-I had absolutely no school work last week (outside of reading a book for my WMST class and a 2 page response of my Global Issues class). No problem sets, no midterms, no upcoming midterms, no papers, nothing.
-I worked four RA duty shifts last week, which involved a grand total of 14 hours sitting bored stiff at a desk with nothing to study.
-I've read the one econ chapter we're working on now, twice. And taken notes on it.
-My next problem sets for either of my econ classes aren't even posted on blackboard yet and the syllabuses don't say when they'll be due, but it definitely isn't going to be this week.
-I skipped my one class Friday because midterms were coming back meaning nothing would actually get taught. I was SOOOO excited for class today because I've had nothing to do for forever, and.....class was cancelled.
-Which means I just had a 4 day weekend but had nothing to study and couldn't go hang out with people because I was on duty.
-I've read two books in three days.
-I actually emailed the global center director declaring I wasn't busy enough, begging to be put to work (we're meeting on Wednesday).
-I'm getting tired of coming up with BS things to do. "Oh maybe I should learn more about the Truman Doctrine" "oh maybe I'll write a chapter of the book that's never actually going to get finished and is thus actually a waste of time" "oh maybe I should do more job research even though my field doesn't start hiring until March." My life has been relegated to waiting for the next meal as an excuse to do something and shopping online in the interim.
-I'm going crazy here!
Monday, October 4, 2010
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Passing Thought
So I don't know what's wrong with my life, but I've had literally zero school work this week. I think my classes are just in weird sync this semester since last week had me running around like a chicken with my head cut off, pulling 7am-2am long days trying to get everything done. Now, I'm hating the lull.
I could talk more about it, but the point of this post is to talk about House.
I was watching an old episode online the other day and the opening scene was a bride walking down the aisle with her Dad.
Given my religious background, I haven't exactly spent a lot of time in my life thinking about walking down a traditional church aisle, so it was a moment to pause for fresh reflection.
Maybe my women's studies class (which I love, love, love) is pushing me to the edge of radical but, watching the bride, something didn't sit right.
She was with her Dad in the final moments before walking through the door, with her Dad the whole time down the aisle, and met her husband at the pulpit. She wasn't without a male presence the entire time. And further, symbolic of being passed from her fathers care to her husbands care, she wasn't without someone to "look out for her" or "be responsible for her" the whole time. Her fiance/husband is just poof, magically there at the puplit. He doesn't need to go through any metaphorical passage of changing hands of caretakers, he can take care of himself just fine, heck, he can even walk himself to the puplit just fine. But the woman....can't.
And what about what everyone always says about the day of marriage being, "the bride's day" I think its probably mostly in reference of getting micromanaging Mom's to back off, but in actuality isn't it.....THEIR day? The bride's AND the groom's? This again seems to stress a pattern of the attention being focused on the bride because she is going through some major life transition of going from her father's home to her husband's home. The man doesn't need attention because again, it's implied that he can take care of himself. Doesn't that seem just a little belittling towards the bride?
Then again, this is all coming from a girl that's always insisted that her and her prince charming are going to pick out the wedding dress and the wedding tux together so they both find things they, collectively, both like. The colors, the songs, the food, everything done together so that the day is fully representative of THEIR relationship (although, I'm aware that it will probably actually be more like dragging around my tired and bored finance who will ultimately defer to me to make the decisions, but still! Speaking ideally!). I've always staunchly refused to even THINK (ok, think very much lol) about things like what I want the wedding colors to be because I want to decide when I know who I'm marrying, when I'm at that point in life, when I can choose what seems to match US best.
I'm sure, sure, sure there are a lot of culturally comparative statements that could be made about how much more patriarichal other cultures around the world are compared to America, but....just thinking about our own culture a little bit.....
I could talk more about it, but the point of this post is to talk about House.
I was watching an old episode online the other day and the opening scene was a bride walking down the aisle with her Dad.
Given my religious background, I haven't exactly spent a lot of time in my life thinking about walking down a traditional church aisle, so it was a moment to pause for fresh reflection.
Maybe my women's studies class (which I love, love, love) is pushing me to the edge of radical but, watching the bride, something didn't sit right.
