Is science a fad?

Discover Your Odds of Getting into Medical School
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
sinuous sausage

sinuous sausage

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
535
Reaction score
24
Members do not see this ad.
I know, I know, I need to slow my roll. But, in all seriousness, might science be overrated? I've always had a philosophical problem with no one ever adequately demarcating what exactly science is, but still people incessantly appeal to it and usually for some personal or political ends. I've had my first brush with real-world science in the past year by doing biomedical research, and lemme tell you in my experience it's nothing like the stoic, rational process portrayed in the popular media. There's a lot of freneticism, waste, and panic, so articles like the one below don't really surprise me. Science's esteemed place in society is relatively newfound, and if it increasingly comes to light that many scientists are nothing more than career opportunists, how would that be different than any other exploitative enterprise--purporting to parse reality--that has fizzled out over the centuries? The concept of science would be stillborn in the public eye before people even got around to clarifying what it really is.

http://nyti.ms/QTZzAK

Anyway, I imagine many in this hallowed forum are of a skeptical bent, and would popularly be considered "scientific," but do any of you have personal grievances towards how the scientific method is typically perceived? and how serious do you think stories like this one really are?
 
You're using a computer, which required many decades of scientific discovery to arrive at the size of a laptop, to post an article describing how science is "just cool."

Bridges, buildings, crops, medicine, etc... all have benefited from the scientific method, as people demand more of science in order to solve everyday problems. Science has been a fad since... probably Babylon.

I don't mean to sound rude here, but I think you're fighting an uphill battle with this argument.

Or I've been trolled.
 
sinuous sausage said:
I know, I know, I need to slow my roll. But, in all seriousness, might science be overrated? I've always had a philosophical problem with no one ever adequately demarcating what exactly science is, but still people incessantly appeal to it and usually for some personal or political ends. I've had my first brush with real-world science in the past year by doing biomedical research, and lemme tell you in my experience it's nothing like the stoic, rational process portrayed in the popular media. There's a lot of freneticism, waste, and panic, so articles like the one below don't really surprise me. Science's esteemed place in society is relatively newfound, and if it increasingly comes to light that many scientists are nothing more than career opportunists, how would that be different than any other exploitative enterprise--purporting to parse reality--that has fizzled out over the centuries? The concept of science would be stillborn in the public eye before people even got around to clarifying what it really is.

http://nyti.ms/QTZzAK

Anyway, I imagine many in this hallowed forum are of a skeptical bent, and would popularly be considered "scientific," but do any of you have personal grievances towards how the scientific method is typically perceived? and how serious do you think stories like this one really are?
Click to expand...

The question isn't whether the scientific method is perfect. It's about what a superior alternative might be if your goal is to uncover more facts about the natural world.
 
I don't know what is your point, the scientific method has been used since the ancient times. It might be far from perfect, but it allows for a systematic and logical understanding of our surroundings. Men are corrupt and that influences human endeavors many times, that is just the way it is although it shouldn't.
 
ShenanigansMD said:
You're using a computer, which required many decades of scientific discovery to arrive at the size of a laptop, to post an article describing how science is "just cool."

Bridges, buildings, crops, medicine, etc... all have benefited from the scientific method, as people demand more of science in order to solve everyday problems. Science has been a fad since... probably Babylon.

I don't mean to sound rude here, but I think you're fighting an uphill battle with this argument.

Or I've been trolled.
Click to expand...

How is that rude?

Scientific method? WHAT IS THAT.

Also, was it really "science" we were using all that time, or is some other wizardry at play? Is there actually no method at all, where any knowledge we have is happenstance, and scientists are just great poseurs.

I suppose I'm wanting to see if anyone else thinks this somber "scientific method" talk is simply blather, and that what we're doing in actuality is only watching some other force of nature throw spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. Science is more like intuitive anarchy but instead, for economic or political reasons, someone got the bright idea to package it off as some respectable, stuff-shirted, irreproachable truth barometer.
 
Venom5 said:
Hooray time for a philosophical discussion on science
Click to expand...

Sorry.

:: ahem ::

OMG! It's October 1 and I've only received interview invites from nine schools! 🙁

Here's my stats:

34C, 5'4", 125 lbs, 31 MCAT (should I retake?!?!) help!

