Small Talk: The Quiver

[tv echo]

25 minutes ago, Mellowyellow said:

It is so interesting how different your system is to ours! You even have people who handle the admissions! From what I've seen on TV are your applications handled by each college separately? As in the colleges interview and see the students before they accept them?

Each college handles its own applications, admission decisions, and student interviews.

ETA: To clarify my previous post, you can still be poor and get into a good college. You can still go to a less 'prestigious' college and be successful in life. 

Edited March 14, 2019 by tv echo

[statsgirl]

On 3/14/2019 at 8:16 AM, Mellowyellow said:

Australia is really simple. You do an exam called the HSC (part of the marks are calculated from your school mark, the other part is what you get on exam day) and you get a mark out of one hundred. You then use that mark to apply for any course and any uni you like. The course will take the people with the highest marks applying for that course. Every year they release a guide of what is the guaranteed mark to get into the course (eg 99.50 is needed to guarantee entry into combined law at Sydney University)

There are courses like medicine where they interview you but you'll need a minimal mark to get in. Or veterinary science and dentistry where they make you take a series of IQ and personality tests.

Wow, that seems really intrusive. Why would they want you to take an IQ test when you've already aced the HSC? Also making students take personality tests seems like a breach of privacy to me. (There is only one time when I liked that a student was given a personality test.  He went to the university on a scholarship but then discovered serious partying and his highest grade was 32. They made him take an MMPI and based on that, told him that he had to spend a minimum of 2 years away and growing up.  Smart move, he did it and went back, eventually getting a PhD.)

Here you have to apply to each university that you want to go to separately. It's based on 13 marks,1/3 test scores like the SAT and 1/3 on other factors like essays or extracurricular such as leadership and sports. 

Getting into the prestigious universities is a whole other game then getting into a mid-ranked on. That's where this scandal comes from.

Ironically, I've heard that getting into an ivy-league university doesn't necessarily mean that you'll get the best quality education. In the top schools, often the courses are taught by graduate students because the faculty are doing research or supervising grad students whereas in a mid and lower-ranked school you'll get the prof him or herself.

[Mellowyellow]

They are huge on personality tests here @statsgirl

Logic is you need the correct personality to be a vet.  Can't just be one cuz you got a high HSC mark and want to make $$$

I don't really see how it's intrusive. If they deem you unsuitable it's not like it's a black mark against you that you didn't have the right personality for veterinary science. 

Doesn't seem that different to when I applied for the grad program. They sent me for testing and wanted copies of all my marks for every uni course. 

Hehe this reminds me of when my husband was applying for a grad role at this super competitive company (dubbed The Millionaires Factory) that every grad wanted to get in.

They made him sit a test and one of the questions was:

Do you view yourself as a witty and fast thinking individual?

His response: No. I can be slow in social situations and I'm not witty at all 🙄

I was engaged to him at the time and really questioned my judgement 😂

Of course he didn't get in!!! 

[Morrigan2575]

The best part is, each college charges and admission/application fee and, some of them can be quite expensive. When I was going to college we really didn't have a lot of money, so I only applied to 3.  However, my classmates were fairly well off, some applied up to 11 different schools.

[doesntworkonwood]

It's been a while since I applied to University, but in the UK you can apply to up to 5 'universities'* and it only costs £24 all together. You apply using a system called UCAS. All of our Univeristies cost the same for tuition, so it doesn't really matter if you're going to a prestigious University or a lower ranked one, you pay the same. 

*Our University system is a lot different than America as far as I'm aware. In the UK you apply to courses rather than Universities. I think (I may very well be wrong) in the US you chose a University, you have some basic modules and eventually you 'declare a major'. In the UK you know what you're going to be 'majoring' in when you apply, and spend three/four years just studying that subject and that subject only. For example, I'm in STEM and I haven't done any English courses since before I started Uni. 

