Liberty University Online Academy Affiliate

WorkFromHomeUK | Matched Betting

Earn extra RISK-FREE cash each month using Matched Betting. Contained will be a guide and break down of each aspect showing EXACTLY how it works. Most guides are hard work to follow. I intend to make Matched Betting SIMPLE!

wireless networking and security


White Student Union

This is intended to be a subreddit for white student unions in universities. Please note that hate speech, slurs, and the like will not be tolerated.

Do online university have affiliate programs?

Hey all, I may have a chance to get my hands on a lot of MBA/ online nursing degree traffic. Do schools have affiliate programs? Couldn’t find anything when I googled which was a bit surprising. Does anyone work in this pace?
submitted by enggie to Affiliatemarketing [link] [comments]

Anybody doing Liberty University online with a Flight Training Affiliate?

I’ve looked all over for info on the financial aid and cost. No joy. Can student loans fully cover the degree and flight training? Or is only the online degree covered?
submitted by cazmanian_devil to flying [link] [comments]

Online Application Form | DITM-Affiliated to GGSIP University Delhi-NCR

Online Application Form | DITM-Affiliated to GGSIP University Delhi-NCR submitted by oprashant to u/oprashant [link] [comments]

Title IX may sometimes require colleges to censor or block all students’ access to certain internet sites or services based solely on anonymous statements made in an online forum that the university does not control, by people who may not be on campus, or even affiliated with the university at all.

Title IX may sometimes require colleges to censor or block all students’ access to certain internet sites or services based solely on anonymous statements made in an online forum that the university does not control, by people who may not be on campus, or even affiliated with the university at all. submitted by Imnotmrabut to MensRights [link] [comments]

[Local] - Online Western Governors University launches Ohio affiliate | Deseret

[Local] - Online Western Governors University launches Ohio affiliate | Deseret submitted by AutoNewspaperAdmin to AutoNewspaper [link] [comments]

[Local] - Online Western Governors University launches Ohio affiliate

[Local] - Online Western Governors University launches Ohio affiliate submitted by AutoNewsAdmin to DESERETauto [link] [comments]

[World] - Western Governors University launches Ohio affiliate, marking the eighth such partnership for the Utah-based online college

[World] - Western Governors University launches Ohio affiliate, marking the eighth such partnership for the Utah-based online college submitted by AutoNewsAdmin to SLTRIBauto [link] [comments]

[Politics] - Online Western Governors University launches Ohio affiliate

[Politics] - Online Western Governors University launches Ohio affiliate submitted by AutoNewsAdmin to MIAMIHERALDauto [link] [comments]

[Politics] - Online Western Governors University launches Ohio affiliate | Miami Herald

[Politics] - Online Western Governors University launches Ohio affiliate | Miami Herald submitted by AutoNewspaperAdmin to AutoNewspaper [link] [comments]

[World] - Western Governors University launches Ohio affiliate, marking the eighth such partnership for the Utah-based online college | Salt Lake Tribune

[World] - Western Governors University launches Ohio affiliate, marking the eighth such partnership for the Utah-based online college | Salt Lake Tribune submitted by AutoNewspaperAdmin to AutoNewspaper [link] [comments]

Are there any university affiliated online GMAT prep courses that would provide a certificate/grade following the completion of that course?

My employer has a tuition reimbursement program that would allow me to take a GMAT prep course for free as long as it is hosted by an accredited university, and there is some way that I could prove I completed the course (irrespective of my actual GMAT score). Any thoughts or ideas would be greatly appreciated!
submitted by rotiron1030 to GMAT [link] [comments]

Want to Learn Affiliate Marketing want to enroll in an Online University that Teaches you that in Simples Steps? What For Free? YES!

submitted by hilali1994 to entrepreneurnetwork [link] [comments]

Trump to sign executive order limiting social media fact-checks of his content


In case you missed it, Twitter marked two of Trump’s tweets about mail-in voting with “fact-check” disclaimers on Tuesday. The tweets read:
There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent. Mail boxes will be robbed, ballots will be forged & even illegally printed out & fraudulently signed. The Governor of California is sending Ballots to millions of people, anyone..... in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there, will get one. That will be followed up with professionals telling all of these people, many of whom have never even thought of voting before, how, and for whom, to vote. This will be a Rigged Election. No way!
Clicking the “Get the facts about mail-in ballots” label leads users to a page that says:
Trump falsely claimed that mail-in ballots would lead to "a Rigged Election." However, fact-checkers say there is no evidence that mail-in ballots are linked to voter fraud.
Trump falsely claimed that California will send mail-in ballots to "anyone living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there." In fact, only registered voters will receive ballots.
Five states already vote entirely by mail and all states offer some form of mail-in absentee voting, according to NBC News.
Trump angrily responded to the fact checks with multiple tweets alleging improper election interference:
@Twitter is now interfering in the 2020 Presidential Election. They are saying my statement on Mail-In Ballots, which will lead to massive corruption and fraud, is incorrect, based on fact-checking by Fake News CNN and the Amazon Washington Post....
....Twitter is completely stifling FREE SPEECH, and I, as President, will not allow it to happen!
Earlier today (Wednesday) Trump tweeted:
Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservatives voices. We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen. We saw what they attempted to do, and failed, in 2016. We can’t let a more sophisticated version of that....
....happen again. Just like we can’t let large scale Mail-In Ballots take root in our Country. It would be a free for all on cheating, forgery and the theft of Ballots. Whoever cheated the most would win. Likewise, Social Media. Clean up your act, NOW!!!!

Executive Order

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany told reporters that Trump is expected to sign an executive order aimed at social media companies on Thursday. No details were given about what form it may take.
However, the White House circulated a proposed executive order last year that would task the Federal Communications Commission with developing regulations to clarify when social media companies qualify for crucial liability protections, and would have the Federal Trade Commission “take those new policies into account when it investigates or files lawsuits against misbehaving companies."
That proposal targeted the online industry's prized liability shield over user-generated content, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The 1996 law broadly protects websites from lawsuits over what their users post, and for taking good-faith efforts to curb illicit material.
Any executive order is likely to be challenged in court. Twitter is not violating the First Amendment by adding labels to Trump’s tweets - Twitter is a private company that can moderate its users’ speech as it pleases, without legal penalty.
Laurence Tribe:
Trump’s statement that Twitter, a private company, is abridging his First Amendment freedom of speech by tagging his wild tweets about write-in voter fraud as misleading is totally absurd and legally illiterate… The First Amendment limits only the Government, not private entities like Twitter… Anyway, Twitter’s tagging of Trump’s claims about write-in voting is itself absolutely protected under the First Amendment as an expression of opinion… In addition, Twitter’s tagging, even insofar as it can be construed as a factual statement, is shielded by the defense of truth: the claim that Trump’s tweets about massive write-in voter fraud are at best extremely misleading and at worst downright lies is demonstrably true.

Past cases

Conservatives alleging censorship of conservative speech online have regularly failed in the courts:
  • A federal court dismissed activist Laura Loomer’s lawsuit against several tech platforms on Wednesday. The complaint alleged a far-flung conspiracy to censor conservative speech.
  • In a 3-0 decision that could apply to platforms such as Facebook, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Seattle found that YouTube was not a public forum subject to First Amendment scrutiny by judges. It upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit against Google and YouTube by Prager University, a conservative nonprofit run by radio talk show host Dennis Prager.
  • A federal district court in Texas ruled in Nyabwa v. Facebook that a private individual could not maintain a free-speech lawsuit against Facebook, writing: “the First Amendment governs only governmental limitations on speech.”


Twitter has refused to remove tweets by President Trump that allege Joe Scarborough murdered an intern in 2001. The claim is an unfounded conspiracy theory that has been disproven by police - authorities ruled no foul play.
Timothy Klausutis, the widower, sent a letter to Twitter asking the social media company to delete Trump’s tweets.
Klausutis wrote that the "barrage of falsehoods, half-truths, innuendo and conspiracy theories" around his wife's death, which the president had now helped spread, have made it hard for him to "move forward" with his life.
In response, the president dismissed Klausutis' concerns, "I'm sure ultimately they want to get to the bottom of it." (VIDEO)
Trump then doubled down on the conspiracy and said he thought the situation was "very suspicious" and hoped "somebody gets to the bottom of it" despite there being no evidence of foul play.
Note that all of Trump's tweets are being archived already, even ones he has deleted. There are a couple of websites doing this, but here's one:
submitted by rusticgorilla to Keep_Track [link] [comments]

I'm an adjunct and, even though I was told I wasn't going to be getting a class this semester (which I was fine with), I was offered a hybrid/hyflex section last minute. Against my better judgement I accepted and now I'm totally kicking myself in the ass for it.

