|
|
|
December 8th, 2004
04:54 pm
Why is it that someone felt me a suitable choice to interview Vetinary Medicine applicants for entry to college? True, I only had to interview two of them (through illness of someone more appropriate, I think, and the ability of everyone else to take a smart step backwards when the word 'volunteer' was mentioned), but kicking off with, "Soooo...you like animals?" was not, perhaps, the clearest indication that they were coming to study under the Brightest and the Best.
One of the two seemed relatively normal and outgoing. The other was distressingly unworldly, with more than a hint about her that she was applying to Cambridge because she felt it would help stave off real life for a bit longer.
If you want it to be, this theory about Cambridge can be entirely correct.
It isn't actually down to me to decide whether they get in or not, as this was only one of three interviews each candidate gets and the opinions of the subject tutors interviewing them are more important than that of the 'are you a well-rounded person' interviewer. Still, I got to talk to them at length about which newspapers they read and what stories have caught their interest, and then bowled them horrible, horrible spin balls forcing them to commit to a position on the issues. Regurgitating what you've read is of no interest to me; tell me what you think, tell me why you think it, and then - if you want to really impress me - convince me of your position.
This didn't really happen, even though I chucked them a couple of vivisection ones (something you'd think prospective vets would have a position on). They both weaved non-committally until I let them off the hook. Meh. Still, the first one made some very interesting points about the Iraq War; I thought she was going to produce a placard and start waving it. The second claimed to be 'somewhat distressed' by Bush's re-election.
I found it amusing that - as with most polite conversation, be it at dinner tables, interviews or quiet parties - these two were desperate to avoid the topics of politics and religion, and yet it was precisely that that I was trying to discuss with them. I must have been a nightmare.
Still, unlike other interviewers of repute at Cambridge, at least I turned up clothed, made no attempt to proposition them, didn't attempt to engage in discussion about how admitting women to the University was the beginning of the end, remained sober throughout the interview and left neither of them in tears of outrage, anger, fear or shame. This would have been a more entertaining entry had I done so, however...
Current Music: Mozart - Overture to the Marriage of Figaro
|
December 7th, 2004
04:51 pm
First entry on this thing and there really isn't too much to say. My day has been quiet.
I remarked in passing to an American PhD student - and precisely as it occurred to me - that today was the anniversary of Pearl Harbour, and he seemed to respond as if I had brought it up deliberately as some sort of jibe. This was not the case; I would have brought it up to anyone who had been standing there just as it popped into my head. Had it been some sort of jibe, I assured him, I would instead have run up behind him, yelling, "Tora! Tora! Tora!"
He didn't seem to react well to this either. However, I told him to get back to work on his Literature Review. Laugh at my jokes, goddamnit.
Other parts of my day have seen me struggling with a new interpretation of the data-sharing system used as the standard in the Unique Item Identification system we are deploying, checking on the latest on the proposed closure of the Architecture Department here and trying to persuade people on an internet forum that Gay Marriage might not actually push our civilisation over the brink into cannibalism, human sacrifice and apocalyptic warfare. Some seem blissfully unaware of the notion that laws based exclusively on religious teachings have no place in modern society; murder is illegal not because God says it's a bad thing, but because we as a society did a little research and found - not surprisingly - that it might not be best to allow wanton killing. I really don't care who people want to sleep with as long as both (or all) parties are consenting, and feel that those willing to make a lifelong commitment should all be given the same rights. Churches be damned; if the government gives them the same tax breaks, legal standing etc. as heterosexual couples, I couldn't give a rusty fuck on a rainy day what some Bishop says about their chances in the afterlife.
My evening will be spent with this week's episode of the West Wing and my friends Gordon and Schweppes. Cheers.
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
hughnon's journal