[Morrigan2575]

4 hours ago, doesntworkonwood said:

I think (I may very well be wrong) in the US you chose a University, you have some basic modules and eventually you 'declare a major'. In the UK you know what you're going to be 'majoring' in when you apply, and spend three/four years just studying that subject and that subject only

Yeah, in the US you apply to a college although you generally try to pick one that has a strength in your desired field but, you aren't locked in. I wanted a tech path so all the colleges I applied to had Engineering departments. Villanova (where I went) you had to apply to the specific school (Engineering, Business, Liberal Arts, Sciences, Nursing). In the Engineering school we had mostly core based classes (Calculus, physics, chemistry, autocad, programming language etc). However, we still had to fulfill humanities courses (religion, English/literature, free electives). 

Unlike UK, in the US tuition varies based on school. So you can go to a State School which are cheaper than private schools and, many/most are just as good. State schools have in-state and out-of-state tuition fees. Private schools are insanely expensive.  I took my cousin to Villanova on a college tour (I wanted her to attend). When I attended Nova the Tuition for the Engineering School was $16K/year for Room and Board, it cost about $60k for my degree (Which I afforded with loans and financial aide). The cost (about 8 years ago) was $52k/year for Room and Board! 

What about Primary Education in UK an Australia? In the US your education is based on school district which varies. So what you see in a lot of cases is people trying to move to good school districts so their kids can get good educations. The better the school district the more expensive the housing/property taxes. This of course hurts poor people who can't afford a $600k mortgage and $20k/year in property taxes. In the poorer districts you end up with too many kids per class, not enough school books, etc.

The US education system is rigged from the start to favor wealthy/middle class. It's way I'm not focused on the Free College promises. I think we need to get college tuition regulated but, it's more important to level the playing field at an early age. Get all public Elementary and High Schools to the same level. Then worry about University level stuff.

Edited March 17, 2019 by Morrigan2575

[BkWurm1]

I can't help see strengths and drawbacks in each of the systems.  The US is pricing higher education wildly out of reach and it seems to me Australia is being a bit problematic by deciding what line of work people are even allowed to be interested in with their personality tests  ( Who sets those rules?***And why apart from serial killer predilections should personality tests have anything to do with whether you will be good enough at your job as a Vet?) 

And while focused study on a single subject might speed the process, I think there is a lot to be said for being required to round out a base of knowledge with the general requirements US colleges makes of their students.   I've met some University Grads from the UK that seemed shockingly lacking in general knowledge.  

It also sounds like there are less back up options at the UK or Australia if you are rejected from your desired line if study for some reason.  Like you apply and a rejection rejects you from the whole system where at least in the US if you don't get accepted at one, you have other options.   

Quote

The better the school district the more expensive the housing/property taxes.

Just to enrage people even more,  there are also the cases of wealthy districts with really low taxes on homeowners with their education and other services supported by the taxes on businesses (I'm specifically thinking of a suburb I know of with a mix of high end retail shopping) and but there, there is a dearth of reasonably priced housing so they get you one way or the other.   

*** To expand on my earlier thoughts  of personality tests being problematic in deciding if one is suited for a field of study or not.   

I get that in a field like medicine or working with animals there would be in general some assumptions about traits that would be an asset or drawback. 

Like if you are going to be working in a field that constantly has you interacting with people, having a reasonable amount of natural empathy could come in handy but who is to say someone lacking people skills might not be a awesome in other ways?  Like say diagnoses or surgery or research or even aspects of the field that have yet to be explored because it would take people out of the norm to push those boundaries?  

I just don't think people are that easily predictable.  Maybe they have what look like great weaknesses in studying a field but then their perhaps not so obvious strengths make them brilliant in other aspects.  I get aptitude tests as a tool and a guide, but as a deciding factor? It seem like gate keeping to have someone determine this stuff before one even has begun.  