Title pretty much sums it up. I adjunct at the university where my husband just got tenure and even though I get paid absolute crap, I keep up with it hoping a full-time position will open someday soon (I know, I'm an idiot). The past couple of years I haven't had more than one section a semester and have never had more than three in a term as more than that violates the university policy on part-timers. So last year I basically made $6600 pre-tax from teaching (with a PhD no less). It sucked, but once I had the course developed it didn't take up too much of my time. The students seemed to like it and I got very good evals.
The only way we've managed to stay afloat is that I have a consulting job in the private sector that pays significantly more and is, for the foreseeable future, allowing me to work remotely. Since Covid-19 hit this has been especially important because our youngest daughter has serious medical issues and is definitely at a high risk for lethal complications if she were to contract the virus. Even though I was told by my chair at the beginning of the summer that I was unlikely to get any fall classes due to pandemic-related cutbacks, my husband and I both submitted requests to teach remotely in the fall and provided strongly worded documentation from our daughter's specialists stressing that it would be very dangerous for any of us to be in a classroom setting until there is a vaccine. I wasn't going to bother but my husband thought it would be a good idea just in case.
Before we got any official word from the administration, my chair contacted me and said that even though my course was already fully enrolled, I wasn't going to get approved to teach it remotely because the university has decided that freshman are incapable of taking online classes and since my class is a majority freshman introduction course, unless I agreed to some sort of hybrid F2F format they were going to have to give it to someone else. I told her that was absolutely not an option for me as I am not going to take the chance of getting sick and my daughter is going to have to be home schooled. She was really apologetic and at that point I was totally okay with taking some time off from teaching and focusing more on my more lucrative and honestly more engaging consulting work as well as tag teaming home schooling the kid with my husband. She said they would get me affiliate faculty status so I could keep my office and my university email and that she would try to get me back on the schedule in the spring, assuming the world hasn't ended by then. I was good with that plan.
Then a couple of days ago I get an email from the college dean saying that my request to teach remotely had been approved and that my chair had convinced him that my contribution to the department was vital to its success. (I translated this to mean they couldn't find anyone else to teach my section). They still hadn't decided if it was going to be a fully online course or some sort of hyflex scenario where the students would still come to class and social distance with masks (yeah, right) but there would be a TA in the room who would log into Zoom and the students would have to sit and watch my giant head projected on the screen. It was heavily stressed by the dean and my chair that no matter what, there has to be synchronous delivery of curriculum.
My first instinct was to just say no. I did not want to deal with this fustercluck and they absolutely do not pay me enough to deal with this fustercluck. But my husband really thinks it's a good idea to stay on the schedule and play nice with everyone because he's convinced that it will lead to a real paying job someday. Where we live doesn't have a whole lot of options in my field and we can never really be sure when the consulting work is going to dry up (I've been guaranteed work at least through the end of the year). So against my better judgment a couple of days ago I told my chair that as long as I don't have to come to campus for any reason I would take the section.
Then I was informed that I had to have a course plan in place and communicated to multiple people in multiple departments by the beginning of next week. I still don't even know what the format of the class is going to be and I'm sure as hell not getting paid to work during the summer. I met with one these individuals this morning (an educational designer for extended learning) and the amount of extra work they are expecting for these classes is absolutely insane. We are expected to be synchronously engaging students multiple times a week through Zoom lectures, communicating with them one way or another almost daily to make sure they are not overwhelmed (they are really, really worried about enrollment and retention), be making sure that they are actively interacting with me and their fellow students either through Zoom breakout rooms or the LMS in discussion forums that must be monitored and graded, making sure all of that material is also available asynchronously for students who decide they can't or don't want to do synchronous (and everything has to be ADA compliant with CC, of course),... It's going to be a full-time fucking job. Why the hell did I agree to this???
Sorry about the rant. I'm just already exhausted and I haven't even opened up my syllabus yet to figure out how the hell I'm going to do this without it being a disaster, keep up with my consulting work and it's impeding report deadline, home school a fifth grader, make sure the house doesn't fall down around us... I know others on this sub will understand.
submitted by archyslayer to Professors [link] [comments]

[Canadian University Debating] Can you win a tournament by defending fascism? How one debate round led to the splitting of multiple online communities and multiple resignations

This particular controversy is still hot on the heels of the university debating community, and I feel like I need to sum this up to someone uninvolved. Pseudonyms will be used if necessary!


The majority of Canadian universities with debate societies all belong to the same organization, the Canadian University Society for Intercollegiate Debate, or CUSID. CUSID is largely responsible for organizing tournaments and creating and maintaining codes of conduct, and is represented by a president and regional vice presidents who serve one-year terms.
The executive body also appoints ombudspeople, whose job is to enforce "equity" at tournaments and parties- basically, make sure that racism/sexism/homophobia as well as general rude behaviour aren't tolerated and are dealt with as they come up. Tournament organizers can appoint their own equity officers, and the appointed ombuds are basically there to be a higher voice people can appeal to if necessary and deal with wider concerns.
Since all campuses were shut down, tournaments have been happening digitally. Equity is always a thing at these tournaments, but it's particularly important in the context of the second semester. There are two different debate formats that CUSID practices- one in the first semester (British Parliamentary or BP) and one in the second (Canadian Parliamentary or CP).
There are several differences between the two, but most importantly, in BP, a head judge determines the "motions", or topics that you debate, and everyone has to debate the same thing. You don't get to choose your side, and everyone has 15 minutes to prepare.
In CP, however, the affirmative team gets to choose any topic they like, and the opposition team has until the first speech starts to when it ends to prepare against it. Speeches are seven minutes each, so if you're on opposition, you have seven minutes between hearing what the debate will be and when you start talking for the first time. It can range from exhilarating to terrifying. People often prepare cases months in advance, or have a collection of stock cases that they'll refine and use at multiple tournaments.
Unsurprisingly, CP is a fairly controversial format, with some people thinking it's too challenging or unfair, or disliking the much wider range of topics that it allows. Conversely, some people enjoy working on creating cases of their own, and like the wider range of motions and learning to construct arguments very quickly. In either case, equity is there to make sure people aren't forced to defend anything horribly indefensible. For example, you're not allowed to bring forward the case "slavery is bad" and force the opposition to defend slavery.
Similarly, it's considered unfair (and will probably lose you the round) if you try to force them to argue against something obviously true or common-sense. (e.g "Vaccines should be free"). If the motion is too biased in your favour, it looks bad for you. Disagreements are often had as to what constitutes an unfair motion.
Equity complaints are generally understood to be anonymous, and the responses can vary, and tend to be non-punitive in nature. Responses to complaints could range from explaining why something was wrong and getting an apology to making sure the affected parties don't debate against each other in the future to, in very extreme cases, asking them to leave the tournament. Generally speaking, equity policy is to take on a non-punitive approach.
This has been the state of CUSID for a while, and the new online format hasn't really changed that too much. However, CUSID recently hosted CP Nationals, considered one of, if not the biggest CUSID tournaments of the year, and things got bad very quickly.

CP Nats

The majority of the Nationals tournament, held via Discord, went fairly normally. Debates were had, etc. The real problems happened during quarter-finals. The affirmative team began the debate, and the motion they had chosen was as follows:
Article 35A of the Indian constitution allows the legislature of Kashmir to define the state's "permanent residents" and what distinguishes them. All identified residents are issued a permanent resident certificate, which entitles them to special benefits related to employment, scholarships and other privileges in Kashmir. Only they have the right to own and, therefore, buy, property in the state.
Article 370 conferred Kashmir with the power to have a separate constitution, a state flag and autonomy over the internal administration of the state. This article, along with Article 35A, defined that the Jammu and Kashmir state's residents live under a separate set of laws, including those related to citizenship, ownership of property, and fundamental rights, as compared to residents of other Indian states. This house supports the Scrapping of Article 370 and 35A from the Indian Constitution and treating Kashmir with the same status and rights as any other Indian State.
If this seems like... a lot to have to process with only seven minutes to prepare a speech, while also having to take notes on what your opponent is saying at the same time, that's probably because it is. Debaters are sometimes penalized for bringing forward cases that require deep knowledge of things the average informed citizen can't reasonably be expected to know about, but in this case, the information was technically all there- it was just extremely dense and probably not well-suited for the CP format.
In any case, the debate was had, and some fairly offensive things were said in the midst of it. Comparisons to Punjab were brought up, with the affirmative allegedly claiming people living there "didn't have it that bad" and that it was the same as any other state. One debater on the opposition side, who was a white-passing mixed race man, was called white in the round. The affirmative debaters claimed that Kashmir was "run by corrupt Muslims" and should be treated like any other state in India. A lot of people were fairly upset by this, especially the two people on the opposition side who felt that the motion was unfair and pro-occupation.
After the round happened, the judges decided that the affirmative side had won the round, and one of the opposition debaters, "Steve", made a complaint to equity, saying the round was unfair and that the things said in the round were not equitable. What resulted was a three-hour deliberation from the equity team as they tried to decide what to do from here.
Most equity talks do not take nearly this long, but this one was particularly challenging by the nature of it being a quarter-finals round. The round had already been decided, and the affirmative team was the winner and moved forward with the tournament. But if the motion was indeed pro-fascist, was it fair for them to win on those grounds? The tournament was held up for three hours until the equity team made their decision: while they believed that the motion was inequitable, they decided to uphold the judges' decision and the affirmative team's win.
A lot of people were very unhappy about this decision, but as you might remember, equity complaints are supposed to be anonymous. In theory, no one should have known who made the complaint or why. But gossip travels fast, and the posting of a meme made the situation blow up.

Canadian Debate Memes

Debating Shitposting is a popular Facebook meme group for university debaters. It welcomes debaters from around the world to post debate memes, but is generally dominated from people in Western Europe, particularly British and Irish debaters. When debate drama happens in that region, it's commonly posted about in Shitposting.
About three years ago, a debater named 'Anna' created a new meme group, (name anonymized by request) to be the Canadian debate equivalent of Shitposting. This was largely dominated by people from Ontario and Quebec posting inside jokes and tournament memes, with Western and Eastern Canadian participation limited.
This group quickly became the go-to source for Canadian debate circuit memes, which could occasionally double as personal callouts. The group is not technically affiliated with CUSID, and the woman who runs it, "Anna", is not a member of the CUSID executive. Anna has repeatedly stated that personal callouts are allowed in the group, that the group does not have to follow the CUSID code of conduct, and that there is a benefit to having spaces to question and defy CUSID.
After the quarter-Finals debacle happened, another debater who did not participate in the round, "Tom", posted this meme to the meme group (I redacted his real name, but the original meme specifically called out 'Steve' by name). This is when people really got upset.
Some people liked the post, finding it amusing or accurate. Others immediately began commenting angrily, upset that 1) Tom made Steve's anonymous equity complaint public and shamed him for complaining, and 2) the meme implied the motion was not fascist and that Steve only complained because he was a sore loser. People quickly argued with Tom, urging him to take it down. Anna insisted that she would not delete the meme, as it did not violate any of her group's rules, making many folks angry with her as well.
Eventually, someone posted to the official CUSID Facebook group, suggesting someone should make an "official" meme group run by the actual CUSID exec and following the CUSID code of conduct. This was met with spirited disagreement, with some folks saying this was a good idea and others saying it was important to preserve the meme group as a site to speak truth to power and challenge CUSID. Others responded by pointing out that, in actuality, the group is instead being used to target people for making anonymous complaints.
Multiple comment threads were started by various users, weighing in on any of the following topics:
  1. Was the motion fascist?
  2. Did Steve do the right thing by complaining, or was it a weaponized complaint to win the tournament retroactively?
  3. Did Equity do the right thing by upholding the offending team's win? Should its members resign? Why did they take three hours to decide that?
  4. Was it okay for Tom to post that meme in the group? Should Anna take it down? Should the group exist at all?
  5. Is CUSID in general a positive environment, or is this all evidence of greater problems with the group bubbling under the surface?
Finally, the man who ran the CUSID facebook group was no longer an active debater, and hadn't been for years. Therefore, the CUSID executive did not have moderating power over the group. They had been messaging him for months asking for mod powers, but had never received a response. The comments quickly devolved into tagging him to ask for him to get the situation under control or give mod powers to the executive, and various memes making fun of him. He never responded, but memes tagging or addressing him were mysteriously deleted.
Eventually, Tom took the meme down, but continued to argue in comments that he had done nothing wrong by posting it. Multiple people posted long google docs explaining their views and wording, and expressing their feelings about the topic. These posts quickly garnered long arguments in the comments and got intensely personal.
Steve's girlfriend, a Sikh woman, made a post claiming the motion was fascist and the affirmative team acted inequitably. Someone responded implying that she was only saying that to stand up for her boyfriend, and that motion could not be inequitable as the person who came up with it was an Indian man. She responded by pointing out that he was not a minority in India, and in fact had servants in his home.
Another thread was started in an attempt to spread "positivity", asking people to comment about their positive experiences in CUSID. The thread was flooded with people claiming this ask was 'gaslighting' and was created to silence criticism of the CUSID environment.
Another thread, by one of the debaters who debated on the affirmative side, discussed the racist harassment she had received in CUSID and claimed that the accusations against her were false, that the motion was not fascist, and that they had won the round for a reason. The comments were once again met with vicious arguing and intensely personal attacks, calling one another Uncle Toms and fascists and everyone implying everyone else was using their clout to attack one another. The fighting was vicious, and virtually everyone who commented on anything in the CUSID group or the meme group was dragged into it.

