate that discomfort. The list of other options is probably infinite, but there are pros and cons to all of them - losing scholarship money, losing a year of time, losing the friends/structure they had set up in their first year, etc. Perhaps each one of us would have made a different choice in that situation, but I am still not seeing anything inherently wrong with the one that OP made. They asked for no special treatment by the school, and their choice did not hurt any other people. So why the hell does anyone even care?

Oh Jesus Christ...

Reading stuff like this about the current generation of college students make me start to think that Vox article that was flying around social media last month wasn't hyperbole.

The entire point of a liberal education is to be exposed to ideas you aren't comfortable with. Said ideas aren't going to come at your apologizing for their existence. In many cases they're going to be in your face and preached at you. It's up to you to get the f-ck over your discomfort, sit and listen to their ideas, understand their reasons behind them, and come to your own conclusions about why they're right or wrong. College isn't for you to be f-cking coddled and rewarded for the opinions and ideas you come into the door with. It's for those ideas to be challenged.

But oh, god forbid a future physician ever be made "uncomfortable" by someone's ideas or opinions! Hateful or wrong as they may be, they exist, and will continue to exist from everyone from your superiors to your patients. You're expected to react to them appropriately and maturely.

Seriously, I'm barely into my 30s, but I'm having trouble resisting the urge to go on a screed about today's generation... special snowflake...millennials....grumble grumble...

 

[mehc012]

Oh Jesus Christ...

Reading stuff like this about the current generation of college students make me start to think that Vox article that was flying around social media last month wasn't hyperbole.

The entire point of a liberal education is to be exposed to ideas you aren't comfortable with. Said ideas aren't going to come at your apologizing for their existence. In many cases they're going to be in your face and preached at you. It's up to you to get the f-ck over your discomfort, sit and listen to their ideas, understand their reasons behind them, and come to your own conclusions about why they're right or wrong. College isn't for you to be f-cking coddled and rewarded for the opinions and ideas you come into the door with. It's for those ideas to be challenged.

But oh, god forbid a future physician ever be made "uncomfortable" by someone's ideas or opinions! Hateful or wrong as they may be, they exist, and will continue to exist from everyone to your superiors to your patients.

Seriously, I'm barely into my 30s, but I'm having trouble resisting the urge to go on a screed about today's generation... special snowflake...millennials....grumble grumble...

I'm fine being exposed to things I'm uncomfortable with. I enjoy travelling dirt cheap to new places with no plans, doing whatever the locals recommend, and figuring stuff out on the fly. I don't flip out over trigger warnings or stick to my 4 favorite foods. Hell, I'm moving to a different country for 6mo next year just because it is something I'm uncomfortable with, but which I think will be a really valuable perspective for me (not to mention it will help me become actually fluent in Spanish, which I have come to realize can make a HUGE difference in quality of care for a lot of patients in the US.) I'm fine learning about religions that I don't like when it provides a useful perspective - I read the entire Bible and listened to some sermons in order to properly discuss my stance with a friend who thought I was simply uneducated on the subject (in all fairness, I was at first). I have spiritual discussions with people when they need it and it helps them. However, it does still make me uncomfortable, and when the end result is simply 'checks a bureaucratic box' rather than 'helps someone' or 'enhances my perspective', I see no reason for me to participate.

I never said that nobody should ever experience things they're uncomfortable with, I said that this experience was not valuable to OP (it was not a new perspective to them, they already faced it, learned from it, and knew their opinion on it) and it was uncomfortable, so I don't judge them for ditching it.

 

[Cotterpin]

Seriously, I'm barely into my 30s, but I'm having trouble resisting the urge to go on a screed about today's generation... special snowflake...millennials....grumble grumble...

I'm sorry to tell you this, but technically, you are also a millennial. I know it doesn't feel like it makes any sense.

 

[Holmwood]

@Cotterpin is right I guess http://thesocietypages.org/graphics...ho-is-the-millennial-generation-pew-research/

Though, I wouldn't say these are very hard cutoffs. I know of a couple people in their 30s who act more like millenials as a product of coddling parenting styles.

