I think that I'm going to quit school again. Everything that could go wrong this semester (short of snakes) has gone wrong. I'm petrified that if I do not quit, I will fail. If I fail, I am screwed.
Actually, I'm pretty much screwed if I get much less than a "B" in any of my classes, as I need to go to graduate school lest I be screwed by my lone pointless B.S. degree. In all honesty, I'd make better money bartending than I would with a B.S. in Field Biology and Ecology.
I think that I'm going to go hyperventilate in the bathroom again.
cecil [email] said at 2:37 AM 10-19-2005: Hmm. Well, you know, I'm not rich yet like I promised. But you know, just come to san francisco and we'll figure it out. We 'll work at the academy of sciences and just figure it out, you know? We'kk be ok. we'lll work it out and just figure it out and you can get away form that middle eastern weather and I can weasle my way into LucasArts or somethinga nd wi
'll get by, i promose and at worst we'll just have a good time at arnie's bar eery single night of the year, you, know, that's not so bad is it?
amanda [email] said at 2:51 AM 10-19-2005: "The results from the t-tests indicated a level of statistical significance on all 4 variables between the two topographical habitats, other than in the PAR variable (Table 2-5). In the t-test for PAR between the two habitats, the p-value of 0.1161 (Table 4) suggested that the slope and lowland areas did not receive statistically significant different amounts of photosynthetic active radiation. This could have been due to seasonal abscision of leaves and the consequential uniform amount of light being allowed to pass through the forest canopy in either location.
The 40.0% soil moisture mean in the lowlands versus the 26.8% soil moisture mean (Table 5) on the slope was an expected difference. Soil moisture should be higher where water is allowed to collect and be absorbed into the soil, so the rise in soil moisture at inclines is anticipated.
The lowered pH (Table 5) found in the soil of the lowlands seems to support that, “observing an association between tree species and specific soil chemical properties within mixed-species stands implies that changes in the distribution and abundance of tree species alters the spatial and temporal pattern of soil acidity and cation cycling in [the] forest.” (Finzi, C. et al, 1998) Different tree species require different mineral uptake, which consequentially alters the pH. The marked propensity of Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Acer negundo, Tilia americana, Ulmus americana, and Crataegus spp. in the lowlands may have contributed to the decreased mean soil pH, due to each tree species’ nutritional uptake requirements and the resultant depleted minerals making the soil more alkaline or acidic."
IT'S ALL BULLSHIT!!! I have no clue what I'm talking about! Ha. HAHAHAHAHA!!!!
cecil [email] said at 3:01 AM 10-19-2005: habida habida boobidy boo, chacka chaca wa wa waa wahhh pretty eyes and nice boobies, tell me something i want toknw
cecil [email] said at 4:15 AM 10-20-2005: I honestly have zero recollection of posting this reply and I am humiliated. Seriously I'm freaked out! I don't believe I wrote that.
nathan [email] said at 4:57 AM 10-19-2005: Time to rain lightning like Thor! I've just stayed up until 5am writing about flippin t-tests myself - and up at 9am to write more. But, grad school beats working for capitalist industrialists anyday.
amanda [email] said at 10:14 AM 10-19-2005: ARGHHHH!!!!!
You are right. Before 5 tonight, I shall make p-values, correlation tables, and the r-squared my humble bitches. Each shall fall before my unbending wrath like a delicate wilting vine in an arid region. α=0.05, submit to me you foul beast!
amanda [email] said at 10:18 AM 10-19-2005: Thanks guys! This breakfast beer and I are not giving up yet. I must fight the Maths for this Can of Beer's good name.
brad [email] said at 2:27 PM 10-19-2005: i don't understand why biology degrees are so useless. couldn't you get a job working at some biomedical research center or something? is there just very low demand for that (i wouldn't think so)? i guess there's not a high demand for those people all over the country, but in a big city (maybe quit school and leave madison?), it seems like you could do well.
you may make more money bartending, and you may not. the good thing about a job in your study is that it's STEADY money. plus, you'd have benefits and could have your weekends off. but if you'd rather be a bartender, be a bartender. but i don't see the appeal of being a career bartender unless you plan to some day own your own bar.
mary [email] said at 6:21 PM 10-19-2005: She's right, actually. It's pretty tough to get a good job in biology without at least a master's. The kind of tech jobs you can get with just a b.s. tend to be staffed as temps, anyway, so no benefits anyway. And they often pay not much more than min wage.
amanda [email] said at 6:42 PM 10-19-2005: I have overthrown the armies of Microsoft Excel and valiantly triumphed over the many-headed beast that is Research Culled From Scientific Journals. Lo! a great battle was waged from many a computer, but the sharp, fierce blade of my data analysis rendered my foes statistically significant. Neither Printer Malfunction (In Which Text Cannot Be Printed For Reasons Unknown) nor Obnoxiously Loud Foreign Student In The Computer Lab could best my trendlines or my flowing stream of bullshit.
Now I move on to fight Invertebrate Biology Lab Practical Which Hath Risen From The Depths Of Hell Itself And Includes The Kingdom Protozoa, followed by Ecology Exam Heavy On The Math That Looks Like It Was Inscribed Upon A Crashed U.F.O.
