<p>Riiiiiight. Those ACT’s. I need to take those. Everybody say it’s easier than the SAT.</p>
<p>People tend to reject “Chance Me” threads until you have SAT or ACT scores, which tells you something about their quality.</p>
<p>Basically, you can split them into three groups:</p>
<p>(a): Sophomores or younger who are freaking out about college far earlier than they should be. (I admit, I joined CC earlier than I should have…see Join Date) About 5% of all chances threads.</p>
<p>(b): They genuinely have no idea where to apply and ask for suggestions about safeties/matches/reaches. About 20% of all chances threads.</p>
<p>(c): They are amazing, completely out of this world applicants who want reassurance they don’t really need. Some believe they just want to brag; Others argue that they are simply insecure. Whatever the case, they tend to make up around 75% of all chances threads.</p>
<p>In any case, I really wouldn’t recommend putting very much basis in them if you DO use them. Not only are the users not really admissions officers (with a few exceptions, and admissions officers don’t go on the chances threads), but they don’t see your teacher recs, essays, etc. that really will be factored into the admissions process.</p>
<p>In other words, take them with a grain of salt. A very large grain of salt.</p>
<p>It depends. It tests more actual knowledge than the SAT’s, but it’s less sneaky. Maybe it’s just because I was more prepared, but I liked the PSAT better than the PLAN. I am sneaky like that though.</p>
<p>I also prefer the SAT to the ACT. It feel more straightforward (to me).</p>
<p>I think the science section on the ACT is weird. Science is not just chart reading, people…</p>
<p>No kidding! I mean about the sophmores thing. I cannot believe a sophmore is even thinking about college. It’s so sad to read how worried some of them are. </p>
<p>You are definitely right about the whole system. This should be the first thing people read when they click on the “chance me” section.</p>
<p>I was freaking out about college last year. I should have thought about it ninth grade so I could get some better EC’s in there, but, oh well. I’m doing well in school which is really the best thing I can do now.</p>
<p>Ugh, I’m a conversation killer. </p>
<p>So, Super Tuesday tomorrow. Excited? Thoughts?</p>
<p>This really isn’t about Super Tuesday…</p>
<p>But I’m sure that all of you are aware that <em>certain</em> states were stripped of their Democratic delegates. This is going to be a bit of a rant, so feel free to ignore… Firstly, why should the same states get to go first in EVERY primary or caucus? It’s in New Hampshire’s goddamn CONSTITUTION that it must go first every year, isn’t that a bit pretentious? Why do certain states get to monopolize this early influence while others are penalized? It’s ridiculous. I’m not saying that it was right for aforementioned certain states to move their primaries back, but the backlash had only detrimental impact upon the Democratic Party.</p>
<p>Secondly, stripping state delegates is a horrendous political tactic, especially when the states involved are SWING states. People around here are ****ed off at the Democratic Party because they feel that they had NO say in selecting the nominee. Way to alienate people! I wouldn’t be surprised if Michigan, at least, went red in this year’s election simply because:
- There has been much more coverage of Republican candidates and primaries, who actually campaigned here.
- Michiganders feel that Democrats don’t care about our issues as much as Republican candidates do.
- A lot of voters believe the Democratic nominee will not well-represent our interests because we never actually got any voice in the matter.</p>
<p>As irrational as the behavior of our government may have been, it really was not fair to hurt the PEOPLE by stripping us of our delegates. By eliminating our VOICE, the Democratic Party is eliminating our RIGHT TO VOTE. The heads of the party should not be surprised if we side with the Republicans this time (we have been Dem for the last few races) and this costly mistake could lose them the race. And before anyone attacks me by saying that Michigan’s actions were illegal, I accept that (even though I find the law ridiculous). But the Democratic Party hopefully realizes that the reaction to this “illegal” act could potentially cost the party the election.</p>
<p>“Plant sex- fun!”</p>
<p>Well, at least the sex you learn about is confined to innocent plants. We have to learn about /animal/ sex…yes, sponges, jellyfish, octopuses, worms (worm sex is the best), lobsters…all the way up to fish, reptiles, mammals. It gets quite graphic.</p>
<p>EDIT: This is zoology class, by the way :)</p>
<p>Zoology? Neat.
