Pharmacy school entry with DUI

[achop2]

Hey everyone! So I am extremely interested in a career in pharmacy.. however, I have SEVERAL things working against me. First, my overall GPA is at 3.1 right now, but I am taking several prerequisites this fall, and plan on getting A's in all of them. I know that's kind of low. I also took the PCAT last October and got 63%, but I do plan on retaking them this October again. I do not have much pharmacy experience, but I have plenty of experience volunteering (200+ hours since high school). I do start volunteering in a hospital pharmacy next week though.

I have also graduated with a B.S. in Psychology, and will graduate with another degree in Biology.

However, one main thing I am concerned about is my underage DUI. This occurred about 4 months before my 21st birthday, and I blew a 0.08. How will this affect my situation, and do I honestly have any hope of getting into pharmacy school?

Be as honest as you can!!! Thanks 🙂

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[pcproduct]

I can't answer your question directly, but I think this blog post might help out:
http://is.gd/1Rtpt

 

[Passion4Sci]

Not only were you driving under the influence, but you were also underage while doing so.

So that's a Paula and a DUI and it speaks to terrible judgment. I don't think I'd want you around Schedule IIs.

By the time you're almost 21, you really should know right from wrong. You should also know that your PCAT score is not a percent, but a percentile, and is over the minimum requirement for most pharmacy schools. Your GPA is in the lower competitive range... All of us have certainly seen lower GPAs get into good schools.

I think you're going to have a really hard time convincing admissions committees that you're not going to be an idiot again and have a lapse in judgment when the stakes are even higher. If you can't pay attention to federal law (Paula) with alcohol, perhaps you're capable of overlooking a shady script for #200 Percs written by a seeker. This will surely go through the mind of anyone reading your statement (if it's there) and if it comes up in interview, you had better be able to explicate really well.

 

[rxlynn]

I am unclear why this would be an issue during the admissions process unless the schools require you to have a background check as part of the application process or they ask you point blank about such (maybe it's actually on PharmCAS? I don't remember). However, when it is more likely to become an issue would be when you apply to your state for an intern license, and (at least at my school) you have to have a valid intern license to be a pharmacy student. So, if the state board refused the license based on your prior record, then it might become more of a problem.

 

[koercive]

to the op, as you are figuring out how to approach this situation, you should contact your state board about your situation and what it takes to appeal their standing on felonines.

as mentioned in that blog post, it is not impossible for you to gain acceptance, but it will definitely be a mountain to climb.

 

[Jetninjin]

to the op, as you are figuring out how to approach this situation, you should contact your state board about your situation and what it takes to appeal their standing on felonines.

as mentioned in that blog post, it is not impossible for you to gain acceptance, but it will definitely be a mountain to climb.

I believe depending on the circumstances, a DUI can be a misdemeanor instead of a felony.

 

[Passion4Sci]

Usually they're both misdemeanors (The Paula and the DUI). Maybe state law has some differences in strictness, though, which might vary between states?

 

[calisoca]

I believe depending on the circumstances, a DUI can be a misdemeanor instead of a felony.

I believe DUI is a misdemeanor unless you are involved in an accident, damage of property, or cause harm to an individual--which elevates the offense to a felony. I never took driving under the influence 101 though so don't quote me.

Nevertheless, this will most likely be an issue when applying to pharm school. I seem to remember a section on most of my supplemental apps that asked if I had ever been convicted of a misdemeanor or a felony.

 

[atticus27]

Not only were you driving under the influence, but you were also underage while doing so.

So that's a Paula and a DUI and it speaks to terrible judgment. I don't think I'd want you around Schedule IIs.

By the time you're almost 21, you really should know right from wrong. You should also know that your PCAT score is not a percent, but a percentile, and is over the minimum requirement for most pharmacy schools. Your GPA is in the lower competitive range... All of us have certainly seen lower GPAs get into good schools.

I think you're going to have a really hard time convincing admissions committees that you're not going to be an idiot again and have a lapse in judgment when the stakes are even higher. If you can't pay attention to federal law (Paula) with alcohol, perhaps you're capable of overlooking a shady script for #200 Percs written by a seeker. This will surely go through the mind of anyone reading your statement (if it's there) and if it comes up in interview, you had better be able to explicate really well.

One of my first undergrad classes had 100+ students. One day we had a guest speaker who was trying to prove a point and he asked everyone to stand up who had driven a motor vehicle after consuming alcohol. All but 5-10 stood up.

To the OP, I've heard about med, pharm, and dental students being accepted after DUIs. Don't try and hide it and don't make up some B.S. story like about how you thought you were drinking ****ty tasting koolaid at a party. Be upfront and show that you learned from it. You need to make every part of your application more competative now on from your stats to your personal statement.

Passion4, I've written far past my quota so I'll keep it short. No doubt it's terrible judgment, but you can't judge a person soley on their worst action. For instance, when was the last time we had a president who hasn't "experimented" with drugs or made other mistakes. Thankfully no one was hurt in the op's case.

 

[Passion4Sci]

Atticus,

One of my first undergrad classes had 100+ students. One day we had a guest speaker who was trying to prove a point and he asked everyone to stand up who had driven a motor vehicle after consuming alcohol. All but 5-10 stood up.

Let's not be blind to the fact that a lot of those people who stood up were probably just going along with the crowd, were stupid, thought it would be cool to be part of the "in" group, or whatever. You should know never to underestimate human stupidity by now.

Passion4, I've written far past my quota so I'll keep it short. No doubt it's terrible judgment, but you can't judge a person soley on their worst action. For instance, when was the last time we had a president who hasn't "experimented" with drugs or made other mistakes. Thankfully no one was hurt in the op's case.

Heh, excellent logic. Hey, everyone does it, even the President of the United States of Entitlement, so I'll just go commit some misdemeanors, YEAH! I know what you're getting at, but we're defined as people by our actions. OP not only committed one misdemeanor, but two. He knew how old he was (not 21) and he knew he had imbibed alcohol and thus should not have driven. I am sure that was also not his first time drinking alcohol and may very well not have even been his first time driving under the influence.

I wish I had it handy, but I remember from my chemical dependency certification coursework a recent study showed something like 40% of first-time DUI offenders freely admit to having done it for X amount of years but have never been caught until that point.

Conclusion is this: Letting OP have access to controlled substances is a bad idea, because s/he obviously can't tell right from wrong.