The New Groups

Finally, after about two days of intense Facebook fighting, the CUSID exec decided that they had had enough of the two unmoderated groups, and created new ones: one to be an official CUSID discussion hub, this time run by the actual executive, and a new meme group that was 'officially' CUSID-affiliated. Links were posted in both groups and people were urged to migrate from the unmoderated groups to the moderated ones.
Not everyone listened to these calls: many jokes and memes were had in the old meme group about the new meme group, including comparing it to Weenie Hut Juniors from Spongebob and joking that it was the meme group for cops. Regardless, these new groups quickly gained hundreds of members, and most people were at least members of both.
After sentiments had calmed down a bit, apologies, final statements, and letters of resignation came pouring in. Among those were:
-The aforementioned woman on the affirmative team claimed she would no longer be debating in CUSID, and would be stepping down from a judge role in an upcoming tournament
-Anna suggested we should stop holding debate tournaments over the summer in order to allow people to recover with minimal stress
-The main equity officer for CP Nats, who had previously gotten a CUSID tattoo, apologized for any hurt caused and claimed she would be stepping down from her role, getting her tattoo covered up, and ceasing to debate in CUSID
-Two women who were planning to help run an upcoming Women's tournament stepped down from their positions in a joint letter, citing online harassment and that they no longer had faith in the equity team to sufficiently do their jobs
-The equity team put out a statement explaining and justifying their decision to uphold the win and why it took them three hours to do so

The End

Eventually, the massive volume of posts died down, and CUSID was left with a long list of resignations and a commitment by the equity team to uphold folks' rights in the future. Interestingly enough, the disagreement between members of the group seemed to have grown much bigger than the actual motion, Steve's equity complaint, or Tom's meme about it, though those were the inciting incidents. Of all the people blamed for the ensuing shitshow, Tom's name was surprisingly absent. It seems like this drama was simply CUSID's boiling point, and became a general forum for people to express longstanding concerns that they had held before all this happened.
How this will meaningfully affect the region besides the two new Facebook group remains to be seen, but hopefully events like this will be avoided in the future.
submitted by Sazley to HobbyDrama [link] [comments]

I would like to build understanding with the angry about why some of us fans, and the critics, loved the Last of Us II

So the biggest game release recently is TLOUII, it has been the fastest-selling Sony PS4 title of all-time and near universal acclaim from critics. Nevertheless, a vocal number of fans are not happy about it and I'm sure people are aware of the Metacritic user score on it. I've noticed it's actually going up over the last few days as more people complete the game, since clearly a number of the negative reviews were from people that didn't complete let alone play it, but I would be in denial if I said there were not a vocal number of players who did play and complete it who did not like it.
I would like to use this post not to convince anyone who did not like the game that they are "wrong" - taste is subjective. I'm also not here to convince anyone to play the game, I have no affiliation with Sony/ND beyond being someone who enjoyed the game.
However, I have seen posts from people who seem to think its absurd that the 10/10 scores could be real, were paid off etc., or that anyone who did love it is in denial.
I think the easiest way to do that is to address some of the major criticisms, long post incoming -
'Forced SJW content' - Some players are mad that you play a lesbian (Ellie). She's been established to be attracted to women as far back as the DLC for the first game, so it's nothing new, but this game certainly continues to explore that with a lesbian relationship. There is also a trans character in the game, and no it's not Abby. In my view the LGBT aspects of this game are all very organic and don't predominate the story, and they fit in well with it. On the other hand, in a sense yes they are 'forced' in that the developer chose to put them into the game. It's a choice that they made because these people exist in the real world today and they were interested in putting those types of characters in the game and exploring those themes. If this is barrier to you enjoying the game I'm not sure what I can say to convince you otherwise, other than for you to understand that many of us either don't mind or outright enjoy this type of content, even if we have no particular stake in LGBT issues.
Killing Joel - This game kills Joel very early on in the game. There are two major criticisms of this, one about 'logic' and the other from a narrative perspective. People are saying it's a plot hole, that Joel would never let his guard down and is a hardline survivalist etc., However, the point is it's been several years since the first game and Joel has achieved a life of relative normalcy in Jackson, presumably they bring lots of other survivors into the neighbourhood this way before.
In terms of the choice to do it, keep in mind the first game killed a young girl you played as and the main character's daughter in the opening minutes of the game. It was a bold choice as well, the difference here is it's harder in a sequel when you've built up a longer relationship (and years of nostalgia) over a character, but for many of us we can appreciate why it was the right one as an inciting event.
The game does not 'disrespect Joel' -- the game is still very much about the relationship Ellie has with Joel, and their cutscenes and flashbacks together are some of the most poignant in the game. You're meant to be mad he's killed, as it fuels Ellie's desire for revenge which is what the game is about.
Abby - So many at this point know that you play as Abby, Joel's killer for much of the second half of the game. This might be enough to make players' blood boil.
I initially hated Abby too and had no idea how they could make her likeable, but I ultimately found her more likeable than Ellie in this game. The leaks completely misrepresented what Abby's sections of the game are -- she isn't actually on a revenge journey with Ellie for the vast majority of it. Her gameplay sections and story are actually more varied and far less one-note than Ellie's with more varied environments, character's and themes rather than just overgrown Seattle and revenge.
A lot of her story is about letting people in (particularly Lev and Yara). I've loved many of Naughty Dog's characters but the Uncharted heroes and Ellie, while having moments of warmth, fundamentally engage with the world with snark -- while Joel was detached and not willing to let players in. Abby is really earnest and compassionate, and is actually far more merciful than Ellie (she only wanted to kill one person for revenge, not hundreds).
There is a lot of stuff online about how she's absurdly jacked, well, she's essentially been training for revenge and to be a soldier for much of her life, has a dorm literally across from the gym, is someone who believes in order and stability (so it makes sense she would conform her body to these standards). More importantly, there's a thematic reason for this -- in the final confrontation part of why Ellie doesn't kill Abby is she's withered away and is a shell of her former self. It's a physical representation of how she's changed, the Abby that killed Joel simply doesn't exist any more.
Pointless sex scene - Yeah the second I saw this scene I knew it would be memed and some of the memes are pretty funny. However I don't think the scene is actually awful in context, Owen and Abby have a history together, they're emotionally heightened which leads to increased intimacy which they then consummate it. Obviously ND are intentionally pushing the boundaries here but it's not totally context-free or pointless even if it's going to be memed forever. And yeah Abby is not a conventionally attractive female and it differs from a lot of games in that respect and that the sex is not a result of reward/saving the day/picking the right game choices ala Mass Effect but that doesn't really make it bad
The characters are boring, especially in the second half - This is simply going to be a matter of taste but what I will say is objectively clear is that the characters in the first game are far more iconic/archetypical/representational about what they represent in the story, so I actually agree they are less 'interchangeable' in that sense than the characters in this story.
However, I think this part of the point, the fact that the characters in this story are in many ways painfully normal and a lot alike underscores the themes in the game that despite having so much in common, when groups form and are driven by anger and hate it doesn't require huge differences for them to see each other as enemies.
The Seraphites are pointless and are just so Abby has someone to fight - Okay, so more than anything I think my points here are what I am going to get the most flak for and called pretentious for bringing up OR even if you agree with me and accept that I'm right, you will say Druckmann/Naughty Dog are pretentious for this being an influence on the game.
But I'll just go right ahead and say it -- I think this section of the game (and broader aspects of the game) are heavily inspired by the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the cycle of war in the Middle East and foreign policy.
I am not just saying this because Druckmann is Israeli and there is a Jewish character in the game. Before you call me crazy, listen to the Official PS Last of Us Podcast with Ep 1 where Druckmann outright says he follows Israeli politics intently and he's talking about Hamas and it's influences in the game.
I am not saying you need to be aware of this conflict to get anything out of the themes of the game, but I think particularly if you think the Seraphites have no meaning it can help to think about them through the less of conflicts over homeland, the idea that "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist", that "for each terrorist you kill you create ten more" (their friends and family etc.,), the idea that you can be drawn into violent conflicts simply as a result of where you are born, religious fanaticism etc.,
Some of these are themes that are more directly related to Abby's story but parallel in Ellie's as well, and there is dialogue that is particularly on the nose about it in Day 1 of Abby's story between the soldiers in WLF (*cough*IDF*cough*).
The gameplay is not that good and has not meaningfully evolved from the first - I really, really enjoyed the gameplay of this game. If you haven't liked the gameplay of previous ND games (I.e. Uncharted and the Last of Us) I don't think this will change your mind, but I really think they have refined (while admittedly yes, not drastically changing) the gameplay of the 1st.
The increased mobility e.g going prone lead to some sequences which feel like a more streamlined MGS, there are survival horror sections that rival that of RE (the Abby rat king boss fight!) and I also think people who don't like the gameplay should consider playing on Hard. Taking out a few dudes guerilla tactics style, getting spotted, hiding, going again... I loved it.
It is misery porn and there is no levity - There is plenty of moments of levity and warmth between the characters, both in the present day and the flashbacks. It is absolutely a very violent and confronting game that is very bleak in a lot of aspects, but I don't think it can be said that it is relentless. The theme of the game is 'look for the light in the darkness' and that comes through.
This game does not deserve a 10/10 from critics Part 1 (other aspects of the game) - Scores are just scores. They don't capture every point a critic might have about a game. They might feel a game has minor flaws but still give it 10/10 (check out the review policy of a lot of sites - many are of the view there is no such thing as a 'perfect' game and define 10s by other metrics i.e. landmark game, must play, moves the medium forward etc., Alanah Pearce has a good video about this which I'd encourage you to look up.
Whatever you think about the story, these critics are taking into account a lot of things. Most enjoyed the gameplay, and I think even someone who disliked the story and gameplay of this game would be hard-pressed to deny that the graphics are incredible. Sound design, music, performances from the actors.... there's stuff here which is at the top of their craft.
The game does not deserve a 10/10 from critics Part 2 (the story) - So the major point people make is this is a story based game, they think the story is bad, how can a critic give it 10/10. Well the long and short of it is people like different things and that critic genuinely liked the story.
However, I do think there are some things which explain why there is a gap in critic and user opinions on this.
Critics play games and write about them for a living. They play a shitload of games and have to write about a lot of generic games. When a game comes along like TLOU2 and takes some big swings that TLOU2 does, it's exciting for a critic since it's different to the other games they're playing and writing about day in and day out since there's a lot more to say about the story than normal. Critics are also often more likely to have English/journalism degrees and enjoy things that play with formal structure and yes, I will say it, 'subvert expectations' The Last Jedi style because those types of things are valued in those circles more than to the general public.
Whereas a lot of the general public will see games that attempt these sorts of things as trying to be too clever, pretentious etc., etc., and just want to play something that is a blast without those elements.
Neither side on that point is right, it's just people appreciating different things. All I will say is, ND did four (well, technically five) Uncharted games in that style for people who want a more straightforward, rollicking good time adventure. TLOU has been their series to push the boundaries a bit more and for me, I'm so glad they did.
I hope someone reading this can understand why some of us loved it but for those who don't I'd love to have a conversation about it.
submitted by timmytimed to truegaming [link] [comments]