Edited March 17, 2019 by BkWurm1
more ranting

[Mellowyellow]

They used to select medicine, veterinary science, dentistry purely by marks and found that kids who got 100 or 99.95 were doing these courses because they were prestigious. I think that's why they introduced the personality tests.

I know if you pass the personality test for Dentistry you need to go and do a practical test. One of my friends went and they had to do stuff with their hands.

I think because I'm used to NSW deciding what you do based on one mark, the personality test actually feels like they are branching out a bit if that makes sense. Otherwise it is one anonymous mark that decides whether you get in.

***

I'm not sure about now but in my day you can pick up to 6 courses for uni.

So say you got 99.15.

You would enter the top 3 in hopes that you might get in. Then you can enter 3 courses where you know last year's cut off was like 80 so bar some bizarre event you'd definitely get in.

I think the US system gives you more time to grow and decide who you are as a person. The system in NSW makes a 17/18 year old decide their life trajectory and also leads to people taking up careers they don't care about just because they got the marks.

***

We have school zones here but our zones are really small. There are usually 1 or 2 schools per suburb. I wouldn't say funding is skewed to the rich. The poorer schools get better funding to be honest. In fact we were "encouraged" to be careful as to how we fill out household surveys and income levels which determines how much funding the school gets.

Class sizes a standard state wise. 20 kids per class in kindy. 22 Year one, 24 Year two and up to 30 for years 3 onwards. We were lucky because of the numbers little dude ended up in a 17 kid kindy class.

I think the problem in NSW is that in the richer suburbs, there are more tiger parents and the parents can afford tutoring so they all send their kids to tutoring. This results in better NAPLAN scores, more kids getting into OC, more kids getting into Selective, the primary school being famous for rearing more kids that get into Selective and then all the wealthier folks congregating in particular suburbs/schools.

What do you mean by school books? Like readers? Or actual books that they write in?

They get given all their handwriting books and homework books etc but we have to pay a small feel for books (like $50 or something a year) and provide 2 tissue boxes, 7 glue sticks, a paint shirt and a library bag. Most of us send in extra to cover any kids that don't bring the stuff in so it's not an issue.

[Morrigan2575]

3 minutes ago, Mellowyellow said:

They get given all their handwriting books and homework books etc but we have to pay a small feel for books (like $50 or something a year) and provide 2 tissue boxes, 7 glue sticks, a paint shirt and a library bag. Most of us send in extra to cover any kids that don't bring the stuff in so it's not an issue.

I know here the parents are sent a list of school supplies for class each year and it can be quite expensive.  I also have a few teachers in my family and they get a stipend for their class supplies but, it's never enough. They always spend their own money providing class supplies/decorations, etc. There were a few years where we'd do a collection for them so they had money and/or supplies for their classrooms.

Additionally most schools have to do fund raising for sports or extracurriculars. I'm pretty much accosted at the grocery store every weekend for the local High School sport of the week.

[BkWurm1]

Quote

What do you mean by school books? Like readers? Or actual books that they write in?

They get given all their handwriting books and homework books etc but we have to pay a small feel for books (like $50 or something a year) and provide 2 tissue boxes, 7 glue sticks, a paint shirt and a library bag. Most of us send in extra to cover any kids that don't bring the stuff in so it's not an issue.

After the government provided education, when you go on to paid colleges and Universities you are responsible for buying all your textbooks and stuff.  It's not hard to drop $500 on new books each semester if you buy them new.  

[Mary0360]

Not to be all pro-Australia but I don't see the harm in giving medical students personality tests. Most big companies make people do personality/IQ tests when applying for positions in their companies. I don't see it as being any more problematic. It's just a gage of whether someone fits or are suited for the role they are after 🤷‍♀️ Also I don't think the personality tests are the sole determining factor into whether they get in or not, but are taken in context of the students whole performance, ATAR entrance scores, school record, interview etc. 