 

[GodsFavor]

The DUI is a fact you can't change so don't hide it, it will pop up anyway when they do the background check. Check on the schools policy on this but for most schools while the DUI may factor into their decision it does not eliminate you. (Some schools will look into the age of the incident and record since then). So all you can do is put your best foot foward and show what you learnt from it and growth since the incident. Your statement and LORs can help you alot with this.
Actually, I think your GPA and PCAT score is more of a hindrance. Put your efforts into trying to raise that (esp prerequisite GPA) and by all means apply for Pharmacy school if you think you got what it takes to succeed in it. Congratulations on your 2nd degree and good luck.

 

[IrishRxMan]

Passion, I hate to say it, but many people that have made mistakes and learned from them but still have the easy rapport with people will get jobs faster than those that never went out and partied and always got the 4.0 (at least with retail pharmacy, I'm not sure about hospital or research/clincial). People make mistakes. This is what makes us human. The most important thing is how we learn from those mistakes. "Erraro est humanum." Just because someone made a mistake when they were young doesn't mean they are always going to be so careless. Step off your perch and realize that people will make mistakes and not everyone is an addict scumbag as you would like to think. People change greatly as they age and can mature an amazing amount in a period of a year. As you get older and out of your early 20's you will see this in yourself and others around you and will become more understanding. Just wait until you have your own kids and see what kinds of things they will put you through.

To the OP: get a lawyer to expunge the charge/conviction. It will be costly, but in the end if you get into and graduate from pharmacy school it will be worth it. The most important thing is that you have learned your lesson and won't be so foolish in the future. Keep an extra $20 in your wallet for a cab or pass out in your car and wait till you sober up to drive. It's not worth the comfy night's sleep in your bed to possibly kill or hurt someone. This is coming from a former cop as sound advice. I would give people the largest benefit of the doubt I could if I stopped them for suspicion of DUI.

 

[Passion4Sci]

I'm almost 30, I don't know where you get "early" twenties from, first of all. Second of all, I've been through two campaigns in war, I think I qualify as "life experienced."

I find it fascinating how you equate an easy rapport with people with getting a DUI and breaking federal laws. "Gee, you made mistakes, I guess that means you don't have a 4.0 and you get along really well with people, Rite-Aid is going to LOVE ya!" is exactly how the first clause of your sentence read. I'm a people person, type A, and I love get-togethers, parties, and socializing. That doesn't mean I have to break federal AND state law. I do not believe a 4.0 and success in Pharmacy school is mutually exclusive to breaking federal laws as you apparently do. Maybe I was raised differently than everyone else, but I never drank alcohol before I was 21, not even at a wedding party. Is it that unusual? I guess so...

I don't think OP is an addict scumbag at all. He didn't do this at 14 or 15, he did this at almost 21. That means he should have progressed through being an idiotic, myopic teenager into a damn productive adult for society. But, nope, didn't happen. While I don't think he is likely to be a felon based upon his OP (which would be a ridiculous conclusion to draw) I do think s/he lacks the decision-making faculties that are crucial in pharmacy. If the AdComs don't agree and permit him to enter school, hopefully the intern license board for the state won't look as dimly on his two judgmental errors as I do and will grant him the credential.

Did he learn from that mistake? Maybe he did, sure. And he'll pay the price for it for a long time to come.

My wife and I are not having children, so that issue is moot. Thanks for the platitude though.

 

[IrishRxMan]

I'm almost 30, I don't know where you get "early" twenties from, first of all. Second of all, I've been through two campaigns in war, I think I qualify as "life experienced."

I find it fascinating how you equate an easy rapport with people with getting a DUI and breaking federal laws. "Gee, you made mistakes, I guess that means you don't have a 4.0 and you get along really well with people, Rite-Aid is going to LOVE ya!" is exactly how the first clause of your sentence read. I'm a people person, type A, and I love get-togethers, parties, and socializing. That doesn't mean I have to break federal AND state law. I do not believe a 4.0 and success in Pharmacy school is mutually exclusive to breaking federal laws as you apparently do. Maybe I was raised differently than everyone else, but I never drank alcohol before I was 21, not even at a wedding party. Is it that unusual? I guess so...

I don't think OP is an addict scumbag at all. He didn't do this at 14 or 15, he did this at almost 21. That means he should have progressed through being an idiotic, myopic teenager into a damn productive adult for society. But, nope, didn't happen. While I don't think he is likely to be a felon based upon his OP (which would be a ridiculous conclusion to draw) I do think s/he lacks the decision-making faculties that are crucial in pharmacy. If the AdComs don't agree and permit him to enter school, hopefully the intern license board for the state won't look as dimly on his two judgmental errors as I do and will grant him the credential.

Did he learn from that mistake? Maybe he did, sure. And he'll pay the price for it for a long time to come.

My wife and I are not having children, so that issue is moot. Thanks for the platitude though.

You ain't from Texas. Here, as long as your parents are cool with it you can drink as early as you want as long as they will give it to you. Your response to the actions of the OP made me think you were in your early 20's. Going through two campaigns does not mean you have matured, only that you have been through some very tough times. I served 8 years in the Army as a military policeman before I went back to school and I learned a great deal from my experiences. I also worked as a jailer for a year and a half. I have seen people do some amazingly stupid things and yet they learn from their mistakes. Just because someone made a mistake when they were young and stupid does not mean they will always make this same mistake. It has been proven by studies that the male frontal cortex does not fully develop until around age 25. This is the decision making area of the brain as well as the area that deals with reason. So, in an alcohol induced state with a possibly non-fully developed decision making brain function, someone should be permanently punished for a foolish mistake? This sounds an awful lot like casting stones. I remind you, I am a former law enforcement officer and I have the ability to see through the black and white and deal in the gray areas of life, which is what the majority of life is, and not persecute someone for one stupid act. Just because you are 30 does not mean you have matured. I know plenty of people that are in their 60's that still have yet to fully mature. Age is nothing but a number, maturity has not numerical value. Does it seem rational that someone would deny a girl birth control simply because of their religious beliefs? What if the girl was prescribed it so they would get a monthly cycle and they weren't taking it so they wouldn't get pregnant? Is the pharmacist that refuses to fill it stupid or the pharmacist that does fill it stupid?

 

[Passion4Sci]

You ain't from Texas. Here, as long as your parents are cool with it you can drink as early as you want as long as they will give it to you.

No, I was imported to Texas by Uncle Sam. I left as soon as I could.

I served 8 years in the Army as a military policeman before I went back to school and I learned a great deal from my experiences.

OIF or OEF?

So, in an alcohol induced state with a possibly non-fully developed decision making brain function, someone should be permanently punished for a foolish mistake? This sounds an awful lot like casting stones.

He wouldn't have been IN an alcohol induced state at age <21.

and not persecute someone for one stupid act.

Two stupid acts. One was drinking under the age of 21 and the second was operating a motor vehicle under the influence.