Frontend Web Developer Roadmap: Everything you need to know to get started

If you're feeling lazy and would prefer to watch a full video summary, one is available here. Let me know if you have any feedback!
What is frontend web development?
It is using code to create the visual part of a website. The content, the colours and positioning, as well as the logic that is on a page, such as submitting a form. That's frontend. The other part is 'backend', which is everything related to the database and network; the non-visual things that are going on behind the scene.

Different routes to learn web development
CS Degree: The first is a degree, through either a university or college. This offers strong foundational knowledge in computer science, which can be very helpful, especially in certain areas of programming. However in my experience, this understanding of computer science is not necessary in order to get your first web development job and you can learn all of the theory and nitty gritty details of computers while on the job. Additionally, getting a degree is also a very long process, so 3-4 years, it's also extremely expensive - and the majority of it won't be focused on web development.
Bootcamp: Next -3-4 month coding bootcamps (offers good structure and forces you to be fully immersed, but expensive and must be full-time)
Self-taught: Finally -Self taught. What the focus of this guide is. This route offers a flexible schedule and inexpensive, and as long as you have the right set of online courses and curriculum set up for you, I believe it is the best option. Getting your first web development job is not about what certificate or degree you have. In most cases, it is a meritocracy - that is, if you have the skills to do the job, you can get the job.

How long does it take to be job ready? 4-12 months.
Outline a timeframe which you are able to dedicate towards learning web development(3, 6 or 12 months) and create a schedule around it. This way you can track your progress and hold yourself accountable if you set a specific date to, such as finishing a specific course or start apply to jobs. Whether it is 3 or 12 months, the only thing that changes is how much time per week you are able to dedicate towards learning this craft. If it is 3 months, you'll need to be working 12+ hours per day, and for 12 months, maybe 2 hours per day. The key is coding daily, so you can immerse yourself.
It's also important to stick to one programming language, based on the job you're wanting to get. Don't get distracted by other languages. They're fantastic, but your focus needs to be on the core frontend stack. You don't want to be a Jack of all trades, but master of none. You need to get vertical proficiency, not horizontal - and you get that by practicing that one thing, daily.
What do you need to learn?
HTML (the content - the text, images, links), CSS(the styling - colors, positioning and responsiveness), and JavaScript(the logic for your website, when you click a submit button - what happens?). Once you have learned those three and have a strong foundation in JavaScript, then you'll be at a crossroads; React, Angular or Vue. These are JavaScript libraries and frameworks, which act as wrappers around vanilla JavaScript, giving you additional functionality that would take longer to code otherwise. It is important that the first thing you do before getting too deep into one of these, is to look on job websites (LinkedIn, Glassdoor or Indeed) and ensure that there are a lot of jobs for all of these in your area. Search for titles including "frontend developer and frontend engineer", as well as the words 'Angular, Vue and React' and see how many listings there are. If there is more of one of these technologies in your area, it may be better to learn that one. You'll likely find many of each. Personally I would recommend React as it is easier to learn than a full framework and there are usually a ton of jobs out there for it.
As a bonus, I would recommend looking into TypeScript and Redux. In JavaScript, you don't have to say that variable x is a number. It will infer that x = 5 is a number type. This however can sometimes lead to hard to catch bugs. TypeScript is still JavaScript, but it allows you to add strong typing to your application, where you define that variable x will be a number.
Redux is a state management library. Angular, React and Vue all have their own variations of Redux. When your application gets bigger and there are lots of different parts with their own data, Redux acts as a centralized memory for all of your different UI components to read from. It acts as a single source of truth so that everything stays organized.
Also need to be familiar with the version control technology Git (allowing you to 'save' your app at a specific point, roll back to it if necessary, and share the code online to others using Github or Bitbucket).
May also be helpful to know the basics of SASS (CSS wrapper, giving you more utility. It is still CSS, but just some extra tools which can be huge time savers). Along the way, you'll also need to learn basic terminal commands, using NPM packages and the build tool Webpack. You should also be familiar with the basics of Agile methodologies, which is a management style that a lot of development teams work in. If you're familiar with the very basics, then it will be an easier transition for you to join a dev team, and hiring managers will know that as well.
Learning resources
So, what resources can you use to learn all of this? I found that between YouTube and Udemy, you can learn everything required. I am going to leave a list down below with a list of Udemy courses you can pick up for $15 (when on sale). Each course is about 20-30 hours and it will teach you the required fundamentals. I'm not affiliated with these courses and make no money on it. I simply know the instructors are excellent and am sure they are high quality courses.

Once you've completed a these courses and have built a few projects
After that, it is all about getting your first job. I am going to create posts (and videos) on each of these points, because they deserve a post of their own.
In short, you'll need to have a great resume which highlights your love for web development, while also emphasizing how all of your previous job experiences has guided you towards this new career path.
Have a GitHub with your own projects on it, as well as some of the work you've done while learning along the way. Build out a portfolio website which highlights the projects you've build and the skills you have. You can host your portfolio and projects for free on GitHub Pages.
Consider doing 1 or 2 freelance jobs(even if it is just for friends or family), where you're working with a real client, with a real deadline. This will be good practice for you, and will show your future employer that someone has already trusted you, and that you delivered.
Familiarize yourself with LinkedIn, Indeed and Glassdoor - and start applying for 3-5 jobs per day. I did this for an entire month, had a few interviews and then landed my first job. It can take a few weeks, or a few months - eventually you will get your first opportunity. Getting your first job is the most difficult. Once you have worked somewhere and have some experience, finding your next job will be a lot easier.

On a final note, learning code is not easy. There will be roadblocks and it can be a difficult grind at times. Remember that the path you are on now is worth it and can get you to the place in your life where you really want to be, whether that is career satisfaction, ability to work from anywhere in the world, or financial freedom.
Thank you for your time! Consider checking out my YouTube channel, as I'm posting weekly now with videos specifically for frontend developers who are just starting out. Available here.
submitted by ProgrammingWithPax to learnprogramming [link] [comments]

Halfway Finished w/ Online MBA through University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign iMBA Program - AMA!

Hey Reddit,
Wanted to start this AMA because I'm more than halfway finished with my MBA, going the online route through the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign with their iMBA program, and wanted to give perspective on the online MBA experience so far, and answer any questions about online MBAs in general, and/or about the program specifically.
Guidelines & Disclaimer for AMA

Earned my BBA in marketing and have been working at Dell Technologies for the last 8.5 years with roles ranging from sales, go-to-market analytics, merchandising, to having been a product manager for the majority of my team. Currently work as a business manager for one of our high performance compute lines of businesses.
I've been fortunate enough in my career to be able to work diligently and deliver results, to then be able to pursue interesting and higher responsibility roles throughout my time at the company. As a result, I've been able to advance at a fairly quick pace.
The MBA Program
In 2018, I applied to the iMBA program at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (you can find out more info here) and was accepted to start in the Fall of that year. Among the major appeals of the program was:
Unlike what I see being discussed more often than not in this forum, my goal of getting an MBA was not to go into investment banking or consulting. For one, at this juncture in my life, neither of those appear to offer the work/life balance I'm looking for, and two, I really enjoy what I'm doing at my company and the people I work with, so I don't have any intentions of looking elsewhere after my MBA.
My goal is to refine what I know, learn from others in other industries, and apply it back to my current role, with the expectation that I may be able to produce better work and give myself a better chance of continuing to advance in my career. Second to that, while the lack of an MBA has not held me back in my career thus far, nor would I see it holding me back in the near future, I believe it is prudent to have as I never want it to be a reason that a hiring manager decides on another candidate.
Additional Content
I've been producing a few recent videos on my channel on the topic of online MBAs to bring more awareness to those in my network around the options they have. Everyone will have different goals for why they want an MBA, and everyone will value an MBA program differently, but if there's anything that is clear to me, is that the cost of an MBA, in many cases, is higher than it is worth, IMO. So when there are options that are less expensive or more economical (by virtue of being able to continue to work), even if the school isn't a Top 10 school, there is a huge pool of applicants that will find value here.
Among the initial few videos I've produced on the topic that I think might be of good value to everyone:
Feel free to ask away!
submitted by TheRichardWalls to MBA [link] [comments]

[RuPaul's Drag Race] A Slice of Sherry Pie: a tale of drag queens, fake auditions, and sexual harassment