[Morrigan2575]

Since we're on the siject of schools I've been watching a YouTube Channel called Rachel and June it's an international couple (American Girl/Japanese Guy) living in Japan. Rachel did a video about a College Scandal in Japan where it was discovered that Medical Schools were fudging entrance exam results to limit women to 30% attendance. 

It's sad to see but, also a comfort to know we're (USA) aren't the only screw ups.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46568975

[Door County Cherry]

On 3/14/2019 at 8:12 AM, Mellowyellow said:

It is so interesting how different your system is to ours! You even have people who handle the admissions! From what I've seen on TV are your applications handled by each college separately? As in the colleges interview and see the students before they accept them?

The admissions process can be varied.  There is your grade point average which is an average of the grades you receive in every class through the four years of high school.  There are also standardized tests (ACT or SAT).  Public (or state schools) typically set a GPA number and test number which, if an applicant meets them, will get them automatically accepted.  For people whose numbers are on the bubble, other things, like extra curriculars, will get looked at.   

For more prestigious schools, the competition gets tighter and the other things matter more.  Although I don't know of many schools that interview at an undergraduate level.  My school admits well over 5,000 new freshmen every year.  They can't interview all of them. 

That's all undergrad.  Applying for graduate or graduate professional programs (medicine, veterinary, dental, law...etc.) involves a separate application process.  There's a new standardized test specific to your profession.  Your score on that matters as do your undergraduate grades.  People usually have to write a personal statement, have some extra curricular activity and may even have to go for an interview.  Interviews are more likely for the more prestigious professions.  And it's through this that the school can get the sense whether or not you're right for the program. 

9 hours ago, Mary0360 said:

Not to be all pro-Australia but I don't see the harm in giving medical students personality tests. Most big companies make people do personality/IQ tests when applying for positions in their companies. I don't see it as being any more problematic. It's just a gage of whether someone fits or are suited for the role they are after 🤷‍♀️ Also I don't think the personality tests are the sole determining factor into whether they get in or not, but are taken in context of the students whole performance, ATAR entrance scores, school record, interview etc. 

Personality tests can be a problem because the science involved in them is often murky.  Results can vary from day to day.  They don't measure how adaptable one is.  They're designed to measure comfort over capability.  For instance, my tests would reveal me to be very anti-social and introverted but that's only my preference.  I can certainly be outgoing and friendly because I need to be in order to do my job well. They're based on self-reporting which can skew their accuracy.  Before I take any personality test, I know where I'll fall and I also can guess which answers I need to give to land where I think employers or admissions would want me to be.  And basing hiring decisions or admissions on which pre-determined personality types best fit a profession lead to a lack of diversity within that profession.  

This isn't an "us" vs. "them" argument as both systems have their plusses and minuses.  

I don't think they're invasive and they can be very helpful to understand one's own strengths and weaknesses.  But they're often used as shortcuts to doing the extra work and lead to labels.  They're popular in the US too, just not in the admissions process.  Personality tests are big business. And this is not an argument about the pros and cons of one system over another as both have their pros and cons.  

[BkWurm1]

14 hours ago, Mellowyellow said:

They used to select medicine, veterinary science, dentistry purely by marks and found that kids who got 100 or 99.95 were doing these courses because they were prestigious. I think that's why they introduced the personality tests.

7 hours ago, Mary0360 said:

Not to be all pro-Australia but I don't see the harm in giving medical students personality tests. Most big companies make people do personality/IQ tests when applying for positions in their companies. I don't see it as being any more problematic. It's just a gage of whether someone fits or are suited for the role they are after 🤷‍♀️ Also I don't think the personality tests are the sole determining factor into whether they get in or not, but are taken in context of the students whole performance, ATAR entrance scores, school record, interview etc. 

In context I could see how the tests might help students avoid being pressured into fields they don't want to really do.  I don't have out and out objections to learning about one's strengths and aptitudes as long as there are exceptions to the rules worked in since otherwise anything absolute is problematic IMO

[statsgirl]

10 hours ago, BkWurm1 said:

After the government provided education, when you go on to paid colleges and Universities you are responsible for buying all your textbooks and stuff.  It's not hard to drop $500 on new books each semester if you buy them new.  