I see where you're going with your rationale. Don't condemn the poor soul because he broke federal law, hey, he was just growing up. We all do stupid stuff, right! Actually, no, we don't all do stupid stuff. I'm not going to mince words about minor infractions we all do, like drive 5 over the limit. But getting behind the wheel of a vehicle while intoxicated is god damn near the most stupid thing you can do.

"Age is just a number" only applies in dating and school. The law certainly does not follow this doctrine, or we wouldn't have the laws we do right, Mr. Lawman? Hey, age is just a number, so a 25 year-old man who has sex with a 13 year-old girl who is in college and is mature for her age is ok... Right?

Right?

That is exactly what you're suggesting.

 

[IrishRxMan]

No, I was imported to Texas by Uncle Sam. I left as soon as I could.

OIF or OEF?

He wouldn't have been IN an alcohol induced state at age <21.

Two stupid acts. One was drinking under the age of 21 and the second was operating a motor vehicle under the influence.

I see where you're going with your rationale. Don't condemn the poor soul because he broke federal law, hey, he was just growing up. We all do stupid stuff, right! Actually, no, we don't all do stupid stuff. I'm not going to mince words about minor infractions we all do, like drive 5 over the limit. But getting behind the wheel of a vehicle while intoxicated is god damn near the most stupid thing you can do.

"Age is just a number" only applies in dating and school. The law certainly does not follow this doctrine, or we wouldn't have the laws we do right, Mr. Lawman? Hey, age is just a number, so a 25 year-old man who has sex with a 13 year-old girl who is in college and is mature for her age is ok... Right?

Right?

That is exactly what you're suggesting.

Oh my, you live in such a black and white world. There is a gray area to everything and I hope that you never sit on a board deciding anyone's fate before you learn this lesson. I'm not saying the gray area is as wide as the Mississippi for everything. But, it is a widely accepted fact that people's inhibitions are greatly depressed when they have been drinking. This makes people do foolish things. This, however, does not admonish them of any punishment that is deserving of their actions. If the OP had more than one DUI it would be a different story. This would show that they hadn't learned from their mistake. You claim the OP committed two felonies but it might not be a felony in the state they were charged for those offenses. The one stupid act caused the other. It is SO very fortunate that another stupid act was not committed like harming another individual. I think it would shock you the amount of people that drive under the influence of not just alcohol on a regular day. This includes people that the public are supposed to trust like doctors, judges and pharmacists. Just because someone is squeaky clean while in school doesn't mean they will always be that way just in the same way that someone that made a mistake, or two as you so justly point out, before they are a professional will be a law abiding citizen later in life. The point is, as we age we learn and grow from our experiences. Some experiences cause us to grow more than others and even more than others that find themselves in the same situation. The deciding factor is the human element. This is a variable that nobody can accurately factor in to any equation because it is different for every individual and every situation. A large part of being a healthcare professional is compassion without being taken for a fool. Are you going to think everyone that comes in with a prescription for a narcotic is an addict and look down upon them with disdain? Could they not be a cancer patient in severe pain that can only be taken away with a fentanyl lozenge or patch so they can live as a normal person without pain for the remainder of the time they have here on this earth?

What do you mean by OEF or OIF?

 

[Passion4Sci]

Oh my, you live in such a black and white world. There is a gray area to everything and I hope that you never sit on a board deciding anyone's fate before you learn this lesson.

Yes, there are laws, and when they're broken, the breaker of said law is a criminal. There is no gray area here... You commit a crime, you are a criminal. I don't see why someone in law enforcement can't agree with that.

But, it is a widely accepted fact that people's inhibitions are greatly depressed when they have been drinking. This makes people do foolish things

I'm applying for Pharmacy school this year and I didn't know alcohol is a depressant, thanks for that.

However, the catch is... OP would never have been in the disinhibited-judgment impaired mindset had he not broken the law and drank alcohol under the legal age to do so. Come on Lawman... And yeah, OP is extremely fortunate he didn't kill someone else. I guess, though, you'd be OK with it if he did... You know, being that you're totally copacetic with people breaking laws willy-nilly, right? If he'd killed someone while inebriated, would you still be leniant on him? If not, why not? If so, why? He clearly was not in control of his actions according to the alcohol theory, so what's the difference, right? Ponder that for me please.

Just because someone is squeaky clean while in school doesn't mean they will always be that way just in the same way that someone that made a mistake, or two as you so justly point out, before they are a professional will be a law abiding citizen later in life.

It's all about risk, Lawman. I'm a much lower risk for selling Schedule-IIs to my buddies or whatever because I have zero, absolutely zero criminal background. Am I completely incapable of committing a felony? No, I don't think anyone is. However, being that I was the same 20 year-old (almost 21 year-old) that OP was and I didn't drive while under the influence OR imbibe alcohol illegally, I think that speaks to my character. I went to college, two of them in fact, where parties were everywhere. I had plenty of chances to be a ***** and break multiple laws. Did I? No. "becoming a professional" doesn't change the fact that OP has demonstrated in his past that s/he has problems with decision making. If the choice comes down to Candidate A and Candidate B, and Candidate B has a DUI and a PAULA on his head while Candidate A does not... Do you think the choice will be in favor of B, because he's obviously grown from his experiences? Ponder that one for me too, please.

The point is, as we age we learn and grow from our experiences.

Common knowledge, I agree.

Are you going to think everyone that comes in with a prescription for a narcotic is an addict and look down upon them with disdain?

Of course not. I don't even see the relevancy here unless you're trying to connect the fact that I think OP shouldn't be trusted with illicit substances with my opinion that everyone is a seeker...

I've got no problem with dispensing pain medication for a legitimate reason and I don't even see how that necessarily entered our conversation. I brought up not trusting OP with Schedule-II substances and a hypothetical regarding a forged script of Percocet, but aside from that I'm not entirely sure why you think I'm a cold-hearted bastard or something. LOL...

For clarification purposes, I never said the OP committed felonies. The National Minimum Drinking Age Act established federal law but that does not mean breaking it automatically issues a felony, right? And obviously the DUI is almost always going to be a misdemeanor.

What do you mean by OEF or OIF?

You mentioned 8 years of military service. OEF is Operation Enduring Freedom, or our efforts in Afghanistan. OIF is Operation Iraqi Freedom, self-explanatory. I was asking if you'd served in a war-zone during your 8 years of service.

 

[Jetninjin]

I find it fascinating how you equate an easy rapport with people with getting a DUI and breaking federal laws. "Gee, you made mistakes, I guess that means you don't have a 4.0 and you get along really well with people, Rite-Aid is going to LOVE ya!" is exactly how the first clause of your sentence read.