RuPaul’s Drag Race
Before getting into the drama let’s discuss some background and necessary terms. Drag is usually defined as someone who dresses up in hair, makeup, and costumes for entertainment purposes. Typically, drag queens are gay men who perform as women in drag, but anyone is able to participate in the art of drag.
When referring to drag queens she/her pronouns are typically used when a queen is in drag or when discussing their career. I will also only refer to a queen using their drag name but their real names can easily be found.
RuPaul’s Drag Race is a reality competition show hosted by RuPaul to crown “America’s Next Drag Superstar”. The success of the series has resulted in numerous spinoff series and a seemingly constant stream of drag related content. The winner of RuPaul’s Drag Race receives a one year supply of Anastasia Beverly Hills Cosmetics and a cash prize of $100,000. In the LGBTQ+ and drag community being casted on Drag Race is a huge deal and can propel a queen’s career to the point that they can become a full time drag queen.
Sherry Pie
Sherry Pie, or Joey Gugliemelli, is a 28 year old drag queen from New York City and was cast on Season 12 of Drag Race. Her drag is known for being campy and inspired by musical theater. Since the show is filmed almost a year before it is set to air, it is common for spoilers about how contestants perform to emerge from subreddits like SpoiledDragRace. Season 12 was filmed in July of 2019 and began airing in February of 2020. The premier was split over two weeks so that half the queens appeared in the first episode and the other half in the second episode. Sherry was slated to make her Drag Race debut on the second half of the premier. Rumors began circulating that Sherry did well on the show and made it far into the competition. Then the allegations started piling up.
The Allegations
On March 4, the day before Sherry’s episode was set to premier, Ben Shimkus posted a detailed account of his experience with Sherry Pie on Facebook. He and Sherry attended Cortland State University’s Musical Theatre program together and performed in over a dozen shows together. When Ben was a senior, a friend reached out saying there was an audition at the prestigious Playwright’s Horizons in New York City and gave him the contact information for a woman named Allison Mossey.
“Allison and I went through an email thread that lasted over 150 emails in about three weeks. We covered topics of pay, living situations in the city, when I would have to leave school for rehearsals, and conversations about acting choices for the character. I had to film scenes that felt particularly sexual and awkward, but the opportunity seemed too good to let the overt sexual nature or my inhibitions get in the way. I simply told myself that my parents wouldn’t be allowed to see the show, but I wanted the professional experience and the bright and shiny object on my resume… The specific video submissions I sent were of me taking steroids and immediately growing larger muscles and gaining physical power. The character, Jeff, talked about how much his armpits began to stink and how much he liked that.”
This back and forth continued with little sign of any roles materializing, and eventually Allison Mossey stopped responding. Ben became frustrated and called Playwright’s Horizons directly to get in contact with Allison, but was notified that no one at the company had ever heard of her. He reached out to the original friend who had given him Allison’s contact information to let him know that Allison had no affiliation with the theatre company. Ben asked how he heard about Allison Mossey; Sherry Pie had recommended he get in touch with Allison. But Ben was just one of many men that Sherry Pie manipulated into sending sexually explicit videos for roles that didn’t exist.
“When I began telling my friends about what had happened to me, one of my best friends told me that a colleague who had worked at a theatre doing Hairspray with Sherry also had the same experience with Allison Mossey. Another friend said the same thing had happened to someone she knew. Her friend was also in close contact with Sherry. Wherever Sherry seemed to go, Allison would follow. Since being open about my experience, six people have corroborated stories with me.”
Another man, Daniel Lynn Evans was offered an audition with Allison directly through Sherry Pie claiming to be the casting agent’s assistant. In a screenshot shared by Daniel, Sherry states:
“But I think they may ask you to get bigger, but they pay for it… [Allison Mossie] casts the whole thing but I like to make suggestions.”
Daniel wasn’t interested in taking steroids for a role, but other victims were encouraged to misuse steroids in order to get the role that Sherry/Allison promised them.
Another notable example of Sherry’s predatory behavior surfaced when Josh Lillyman came forward. In 2017, the 20 year old actor met Sherry after being cast in two productions together. It was then that Sherry groomed him and introduced him to Allison.
“As he prepared to shoot his final tape, [Sherry] offered to come over to film Lillyman. The shoot lasted three to four hours, Lillyman said, as [Sherry] continued to offer direction. According to Lillyman, [Sherry] suggested eventually he take off his shirt, flex, and even strip down to his underpants in order to get into character. “He was trying to get me to go further,” said Lillyman. “He kept saying it’s not quite right.” Then, [Sherry] suggested he go into the bathroom and masturbate in order to feel more macho. Reluctantly, Lillyman obliged. He was desperate for the part. Other actors had done more for less, he reasoned. When he emerged, [Sherry] suggested he do it again on camera. It was only the casting director who would see it, Lillyman thought. Again, he did as he was told.”
Within 24 hours of the allegations going viral online, Rupaul’s Drag Race released a statement that Sherry Pie would be disqualified and would not appear at the grand finale that was set to be filmed this spring.
This is only the second time in Drag Race history that a contestant has been disqualified, and the previous contestant was disqualified for seeing her partner while filming. Because the allegations came out the day before Sherry’s premier episode was set to air, production was not able to edit her out and her confessionals narrated the episode. After the first few episodes she was almost entirely edited out, to the point that viewers almost forgot she was there.
Sherry released an apology on Facebook the day she was disqualified, but hasn’t been active in the drag community online or in person since.
“This is Joey, I want to start by saying how sorry I am that I caused such trauma and pain and how horribly embarrassed and disgusted I am with myself. I know that the pain and hurt that I have caused will never go away and I know that what I did was wrong and truly cruel. Until being on RuPaul’s Drag Race, I never really understood how much my mental health and taking care of things meant. I learned on that show how important “loving yourself” is and I don’t think I have ever loved myself. I have been seeking help and receiving treatment since coming back to NYC. I truly apologize to everyone I have hurt with my actions. I also want to say how sorry I am to my sisters of season 12 and honestly the whole network and production company. All I can do is change the behavior and that starts with me and doing that work.”
In general, the community has seen the Sherry Pie situation as a wakeup call to predatory behavior within the LGBTQ+ community and sparked discussions about whether the art of drag can be separated from the performer.
submitted by sarahfunlap to HobbyDrama [link] [comments]

Med School: Why and why not Ateneo School of Medicine and Public Health (ASMPH) — an honest review

Hi! I have been sneaking around Reddit and Twitter for a few days now, and most threads that I saw are queries about comparing ASMPH to other med schools and seeing which one is “better”. In my personal and humble opinion, I would like to believe that there is no “best med school”; rather, I’d like to think that there is a “best med school for you”. This means that each medical school does things in very different and distinct ways, and it might be up to you if these distinctions or how they run the school would be preferential to you.
So in light of this, I’d like to share the pros and cons of what it means to be an ASMPH student. Just to be clear: 1) I am an ASMPH graduate and a medical doctor, 2) I think fondly of my time in school, 3) I am not paid to promote ASMPH in any way, and 4) there are some things in the school that I do not like (compared at least to the other posts that I saw which zealously ”defend” the school lol). I will be brutally honest and sincere about my review, so my advance apologies to readers who will find some comments “radical”. I made this thread with my own efforts to dispel (more of KILL) misperceptions hounding my school for a long time: “being babied”, “spoiled”, ”hindi naman magaling sa clinicals”, and etc.
To clarify, I am using my own experiences from my time as a student, and as this thread will age, some of the things written here might not be true anymore the older this gets (hence, future ASMPH students are welcome to contribute their experiences by commenting below!).