Here we can pay $140+ on just one course, and a full course load is 5 courses.

It used to be cheaper, a textbook was $20 or $30 because publishers only paid taxes on books that were actually sold. Reagan changed that and started taxing books as they were printed. This lead to smaller print runs which means greater costs per book.

To counteract the expense, they permitted individual professors to put together readings and sell them to students cheaper. But as Margaret Atwood points out, the people who wrote the chapters, who did the work, don't get paid anything when their work is put into one of these student manuals. That's not good either.

7 hours ago, Mary0360 said:

Not to be all pro-Australia but I don't see the harm in giving medical students personality tests. Most big companies make people do personality/IQ tests when applying for positions in their companies. I don't see it as being any more problematic. It's just a gage of whether someone fits or are suited for the role they are after 🤷‍♀️ Also I don't think the personality tests are the sole determining factor into whether they get in or not, but are taken in context of the students whole performance, ATAR entrance scores, school record, interview etc. 

Two and a half reasons why I see harm in them:

The first is that it's a breach of privacy. That's very personal stuff those tests can show and it goes to people who really don't have the right to that knowledge about a person even if it's just as a number. There's a reason that psychological data is encrypted when it's sent over the internet.

The second reason is that while personality tests can be very helpful and many are scientifically validated (I know, it was part of my job to give and analyze them), those mass administered tests are often very inaccurate just because they need to be scored en masse rather than individually.

For example, when my daughter was in high school, they gave the kids the Real Colors personality test as part of directing them to an occupation.  She scored as an Orange, "spontaneous, bold, needing variety and stimulation".  I didn't recognize my kid at all. And then I realized that what the test was picking up on was her ADHD, not her real personality, and based on that analysisit would have sent her on the wrong path. That's a problem with mass-administered tests, that they are not sensitive enough to differentiate individual differences.

The half reason is that even if someone ends up in veterinary school or medical school without empathy skills, empathy can be taught. There are good programs to do it, you can see a sample of Alan Alda's here. And if someone who really can't learn empathy becomes a doctor, they can go into pathology or radiology. I'm really opposed to eliminating someone from a program based on a dubious test.

I'm also against people having to do personality tests by employers for many of these reasons. A good HR interview >>>>>> a half-baked personality test.

[doesntworkonwood]

18 hours ago, BkWurm1 said:

It also sounds like there are less back up options at the UK or Australia if you are rejected from your desired line if study for some reason.  Like you apply and a rejection rejects you from the whole system where at least in the US if you don't get accepted at one, you have other options.   

That's not true at all. After you've applied to your Universities via UCAS, you get conditional offers depending on the results of your exams. If you don't get any offers, or if you do badly on your exams, you go through a process called clearing. There's a database on UCAS which shows all of the University courses with spaces left. You call up the University, and they check your UCAS profile and can give you an offer there and then. You could end up doing the same course at a different university, or the university you applied to might offer you a different course or you might end up doing a different course at a different university. 

Loads of students take gap years, or retake their exams if they want to get into a better University than their grades allow. Plus we have a thing called Open University which is an online university with accredited degrees if you don't have the time to go to actual University. One of my lecturers actually did his original degree with Open University, and then went onto do his masters at Oxford. 

[Mary0360]

4 hours ago, statsgirl said:

The first is that it's a breach of privacy. That's very personal stuff those tests can show and it goes to people who really don't have the right to that knowledge about a person even if it's just as a number. There's a reason that psychological data is encrypted when it's sent over the internet.

The second reason is that while personality tests can be very helpful and many are scientifically validated (I know, it was part of my job to give and analyze them), those mass administered tests are often very inaccurate just because they need to be scored en masse rather than individually.