Also, I've got pretty good ECs and my teacher wrote me a wonderful LOR!!! I worked in lab and stuff.

Time to give up?!?!

Should I withdraw?!? Or maybe look at DO?

Will someone look at my PS? That has to be my weakness! Gap year to write a better one, fosho!
 
sinuous sausage said:
Sorry.

:: ahem ::

OMG! It's October 1 and I've only received interview invites from nine schools! 🙁

Here's my stats:

34C, 5'4", 125 lbs, 31 MCAT (should I retake?!?!) help!

Also, I've got pretty good ECs and my teacher wrote me a wonderful LOR!!! I worked in lab and stuff.

Time to give up?!?!

Should I withdraw?!? Or maybe look at DO?

Will someone look at my PS? That has to be my weakness! Gap year to write a better one, fosho!
Click to expand...

That 34C is the only thing keeping your application alive.


Sent from my iPad using SDN Mobile app.
 
sinuous sausage said:
How is that rude?

Scientific method? WHAT IS THAT.

Also, was it really "science" we were using all that time, or is some other wizardry at play? Is there actually no method at all, where any knowledge we have is happenstance, and scientists are just great poseurs.

I suppose I'm wanting to see if anyone else thinks this somber "scientific method" talk is simply blather, and that what we're doing in actuality is only watching some other force of nature throw spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. Science is more like intuitive anarchy but instead, for economic or political reasons, someone got the bright idea to package it off as some respectable, stuff-shirted, irreproachable truth barometer.
Click to expand...
Nah. What is called science is often twisted into pseudoscience, often by the popular media but sometimes by the researchers themselves, but that is a problem with people, who will always be imperfect. The scientific method will work for specific, focused questions; it isn't a checklist that will give you the answer to life, the universe and everything. The universe is infinitely complex (or at least effectively so to our mental abilities) but nothing gives us better tools to discover facts and "truths" about it. Yes, science is often corrupted since it is done by people. Point out a system which is NOT subject to corruption. Or, if you think science is fatally flawed, what is your alternative?

Flaws with the scientific method are more a result of the fact that humans are not and never will be perfect. Your "spaghetti at the wall" analogy is actually pretty good, but you believing that negates science is where your apparent misunderstanding comes in. Science does not require you to be the force that throws the spaghetti at the wall,(in fact, you learn more about nature and the natural world by not altering a system more than you have to) but what you do with the information about what sticks is where the science comes in. The scientific method relies on people saying "i think x happened because of y. I will change z and see if the results are the same. Anyone else doing this in the same way should get the same results as I do." All the rest relies on "planets control our destiny because the moon calls the water" or "that child was born with Downs because his mother is a witch and needs to be burned" or "homeopathy works because water has memory, but you have to BELIEVE in it for it to work for you."

Obviously science, when done by people, can fall into the same fallacies, but the method itself is not the main problem, the people doing it are.
 
Lokhtar said:
The question isn't whether the scientific method is perfect. It's about what a superior alternative might be if your goal is to uncover more facts about the natural world.
Click to expand...

I sympathize with this^ POV, but many scientists want to push the notion that the scientific method is perfect. I imagine they believe it gives their opinions outsized influence in the public sphere. But some part of me balks at appealing to a flawed method--a flawed method that no one can really define--to answer questions of meaning, mortality, God, love, consciousness, etc., especially because people of power increasingly do it in this day and age. I dunno how intentionally you added "natural world" in there, but its inclusion is important, as methinks it takes real chutzpah to appeal to this methodology for much anything else. Still, what is this methodology? Ladies and blokes in white coats start tossing around terms like "pseudoscientific" when some renegade group decides to go off-script, but does that term actually mean anything? Don't you have to define what is "scientific" before calling something else its facsimile? Something like astrology or homeopathic medicine, for instance--you and I know they don't sufficiently account for material reality, but what is it that makes astronomy or allopathic medicine superior? Is it really a method? Or do things seemingly and serendipitously just happen and we go back to revise the history later?