Strong helping culture
Traditionally, medical schools emphasize the virtues of “excellence” that got misinterpreted (by some weird reason) into the lines of the Machiavellian principle: “Only the strongest will survive”. Hence, you may hear the usual med school horror stories of “fierce competition”, ”I will fail you all”, and “do it all by yourself”. I am glad that I have not encountered these horrors, because the school has designed a system which cultivates helping each other thrive. There is the mentorship program, in which doctor-mentors help students identify their strengths and weaknesses in their medical training, and work on it. The “Pugad Agila” organization is there to support not just the board takers who are preparing for their board exams, but the students themselves in preparing for major examinations. Believe it or not, people in the school are seemingly ”transformed” to help one another: in my time, all the med students who are PTs (physical therapists) made extra review classes for Anatomy, the nurses bonded together to create mini modules for Physical Exam, the Med techs will teach extra classes of Pathology and Microbiology, and the RPharma will give classes of Pharmacology to students for free. The ones which had rigorous backgrounds of Epidemiology will offer classes to students who are not exposed to the Public Health Sciences concepts. Even the registered (bio)chemists will lecture Biochem and try as best as they can to make the concepts more understandable and student-friendly! The older generations of ASMPH students also generously would “pass on” their lecture transcripts of years’ worth of lectures to the new generations of students who will come in, and no one is spared from this generosity (compared to other med schools which are preferential, let us say, to their frat or sorority members). This culture of helping each other out regardless of anything and everything, I think, is the greatest pro that ASMPH has to offer, and I think that so far, no other med school has emphasized this as their core strength (others would emphasize a “long tradition of excellence”, “reputation”, etc). I strongly think that this culture of helping, togetherness, and unity is what is needed in our health organizations especially in the Philippines, which by far are obviously swamped by partisan politicking, “power-tripping”, and blame-throwing — a culture which MIGHT have origins from the subcultures cultivated in traditional med schools.
I also have to add here that some students who do not perform well/score low in examinations are treated not with rejection (compared I think to other med schools who are more than happy to kick out underperforming students), but with extra support from the admin and the student body. The school recognizes the value of its students and not just based on their performance or grades alone. Review classes held by better-performing students are held for free in light of removal exam weeks for students who needed them. This however does not mean that the school would deliberately lower its standards by making the exams easier for students to pass. However, the school recognizes that there are many factors that determine a student’s ability to perform well in examinations (e.g. mental health, financial issues, others), and it does try to strive in eliminating negative factors that hinder a student from performing well academically.
Rigorous Academic Curriculum in Basic + Clinical Sciences AND Working Feedback Mechanism
I have to say that the curriculum presented by the school is very rigorous in structure and in application, and it is very flexible and adaptive. Each module has been integrated into Systems, which really facilitates relatively easier learning since you can already apply your concepts from Anatomy to Physiology, or Pharmacology to Pathology (because the subjects are grouped together in a systems fashion). Aside from the weekly major exams (more or less), there are other avenues of learning as well like the Student Group Discussions (SGDs), where students are given a case to analyze and discuss, and the (in)famous Team Based Learning (TBLs), in which the students are given multiple extra readings from various CPGs and resources on top of the lectures, then solve a case right in front of the preceptor and take quizzes. Each subject is taught by different professors who are experts in their own fields, and more often than not, no single professor handles more than one lecture per module, which makes examinations more challenging (since no patterns of how questions are asked and what questions are asked can be established), hence making this a very effective ground of ensuring that the curriculum is rigorous in itself. However, others argue that this might disrupt the flow of repeating information in a spaced out fashion (which is necessary for true retention btw), and perhaps lumping related information into one module will deplete opportunities for certain information to be repeated in shorter periods, making it harder to remember in a long-term manner (ex: lumping Biochem altogether in the first part of First year Med will make it harder for the Atenean Board Taker (5th year Med) to recall Biochem concepts because these are not frequently revisited due to the Modular Set-up).
In the Clinical Sciences (Clerkship and Internship), there were some hits and misses in the training at least in my time. But overall, I think that it was great that we were exposed to both the Private and Public Health institutions, because both function differently. In the private setting, we were able to learn ideal management (since our patients do not have financial constraints) and observe topnotch, highly-respected physicians on how they practice their bedside manners and deal with cases involving with very high profile patients. Contrary to popular belief that students are not allowed to handle patients in private hospital settings, we actually do handle a LOT (the school’s partner hospital hosts the LARGEST amount of patients seen nationwide in the ER setting, private hospital-wise) and do it first-hand (especially in the Emergency Room and in the Internal Medicine Wards). In the public hospital setting, we are also first-line in terms of dealing with patients (e.g. history-taking, clinical skills, IV insertions, Foley insertions, ECG interpretation, delivering babies and suturing perineums). On top of these responsibilities and shadowing physicians, we are required to meet with selected faculty and staff and present case discussions on a regular basis in order to reinforce our learning. The beauty of being exposed on both private and public fields, however, is when you are forced to innovate your knowledge from the private setting and adjust it to the public health management, or when you bring your adeptness in your clinical skills acquired from the public health arena to the private health institution. In a way, both health systems benefit from your respective exposures, and you gain a holistic insight on how to deal with patients ranging from the richest of the rich to the poorest of the poor.
Furthermore, we were tasked to assist our residents and consultants to help in accomplishing numerous paperwork properly (tons and tons of them!), the basic framework and the most important cornerstone of hospital practice, for without it (or it being deficient or substandard), the practice of the consultant, the resident, and subsequently the medical student, will be highly endangered (read: medical lawsuits).
The feedback mechanism, despite it being taxing and hassle for most students, is absolutely necessary for the curriculum to be improved. In my batch at least, we were able to kick out (seriously) profs we felt that were not lecturing well enough, which I think is something that other med schools do not have. We also had our share of bad doctor-profs who just read from their lecture slides and (worse) copy some of their slides from online lectures — but the feedback mechanism successfully weeded them out, which (I hope) encourages most of our profs to make sure that their lectures are good (and worth the tuition we paid).
Insanely supportive Faculty
The core faculty of the school, despite being heavily decorated (eg. presidents of their affiliate specialties, numerous recognitions and awards), are very supportive of the student body, and are OPEN to subjective criticism and feedback, which I think is not that present in other med schools (MDs from other med schools are more than welcome to disagree!). I remember this incident wherein our batch decided to write a letter and express our negative sentiments towards a certain module (will not say what because this will provide a clue to which batch I belong to haha), and instead of venting their ire to the students, they proposed a meeting where we can discuss our grievances and suggestions without any fear of any forms of retaliation. Another incident would be when a classmate of mine proposed a change of dress code for graduation wherein students should be allowed to wear whatever they are comfortable with as long as it is decent (i.e. not limiting women’s clothing to dresses), which was supported by the administration. I have not heard of such degree of freedom in any other med school, which is why I laud our faculty for their efforts to be open and inclusive.


No Labor Payment (at all) regardless of Hospital Setting
Whereas other interns earn (albeit minimally but still) allowances or stipends, ASMPH interns do NOT earn anything despite doing labor-intensive work inside the hospital. The partner institutions tend to justify and rationalize this treatment as “deserving“ for trainees (e.g. not just for medical students but for residents and fellows as well, who receive bare minimal salaries in the private setting) because the skills and clinical acumen that will be gained in training is deemed to be “sufficient compensation”, but I beg to differ and disagree. The amount of time and labor spent by medical trainees (regardless of being a medical student or a fellow) inside the hospital SHOULD be reflective on the amount of compensation (or hazard pay) that the hospital administration should give, since it is but fair and just labor. I would argue that hospitals, especially ASMPH’s partner institution, The Medical City (TMC), have the capacity to subsidize its trainees well because a) most of them are tertiary, profitable, top-earning hospitals in the country, b) Medical trainees run the hospital and make it alive, sacrificing more and doing more than the consultants, wherein some (not all, to be fair) usually just claim their slice of the pie, and c) Medical trainees are solely responsible for managing health data of all patients, which should ideally be managed by everyone involved in the set-up. To add salt to these wounds, an intern (medical trainee) from a hospital abroad who does only 8 hour shifts earns at least $170 (est PhP 8,000) PER DAY (source: compared to an ASMPH intern who earns NOTHING in 24 hour shifts, and subsequently compared to an average Philippine Medical Intern who earns PhP 5,000 - 7,000 allowance PER MONTH. Older MDs would dismiss this and might call this as “demanding” and “typical of millenial mentality”; I would call this as it is and would like to request for some form of justice. Most hospital administrators, or I daresay the investors of healthcare system who are mostly businessmen and are non healthcare professionals, are more than willing to opportunistically abuse the willingness of medical trainees (not just doctors, but nurses, midwives, etc.) to improve their training with minimal or no compensation, because this is what is tagged as “most profitable” or “minimal cost” for most companies in a business perspective. Others would argue that ”the time of the young doctors to earn and reap their rewards will come when they become consultants”, but I will ask: what if that time will never come? I think of all the medical trainees who valiantly suffered and died in the battlefield because of COVID-19 — their supposed promised reaping of reward, even hazard pay, never came.
However, I would like to point out that this issue does not concern ASMPH solely, but involves the partner institutions in which it is affiliated. Furthermore, this problem of labor exploitation is not exclusive to ASMPH’s partner institution (although I would argue that we feel it more since we technically receive nothing — MDs from St. Luke’s please help me out), but rampant in hospitals that belong to the Philippine Health Care system in general.
Note: I would have inserted exorbitant tuition fees here, but it would not have contributed that much significantly to the discussion since all non-state sponsored medical schools have more or less the same tuition fees. The only difference is that ASMPH still pays tuition during its Internship year (along with St. Luke’s), partly because of the Professors that still give lectures and examine case presentations, and for the Boards Review (hence the reason why Ateneans have their own exclusive section for the PLE Boards Review Season — which is honestly a big, big Pro)
MBA: Friend or Foe?
Most students from other universities would comment that the MBA component was added in the spirit of “profitability” and learning more refined ways on how to earn more — and was tagged and branded as counterintuitive to the nobility that a medical doctor is supposed to possess (I am looking at you, selected students from UP 🙃). However, I would like to clarify that the MBA was crafted in order for us future physicians to be adept in managing health systems and organizations, which would undeniably involve financial management (eg. how would you manage a hospital’s finances and allot budget to medical equipment?), strategic management (eg. given the COVID-19 situation, how will your outpatient clinic sustain operations in the next 5 months?), and marketing management (eg. given that everyone is scared to go outside their homes, how would you market your hospital to be safe from COVID-19?). In an ideal set-up, these concepts and exercises should guide the med student thoroughly on how to apply all of these in the medical setting.
The main con of the MBA program is that most of its professors (except for maybe two, because both are physicians and MBA holders) and subsequently, their classes, lack exposure in the Medical setting (i.e. Hospital Administration, OPD management, and Public Health Systems Management), and more often than not, most examples that they could provide involve fields other than medicine (eg. banking, economics, construction, advertising). I see this as a con mainly because despite having benefits of seeing how management works on a different lens (hence making you more interdisciplinary in a way), I think that practicing these concepts in the medical field at least in the classroom setting and learning these from someone who is equally adept in both medicine and management would enrich the knowledge and appreciation of how intertwined both of these fields are as a holder of a dual MD-MBA degree, and not a haphazardly constructed, disjointed one. Furthermore, there are concepts in MBA which makes sense in a corporate setting but might be unethical or unacceptable in the realm of Health (eg. sacrificing quality of health care access for patients in order to invest less assets and accumulate more profit). Therefore, it would be up to the student to apply these concepts on his/her own. Thankfully, students may have the opportunity to apply all of these concepts and skills once they make their Final Strategic Management Thesis Paper, because you may opt to select any field you like to study on. In my case, I was lucky to have gotten a hospital as my focus-subject, therefore I managed to learn about Hospital systems and management on top of the MBA concepts that I learned. Hopefully, with new batches of MD-MBAs that are being produced, this con could be changed by the school in due time.
A definite con during my time (which was thankfully changed, thanks to feedback!) was having MBA classes despite being from hospital duty (which meant no sleep but we still had to endure classes) — that was one of the most unproductive classes of my life and I never wanted to go through any of that ever again (I still passed the subject, but I really never gauged if I learned well).
Public Health: Lacking or Sufficient?
This section might be of great concern to those who are looking forward to exploring ASMPH as an arena for expanding their Public Health skills (hello, Health Sci majors!). At this point, I need to disclose that I was a Health Sciences Major myself who had a decent fluency in Public Health (Basic Epidemiology and Global Health) prior to entering ASMPH, and I know some classmates of mine back in college (especially those who took Health and Developmental Studies) who looked forward in going to ASMPH for more advanced public health courses, only to find themselves disappointed as they went through the curriculum. Some of them eventually quit and went on to pursue Masters in Epidemiology or in Global Health elsewhere. Hence, some students in undergrad might hear swirling hearsay that ASMPH ”lacks the Public Health component or aspect”. This is perhaps mainly due to the fact that most of the lessons and discourse on Public Health in ASMPH, at least when I experienced it, were quite on the basic level — a reiteration of the courses we already went through in college as HSc majors. To be fair to the school, these kinds of discourse and topics are not experienced or tackled by people with other Bachelor degrees (eg. BS Psychology, BS Biology, etc.), and hence a repeat of these courses in Med school is deemed necessary to even out the disparity of knowledge among its students. But it would be safe to say that as of this writing (since no announcements have been made yet anyway), ASMPH does NOT offer courses that cater to advanced branches of Public Health such as Advanced Epidemiology (which would involve crazy mathematics such as those being used in monitoring the COVID-19 pandemic), Global Health Surveillance, Global Health Politics, and etc. A query was made about this (hence an open forum), and the reason why this happened is because the school does not have the faculty or the experts to teach the said subjects (so far).
However, this does NOT mean that ASMPH discounts Public Health. The school’s curriculum still satisfies the minimum requirements of what a medical doctor needs to know regarding Public Health (eg. Basic Epidemiology and Statistics, Health Awareness and Communication), and the main thesis paper of ASMPH students during their second and third year has Public Health in its core. The school also established the ASMPH Public Health Council, which is an org that engages Public Health discourse in the school and invites lecturers and key experts to discuss socially relevant Public Health issues. The CEIP program, which is a specialized program designed for medical students interested in managing health in a community setting, was established in hopes of strengthening the Public Health core of the school. However, the need (or should I say, demand) for advanced branches of Public Health subjects still remains, and this is something that the school needs to work on.
So to sum it all up, ASMPH is more or less a good medical school with supportive admin and staff, ”No Atenean Left Behind” culture and conducive learning environment, and a rigorous training program for future medical doctors. Despite its non-compensatory internship and partly context-devoid and disjointed MD-MBA curriculum, its openness for improvement thanks to its working feedback mechanism and its ability to provide a holistic overview of private and public health sectors would definitely give a nice edge to its students and to the future batches of Atenean doctors to come.
With that, A M D G *mic drop\*
P.S. Comments, discussions, and queries are welcome in the Comments Section below. :)
submitted by B9C2AF25DD to ADMU [link] [comments]