For example, when my daughter was in high school, they gave the kids the Real Colors personality test as part of directing them to an occupation.  She scored as an Orange, "spontaneous, bold, needing variety and stimulation".  I didn't recognize my kid at all. And then I realized that what the test was picking up on was her ADHD, not her real personality, and based on that analysisit would have sent her on the wrong path. That's a problem with mass-administered tests, that they are not sensitive enough to differentiate individual differences.

The half reason is that even if someone ends up in veterinary school or medical school without empathy skills, empathy can be taught. There are good programs to do it, you can see a sample of Alan Alda's here. And if someone who really can't learn empathy becomes a doctor, they can go into pathology or radiology. I'm really opposed to eliminating someone from a program based on a dubious test.

I'm also against people having to do personality tests by employers for many of these reasons. A good HR interview >>>>>> a half-baked personality test.

I don't know. I have had to take personality tests for at least three job interviews and had two jobs where personality tests and personal reflections were done semi regularly in the company through out your employment.

Look I'm not a massive advocate for personality tests. I find them time wasting. They can be annoying because sometimes the questions seem a little stupid and they are by no means 100 percent accurate. But most employers don't make employment conditional entirely on how well you do in a personality test just like I'm sure placement in those courses wasn't reliant entirely on how well they did in a personality test.

 Maybe I'm just more relaxed about it because I'm use to them but I just don't think they are that intrusive as they don't ask you deeply personal or private questions from my experience.

My last one had random questions like "How much do you enjoy conducting an Orchestra?" " How much do you enjoy changing a tire?" and then a choice of options from a lot to not at all. Then the usual '"I'm goal orientated" Agree/Disagree' type work ethic questions. 

[Morrigan2575]

2 hours ago, doesntworkonwood said:

Loads of students take gap years, or retake their exams if they want to get into a better University than their grades allow

Do you guys have to pay for the exams? We have to pay for SAT/ACT and all the graduate exams (MCAT, LSAT, GRE, etc). They're not cheap.

[Mellowyellow]

How many times can you take your exams?

We can only take our exams once. I think you can repeat year 12 but that would involve some other stuff I don't know about.

***

This popped up and made me giggle. The tutoring culture is STRONG in NSW! Not for uni but for high school.

Edited March 18, 2019 by Mellowyellow

[Mary0360]

45 minutes ago, Morrigan2575 said:

Do you guys have to pay for the exams? We have to pay for SAT/ACT and all the graduate exams (MCAT, LSAT, GRE, etc). They're not cheap.

In Australia you don't pay for exams or when applying to university (as far as I remember). Also if you are an Australian citizen you aren't expected to pay for your degree until you've earnt over a certain amount and then the repayments are taken out of your tax. So when I graduated you had to earn over $55,000 to qualify for repayments but I believe they have lowered it since. 

Edited March 18, 2019 by Mary0360

[KenyaJ]

10 hours ago, Door County Cherry said:

For more prestigious schools, the competition gets tighter and the other things matter more.  Although I don't know of many schools that interview at an undergraduate level.  My school admits well over 5,000 new freshmen every year.  They can't interview all of them. 

I think interviews are more of a private school thing, and even then only for schools with a sufficient alumni base, as the interviews are typically conducted by alumni rather than admissions officers.  I had one when I applied early admission to my alma mater and now I'm on the other side, interviewing local students who apply to my school. From what I understand, they don't factor very heavily in the selection process unless someone is on the borderline, in which case a stellar interview can help weigh in their favor or a terrible one can weigh against them. I wish I'd known when I was 17 how little the interview mattered, because that was the most terrified I've ever been for an interview, including every job interview I've ever had.

3 hours ago, Mellowyellow said:

How many times can you take your exams?

You can take them as many times as you want to. Having said that, it's contingent on your ability to pay each time, so less affluent students are at a disadvantage if they want/need to take an exam multiple times. Also, the SAT, for example is only offered four times during a school year, so you're limited to those opportunities. I took my exams during my junior year of high school, but you can start as early as your freshman year (though that's insane, IMO).