 

[nwts]

Yeah, well just because I appreciate the adcoms' contributions on here and recognize that their opinions are the most similar to how apps will be viewed during the cycle doesn't mean I think they are actually correct all of the time.

There are many, many areas where I feel that the 'overall' adcom stance* is, at a minimum, problematic. I'm not debating how this will be viewed - as you say, that is the way it is and we cannot change that. However, that doesn't mean I can't argue over how it should be viewed.

*recognizing that this is a general, subjective average based on SDN responses, and that individual adcoms have widely varying opinions, most of which are probably not reflected on this site.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that people should not have opinions about the expectations of applicants in this process. You are certainly within your rights to disagree with the philosophy of adcoms in how they view this sort of thing, just as any person is within his/her rights to disagree with the philosophy of adcoms in how they view any part of people's applications. My point in that post was that people have seemed to indicate that OP should shade his/her way of handling this issue based on how they viewed OP's actions. That is just, frankly, terrible advice. The OP should respond to how his/her actions actually will be viewed by adcoms, not how any of us think they should be viewed by adcoms.

I certainly do not mean to tell you or anyone that they are not entitled to have opinions that disagree with those of adcoms. I was just trying to emphasize that when it comes to making the actual decision about how to handle these situations, everyone should base their actions off of what will happen, not what they think should happen. It seems all too common (and I'm not just talking about SDN) that people want to act on what they think the world should be like, not what the world is actually like. This only harms the person taking the actions.

 

[mehc012]

I'm sorry to tell you this, but technically, you are also a millennial. I know it doesn't feel like it makes any sense.

Those generations are so wide! It seems bizarre to me that according to that, there could commonly be parents/children in the same generation.

 

[Cotterpin]

Yeah, it's completely weird. I guess it all depends on how you want to define generations. If you look at it strictly from an estimation of how long it takes the previous generation to come of age and start having their own kids, then a 22-year span makes sense. But if you're trying to say that generations all have these unifying qualities (e.g. millennials are "special snowflakes"), then you're not really talking about the same thing. That's like... the zeitgeist or something. And if you want to make a real distinction between "kids today" and older generations, then I think it makes more sense to put the dividing line somewhere in the 90's and say that kids who grew up after the advent of The Internet are fundamentally different in some way.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

@Cotterpin is right I guess http://thesocietypages.org/graphics...ho-is-the-millennial-generation-pew-research/

Though, I wouldn't say these are very hard cutoffs. I know of a couple people in their 30s who act more like millenials as a product of coddling parenting styles.

You're a Gen Xer if you remember when Axl Rose was beefing with Kurt Cobain, even if you were only 7 at the time.

 

[mk04447]

You're a Gen Xer if you remember when Axl Rose was beefing with Kurt Cobain, even if you were only 7 at the time.

You're blurring gen Y and X. Gen Y started selling their souls. You're only a gen Xer if you routinely insult anyone younger.

 

[Cotterpin]

I would have hoped Gen Xers would be more mature than that by now. 🙄

Gen Y and Millenials are the same thing.

 

[mk04447]

I would have hoped Gen Xers would be more mature than that by now. 🙄

Gen Y and Millenials are the same thing.

Honesty is maturity. In fact, the truth is what's missing from society today.

 

[Cotterpin]

HEAVY SIGH.

 

[mk04447]

HEAVY SIGH.

Desensitivity training lesson one. You've done we'll.

 

[emraldragon]

This, I highly, highly, strongly disagree with. Some people's true beliefs ARE nothing. If you tried to make me do any spiritual project, I would walk out on you. If there was a penalty for it, so be it. And yeah, maybe they were apathetic to getting a poor grade on something that they absolutely did not care about, that would be absolutely useless to them in the future. Why wouldn't they be? It is a worthless grade that reflects nothing of importance. What better time for apathy?

What will you do when a patient asks you to pray with them? Walk out and tell them you don't believe in prayer?