Sponge sex. Hm. Can’t exactly picture that one. Wouldn’t the jellyfish sting one another? Then again, maybe they don’t mind. </p>
<p>Somehow, I can picture “Lobsters having sex” as some ridiculously gourmet meal in a restaurant in Paris or something, with saffron butter sauce and ginger-coconut-mangosteen cotton candy for dessert.</p>
<p>“doctor, find the cure for AIDS and Epstein-Barr, save the world twice or thrice, become Surgeon General, then President then Chairman of the U.N. then eventually Supreme Chancellor of the world”</p>
<p>Do I sense a rival here? D-Yu, I’m afraid that your pursuit of international rule is a direct challenge upon mine, and I am forced to take your threat very seriously. This matter must be settled in the most sensible way possible: we’ll flip a coin; heads I win, tails you lose. How about it?</p>
<p>Fortunately, you seek world domination through the post of Secretary General of the UN (I assume) and appear naively unaware that the UN is incapable of doing anything. The UN is the US’s b.i.t.c.h. and all planned actions will become hopelessly entangled in the endless chain of committees, councils, and assemblies! Woo!</p>
<p>However, you have disgraced yourself with this petty challenge upon my authority. It will take a good deal of groveling to return to my good graces! May this serve as a warning to anyone else who wishes to undermine my power!</p>
<p>Earil -
Sponge sex is a very special thing, and I hope that one day you will have the opportunity to observe this beautiful act of love-making for yourself…</p>
<p>Actually, octopus sex in particular is especially interesting because the male and female engage in elaborate courtship rituals. Afterwards, the male inserts a sperm “packet” into the female, which the stores. The female can collect several sperm packets in this way (she’s quite the playa), and, when she is ready to produce offspring (which can be months later), she will actually PICK whichever sperm she wants to use, based on her impression of the male…pretty neat, huh?</p>
<p>Lobster sex would sound yummy if I weren’t a vegetarian.</p>
<p>Sorry, I didn’t mean to make this a science lesson…</p>
<p>Hey, all. I was off eating empanadas, the zenith of my Hispanic cred. They were delicious. (:</p>
<p>They probably do have websites dedicated to it on the dark side of the interweb.</p>
<p>Those octopi. They always did strike me as fussy. Also squirmy and unpleasant.</p>
<p>I’m allergic to crab and very likely lobster, though I’m not exactly keen on finding out. Also, I’ve made it a kind of life tenet of mine to never eat anything that’s copulating while I eat it. </p>
<p>That was actually pretty fascinating. Any other weird animal tidbits to give out?</p>
<p>Uh…not off the top of my head…some stuff that’s not as cool:</p>
<p>Hmm…a lot of animals have green blood because they have hemocyanin (coppery) instead of hemoglobin (iron-y).</p>
<p>I know lots of stuff about parasites…some of them are really freaky-looking up close through a microscope with suckers and hooks and shark-like teeth…</p>
<p>But seriously, earthworm sex is pretty amazing. You have to see it up close. It changed my life; I will never view sex in the same way again :)</p>
<p>It’s awesome how females tend to dominate the animal world…now we just need to translate that idea into the human world!</p>
<p>I’m starting to think Wink stopped joking a few dozen of pages ago…</p>
<p>I’ve heard that women did used to, then we let men into the church and that screwed us over. I definitely agree though. No genocide’s ever been carried out by a woman, as far as I know.</p>
<p>Ugh, parasites kind of scare me. They’re very icky.</p>
<p>That interesting. I wonder if it’s harder to get iron or copper from your food? Iron is the only nutrient that women need more of than men.</p>
<p>Entirely likely, dear Donny-o. Don’t worry, you’ll probably get a position of privilege in her new world order. Especially if you bake her cookies!</p>
<p>Hudson – whatever do you mean?? :)</p>
<p>Earil – good question! I think it depends on the available types of food, but I would think (somehow) that iron would easier to find…</p>
<p>I would imagine most mammals have hemoglobin, right? I think iron is more abundant in the earth’s crust, it’s certainly cheaper than copper in any case.</p>