[Morrigan2575]

4 hours ago, Mary0360 said:

In Australia you don't pay for exams or when applying to university (as far as I remember). Also if you are an Australian citizen you aren't expected to pay for your degree until you've earnt over a certain amount and then the repayments are taken out of your tax. So when I graduated you had to earn over $55,000 to qualify for repayments but I believe they have lowered it since. 

That's interesting. I kind of like that method

[doesntworkonwood]

20 hours ago, Morrigan2575 said:

Do you guys have to pay for the exams? We have to pay for SAT/ACT and all the graduate exams (MCAT, LSAT, GRE, etc). They're not cheap.

Nope. In England and Wales the exams are called 'A-levels'*, and they're free for students. They're subject based, and you choose which subjects you want to do based on what you want to go to University for. Some colleges/sixth forms only teach certain subjects, so you apply to them based on what they teach. That said, we do have a thing called UCAT which you have to do if you're applying to study medicine, and that costs money. But for the vast majority of people who don't want to be doctors, you don't pay for exams (unless they're retakes.)

*There are other non-exam routes to get to University, these are just the most popular. 

[statsgirl]

When I was applying to universities as an undergrad, some universities required an SAT and others didn't.  My best friend couldn't afford the $11 for the test (it's $47.50 now) so her only option was a newish university. Ironically it was a better placement for her because she loves to buck authority and she got to do that and have smaller classes while I went to the long-established college with classes of 200+ and barely any prof contact.

On 3/17/2019 at 4:23 PM, Mary0360 said:

Not to be all pro-Australia but I don't see the harm in giving medical students personality tests. Most big companies make people do personality/IQ tests when applying for positions in their companies. I don't see it as being any more problematic. It's just a gage of whether someone fits or are suited for the role they are after

They're not an accurate gauge though.  People are being rejected because of invalid tests.

[Mellowyellow]

My new jade ring!  I'm in love 😍😍😍

Ever since I dabbled in jade I've been hankering for a green honker. After many months of looking (including a ban period to pray for the Olicitot) I fell in love with this one. 

My family informed me they were sick of analysing jade videos and I even roped @BkWurm1 into watching a few.

I'm officially on a ban for the rest of year! No more budget for gems and trinkets! You can hold me to it!

Starter and the upgrade

[bijoux]

Just to be clear, the laughing reaction is to the starter and upgrade comment. The new one is yoooge. You don't even notice it until it's sitting next to the smaller one. 

[Starfish35]

Oh wow. 😳

Supernatural to End With Season 15

Edited March 22, 2019 by Starfish35

[Chaser]

That's a headline I never expected to read.

I wonder if they will try for one more spin off. They could totally bring Charlie and Jo back from the dead and send them off with an impala and shotgun. 

[Mellowyellow]

7 hours ago, bijoux said:

Just to be clear, the laughing reaction is to the starter and upgrade comment. The new one is yoooge. You don't even notice it until it's sitting next to the smaller one. 

 HEHE and here I thought you were doubting my abilities to go on a 9 month ban😂

[lemotomato]

I know they supposedly don’t care about ratings, but with Arrow and SPN ending next year, the CW is not only going to lose two of its top 5 shows ratings-wise, but also the two shows that have  generated a lot of social media buzz for the network. Except for Riverdale, none of the recent new shows even come close to SPN and Arrow’s impact. It’s going to be really interesting to see what the CW does going forward.

[Mary0360]

1 hour ago, Mellowyellow said:

@scarynikki12 that HIMYM finale 😠😡😠😡😠😡

I want the time I wasted on that series back. 

Yep. Im rewatching himym  at the moment (only because it's going to be leaving Netflix) and every episode that basically spells out in neon lights that Ted and Robin arent meant to be together just makes me annoyed about the fact that thirty seconds in the finale they basically wiped out 9 seasons of continuity and storylines. 

