Isa kang malaking pasaway. Lantaran pa. Sige ikaw na tama, kala mo naman may susunod sa iyo.
---
So my aunt just arrived from the UK and guess what she brought for me. The Gathering Storm. It was nice of her but unfortunately I had already bought a copy way back in October as an end of the semester gift for myself. What's more sad is that I don't think we can return the book because it looks damaged already. I don't know how it happened but there are some tiny tears and it looked liked that some of the black color of the cover was chipped of. I don't know if I want to laugh, scream or cry. Gaaah!
Maybe I should just sell it on Ebay or something. *sigh*
Monday, November 29, 2010
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Thursday, November 18, 2010
No duh.
In other news, our research deadline was moved to January. We can do more trials. Uh... yey? We do need it and I really feel good about this research project. We have really good results, we just need to finish it.
In other news, our research deadline was moved to January. We can do more trials. Uh... yey? We do need it and I really feel good about this research project. We have really good results, we just need to finish it.
Monday, November 15, 2010
I have a new goal in med school. Apparently, the admin and the faculty decided that just having a 2.75 average is not enough to merit entry into the Track B and Track C programs. We now have to be in the top 30% and 20% respectively. I do hope I'm in the top 20%. I really want to focus on a certain field of medicine for internship year. The skills in this field are not taught really well in the other tracks so there.
Of course the problem with this system is that not everyone in the top 20 and 30% want to get into Tracks B and C. Isn't this a waste of slots?
Of course the problem with this system is that not everyone in the top 20 and 30% want to get into Tracks B and C. Isn't this a waste of slots?
Saturday, November 13, 2010
2 days in to the 2nd semester and I'm ready for my Christmas break.
And due to my Psych elective, I'll probably be missing the UPD lantern parade this year.
Was an AMSEP host this week. Only week I've had less sleep was when I was attending AMSC and there I was able to catch a nap during venue transfers. I really should have talked to the delegates more.
Finally finished with the amoeba trials. We'll just be counting the amoeba and then off to writing the paper. We have good results but we still need to frame it in a way that will make the paper outstanding (albeit all our methodological limitations and design faults). After everything, I really enjoyed doing this research but bench-type research is really not for me.
And due to my Psych elective, I'll probably be missing the UPD lantern parade this year.
Was an AMSEP host this week. Only week I've had less sleep was when I was attending AMSC and there I was able to catch a nap during venue transfers. I really should have talked to the delegates more.
Finally finished with the amoeba trials. We'll just be counting the amoeba and then off to writing the paper. We have good results but we still need to frame it in a way that will make the paper outstanding (albeit all our methodological limitations and design faults). After everything, I really enjoyed doing this research but bench-type research is really not for me.
Friday, November 05, 2010
From Mainstreaming Natural Family Planning:
"On the average, lower-income couples desire more children, but also experience a larger gap between “wanted” and “actual” number of children. From another perspective, government does not need to engage in population control. What is needed is simply to address the needs of couples to arrive at their desired number of children, particularly among couples in the lower economic quintiles."
False dichotomy. One need not choose between population control and addressing the couples' desires. Actually, addressing the couples' desire is a means to attaining population control. And we need the government to engage in control (the better term is management) because the State doesn't have enough of its resources to sustain the current and future population, hence, we have overpopulation. (The Philippine population really needs to stop growing so 2% is not enough.)
The author seems to misinterpret the NDHS findings and falling into the trap of using biased non-generalizable surveys. The most striking is the conclusion that couples not using any form of family planning have no desire of planning their families. Duh? The NDHS found that they're not using any form because maybe they gave up or do not know how. It doesn't mean they don't want to. And two, it is laughable to elevate the findings of your poorly designed biased survey to a nationwide randomized survey such as the NDHS. Any student who knows basic research courses will notice that your sample will be non-representative and thus non-equivalent to the NDHS population. Actually, your survey won't even be representative of all the couples in your diocese.
It is commendable though that they are engaging in a form of extension service that is beyond that of spouting stupid statements like contraception is equal to abortion or that contraceptives are carcinogens. Hopefully, these sessions aren't or won't turn to indocrination sessions on NFP or none at all.
If NFP works for the people who desire to use NFP, why not use it. Just don't go overboard in criticizing other methods, people have the rights to choose their own.
"On the average, lower-income couples desire more children, but also experience a larger gap between “wanted” and “actual” number of children. From another perspective, government does not need to engage in population control. What is needed is simply to address the needs of couples to arrive at their desired number of children, particularly among couples in the lower economic quintiles."
False dichotomy. One need not choose between population control and addressing the couples' desires. Actually, addressing the couples' desire is a means to attaining population control. And we need the government to engage in control (the better term is management) because the State doesn't have enough of its resources to sustain the current and future population, hence, we have overpopulation. (The Philippine population really needs to stop growing so 2% is not enough.)
The author seems to misinterpret the NDHS findings and falling into the trap of using biased non-generalizable surveys. The most striking is the conclusion that couples not using any form of family planning have no desire of planning their families. Duh? The NDHS found that they're not using any form because maybe they gave up or do not know how. It doesn't mean they don't want to. And two, it is laughable to elevate the findings of your poorly designed biased survey to a nationwide randomized survey such as the NDHS. Any student who knows basic research courses will notice that your sample will be non-representative and thus non-equivalent to the NDHS population. Actually, your survey won't even be representative of all the couples in your diocese.
It is commendable though that they are engaging in a form of extension service that is beyond that of spouting stupid statements like contraception is equal to abortion or that contraceptives are carcinogens. Hopefully, these sessions aren't or won't turn to indocrination sessions on NFP or none at all.
If NFP works for the people who desire to use NFP, why not use it. Just don't go overboard in criticizing other methods, people have the rights to choose their own.
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)