I don't think that's what he meant. We're all agreed that people do stupid things, no? I think his point was that if you are aware of your past mistakes, you will be more able to connect with people going through the same thing, who could be helped by your attitude towards them.

Take this as a for-instance. You work at a retail pharmacy. You need to consult with a (recovering) alcoholic patient who is now on some meds with which s/he cannot use alcohol, or there could be serious consequences. I believe his point is that someone without that first-hand experience might give the patient some cursory advice to "not drink, or else." Someone who had personal experience fighting those demons however might be able to connect more personally with the patient, and communicate with them in such a way that they understand and are more likely to be compliant. Everyone wins, no? Including the guy behind the counter who got a second chance and has turned it into something positive.

That's the type of thing you don't learn in a classroom.

Anyway, 10/4 on this one, I don't have a dog in this fight, I just think his point was misunderstood.

 

[calisoca]

I don't think that's what he meant. We're all agreed that people do stupid things, no? I think his point was that if you are aware of your past mistakes, you will be more able to connect with people going through the same thing, who could be helped by your attitude towards them.

Take this as a for-instance. You work at a retail pharmacy. You need to consult with a (recovering) alcoholic patient who is now on some meds with which s/he cannot use alcohol, or there could be serious consequences. I believe his point is that someone without that first-hand experience might give the patient some cursory advice to "not drink, or else." Someone who had personal experience fighting those demons however might be able to connect more personally with the patient, and communicate with them in such a way that they understand and are more likely to be compliant. Everyone wins, no? Including the guy behind the counter who got a second chance and has turned it into something positive.

That's the type of thing you don't learn in a classroom.

Anyway, 10/4 on this one, I don't have a dog in this fight, I just think his point was misunderstood.

I can simplify your entire post to two words:

Be empathetic.

 

[achop2]

Thanks everyone for your responses! I appreciate the honesty.

I am a girl, btw. In my state, a DUI is a misdemeanor and it gets expunged after 5 years. So by the time I graduate from pharmacy school, there will be no record of it. It won't affect whether or not I get my pharmacy school license, because when employers do background checks, they will not be able to see my DUI. The only part I am concerned about is just getting INTO pharmacy school.

 

[Passion4Sci]

Thanks everyone for your responses! I appreciate the honesty.

I am a girl, btw. In my state, a DUI is a misdemeanor and it gets expunged after 5 years. So by the time I graduate from pharmacy school, there will be no record of it. It won't affect whether or not I get my pharmacy school license, because when employers do background checks, they will not be able to see my DUI. The only part I am concerned about is just getting INTO pharmacy school.

Hi there again. Glad you came back.

You actually have to disclose the DUI to the state board when you're applying for your pharmacy intern license, in your very first year of Pharmacy school, which declares you as a student pharmacist and allows you to collect a slightly higher wage for our indentured servitude. Sometimes a DUI + MiP/PAULA can be an exclusionary to your intern license.

Thus, you should be concerned with both admissions AND staying in school. I guess the only thing you can do is be forthright and honest about how absolutely stupid you were, and what steps you've taken to make sure that you never get plastered and hop behind the wheel again.

 

[diastole]

How is this person any different than someone who speeds going 100 or worse, texts while driving 70 mph in a state where it is illegal. In all these situations, the person is breaking the law and exercising poor judgment that could potentially kill someone. But does that really mean that they should be excluded from pharmacy for life? I wouldn't hire anyone in the above scenarios to be a trucker or a school bus driver but I don't see how stupid decision making behind the wheel precludes someone from exercising good judgment behind the pharmacy counter.

 

[Passion4Sci]

How is this person any different than someone who speeds going 100 or worse, texts while driving 70 mph in a state where it is illegal. In all these situations, the person is breaking the law and exercising poor judgment that could potentially kill someone. But does that really mean that they should be excluded from pharmacy for life? I wouldn't hire anyone in the above scenarios to be a trucker or a school bus driver but I don't see how stupid decision making behind the wheel precludes someone from exercising good judgment behind the pharmacy counter.

Hi there Bleeding Heart.

Consuming alcohol before the age of 21 is violation of a federal law, in case you've been under a rock since, oh, 1970. A cavalier attitude toward a DRUG (alcohol) is absolutely cogent to the exclusion of the practice of medicine/pharmacy.

Nice false analogy.

For the record, and because you obviously read what I wrote on Pharmacy forum and thought, "Har har, I'm going to show this Passion dude what's up fo' realz!", I never text while driving and I only drive 5 or 6 mph over posted, which I already admitted to. And I'm sorry, but comparing a DUI to 5 over the limit is tantamount to putting a dunce cap on and spinning in circles in the corner, Bleeding Heart.

 

[calisoca]

Hi there Bleeding Heart.

Consuming alcohol before the age of 21 is violation of a federal law, in case you've been under a rock since, oh, 1970. A cavalier attitude toward a DRUG (alcohol) is absolutely cogent to the exclusion of the practice of medicine.

Nice false analogy.

For the record, and because you obviously read what I wrote on Pharmacy forum and thought, "Har har, I'm going to show this Passion dude what's up fo' realz!", I never text while driving and I only drive 5 or 6 mph over posted, which I already admitted to. And I'm sorry, but comparing a DUI to 5 over the limit is tantamount to putting a dunce cap on and spinning in circles in the corner, Bleeding Heart.

I tend to take your side on the matter here 4sci, but I can't help but wonder:
What'd you do those first 2-3 years in college when people were offering you a Coors Light or a nice chilled shot of Tequila?

 

[koercive]

I think applicants with DUIs should be able to enter pharmacy school as long as they have shown that they have grown and learned from their mistakes.

Our society doesn't prevent politicians from taking office from admitting to breaking federal laws in the past.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&q=politician+dui&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10

A quick google search brings up these politicians who are DUI offenders.

It's sad that many times the very people who run our country can "get away" with their actions

 

[Passion4Sci]

I tend to take your side on the matter here 4sci, but I can't help but wonder:
What'd you do those first 2-3 years in college when people were offering you a Coors Light or a nice chilled shot of Tequila?

My group of friends were not complicit in underage drinking.

The one time I was at a huge house party for OX, I was offered a joint. I declined and left the party.

Boring? I guess.

I don't know why it's so difficult for people to not drink until they're 21. I don't know anyone who drove under the age of 16 without a license, yet "gettin' crunk" at 15 is totally cool.

 

[Passion4Sci]

I think applicants with DUIs should be able to enter pharmacy school as long as they have shown that they have grown and learned from their mistakes.