I've just had this feeling lately that science is in a bit of an emperor-with-no-clothes situation.
 
sinuous sausage said:
I sympathize with this^ POV, but many scientists want to push the notion that the scientific method is perfect. I imagine they believe it gives their opinions outsized influence in the public sphere. But some part of me balks at appealing to a flawed method--a flawed method that no one can really define--to answer questions of meaning, mortality, God, love, consciousness, etc., especially because people of power increasingly do it in this day and age. I dunno how intentionally you added "natural world" in there, but its inclusion is important, as methinks it takes real chutzpah to appeal to this methodology for much anything else. Still, what is this methodology? Ladies and blokes in white coats start tossing around terms like "pseudoscientific" when some renegade group decides to go off-script, but does that term actually mean anything? Don't you have to define what is "scientific" before calling something else its facsimile? Something like astrology or homeopathic medicine, for instance--you and I know they don't sufficiently account for material reality, but what is it that makes astronomy or allopathic medicine superior? Is it really a method? Or do things seemingly and serendipitously just happen and we go back to revise the history later?

I've just had this feeling lately that science is in a bit of an emperor-with-no-clothes situation.
Click to expand...

Oh! I love your Emperor's New Clothes reference.
 
sinuous sausage said:
Sorry.

:: ahem ::

OMG! It's October 1 and I've only received interview invites from nine schools! 🙁

Here's my stats:

34C, 5'4", 125 lbs, 31 MCAT (should I retake?!?!) help!

Also, I've got pretty good ECs and my teacher wrote me a wonderful LOR!!! I worked in lab and stuff.

Time to give up?!?!

Should I withdraw?!? Or maybe look at DO?

Will someone look at my PS? That has to be my weakness! Gap year to write a better one, fosho!
Click to expand...

I lawled 😀
 
sinuous sausage said:
How is that rude?

Scientific method? WHAT IS THAT.

Also, was it really "science" we were using all that time, or is some other wizardry at play? Is there actually no method at all, where any knowledge we have is happenstance, and scientists are just great poseurs.

I suppose I'm wanting to see if anyone else thinks this somber "scientific method" talk is simply blather, and that what we're doing in actuality is only watching some other force of nature throw spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. Science is more like intuitive anarchy but instead, for economic or political reasons, someone got the bright idea to package it off as some respectable, stuff-shirted, irreproachable truth barometer.
Click to expand...

Definitely a troll, simply by asking the definition of scientific method.
 
sinuous sausage said:
I know, I know, I need to slow my roll. But, in all seriousness, might science be overrated? I've always had a philosophical problem with no one ever adequately demarcating what exactly science is, but still people incessantly appeal to it and usually for some personal or political ends. I've had my first brush with real-world science in the past year by doing biomedical research, and lemme tell you in my experience it's nothing like the stoic, rational process portrayed in the popular media. There's a lot of freneticism, waste, and panic, so articles like the one below don't really surprise me. Science's esteemed place in society is relatively newfound, and if it increasingly comes to light that many scientists are nothing more than career opportunists, how would that be different than any other exploitative enterprise--purporting to parse reality--that has fizzled out over the centuries? The concept of science would be stillborn in the public eye before people even got around to clarifying what it really is.

http://nyti.ms/QTZzAK

Anyway, I imagine many in this hallowed forum are of a skeptical bent, and would popularly be considered "scientific," but do any of you have personal grievances towards how the scientific method is typically perceived? and how serious do you think stories like this one really are?
Click to expand...

"What Science is" has been clearly demarcated for centuries. Just because some people bastardize it doesn't mean the lines are actually blurred
 
sinuous sausage said:
Sorry.

:: ahem ::

OMG! It's October 1 and I've only received interview invites from nine schools! 🙁

Here's my stats:

34C, 5'4", 125 lbs, 31 MCAT (should I retake?!?!) help!

Also, I've got pretty good ECs and my teacher wrote me a wonderful LOR!!! I worked in lab and stuff.

Time to give up?!?!

Should I withdraw?!? Or maybe look at DO?

Will someone look at my PS? That has to be my weakness! Gap year to write a better one, fosho!
Click to expand...

Troll confirmed.
 
An alarming increase in the number of retractions of scientific papers — a tenfold rise in the previous decade, to more than 300 a year across the scientific literature.
Click to expand...

300 a year when 70,000k a year are being published. It's the end of the world!
 
The evidence you linked are from scientific journals which use the scientific method (duh).

