>be me, study hard for 3 years to get an undergrad degree and accepted into honours in geology >huge range of relevant extracurricular experience, very good GPA, genuine interest in the subject since childhood, can display a competent knowledge in the subject >manage to get some decent work experience, a significant scholarship and a honours project with a good supervisor
All sounds well and good, until I realise that:
>majority of my honours cohort are average students at best and probably should have not passed undergraduate, had very little relevant extracurricular experience, the majority do not have a genuine interest in the subject and only decided they wanted to do it after their first year of studies, have poor knowledge of the subject >they all managed to get the same degree, decent honours supervisors and interesting research topics, and some of them (particularly the girls) have been given incredible work experience/scholarship opportunities despite all I have mentioned
>of those not doing honours, most of my peers are unemployed, the majority who found work with big companies were again, under-performing women
Am I right to be mad? Why did I have to work so hard to get what so many people were given for free because of their genitals? What does this say about the future of academica and science based industry?
>Am I right to be mad? Yes >Why did I have to work so hard to get what so many people were given for free because of their genitals? Regressive liberalism >What does this say about the future of academica and science based industry? A lot of shit that's fairly negative
Samuel Gutierrez
because women have been marginalized for centuries, if you have >decent work experience, a significant scholarship and a honours project with a good supervisor
then you should have nothing to complain about, go take your roastie hate to r9k
Landon Taylor
>me and an under-qualified female apply for the same graduate position >she is selected over me >no explanation of the rational, logistics or mechanisms behind such a illogical process >I'm expected to remain silent, or become unemployable if I dare question it
Bentley Peterson
Those women are all dead. There isn't a woman alive under 60 who hasn't been treated like a goddess just for having a festering cunt. Kill yourself, roastie.
Brody Garcia
>go take your roastie hate to r9k
>implying this madness doesn't hurt genuinely qualified females just as much as it does men
Jaxon Taylor
take your LARP to pol or somewhere
btw who are you to determine what "genuine interest" means? elitism doesnt mean shit irl. einstein, in his writings, admits that he didnt take physics seriously until he was 25 so why does it matter if you liked rocks as a kid?
my advice: stop being bitter and negative. especially to those you dont actually know and about situations you make up in your head
Aiden Evans
I mean your entire argument seems to rest on the assumption that I'm not genuine, it's not very convincing.
I'm speaking about real experiences from my time at university and within my peer group.
The system is the way it is. Thrive however you can and don't be bitter over dribble like honor role.
Jackson Gonzalez
no, youre speaking from what you believe to be the case based on your personal investigation of the circumstance that I can tell was a flawed investigation by your use of "age first interested in geology" as a meaningful metric
you also dont "get" research, you have to come up with the research on your own so if they had good research, its bc they worked to make it good which contradicts your claim of them being poor students
>the majority who found work with big companies were women how could you possibly know this? how could you know the individual efforts made by each peer at finding work? how could you know what connections they had?