Our society doesn't prevent politicians from taking office from admitting to breaking federal laws in the past.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&q=politician+dui&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10

A quick google search brings up these politicians who are DUI offenders.

It's sad that many times the very people who run our country can "get away" with their actions

We know politicians get away with all kinds of $h!t.

Let's not try to set a standard where pharmacists should be allowed the same leniency as the corrupt-as-hell politicians that are "running" this country.

 

[diastole]

Hi there Bleeding Heart.

Consuming alcohol before the age of 21 is violation of a federal law, in case you've been under a rock since, oh, 1970. A cavalier attitude toward a DRUG (alcohol) is absolutely cogent to the exclusion of the practice of medicine.

Nice false analogy.

For the record, and because you obviously read what I wrote on Pharmacy forum and thought, "Har har, I'm going to show this Passion dude what's up fo' realz!", I never text while driving and I only drive 5 or 6 mph over posted, which I already admitted to. And I'm sorry, but comparing a DUI to 5 over the limit is tantamount to putting a dunce cap on and spinning in circles in the corner, Bleeding Heart.

If we excluded all the people who consumed alcohol before the age of 21, the pharmacy schools would be nearly empty and we would have to kick out a great deal of pharmacists from the profession. Just because someone drinks before the legal age, does not mean that they aren't going to follow the rules in a pharmacy. Plenty of good pharmacists drank before they were legal. Banning them from pharmacy would be a way too harsh punishment and would exclude lots of good people from the profession. In this case, the punishment you seem to be proposing is way to harsh for the crime.

 

[Passion4Sci]

If we excluded all the people who consumed alcohol before the age of 21, the pharmacy schools would be nearly empty and we would have to kick out a great deal of pharmacists from the profession. Just because someone drinks before the legal age, does not mean that they aren't going to follow the rules in a pharmacy. Plenty of good pharmacists drank before they were legal. Banning them from pharmacy would be a way too harsh punishment and would exclude lots of good people from the profession. In this case, the punishment you seem to be proposing is way to harsh for the crime.

Well certainly underage drinking isn't necessarily grounds for not being admitted to Pharmacy school, as it doesn't speak to quite as large of a judgment vacuum as driving under the influence.

I never suggested here that a MiP should be an exclusionary for Pharmacy practice, just the DUI. I centered on alcohol as the main crux of my argument because alcohol was involved in the DUI; in the absence of alcohol, the DUI wouldn't have occurred. You mistook my argument to be that the MiP itself should be grounds for exclusion to Pharmacy school, which I do not believe.

This reminds me of a funny Bones episode, which is pretty much the only show I watch on the husk that is television. Bones, the main character, asked the comic relief/chemistry creator Booth whether he really believes that someone has to be "bad" before they can be "good." I wonder... do you think that's the case?

 

[Sparda29]

I don't really give 2 ****s about underage drinking, personally I think this country is far to prudish when it comes to this. Just drop the age to 18. If you can have a license to kill at age 18, I think you should be allowed to drink at 18.

Now, operating a motor vehicle while drunk...

 

[goinkhead]

I can simplify your entire post to two words:

Be empathetic.

HAHA...This is America...there is no such thing as empathy!😀

 

[calisoca]

My group of friends were not complicit in underage drinking.

The one time I was at a huge house party for OX, I was offered a joint. I declined and left the party.

Boring? I guess.

I don't know why it's so difficult for people to not drink until they're 21.

Fair enough.

It's not that it was SOO difficult to not drink before the age of 21. In my case it was just the fact that I had all my shi* taken care of during the week and I thoroughly enjoyed the social aspect and reward of relaxing with good people on the weekends over a few beers. In fact, the majority of individuals I would drink with, including myself, made Dean's list every quarter at UCD. We just never saw it as criminal, though I suppose technically it was. In this regard, I suppose it was extremely easy to break the law with nothing but the best intentions.

 

[diastole]

Well certainly underage drinking isn't necessarily grounds for not being admitted to Pharmacy school, as it doesn't speak to quite as large of a judgment vacuum as driving under the influence.

I never suggested here that a MiP should be an exclusionary for Pharmacy practice, just the DUI. I centered on alcohol as the main crux of my argument because alcohol was involved in the DUI; in the absence of alcohol, the DUI wouldn't have occurred. You mistook my argument to be that the MiP itself should be grounds for exclusion to Pharmacy school, which I do not believe.

This reminds me of a funny Bones episode, which is pretty much the only show I watch on the husk that is television. Bones, the main character, asked the comic relief/chemistry creator Booth whether he really believes that someone has to be "bad" before they can be "good." I wonder... do you think that's the case?

I don't watch Bones so if this is a rhetorical question, forgive me. I don't think people are "bad" or "good." People have their strengths and weaknesses. For example, I think someone can be a scoundrel and cheat on his wife but be an excellent and highly moral professional. I think someone can exercise poor judgment while drinking but never be tempted to break laws at work.

I also believe in paying your debt to society. While I do think that some crimes should preclude you from certain activities for life (a convicted child molester should never be allowed to work with children, for example), I don't think that a DUI should preclude you from a profession that has nothing to do with driving.

 

[Passion4Sci]

I don't watch Bones so if this is a rhetorical question, forgive me. I don't think people are "bad" or "good." People have their strengths and weaknesses. For example, I think someone can be a scoundrel and cheat on his wife but be an excellent and highly moral professional. I think someone can exercise poor judgment while drinking but never be tempted to break laws at work.

I also believe in paying your debt to society. While I do think that some crimes should preclude you from certain activities for life (a convicted child molester should never be allowed to work with children, for example), I don't think that a DUI should preclude you from a profession that has nothing to do with driving.

No, it wasn't a rhetorical question. I was honestly quite curious as to what you think about it, that's all. I've asked that question of a lot of folks that are pretty soft-skinned when it comes to saying "no, sorry, you can't do X job" and I just like accumulating the responses in my head. Even though I don't any longer work in mental health, human behavior still intrigues me.

Here is another question for you Diastole. A hypothetical, so forgive me if you don't like to engage in such questions. It is this: Suppose OP had a collision while she was driving drunk, and killed someone. Who it is doesn't matter. Just a person. Not necessarily a family mom, or a congressman, or anything like that... Just some random Joe who was in the wrong place at the wrong time (I hate allusions to luck but it's a necessity for hypotheses). Would that change your opinion of OP being allowed to practice pharmacy? To a more salient point: If convicted of vehicular manslaughter resultant from DUI/DWI, do you feel the same way? Why or why not? Very curious to read your reply to this.