Now, to be logically consistent

A) You are linking to scientific articles as your evidence, because you actually believe that science is useful and essential. And by that process, undermining your exact point that science is overrated and a fad.

or

B) You just don't understand science. You don't realize that corrections and retractions are part of the scientific method, that refining the method is part of the method. You don't understand that posting scientific journals to that extend actually proves the very nature of science.
 
pkwraith said:
The evidence you linked are from scientific journals which use the scientific method (duh).

Now, to be logically consistent

A) You are linking to scientific articles as your evidence, because you actually believe that science is useful and essential. And by that process, undermining your exact point that science is overrated and a fad.

or

B) You just don't understand science. You don't realize that corrections and retractions are part of the scientific method, that refining the method is part of the method. You don't understand that posting scientific journals to that extend actually proves the very nature of science.
Click to expand...

we had a lecturer once who was talking to us about how research can be biased and how you can't automatically trust every primary resource you see.

He defended his position with a series of papers which demonstrated this :laugh:
 
wjs010 said:
Toasting in roll bread
Click to expand...

24738838.jpg



This is quickly becoming as irritating as "FIRST!!!11!!oneELEVEN!!" across the internetz.
 
sinuous sausage said:
I know, I know, I need to slow my roll. But, in all seriousness, might science be overrated? I've always had a philosophical problem with no one ever adequately demarcating what exactly science is, but still people incessantly appeal to it and usually for some personal or political ends. I've had my first brush with real-world science in the past year by doing biomedical research, and lemme tell you in my experience it's nothing like the stoic, rational process portrayed in the popular media. There's a lot of freneticism, waste, and panic, so articles like the one below don't really surprise me. Science's esteemed place in society is relatively newfound, and if it increasingly comes to light that many scientists are nothing more than career opportunists, how would that be different than any other exploitative enterprise--purporting to parse reality--that has fizzled out over the centuries? The concept of science would be stillborn in the public eye before people even got around to clarifying what it really is.

http://nyti.ms/QTZzAK

Anyway, I imagine many in this hallowed forum are of a skeptical bent, and would popularly be considered "scientific," but do any of you have personal grievances towards how the scientific method is typically perceived? and how serious do you think stories like this one really are?
Click to expand...
Stop trolling me.
 
Agent B said:
OP can't. Remember, 34C, height, weight and 31 are important justifications for her trolling.
Click to expand...
Sorry, it's just really hard for me to handle getting trolled on the anonymous internet.
 
sinuous sausage said:
I know, I know, I need to slow my roll. But, in all seriousness, might science be overrated? I've always had a philosophical problem with no one ever adequately demarcating what exactly science is, but still people incessantly appeal to it and usually for some personal or political ends. I've had my first brush with real-world science in the past year by doing biomedical research, and lemme tell you in my experience it's nothing like the stoic, rational process portrayed in the popular media. There's a lot of freneticism, waste, and panic, so articles like the one below don't really surprise me. Science's esteemed place in society is relatively newfound, and if it increasingly comes to light that many scientists are nothing more than career opportunists, how would that be different than any other exploitative enterprise--purporting to parse reality--that has fizzled out over the centuries? The concept of science would be stillborn in the public eye before people even got around to clarifying what it really is.

http://nyti.ms/QTZzAK

Anyway, I imagine many in this hallowed forum are of a skeptical bent, and would popularly be considered "scientific," but do any of you have personal grievances towards how the scientific method is typically perceived? and how serious do you think stories like this one really are?
Click to expand...

You don't have a problem with science, you have a problem with language. Language is ambiguous. Inadequate demarcation is subjective, and has everything to do with the descriptors we use and nothing to do with what we attempt to describe.
 
La Presse said:
Oh! I love your Emperor's New Clothes reference.
Click to expand...

I understand the use of the court jester and everything. I do. Shakespeare was great. But if you're gonna take on that role, I only ask that your pithy, witty remarks contain at least some trace of pith and/or wit.
 
I sure wish you had the capacity to understand how your wikipedia link really doesn't contest my post at all. It almost looks like an undergrad's term paper that was copy/pasted into wiki :laugh: The philosophical issue arising from various groups determining what level of deviation is acceptable still doesn't really mean that "science", in principle, isn't clearly demarcated. The principles are all fairly steadfast and all that changes is the relative weight and importance that various groups place upon them. Also, you should note that at no point does this position preclude the possibility of "bad science" or state that all things "science" are automatically infallible. The purpose in scientific experimentation is to remove bias and error and the degree to which a set of experiments does this determines its value.

now, what people decide to do with a piece of scientific work once it has met the minimum requirements for popular inclusion (learn it, snub it, deify it, or burn it at your local church picnic) is entirely up to them but does not in any way, shape, or form impact what science is.
 
