(Friday, May 14, 2010 / 2:09 AM)
i wish someone would hurry up and update my joint application status alrd,geez.i need to know what to do.and i found out from the fb page of NUS med 2010 that the prissy *JC girl who was behind me in the interview line got in! D: not that i dont like her lah,since she offered me candy and all ( i am easily appeased) but it says a lot of the type of people i will encounter there.if i even get accepted-.-
and i dont really like it when people go,aiyah sure get in one lah! can de lah! you will get into nus med! like fuck you are God meh.i know its encouragement but i just dont like people to lie lah.so what if i got not bad results,it doesnt mean i will get into every single course i want.everyone there has a freaking AAA/A AA which is already half the battle won.and plus the interview must be a breeze with all the bulking up of their portfolios and aid from their extremely experienced seniors.
having second thoughts about fass as it is nth applicable to real life.gosh i sound so bitter.
and for writing's sake,some reflections upon some courses which i decided not to have a part in.
fashion&media- as much as i like looking at alexander mcqueen collection and pretty model photogs and yearn to own a grey-black louis vuitton messenger bag,honestly i just dont get the industry.dont you ever read urban one day and go omg this is really ugly and that stylist really looks like a fag.
ive noticed that doctors and lawyers are humourously always at a feud with each other since my medicine interview.it is kind of amusing somewhat.like the recent argument btwn walter woon the ****talking ex attorney general and Lee Weiling ,head of the neuroscience institute over the Tang 's illegal liver transplant case.you can read it here :
http://feedmetothefish.blogspot.com/2008/09/g-vs-mms-daughter-no-one-is-above-law.html
even my med interviewer,while questioning me about euthanasia,did not bother to hide his contempt that the euthanasia article was written by the law society when i mentioned that i felt the article was biased because they only showed the views of lawyers who were anti-euthanasia and none who were pro euthanasia,almost encouraging to public to go with the train of thought.smarter ones would ponder on the opposing issue,but with the overwhelming imbalance of information on both sides of the table,well,we will know what the majority would lead to.