It's not that it was SOO difficult to not drink before the age of 21. In my case it was just the fact that I had all my shi* taken care of during the week and I thoroughly enjoyed the social aspect and reward of relaxing with good people on the weekends over a few beers. In fact, the majority of individuals I would drink with, including myself, made Dean's list every quarter at UCD. We just never saw it as criminal, though I suppose technically it was. In this regard, I suppose it was extremely easy to break the law with nothing but the best intentions.

You were an Aggie also? Awesome. 👍 I love meeting alma mater, it seems like everyone on SDN went to one of the "other" UC schools that I refuse to acknowledge exist! I wouldn't consider top 16% (dean's list) every quarter to be praise-worthy but the UC system disagrees. Who am I to stand in their way...

Anyway, I don't believe that underage drinking necessarily equals irresponsibility or is a predictor of future criminality. There is a big difference in scale between tossing back some Jaegerbombs or Coors Light *Disgusting* as it might be and then hopping in a car and driving. I can certainly recognize that as a crucial difference, even living in my totally black and white world (apparently). You and Diastole both seem to think I think someone should be permanently incarcerated or stoned to death for a minor in possession, but I don't. I just don't think someone who commits such an egregious offense should be allowed access to controlled narcotics.

I understand your analogy, Diastole, about keeping the offense related to the career at hand (i.e., a bus driver being harshly sanctioned for driving incidents) however you have to realize that society simply does not operate in such a manner, and neither does law. For example, have you ever heard of a police officer, teacher, or other public figure losing their job or worse because they were seen at a strip club? You seem like a bright woman so I'll leave it to you to decide why. Although, in your world, it'd be OK for a cop to have a lap dance as long as he doesn't shoot anyone (with a gun anyway, har har 😛).

Thank you OP for a very enlightening discussion also.

 

[calisoca]

You were an Aggie also? Awesome. 👍 I love meeting alma mater, it seems like everyone on SDN went to one of the "other" UC schools that I refuse to acknowledge exist! I wouldn't consider top 16% (dean's list) every quarter to be praise-worthy but the UC system disagrees. Who am I to stand in their way...

Anyway, I don't believe that underage drinking necessarily equals irresponsibility or is a predictor of future criminality. There is a big difference in scale between tossing back some Jaegerbombs or Coors Light *Disgusting* as it might be and then hopping in a car and driving. I can certainly recognize that as a crucial difference, even living in my totally black and white world (apparently). You and Diastole both seem to think I think someone should be permanently incarcerated or stoned to death for a minor in possession, but I don't. I just don't think someone who commits such an egregious offense should be allowed access to controlled narcotics.

Yup, I was able to weather the 106 degree summers and overbearing cow shiat odor throughout the duration of my stay in D-town.

I agree with you entirely on the bold region, and on most of your ideology for that matter. I just think your college roomates should have forced more ethanol down your esophagus at certain junctures in college.

 

[calisoca]

Also, 4sci: Why are you selling yourself short and only applying to 3 schools? Wifey wants to stay local?

Your stats are money but you can never account for the entropy involved in this application process.

 

[diastole]

No, it wasn't a rhetorical question. I was honestly quite curious as to what you think about it, that's all. I've asked that question of a lot of folks that are pretty soft-skinned when it comes to saying "no, sorry, you can't do X job" and I just like accumulating the responses in my head. Even though I don't any longer work in mental health, human behavior still intrigues me.

Here is another question for you Diastole. A hypothetical, so forgive me if you don't like to engage in such questions. It is this: Suppose OP had a collision while she was driving drunk, and killed someone. Who it is doesn't matter. Just a person. Not necessarily a family mom, or a congressman, or anything like that... Just some random Joe who was in the wrong place at the wrong time (I hate allusions to luck but it's a necessity for hypotheses). Would that change your opinion of OP being allowed to practice pharmacy? To a more salient point: If convicted of vehicular manslaughter resultant from DUI/DWI, do you feel the same way? Why or why not? Very curious to read your reply to this.

No, I still think that the person shouldn't be banned for life. If convicted, we can assume that the person was punished by the law. Even though she made a horrible mistake with serious consequences, she paid her debt. If the sentence wasn't harsh enough then we should change those laws and make the punishment more severe. However, I don't think that a crime should result in a lifetime work ban if it didn't have anything to do with the work to be performed. Of course, we both know that the reality is that she would never get into a pharmacy school with a manslaughter conviction on her record. If she somehow managed to convince some school and board that she has redeemed herself and would be an asset to the profession, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

 

[Passion4Sci]

Calisoca,

I live out in the Mace area now that I'm a baller and have more money, so the cow stench is never really an issue, but back when I was an UG and lived on Sycamore, it was pretty bad, yeah. I won't ever miss that smell... I worked a quarter at Uni-Trans and every morning I'd go to the depot to pick up my bus and do the status checks and, being so close to the dung factories, really get a nose-full.

I do have to stay mostly-local yeah, because of my wife's law school choices. I decided that it would only be fair for me to defer to her education because I've already had my chance and I'm now kinda rebooting my education plan (From graduate school in Psychology to Pharmacy), and she has never had a shot (She is finishing up at Davis next year). So, when it came time to take the LSAT and choose schools, she got her wish first. I know, I'm whipped, but to me it seemed only the most fair thing to do. (black and white again I guess? LOL).

I hope the entropy, as you called it, will not claim me at all 3 schools. I applied at only one Southern California school because UCLA, which is on Tara's "applied" list also is in the area. I applied to Pacific because my parents have a house in north Stockton that they hardly ever use, and as such I'll have completely free rent... And I applied to UCSF for the bay area component (Two of her schools are in the bay) and because I did a lot of undergraduate research, and I have always had a bit of a tendency toward research in the research vs. practice debate, and I think a curriculum with lots of research opportunities would be fascinating. I don't consider it selling myself short to be picky!

Perhaps it was naivete, condescension, or arrogance (Or a heady combination of all 3) but I really didn't think it necessary to apply to more than 3 schools.

 

[Passion4Sci]

No, I still think that the person shouldn't be banned for life. If convicted, we can assume that the person was punished by the law. Even though she made a horrible mistake with serious consequences, she paid her debt. If the sentence wasn't harsh enough then we should change those laws and make the punishment more severe. However, I don't think that a crime should result in a lifetime work ban if it didn't have anything to do with the work to be performed. Of course, we both know that the reality is that she would never get into a pharmacy school with a manslaughter conviction on her record. If she somehow managed to convince some school and board that she has redeemed herself and would be an asset to the profession, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Very fascinating. Although you didn't reply to my final hypothetical. Maybe you missed it because I interlaced it into my conclusion and you'd stopped reading by then (Since the middle portion of my post was directed at Cali).