Food bloggers who make you scroll past 5 pages of B.S to get to a recipe are the absolute WORST!

"if you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". only the late, great, carl sagan can get away with this kind of cheekiness.
when all i want is a recipe for homemade apple pie i shouldn't have to read through the history of apples, and that one summer you worked in an orchard and met your future ex-partner, and how baking apple pies reminds you of van morrison because you heard him on the radio when your nana was baking once (such a great voice though!), and how you have brown eyes, too, and how you totally believe the eyes are the gateway to the soul which makes you super deep, and speaking of soul, i should totally sign up for your mailing list because next week you're going to share your favorite recipe for sole fish (hahahahah funny pun!!), and FOR CRYIN' OUT LOUD, JUST GIVE ME THE FREAKIN' RECIPE ALREADY!!!
too bad ;)
if i really want that recipe you're gonna make me open up this slide show that begins with 16 pictures of apple-related things borrowed from other people's instagram and pinterest, then i'm gonna have to watch a 30 second car insurance commercial which starts over if i try to drag the slider to the end, then you're gonna make me sign up for your newsletter because you don't want me to miss out on the bestest recipes on the web, and finally (assuming i've made it this far without having a frustration-induced aneurysm) i'll get to a super basic recipe you stole from some other food blogger that's packed with sketchy affiliate links for baking products i already have. [email protected]$#%#@$%
all of you shitty food bloggers have ruined the experience of finding and sharing recipes online and i hope you figuratively die in a proverbial fire in a totally non-violent way. i'm going back to cookbooks because of you. good day!
submitted by HappyDevelopment to unpopularopinion [link] [comments]

Collusion, fraud, spam accounts, and more: The month long story of UCLA's most controversial student election

The following was adapted from posts originally made to SubredditDrama and may overexplain issues for students who are already familiar with UCLA culture. However, new admits should be able to follow along given the extra context.
If there are any subscandals I missed that you think contribute to the story in a significant way, please link the appropriate posts and I'll try to work them in.

Key Terms

North Campus: The northern half of the campus that houses humanities and social science departments. Colloquially used to describe anything related to the humanities.
South Campus: The southern half of the campus that houses the science departments. Colloquially used to describe anything related to the sciences.
USAC: Undergraduate Students Association Council, the undergraduate student government at UCLA. Known for being filled with north campus majors.
Daily Bruin u/daily-bruin: A student run newspaper. Known for being filled with north campus majors.
Slate: UCLA's version of a political party


Due to low engagement, last years spring elections saw 3 unfilled seats in USAC that required a special election during the fall quarter. A south campus major, Orion Smedley, ran on a platform to bring back a bus connecting UCLA to LAX that had been discontinued due to low usage several months before. In their election endorsements, the Daily Bruin wrote
The board does not endorse Smedley because of his narrow focus on small-scale visions and his lack of comprehensive understanding of the position. Smedley’s goals – such as organizing a bus between UCLA and LAX – showed him to be out of touch with student needs, as the lack of student use caused the FlyAway bus to be phased out earlier this year.
Orion went on to win a seat in the special election making him one of the few political outsiders as most USAC members are voted into the council after years of working their way up a slate.

The Referendum

On April 8th, the Daily Bruin reported that USAC had approved candidates and referenda for an online ballot due to campus closures in the wake of COVID-19. In this ballot was a particularly contentious referendum, Cultivating Unity for Bruins (CUB). The CUB referendum would increase student fees by $15 per quarter and $9 per summer session in order to fund the creation of a Black Resource Center, maintain meditation spaces, and offset the rent of the Transfer Student Center.
A post was made onto UCLA the next day calling for students to vote down the referendum. The post garnered much attention as many students were unaware that these measures had been passed. The referendum sparked backlash as many had recently lost their jobs, campus resources would not be accessible due to closures, and the Community Programs Office had $2.7 million unaccounted for. The subreddit began to fill with threads demanding accountability from USAC President Robert Watson.
In response to the outcry, USAC ordered its affiliates to make reddit accounts to downvote threads that were bringing negative attention to the CUB referendum. These messages were instead posted onto UCLA which only served to further foment backlash against the CUB referendum.
Students began to dig into USAC financials only to discover other information of which many had been previously unaware. In particular they discovered most accounts were overfunded even accounting for spring quarter expenses. Many were also shocked to learn that USAC officers were paid stipends of up to $10K a year for serving on the council.
After this story broke, students flooded the USAC public meetings that had been moved to Zoom. During the meeting immediately following the backlash against the CUB referendum, all USAC officers, save Orion, voiced their continued support for CUB. Orion stated he did not think the time was appropriate for a fee increase but planned to abstain from voting as he was running for USAC president in the coming elections. Throughout the meeting, other officers berated Orion for not supporting the referendum (Timestamps in the comments). During the Zoom meeting, a participant vandalized the chat with racist remarks which prompted the hosts to remove students from the meeting. Soon after, USAC officers took to other forms of social media, where they had more support, to continue attacking Orion. Students responded by shaming council members that had attacked Orion and removed students from a public meeting.
In response to USAC's mishandling of the CUB referendum backlash, the Daily Bruin wrote an article chastising members of USAC.
Student representatives are supposed to focus their offices’ firepower on students’ problems, not on one another. But recently, the voice of the student body has largely been composed of Twitter rants and screenshot exposes. Tensions between Undergraduate Students Association Council members have boiled over into the public social media sphere over the Cultivating Unity for Bruins Referendum, a proposed referendum on the upcoming USAC election ballot.
Soon afterwards, an unrelated scandal was brought to light by Orion. He claimed that on March 10th, USAC voted against an independent judiciary with only he and another officer in opposition.

The Election

In the same article that announced the CUB referendum would be on the ballot, it was revealed that Orion had formed his own slate, Cost Cutting Innovations (CCI), and would be seeking the presidency. He would be facing Naomi of For the People (FTP), the slate with the greatest representation in USAC, and three other Independent candidates. The fallout over the USAC's mishandling of the CUB referendum gave Orion and his slate an unexpected surge of support. He became the posterchild of reduced student fees after he was the only one to state his opposition to the referendum.
As election week approached, UCLA was rocked by several instances of fraud, where students posing as members of both Naomi and Orion's campaigns made unsanctioned posts. The moderators stepped in and began requiring verification from users claiming to represent candidates.
As election week was about to kick off, the Daily Bruin released their endorsements of candidates. To the dismay of many, the Daily Bruin endorsed FTP candidates nearly straight down the ballot. Users were quick to notice the amateurish reporting of the editorial board and called out discrepancies online.
In their endorsement for FTP's Zuleika over CCI's Deven they cited both of their lack of experience in student government as transfer students but gave very different spins.
While she lacks experience on USAC, Bravo has a wide range of leadership experience working with the Students with Dependents Program and the Transfer Leadership Coalition.
Additionally, her lack of experience within USAC raises concern given the rigorous and sometimes toxic environment of student government, and we worry that her ideas may get lost in the transition.
A user pointed out that the USAC and the Daily Bruin had strong incentives provide legitimacy for each other. The user observed that south campus majors are less inclined to participate in student government because it is not in line with their career goals. The growing threat to USAC due to an increased number of south campus majors running on the CCI slate this year revealed to many students that the initiatives of previous administrations had merely been for show and were not focused on real student issues.
South campus majors don't run for office. More importantly they don't vote. So when it comes to it, USAC is filled with the same people who push initiatives that stroke the "woke" ego that is so pervasive among the self proclaimed journalists at the Daily Bruin while the few [who] do push for South Campus specific plans get called "out of touch". It's absurd that a candidate can run on a campaign that wants to restore a tangible service to students and gets called out of touch while another candidate is praised for adding seats for students we don't know to a senate we've never heard of.
This message resonated with the UCLA userbase that skews heavily towards south campus. Students attacked the Daily Bruin and USAC for working together to maintain a system that allowed faux politicians and journalists to push unrealistic agendas for the purpose of advancing their careers and to the detriment of real student's problems. They alleged USAC and the Daily Bruin were out of touch with the student body after they had repeatedly endorsed candidates with the same type of lofty, good-on-paper agendas over candidates with realistic, sensible plans.
The start of election week was plagued by several more scandals. On Sunday, students also discovered that the the elections board, u/uclaelectionsboard, had paid for actors Brian Baumgartner and Lena Headey to record videos encouraging students to vote. Students complained this was a waste of student fees during a contentious election currently being fought over student fee raises.
On Monday morning, an email, seeming to address incidents of racism, was sent out to all UCLA students. The email stated that racist attacks had been made against the CUB Referendum, citing specifically the incident where racial slurs were used during a public Zoom meeting. The USAC President, Elections Board Chair, and leaders of various ethnic student groups signed on to urge students to participate in the current elections.
Students accused USAC of violating election codes by sending partisan information to students over a service to which all students are required to subscribe.
If you believe that USAC president Robert Watson violated campaign guidelines by sending an email to all undergraduates encouraging a 'yes' vote on the CUB referendum, click here [go to 'report a violation'] to file a complaint.
I recommend you cite Regulation 2.1.a.i of the Social Media Guidelines.
The Social Media Guidelines for campaigning, Regulation 2.1.a.i, state that campaign literature cannot be sent to email lists that all students are required to subscribe to." [note: such as the undergraduate student directory]
Campaigning is defined in the election code, section 8.2.1.a (page 27) as:
[A]ny effort by any individual or group to influence the decision of any student in support of or against any USAC candidate, slate, initiative, referendum, recall, or constitutional amendment appearing on the ballot in the next election through the use of verbal or nonverbal interaction, electronic correspondence of any kind, or the use of physical materials. (emphasis mine)
Students called upon the Elections Board, the independent administrators of the election, to investigate the incident. Despite high activity in encouraging students to vote just hours before, the Election Board account went silent.
Further violations of election code occurred when students posted screenshots of unsolicited texts messages they had received from an individual endorsing the FTP slate.
After a two day investigation, the elections board found the complaint to be invalid.
The Board first makes it clear that the main reason behind its approval of this letter was to take a clear stand in solidarity against incidents of hate speech that have occurred as a result of the ongoing debate about the CUB referendum
Many of the petitioners took issue with the sentence “These instances further highlight the inadequacy of space where Black students are able to feel safe and welcome on and off campus.” The Board agrees that this line itself could possibly be construed as campaigning as one of the components of the referenda is the construction of a Black Bruin Resource Center, which was mentioned in the email. On the other hand, the Board also agrees that this line itself could be construed as entirely factual by others and that the inclusion of “off campus” makes it so that racism as a whole is being addressed, with “on-campus” being used as a reference to the University. The Board acknowledges the petitioners’ concerns but this is ultimately a matter of subjective interpretation.
They also wrote
The third paragraph of the email discusses the CUB referendum, but only in the context of the racist incidents that have occured; these incidents are among the ones that the Board denounced in a April 15th statement.
Many students responded by repeatedly asking for examples of racist incidents other than one in the Zoom meeting. Students also noticed a lack of justification on why the email was not sent immediately after the incidents happened.
Allegations of conspiracy grew when a screenshot of the USAC President claiming he had been given information on the current state of the election was posted onto UCLA. Fury continued to mount against the elections board for this perceived impropriety. However, in this thread, the elections board defended itself by claiming they had no knowledge on the results, only the number of votes cast. Students continued to take issue with this statement asking why this information had only been made available to members of USAC.