She was with her Dad in the final moments before walking through the door, with her Dad the whole time down the aisle, and met her husband at the pulpit. She wasn't without a male presence the entire time. And further, symbolic of being passed from her fathers care to her husbands care, she wasn't without someone to "look out for her" or "be responsible for her" the whole time. Her fiance/husband is just poof, magically there at the puplit. He doesn't need to go through any metaphorical passage of changing hands of caretakers, he can take care of himself just fine, heck, he can even walk himself to the puplit just fine. But the woman....can't.
And what about what everyone always says about the day of marriage being, "the bride's day" I think its probably mostly in reference of getting micromanaging Mom's to back off, but in actuality isn't it.....THEIR day? The bride's AND the groom's? This again seems to stress a pattern of the attention being focused on the bride because she is going through some major life transition of going from her father's home to her husband's home. The man doesn't need attention because again, it's implied that he can take care of himself. Doesn't that seem just a little belittling towards the bride?
Then again, this is all coming from a girl that's always insisted that her and her prince charming are going to pick out the wedding dress and the wedding tux together so they both find things they, collectively, both like. The colors, the songs, the food, everything done together so that the day is fully representative of THEIR relationship (although, I'm aware that it will probably actually be more like dragging around my tired and bored finance who will ultimately defer to me to make the decisions, but still! Speaking ideally!). I've always staunchly refused to even THINK (ok, think very much lol) about things like what I want the wedding colors to be because I want to decide when I know who I'm marrying, when I'm at that point in life, when I can choose what seems to match US best.
I'm sure, sure, sure there are a lot of culturally comparative statements that could be made about how much more patriarichal other cultures around the world are compared to America, but....just thinking about our own culture a little bit.....
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Free Marketing
So Gilt should probably swing some money my way for the sales pitch, but I'm so excited about it, I can't help but rave.
My boyfriend was recruiting at a career fair last week and saw a girl with shoes he knew I would love (stop and take a second to go: awwwww) so he asked her about them and that is how Gilt.com came into my life.
Gilt is an online start-up with a "flash sale" scheme, meaning certain designers are highlighted for a period of 36 hours, starting at noon every day. In other words, designer stuff on the serious side of cheap.
And I'm not talking about the ugly leftovers in impossible sizes that they can't sell and that are only marked 20% off and you can probably find for 40% off somewhere else.
Legit designers, with the latest stuff, and a huge range of selection for 50-70-pushing 80% percent off. There's women's, men's, kid's, and homegoods, and a link to Jetsetter with deals at luxury hotels around the globe.
For a girl bored with suburban malls, yearning for the shops and sample sales of SoHo, Gilt is a light in the darkness.
Another thing I like about them is that they showcase some designers I haven't heard of. Sure I know DVF, D&G, Missoni, Inhabit, Tart, etc. But I hadn't heard of, for example, Daryl K, Marais USA, or Magaschoni. It's been a great way to increase my designer knowledge beyond companies I baisedly self-select to learn about and hence I've gotten a better range of understanding and helped hone my fashion sense.
However, BE INFORMED:
As I got closer to actually purchasing from Gilt, I obviously figured I should do a little investigating about a company that seems a little too good to be true.
I'll let them first speak for themselves: http://www.gilt.com/company/about
Hopelessly economically oriented, I've wondered about Gilt in context of the recession and its implications on designers. Is it expanding the reach of designers, helping them to long term increase their business pool and exposure? Or is it cheapening the image they've worked to build by practically throwing their clothes at us? What are the ethics behind this, given they are obviously thriving off of companies struggling through the recession (my capitalistic answer: totally ethical and don't you dare think otherwise). How is the "cheapening" of these goods effecting the way that high fashion is perceived and consumer demands? (for example, are people feeling more entitled to these goods, decreasing their luxury status, and consequently decreasing their elasticity, which has effects on their pricing and purchasing patterns). What would Meryl Streep in the Devil Wears Prada do?
All these questions are rather obvious and thus it's not surprising that New York Magazine has a 6 page article asking precisely the same things I've been asking myself: http://nymag.com/fashion/10/spring/63807/
Overall, I'll let you make your own decision about Gilt, but it should be pretty clear how I feel about them.
[And if you want to be the nicest person ever, shoot me your email so I can refer you before you sign up so I can get store credits :)]
P.S. They're main competitor is Rue La La, but my evaluation of it is that they're don't have as good of brands or as much stock. And the styles are a little different, probably due to different buyer's tastes. The discounts might be a little deeper, but it Gilt makes it look like an outlet mall.