I think I have a clear sense of your perspective now. May I sweeten the deal so to speak and challenge your conviction to this ideology of yours? Let's pretend that Student X is a child molester. Obviously, child abuse is not part of the life behind the pharmacy counter at Rite-Aid, and you don't work with children as a Pharmacist. Of course I expect you to say "Oh hell no, ewww, no way jose!" but I'm curious, because if you accept the antecedent hypothesis (as you just did), then clearly you're committed to this "Let the wrong be punished and then forgiven, especially if it doesn't directly relate to the profession X" ideology, and must therefore accept a child molester into your ranks (As his offense, which he has paid his dues for and must now register as a child molester for life, is now settled and also has nothing to do w/ pharmacy).

How do you feel about this?

 

[calisoca]

Calisoca,

I live out in the Mace area now that I'm a baller and have more money, so the cow stench is never really an issue, but back when I was an UG and lived on Sycamore, it was pretty bad, yeah. I won't ever miss that smell... I worked a quarter at Uni-Trans and every morning I'd go to the depot to pick up my bus and do the status checks and, being so close to the dung factories, really get a nose-full.

I do have to stay mostly-local yeah, because of my wife's law school choices. I decided that it would only be fair for me to defer to her education because I've already had my chance and I'm now kinda rebooting my education plan (From graduate school in Psychology to Pharmacy), and she has never had a shot (She is finishing up at Davis next year). So, when it came time to take the LSAT and choose schools, she got her wish first. I know, I'm whipped, but to me it seemed only the most fair thing to do. (black and white again I guess? LOL).

I hope the entropy, as you called it, will not claim me at all 3 schools. I applied at only one Southern California school because UCLA, which is on Tara's "applied" list also is in the area. I applied to Pacific because my parents have a house in north Stockton that they hardly ever use, and as such I'll have completely free rent... And I applied to UCSF for the bay area component (Two of her schools are in the bay) and because I did a lot of undergraduate research, and I have always had a bit of a tendency toward research in the research vs. practice debate, and I think a curriculum with lots of research opportunities would be fascinating. I don't consider it selling myself short to be picky!

Perhaps it was naivete, condescension, or arrogance (Or a heady combination of all 3) but I really didn't think it necessary to apply to more than 3 schools.

Right on man, I've got a few friends who just moved back to Davis and live out off Mace, behind that Nugget right there.

Selfless attitude for sure to give your wife the lead, though I don't think you have much to be concerned about--just be ready for anything. I had a few friends get denied at UCSF with 3.9's and another friend who got the shaft at USC with a 3.8; although, I somehow got into SC with my 3.4cgpa. It just goes to show the dynamics of this application process, take nothing for granted, but never count yourself out. You seem pretty well versed, I'd put dinero on an acceptance at at least 1 of those schools for you--most likely all 3. Got a favorite?

 

[Passion4Sci]

I appreciate your confidence! I know that the admissions/interview process can be pretty damn weird and almost random at times. I have no doubt that people with better GPAs than mine get rejected from UCSF, because I have it on good confidence that UCSF looks for more than just GPA, and they put a large emphasis on research/publication, of which I have a bit... That should hopefully be the difference between a denial and an acceptance. I am not under any false pretenses here, I know my GPA is good but not the best out there by a long shot.

If there is one thing the Army taught me, besides how to clear a room of "freedom fighters", it's to be doggedly determined and if I want something, to go for it. If, by some chance, I get 3 denials this year I'll improve on whatever I can and go for it again next year.

My wife sacrificed a lot for me while I was in the military, so in the nature of give-and-take, I decided for a myriad of reasons that letting law school be forefront in our plans would be the best thing to do. And hell, my mother even agreed, and I don't think she's agreed with anything I've done/said in the last decade.

Oh, I meant to ask you Cali, how did you adapt to life where "R" did not mean "Thursday"? =]

 

[drjmariesegars]

Usually they're both misdemeanors (The Paula and the DUI). Maybe state law has some differences in strictness, though, which might vary between states?

Since my sister died in a drunk driving accident, usually they are misdemeanors even though it should be a felony. I think it's only a handful of states that it is 😡 It will show up in your background check which is becoming a standard procedure when you apply for pharmacy school, your intern license etc.
An admissions board is really going to look at that...you could be a liability. Just like an employer will look at this like, "Would I really trust a person with a DUI to dispense drugs who will show up drunk" "Could they possibly poision a person due to their ongoing intoxication" Because that's the assumption, right or wrong that is going to be made-you will be pigeon-holed as the irresponsible person who drinks soooo much that he/she drinks and drives. You made a poor judgment as someone who was almost 21. You're not the first and your certainly not the last...
ALL actions have residuals and not getting into pharmacy school might be a residual of that.

 

[calisoca]

Oh, I meant to ask you Cali, how did you adapt to life where "R" did not mean "Thursday"? =]

I like your odds, I'll say that much--Just worry about getting into intellectual arguments with your JD wife.

haha, I adapted well I suppose to the notion that R didn't mean Thursday anymore. Only because nobody else that I have ever run into has used that abbreviation.

 

[Passion4Sci]

Hallelujah, someone else without a heart bleeding all over the place.

My condolences to you for your loss, Drj.

A lot of this harkens back to the bull**** we're fed as children. "Johnny, you can be ANYTHING you want to be, anything!" Yeah, yeah, ok.

As I've covered before, I am in decent shape, but even if I start running every single day and pumping iron, etc I'll never play in the NFL. I've accepted that... Choices I made, including joining the Army and destroying my knee, have precluded professional ball from my life.

It's funny you should mention life's choices having lasting effects. In the Army, jobs requiring Secret/TS clearances were routinely lost by soldiers, airmen and others for DUI charges. They'd swiftly be stripped of their clearance and would be re-classified into other MOSes (jobs) because why? They were untrustworthy and a liability.

 

[Passion4Sci]

I like your odds, I'll say that much--Just worry about getting into intellectual arguments with your JD wife.

haha, I adapted well I suppose to the notion that R didn't mean Thursday anymore. Only because nobody else that I have ever run into has used that abbreviation.

She is very much my superior when it comes to matters of intellect. Long ago I accepted that her ability to reason and out-logic me (As if that's a verb) was a fact of life. I looked at the LSAT study books she had and it sizzled my mind. Crap like:

If Mindy is sitting next to Clara, but never next to Mike, who always sits by Marinda, who thinks Melinda smells like Meunster cheese, and Mary who likes Meunster but dislikes Swiss and Gouda is sitting next to John who hates both Swiss and Gouda but loves Meunster but hates Provolone is sitting next to Mike, who is sitting next to Jesus?