Last edited:
furthermore, your own link, and the references it uses (you used? was this your midterm paper? :laugh:) discusses the "demarcation problem" in a decidedly different light:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039368100000042

The question of how to distinguish between science and non-science, the so-called ‘demarcation problem'
Click to expand...

This statement implies an absolute truth to the existence of both science and non science and only calls into question our ability to differentiate, whereas you seem to imply that science itself is a farce.
 
theseeker4 said:
Nah. What is called science is often twisted into pseudoscience, often by the popular media but sometimes by the researchers themselves, but that is a problem with people, who will always be imperfect. The scientific method will work for specific, focused questions; it isn't a checklist that will give you the answer to life, the universe and everything. The universe is infinitely complex (or at least effectively so to our mental abilities) but nothing gives us better tools to discover facts and "truths" about it. Yes, science is often corrupted since it is done by people. Point out a system which is NOT subject to corruption. Or, if you think science is fatally flawed, what is your alternative?

Flaws with the scientific method are more a result of the fact that humans are not and never will be perfect. Your "spaghetti at the wall" analogy is actually pretty good, but you believing that negates science is where your apparent misunderstanding comes in. Science does not require you to be the force that throws the spaghetti at the wall,(in fact, you learn more about nature and the natural world by not altering a system more than you have to) but what you do with the information about what sticks is where the science comes in. The scientific method relies on people saying "i think x happened because of y. I will change z and see if the results are the same. Anyone else doing this in the same way should get the same results as I do." All the rest relies on "planets control our destiny because the moon calls the water" or "that child was born with Downs because his mother is a witch and needs to be burned" or "homeopathy works because water has memory, but you have to BELIEVE in it for it to work for you."

Obviously science, when done by people, can fall into the same fallacies, but the method itself is not the main problem, the people doing it are.
Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of this, but I guess I'm inquiring as to what, even theoretically, science is in its pure, uncorrupted state. Whether Japanese homeboys fudged their data is somewhat immaterial to what I'm asking--what is this fabled method, independent of human shortcomings? You also allude to other corrupt systems, and I think your point is valid, but science is unique in that its reputation in society is one of objectivity. Correct me if I read you wrong here, but I think you're contending that "of course, human beings will inevitably degrade a perfect method, but that doesn't change the fact the method is perfect." Whereas I'd contend that whether human beings are involved or not, there is no perfect scientific method. The x, y, z formula you presented above is a good start, but it ultimately falls short.

You ask what alternative I'd advocate, and truly I don't know. Scientific theory is useful, sure, but so is the West Coast Offense. I suppose I'm hoping that science recognizes its bounds and stops taking itself so doggamn seriously!
 
sinuous sausage said:
I agree with a lot of this, but I guess I'm inquiring as to what, even theoretically, science is in its pure, uncorrupted state. Whether Japanese homeboys fudged their data is somewhat immaterial to what I'm asking--what is this fabled method, independent of human shortcomings? You also allude to other corrupt systems, and I think your point is valid, but science is unique in that its reputation in society is one of objectivity. Correct me if I read you wrong here, but I think you're contending that "of course, human beings will inevitably degrade a perfect method, but that doesn't change the fact the method is perfect." Whereas I'd contend that whether human beings are involved or not, there is no perfect scientific method. The x, y, z formula you presented above is a good start, but it ultimately falls short.

You ask what alternative I'd advocate, and truly I don't know. Scientific theory is useful, sure, but so is the West Coast Offense. I suppose I'm hoping that science recognizes its bounds and stops taking itself so doggamn seriously!
Click to expand...

Then be a pseudoscientist and be called a fraud by the scientific community.
 