My boyfriend was recruiting at a career fair last week and saw a girl with shoes he knew I would love (stop and take a second to go: awwwww) so he asked her about them and that is how Gilt.com came into my life.
Gilt is an online start-up with a "flash sale" scheme, meaning certain designers are highlighted for a period of 36 hours, starting at noon every day. In other words, designer stuff on the serious side of cheap.
And I'm not talking about the ugly leftovers in impossible sizes that they can't sell and that are only marked 20% off and you can probably find for 40% off somewhere else.
Legit designers, with the latest stuff, and a huge range of selection for 50-70-pushing 80% percent off. There's women's, men's, kid's, and homegoods, and a link to Jetsetter with deals at luxury hotels around the globe.
For a girl bored with suburban malls, yearning for the shops and sample sales of SoHo, Gilt is a light in the darkness.
Another thing I like about them is that they showcase some designers I haven't heard of. Sure I know DVF, D&G, Missoni, Inhabit, Tart, etc. But I hadn't heard of, for example, Daryl K, Marais USA, or Magaschoni. It's been a great way to increase my designer knowledge beyond companies I baisedly self-select to learn about and hence I've gotten a better range of understanding and helped hone my fashion sense.
However, BE INFORMED:
As I got closer to actually purchasing from Gilt, I obviously figured I should do a little investigating about a company that seems a little too good to be true.
I'll let them first speak for themselves: http://www.gilt.com/company/about
Hopelessly economically oriented, I've wondered about Gilt in context of the recession and its implications on designers. Is it expanding the reach of designers, helping them to long term increase their business pool and exposure? Or is it cheapening the image they've worked to build by practically throwing their clothes at us? What are the ethics behind this, given they are obviously thriving off of companies struggling through the recession (my capitalistic answer: totally ethical and don't you dare think otherwise). How is the "cheapening" of these goods effecting the way that high fashion is perceived and consumer demands? (for example, are people feeling more entitled to these goods, decreasing their luxury status, and consequently decreasing their elasticity, which has effects on their pricing and purchasing patterns). What would Meryl Streep in the Devil Wears Prada do?
All these questions are rather obvious and thus it's not surprising that New York Magazine has a 6 page article asking precisely the same things I've been asking myself: http://nymag.com/fashion/10/spring/63807/
Overall, I'll let you make your own decision about Gilt, but it should be pretty clear how I feel about them.
[And if you want to be the nicest person ever, shoot me your email so I can refer you before you sign up so I can get store credits :)]
P.S. They're main competitor is Rue La La, but my evaluation of it is that they're don't have as good of brands or as much stock. And the styles are a little different, probably due to different buyer's tastes. The discounts might be a little deeper, but it Gilt makes it look like an outlet mall.
Monday, September 20, 2010
A lack of math
First off, let me just say, blogging on a iPad (checked out from the media center) from the column laden steps of the campus library overlooking the quad on an early fall morning is.......awesome.
I was just browsing through my international Econ book to read up a bit on offer curves. In my mind, offer curves, and the number of things they tell you, are pretty cool. The most simple way to describe them is that they represent the relationship between exports and imports of two goods in a basic two country model. This is derived from each countries relative factor prices of the two goods, which leads to the terms of trade, and consequently, they also tell you about the supply and demand for each good. I'm throwing around a lot of terms here so it's pretty clear that offer curves are pretty useful for a lot of things. Because they tie together supply and demand of exports and imports of the goods for each country, effects of things like changes in income, substitution, etc all also can be observed with the curves and the magnitude of these effects measured through the elasticity of demand for the good and the elasticity of the curve itself.
The math for all this is pretty intuitive (and pretty cool). The relationship between relative prices and their consequent effect on terms of trade is simple calculus, and understanding the effect of elasticity requires only the most basic of basic understandings of multivariate calc, really, it's just a couple simple partial derivatives. Rudimentary though it may be, the math going on here says a lot and gives you an intuitive sense of how and why everything comes together in offer curves. You can literally see the relationships when you have the equations linking all the variables together; you can feel each thing shifting and responding in graceful, seamless unison. It all ties together like a pretty bow on a present.
Given this, I was obviously surprised when I noticed that the chapter merely skimmed through their explanation, simply gave the bottom line of what needed to memorized, and relegated all the math behind it to to the appendix at the end of the chapter.