The Results

At 6 PM Friday, five hours after voting had concluded, the elections board announced the results of the election. With the highest voter turnout since 2016:
Unexpectedly, the results were a mixed bag with many projecting a sweep by either side, contingent on the pass or fail of the CUB referendum. Despite both sides gaining and conceding ground, drama continued to ensue.
Shocked that CUB had failed, supporters of the referendum took to twitter and began accusing UCLA of racism. Reddit users also posted and criticized screenshots of several tweets by Naomi.[1]
As the fervor over the elections died down, some took the opportunity to remind the student body of the alleged misconduct of USAC, the elections board, and the Daily Bruin. However, it is unclear if the student body will have the momentum and memory to hold the newly elected USAC accountable to transparency and real change after this particularly contentious election.
[1] : It is the opinion of the author that the second tweet can be construed as frustration at middle class people for not joining the plight of lower class people. Whether it is true, that middle class people do not support lower class people, is subject to debate.

Author's thoughts

Since this section is my own opinion, I won't be adding sources unless its about an event that actually happened.
First I would like to start off by disclosing my biases. I completed my undergrad at UCLA and am currently a graduate student in a south campus major. Graduate students are governed by the Graduate Students Association (GSA) and have no stake in USAC. I also happen to know some members of the Daily Bruin's editorial board and their political beliefs; although, I have not been in contact with them for the duration of this event.
I'm extremely disappointed by USAC, the elections board, and the Daily Bruin for their behavior during this election cycle. While much of the evidence regarding collusion is circumstantial, it's hard to give them the benefit of the doubt, especially when many of these organizations have obtained notoriety for engaging in playground politics.
USAC and supporters of the CUB referendum have failed in every attempt to engage in civil discourse with the opposition. As a somewhat liberal individual, I probably have voted in favor of CUB, if I were an undergrad, barring a pandemic and the unaccounted $2.7 million. USAC and supporters refused to attack the argument: a student fee increase during a pandemic and by the least transparent USAC in recent history is a bad idea, opting instead to call all detractors racist. If these students wish to be future leaders and activists in America, they need to do better. On an unrelated note, this is why no one takes liberals, and by proxy college students, seriously. If your first reaction to disagreement is to scream racism, you don't know what you're doing.
If you take your role on USAC seriously, and I know many do because it's what many want as a career, you have to be accountable. Real governments are accountable to the people they serve. If you read this story not knowing that it was a college government, you would think it was a democracy on the verge of collapsing into a totalitarian state. Which is kind of ironic considering how dyed in the wool liberal some of these people claim to be.
Despite actively engaging with students on UCLA in the days prior to election week, the elections board has been eerily silent since allegations of franking came out on Monday. I read the full Notice of Findings and am obligated to believe that a thorough investigation was conducted by an independent board. However, that is not to say that their actions were not incredibly suspect. As students, we know who is friends with who and it makes it very difficult to believe that members of the elections board did not have a personal stake in CUB despite statements to the contrary. However, in a democracy, they are entitled to the benefit of the doubt and the court of public opinion has brought nothing but circumstantial evidence. If this new USAC takes transparency seriously, I think commitments to increasing oversight would be a much needed reassurance.
With regards to the Daily Bruin, I hate being misinformed. So much that if you knew me in real life, you might be able to guess who I was based on how much I insist people go directly to the source material. I understand that journalists are not paid just to report the facts but also to give their opinions. But with that said, many of writers who covered this story let personal politics affect their ability to report the facts first.
There was a sub scandal that I didn't cover in the main story where students alleged that the Daily Bruin deliberately put off reporting on the fee increases as to not bring attention to its negative impacts. Several people[2], [3] asked the Daily Bruin to report on the story when it first came out. But it took three weeks for the article to come out and it came out after voting had already started. While I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt, I wouldn't put it past the editors I know to strategize like this and others were keen to keep track as well
But it looks like they never got around to it. How tf could they fail to cover something so substantial? And boy, how convenient was that... considering that they also recently announced that they endorse the fee increase (referendum).
There was a UCLA student in the comments of the SubredditDrama post that said I was being unfair to the Daily Bruin. I openly admit I don't much like the Daily Bruin and agree their opinion pieces hot garbage. But their investigative pieces have been incredibly lackluster as well. Their report on the unaccounted $2.7 million was the best I'd read from them but they failed to report on its connections to concerns of transparency as it relates to the recent election.
Another thing that is incredibly concerning is the lack of south campus representation in USAC and the Daily Bruin. It was pointed out in the comments of the SubredditDrama post that the Daily Bruin does employ south campus majors in the stack, their data visualization and tech blog. I spoke to a friend who is a graduated member of the Daily Bruin about this story and they said they weren't surprised. The south campus staffers were not really concerned with campus politics and mostly kept to themselves.
Which leads us to south campus representation in USAC. It's true that internships and research experience is way more valuable careerwise to south campus majors so they don't really bother with USAC. But I hope that changes after this year. The bigger issue is with the USAC establishment denying representation of the south campus perspective, as evidenced by the tweets linked above
... my platform will explicitly include banning south campus majors from running for office or voting ...
Hyperbole aside, it's disconcerting that people are trying to paint the result of the referendum as a north vs south argument. There is north vs south culture at UCLA which is discussed mostly as a joke but sometimes seriously, e.g. north campus majors are attractive but unhireable and south campus majors are goblins but will be rich, the north side of campus looks beautiful and the south side is trash, etc. But that north vs south culture isn't the reason CUB failed. It's the reason referenda like CUB are allowed to exist to begin with.
No one is doubting that marginalized communities need our support. But if you read the linked threads and articles, you would have seen dozens of acronyms, CPO, CRC, SIOC, CEC, CSC, SREC[4], CAC, CTP, AAC, AAP, MO, TLC, UCSA, SWC, CAPS, and more. There is not a single "run of the mill" student that can tell you what each of these stand for, what they do, and how some of them are different from each other. I also made one of those up and challenge anyone to tell me which one is fake without looking them up.
UCLA is a huge school and I get that there needs to be a lot of groups to cater to some large populations. But it's alarming how easily some groups are made to serve a seemingly niche purpose, funded all on the student's dime. If I didn't know any better, I would think that some of these groups were made just to push some esoteric social justice agenda and make resume padders for friends of officials. South campus demands realistic and practical goals, as evidenced by CCI's slate. But when south campus doesn't participate, the runaway north campus effect goes on to create groups after every color of the rainbow spending money on things students don't know about.
If USAC wants referenda to pass or fail on their own merits, they have to engage the other half of the campus while they're being written. There is no point in north campus throwing referendum after referendum at the student body for it to be voted down after south campus grows tired of increased fees without representation. If USAC wants students to take future referenda seriously, they can't disenfranchise south campus.
USAC, do better.
u/uclaelectionsboard, do better.
u/daily-bruin, do better.
Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.
Erratum: [4] CREC should be SREC.
submitted by cafmc to ucla [link] [comments]

Become a Coursera affiliate. Join our affiliate program and earn 20% commission on 1,000+ courses and Specializations. Join for free. Through an affiliation with LUOA — an extension of Liberty University — you can integrate our online, Christ-centered curriculum into your school’s current program. Become an affiliate ITU Online's custom practice exams prepare you for your exams differently and more effectively than the traditional exam preps on the market. Students will have practice quizzes after each module to ensure you are confident on the topic you are learning. World Class Learning Management System. Become a Udemy Affiliate. Promote a product that is always useful, that people always want, that will never go out of style: thousands of online courses in hundreds of categories! Categories. Search for anything Udemy for Business Get your team access to 4,000+ top Udemy courses anytime, anywhere Affiliate Description: Sebron University is committed to the highest standards of academic excellence, where students are strengthened for lives of purpose, service and leadership. Sebron University prepares students for the challenges of tomorrow, today. 14) Edugram.

[index] [8785] [3569] [7904] [12425] [4336] [9342] [9526] [9174] [667] [15489]