Much like how That 70s show basically ruined Jackie and Hyde so they could end the series with Jackie falling in love with Fez to tie up a plot in the first season even though it made little sense. 

[jay741982]

5 hours ago, Chaser said:

That's a headline I never expected to read.

I wonder if they will try for one more spin off. They could totally bring Charlie and Jo back from the dead and send them off with an impala and shotgun. 

I'd so watch a Charlie and Jo centered spinoff

[Starfish35]

This is funny, but I got a perfect score. 😂

TV 'Ship Name, or Prescription Drug? Take Our Extremely Silly Quiz

[BkWurm1]

I'm kind of horrified that I recognized most of the drug names and the ones I didn't I was pretty easily able to guess.  Clearly we have WAAAAAAY too much prescription drug advertising on television.  

[Starfish35]

Lol agreed.   The Trulicity one.... when my mom was in the hospital a few months ago, she liked to watch the Hallmark channel, and they had ads for that playing constantly.  Made me think of Olicity every single time. 😂

[BkWurm1]

16 minutes ago, Starfish35 said:

Lol agreed.   The Trulicity one.... when my mom was in the hospital a few months ago, she liked to watch the Hallmark channel, and they had ads for that playing constantly.  Made me think of Olicity every single time. 😂

Yes!  So much!

[Sakura12]

I got a perfect score and didn't even know half those ship names. Lol. Those drug ads really stick with you. 

[Morrigan2575]

4 hours ago, BkWurm1 said:

I'm kind of horrified that I recognized most of the drug names and the ones I didn't I was pretty easily able to guess.  Clearly we have WAAAAAAY too much prescription drug advertising on television.  

Same. I knew those drug names from TV Commercials.

[KenyaJ]

5 hours ago, Starfish35 said:

Lol agreed.   The Trulicity one.... when my mom was in the hospital a few months ago, she liked to watch the Hallmark channel, and they had ads for that playing constantly.  Made me think of Olicity every single time.

I watch Hallmark every night because The Golden Girls is my favorite show of all time and I love watching the Hallmark airings before I go to bed. Everytime I see the Trulicity commercial (which is a lot), it makes me want to start watching my favorite Olicity scenes.

[Mellowyellow]

6 things for me!

olives, blue cheese, canned tuna, lettuce, liver, ranch dressing

Edited March 30, 2019 by Mellowyellow

[way2interested]

A braver palate than mine. 16

[apinknightmare]

I don't really eat much meat anymore, so I would have a high number. But of the non-meat options the only ones I wouldn't eat are: 

Celery and cucumber - my two most hated foods

Avocado - I'm allergic

[bijoux]

I think it's 12. I'm allergic to peanut and soy, so that's two. And I think pickles are the worst smelling thing on Earth and people have been duped into thinking it's actual food. 

[lemotomato]

My score would be 0. Not the biggest fan of celery, but peanut butter or ranch dressing makes it palatable to me.

[tv echo]

6 points - liver, avocado, beets, raw fish, nutella, snails.

[calliope1975]

23 for me. I'm extremely boring and picky. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

My friends and family are not, though, so I can usually find something at restaurants, even if it's just bread lol. 

[Starfish35]

20 points.  I’m vegetarian, so that’s 12 points to start with.  After that, brussel sprouts, blue cheese, cabbage, tea, beets, mustard, Nutella, green olives (1/2 a point?), coffee. 

[Morrigan2575]

12 

[scarynikki12]

I got 12 but I can't tell what the food item is in the very bottom left box.  I don't eat meat and am allergic to shellfish otherwise I'd only have a few.

[apinknightmare]

Just now, scarynikki12 said:

I got 12 but I can't tell what the food item is in the very bottom left box.  I don't eat meat and am allergic to shellfish otherwise I'd only have a few.

It's tofu