Um. What?
The math should be the building blocks, not an afterthought of "oh btw, in case your interested."
With a sigh, I filed this away as compounding evidence that there is a lack of math in the Econ dept at both my school and a couple others that I've encountered. Only one semester of calc is required to graduate, the "hardest class" of the major is the only one that is quantitatively based, and I've heard more heard one kid bemoan having to "do math" in more than one class.
For me, economics is a way of seeing the world. A lot of my fellow majors won't disagree with me there. But my reasoning behind this statement seems to be a little different than most. For me, seeing the world is observing relationships. Why people make the choices and decisions they do, what influences their behavior, and how that behavior in turn has effects on the world around them. The first thing you're taught on the first day of your first Econ class is that people are rational. Thinking that through: people are rational, their behavior can be patterned and predictable, patterns can be linked to it other patterns, relationships can be defined, MATH can be used to describe those relationships. Econ is logic. Math is logic. Econ is math.
So it's seems sad to me that math is so often cast to the way side in so many econ classes in universities today. It seems a bit like taking a french literature class and only reading English translations. You get the gist of it, the meaning and richness are gone.
I was just browsing through my international Econ book to read up a bit on offer curves. In my mind, offer curves, and the number of things they tell you, are pretty cool. The most simple way to describe them is that they represent the relationship between exports and imports of two goods in a basic two country model. This is derived from each countries relative factor prices of the two goods, which leads to the terms of trade, and consequently, they also tell you about the supply and demand for each good. I'm throwing around a lot of terms here so it's pretty clear that offer curves are pretty useful for a lot of things. Because they tie together supply and demand of exports and imports of the goods for each country, effects of things like changes in income, substitution, etc all also can be observed with the curves and the magnitude of these effects measured through the elasticity of demand for the good and the elasticity of the curve itself.
The math for all this is pretty intuitive (and pretty cool). The relationship between relative prices and their consequent effect on terms of trade is simple calculus, and understanding the effect of elasticity requires only the most basic of basic understandings of multivariate calc, really, it's just a couple simple partial derivatives. Rudimentary though it may be, the math going on here says a lot and gives you an intuitive sense of how and why everything comes together in offer curves. You can literally see the relationships when you have the equations linking all the variables together; you can feel each thing shifting and responding in graceful, seamless unison. It all ties together like a pretty bow on a present.
Given this, I was obviously surprised when I noticed that the chapter merely skimmed through their explanation, simply gave the bottom line of what needed to memorized, and relegated all the math behind it to to the appendix at the end of the chapter.
Um. What?
The math should be the building blocks, not an afterthought of "oh btw, in case your interested."
With a sigh, I filed this away as compounding evidence that there is a lack of math in the Econ dept at both my school and a couple others that I've encountered. Only one semester of calc is required to graduate, the "hardest class" of the major is the only one that is quantitatively based, and I've heard more heard one kid bemoan having to "do math" in more than one class.
For me, economics is a way of seeing the world. A lot of my fellow majors won't disagree with me there. But my reasoning behind this statement seems to be a little different than most. For me, seeing the world is observing relationships. Why people make the choices and decisions they do, what influences their behavior, and how that behavior in turn has effects on the world around them. The first thing you're taught on the first day of your first Econ class is that people are rational. Thinking that through: people are rational, their behavior can be patterned and predictable, patterns can be linked to it other patterns, relationships can be defined, MATH can be used to describe those relationships. Econ is logic. Math is logic. Econ is math.
So it's seems sad to me that math is so often cast to the way side in so many econ classes in universities today. It seems a bit like taking a french literature class and only reading English translations. You get the gist of it, the meaning and richness are gone.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
INTS 210
"Global Issues" is the required foundational course for my international studies major. Given that I transferred my Junior year, I wasn't exactly around to take it my freshman year and have found myself unable to waive the course, test out, swap credits, or any other means of avoidance.
Fully indulging my annoyance with this course is something I simply don't have the time or energy for, but I would like to share a few delightful tidbits of "knowledge" that have been imparted through the course so far:
-Globalization is a world wide evil that is a unstoppable, uncontrollable mystic external force that is controlling all of us against our will and destroying everyone's cultures.