I just couldn't take all the symbolic logic, and I consider myself to be pretty sharp in the speech and debate department. Lucky for me, she doesn't involve herself in hypotheticals and moral arguments like I get myself tangled up with all the time. If I see things in black and white, I can't imagine what people here on SDN would think of her. LOL.

And I am pretty sure UC Davis is the ONLY school in the WORLD that uses "R" to indicate Thursday.

Of course, they also award the biggest scholarships, so when she needed to go to undergraduate, it was a no-brainer where she was going! The Regent's Scholarship is simply too good to pass up.

 

[calisoca]

She is very much my superior when it comes to matters of intellect. Long ago I accepted that her ability to reason and out-logic me (As if that's a verb) was a fact of life. I looked at the LSAT study books she had and it sizzled my mind. Crap like:

If Mindy is sitting next to Clara, but never next to Mike, who always sits by Marinda, who thinks Melinda smells like Meunster cheese, and Mary who likes Meunster but dislikes Swiss and Gouda is sitting next to John who hates both Swiss and Gouda but loves Meunster but hates Provolone is sitting next to Mike, who is sitting next to Jesus?

I just couldn't take all the symbolic logic, and I consider myself to be pretty sharp in the speech and debate department. Lucky for me, she doesn't involve herself in hypotheticals and moral arguments like I get myself tangled up with all the time. If I see things in black and white, I can't imagine what people here on SDN would think of her. LOL.

And I am pretty sure UC Davis is the ONLY school in the WORLD that uses "R" to indicate Thursday.

Of course, they also award the biggest scholarships, so when she needed to go to undergraduate, it was a no-brainer where she was going! The Regent's Scholarship is simply too good to pass up.

Oh, it is a verb, Outlogicar is the spanish form.

As for the LSAT question, the answer most likely to be valid would be: Nobody is sitting next to Jesus because he never actually existed. (If you're a Thiest, I'm joking, clearly).

Out of curiousity, how old is your wife relative to you? From what I gather you graduated a while ago. Did you see this pretty little Regent scholar and rob the cradle you dirty little aggie?

 

[drjmariesegars]

Hallelujah, someone else without a heart bleeding all over the place.

My condolences to you for your loss, Drj.

A lot of this harkens back to the bull**** we're fed as children. "Johnny, you can be ANYTHING you want to be, anything!" Yeah, yeah, ok.

As I've covered before, I am in decent shape, but even if I start running every single day and pumping iron, etc I'll never play in the NFL. I've accepted that... Choices I made, including joining the Army and destroying my knee, have precluded professional ball from my life.

It's funny you should mention life's choices having lasting effects. In the Army, jobs requiring Secret/TS clearances were routinely lost by soldiers, airmen and others for DUI charges. They'd swiftly be stripped of their clearance and would be re-classified into other MOSes (jobs) because why? They were untrustworthy and a liability.

Thank you for the condolences...Yeah it really does go back to that...It should be, "Johnny you can be anything you want to be if you make smart choices."
And that's very true about being a liability-who is to say you won't regress to stupid reckless behavior later?

 

[Passion4Sci]

Oh, it is a verb, Outlogicar is the spanish form.

As for the LSAT question, the answer most likely to be valid would be: Nobody is sitting next to Jesus because he never actually existed. (If you're a Thiest, I'm joking, clearly).

Out of curiousity, how old is your wife relative to you? From what I gather you graduated a while ago. Did you see this pretty little Regent scholar and rob the cradle you dirty little aggie?

You sure this verb is an "ar" and not in "ir" like the OTHER Spanish verb you were telling me about a couple weeks ago? 😉

Actually, I think we all can agree, even Atheists and Agnostics, that Jesus was a real person that existed, but not necessarily that he was a Messiah, son of God, or anything else. /shrug, either way, that's about how ridiculous the LSAT is, to me anyway!

She is 23, I'm 27 this year, so it's not a horrible difference. We've been married for 4 years though, this year, so with quick math you can clearly deduce that yes, I did marry a teenager (Which she REALLY hates by the way, when I point it out hahahaha) although by no means does she act like one (obviously) so indeed, I'm a really dirty Aggie. Just doing the Pack proud! =] She is as we sit here, at an Aggie Host planning/meeting thing. Those yellow polos are just too cute for words... Although I'd totally never wear one.

Now that I think about it from a stranger's perspective, our marriage was probably pretty cringe-worthy, but I think we've definitely beaten the odds. I attribute our success mostly to our relative independence. We are happy in our co-existence, but we're perfectly fine apart as well (her doing her thing, me doing mine) and we have boundaries, like separate hobbies and such. I see a lot of young couples bordering on co-dependance, and without venturing too deeply into my personal convictions about that, I can understand why the divorce rate is so high...

 

[Carboxide]

And I am pretty sure UC Davis is the ONLY school in the WORLD that uses "R" to indicate Thursday.

Seriously? It's really popular in the Midwest...I didn't know people DIDN'T use that for Thursday. What do you use??

 

[calisoca]

You sure this verb is an "ar" and not in "ir" like the OTHER Spanish verb you were telling me about a couple weeks ago? 😉

Actually, I think we all can agree, even Atheists and Agnostics, that Jesus was a real person that existed, but not necessarily that he was a Messiah, son of God, or anything else. /shrug, either way, that's about how ridiculous the LSAT is, to me anyway!

She is 23, I'm 27 this year, so it's not a horrible difference. We've been married for 4 years though, this year, so with quick math you can clearly deduce that yes, I did marry a teenager (Which she REALLY hates by the way, when I point it out hahahaha) although by no means does she act like one (obviously) so indeed, I'm a really dirty Aggie. Just doing the Pack proud! =] She is as we sit here, at an Aggie Host planning/meeting thing. Those yellow polos are just too cute for words... Although I'd totally never wear one.

Now that I think about it from a stranger's perspective, our marriage was probably pretty cringe-worthy, but I think we've definitely beaten the odds. I attribute our success mostly to our relative independence. We are happy in our co-existence, but we're perfectly fine apart as well (her doing her thing, me doing mine) and we have boundaries, like separate hobbies and such. I see a lot of young couples bordering on co-dependance, and without venturing too deeply into my personal convictions about that, I can understand why the divorce rate is so high...

Wow, awesome story. You absolutely and completely robbed the cradle. I don't care what you say, she was a mere 19 year old sophomore wandering the streets of Davis when you shop-lifted the pooty (Dibs on that phrase SDN). The yellow shirts are, in fact, precious, especially when your gf is wearing an over-sized one and you can just rip it off and make the aggie pack proud.

Congrats man, keep me posted on your application process, I'm pullin' for ya.