SpecterGT260 said:
I sure wish you had the capacity to understand how your wikipedia link really doesn't contest my post at all. It almost looks like an undergrad's term paper that was copy/pasted into wiki :laugh: The philosophical issue arising from various groups determining what level of deviation is acceptable still doesn't really mean that "science", in principle, isn't clearly demarcated. The principles are all fairly steadfast and all that changes is the relative weight and importance that various groups place upon them. Also, you should note that at no point does this position preclude the possibility of "bad science" or state that all things "science" are automatically infallible. The purpose in scientific experimentation is to remove bias and error and the degree to which a set of experiments does this determines its value.

now, what people decide to do with a piece of scientific work once it has met the minimum requirements for popular inclusion (learn it, snub it, deify it, or burn it at your local church picnic) is entirely up to them but does not in any way, shape, or form impact what science is.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes. The whole "I wish you had the capacity" shtick. Typically the domain of someone...well...I won't pay back ad hom for ad hom.

Your contention was that the demarcation problem is a non-issue. I, and anyone who actually wonders about it, contend that it is. The wiki link (I know, I know) was just a "yo, what science is is still vague" reminder.

I'm not debating the purpose of science--it's purpose is to discover ultimate truth. That's the purpose of everything, but I'm casting doubt on specifically science's ability to do so. We can drag religion, cults, or magic 8-balls into this if you want to.

It sounds like your criteria is popular inclusion? No, no, no...popular scientific inclusion? So what is science is what is science? C'mon.
 
sinombre said:
You don't have a problem with science, you have a problem with language. Language is ambiguous. Inadequate demarcation is subjective, and has everything to do with the descriptors we use and nothing to do with what we attempt to describe.
Click to expand...

How does one use ambiguous language to lampoon ambiguous language? Or is language only clear when speaking of its ambiguity?
 
sinuous sausage said:
Please contribute something that changes my brain chemistry.
Click to expand...

I'll try, but I need to check with the medical students/residents as to what specific chemical is ok. There are a lot of neurochemical drugs involved for different actions... And I don't know how to deliver them to you.
 
Girls don't believe in science, nothing new here.
 
sinuous sausage said:
Ah, yes. The whole "I wish you had the capacity" shtick. Typically the domain of someone...well...I won't pay back ad hom for ad hom.

Your contention was that the demarcation problem is a non-issue. I, and anyone who actually wonders about it, contend that it is. The wiki link (I know, I know) was just a "yo, what science is is still vague" reminder.

I'm not debating the purpose of science--it's purpose is to discover ultimate truth. That's the purpose of everything, but I'm casting doubt on specifically science's ability to do so. We can drag religion, cults, or magic 8-balls into this if you want to.

It sounds like your criteria is popular inclusion? No, no, no...popular scientific inclusion? So what is science is what is science? C'mon.
Click to expand...

crap not this again...

that was not an ad hominem. It was just an insult. Insults and arguments can coincide. When one is built upon another... THEN we have an ad hominem 😉 and the purpose of the insult was really only to mess with a troll. That is fun, as opposed to a fallacious debate tactic as you imply here.

and, you are either intentionally misrepresenting my position or really don't get it.
Science, as a noun, is simply a word to describe the systematic approach to learning (we can fudge one way or another in this, but that is the gist).

What religion, cults, or magic 8 balls do has no bearing on this at all. The subjective side of it is what we consider (sure, but popular inclusion) to be valid science. That is what the link you provided discusses. Science, as defined, can absolutely uncover truth. So, is your point concerning the potential misuse of the label "science" by those with agendas or the current shortcomings to true objectivity? Such things are involved in scientific study , but, if we are being careful about the words we are using, science is the set of principles behind such study and it is the study itself that needs to be scrutinized. The scrutiny, then, is actually done upon the principles of science itself. This is why I feel like the entire topic is a non-issue. "what science is" is not vague. "what works are are scientifically valuable" is what is vague. That is all I am saying, and I was hoping you would pick up on that when I mentioned someone "bastardizing" the principles in my first post. But instead I got "lol wut". 🙄
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Advice on Choosing a Second Science LOR
Replies
3
Views
517
squabblingduck
S
RockyRoad78
Is this LOR considered a Science LOR?
Replies
5
Views
1K
Catalystik
Catalystik
hopeful Future Doctor
I got a C+ in a non science course will this hurt my chances?
Replies
4
Views
761
AsclepiusAdvisingLLC
AsclepiusAdvisingLLC
P
Is a lecturer LOR acceptable?
Replies
5
Views
581
pinkbowbunny
P
Anthodite
Is auditing a class a red flag?
Replies
7
Views
580
LunaOri
LunaOri
Top