-Liberalization (and I honestly don't think half the kids in the class actually know what this term means, let alone ANY significant facts, or theories, or studies, or anything scholarly about it) is BAD and we should all buy local and shop at farmer's markets and whole foods to encourage local cultural and cease to be mindless economic consumers void of social values.
-And today we learned that the Marshall Plan was basically a US conspiracy to control Europe and us imperialist Americans with superiority complexes cruelly forced American values and standards on European culture and therefore it was actually a horrible idea.
I think you should now have some idea of how I feel about the course. My patience is wearing thin on the number of uninformed ideas being fed to these freshman who don't know any better than to nod and say yes, who aren't being given the facts or even remotely informed about the current scholarly discussion on the topics. Don't get me wrong, critique is fine, great, healthy, and all that good stuff, but this is so subjectively one-sided it's absolutely ridiculous.
Fully indulging my annoyance with this course is something I simply don't have the time or energy for, but I would like to share a few delightful tidbits of "knowledge" that have been imparted through the course so far:
-Globalization is a world wide evil that is a unstoppable, uncontrollable mystic external force that is controlling all of us against our will and destroying everyone's cultures.
-Liberalization (and I honestly don't think half the kids in the class actually know what this term means, let alone ANY significant facts, or theories, or studies, or anything scholarly about it) is BAD and we should all buy local and shop at farmer's markets and whole foods to encourage local cultural and cease to be mindless economic consumers void of social values.
-And today we learned that the Marshall Plan was basically a US conspiracy to control Europe and us imperialist Americans with superiority complexes cruelly forced American values and standards on European culture and therefore it was actually a horrible idea.
I think you should now have some idea of how I feel about the course. My patience is wearing thin on the number of uninformed ideas being fed to these freshman who don't know any better than to nod and say yes, who aren't being given the facts or even remotely informed about the current scholarly discussion on the topics. Don't get me wrong, critique is fine, great, healthy, and all that good stuff, but this is so subjectively one-sided it's absolutely ridiculous.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Book
I just wrote the introduction to my book.
And yes, I know you're supposed to write that last, but the words for it came, so I wrote them down. And that was that. Quite suddenly, I've commenced.
I'm not entirely ready to give the verbal trailer for it yet (maybe I never will be). Suffice it to say that it is about my life.
I know, INCREDIBLY self-indulgent. I know, I know, I know. It seems arrogant, egotistical, self-absorbed, overly dramatic, to even THINK that my life is a story worth writing about.
I finally had enough people tell me that IT IS WORTH WRITING ABOUT to stop trying to suppress the urge and force humility. Better to get it all out and down now before I forget the details that give it color and it all runs together.
It's rather unlikely that I'll ever finish, and even less likely that I'll publish it. But it is noteworthy that I've put energy into it given that I seem to have a rather high threshold for interest and purpose before I invest in a project.
So.......here I go!
And yes, I know you're supposed to write that last, but the words for it came, so I wrote them down. And that was that. Quite suddenly, I've commenced.
I'm not entirely ready to give the verbal trailer for it yet (maybe I never will be). Suffice it to say that it is about my life.
I know, INCREDIBLY self-indulgent. I know, I know, I know. It seems arrogant, egotistical, self-absorbed, overly dramatic, to even THINK that my life is a story worth writing about.
I finally had enough people tell me that IT IS WORTH WRITING ABOUT to stop trying to suppress the urge and force humility. Better to get it all out and down now before I forget the details that give it color and it all runs together.
It's rather unlikely that I'll ever finish, and even less likely that I'll publish it. But it is noteworthy that I've put energy into it given that I seem to have a rather high threshold for interest and purpose before I invest in a project.
So.......here I go!
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Don't try this at home. Or school. Or anywhere.
Under no circumstances should one EVER, EVER put a coffee mug in one's bag.
Even if it only has (sigh, RED) juice in it and is "basically empty."
And especially NOT if one also happens to have $$$$ textbooks in said bag that they were going to return.
Furthermore, one should probably not enlist the help of every swear word they know in front of a group of housing administrators whilst reacting to the unforeseen, yet imminent, disaster produced by this situation.
:(
Even if it only has (sigh, RED) juice in it and is "basically empty."
And especially NOT if one also happens to have $$$$ textbooks in said bag that they were going to return.
Furthermore, one should probably not enlist the help of every swear word they know in front of a group of housing administrators whilst reacting to the unforeseen, yet imminent, disaster produced by this situation.
:(
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)