|
| from an asiance survey
- Chinese women are the most conservative and inexperienced in sex among all Asian ethnicities.
- Japanese women, though seen as submissive to their male counterparts are the most wild and adventurous in the bedroom.
- Korean women are high maintenance in a relationship but there are contrasting views on whether they are submissive in the bedroom or wildly uninhibited.
- Filipino women are highly sexual, even using sex as a weapon.
- Chinese males are more effeminate and inexperienced in sex.
- Japanese men have a large sexual appetite and are dominating over their women in sex.
- Korean males are aggressive in their relationships and are not shy in approaching women.
- Filipino males are effeminate.
sounds like an 8/8
i'd also like to add from years and years of hearsay that korean males are the most aggressive because they have the smallest penises.
| | |
| I thought there was a limit to how stupid you could be and still get into a UC school, but apparently I'm wrong. And though we all know there are students within the UC system that can't read, my discovery that there are many of these illiterate, severely mentally-deficient, defecating-in-pants-retarded kids at even Berkeley and UCLA has left me stunned.
Based on the crowd sizes, odds are that, well, all of you know many of these illiterate dipshits that are protesting at a UC school. Of the hundreds of facts that would overwhelm their pea-sized brains, please inform them of just this: families making under $70k a year will not see a penny of this increase, an increase that goes mostly toward financial aid, extending the number of people that go to UC's for free.
The only people that will see an actual raise of (gasp) $2,500 belong to families making over $120k a year. If your family makes over $120k a year, $2,500 is what you spend every month on the pool guy... for him to clean the moat underneath the bridge that leads to your gated multi-acre mansion. I'd like to see someone this wealthy try and tell me with a straight face that this tiny increase would be a burden.
Are there really poor people at Berkeley so fucking dumb that they don't realize this "increase" is really just a tax on the rich kids at school to pay for their own education? What makes me rage the most are the fucking hippies that bitch and moan about "more fiscal liberalism" and "public education" and don't realize that this is the epitome of it: taxing the richest 33% to pay for the education of the poorest 33%. Goddamn I hate fiscal leftists.
I could go on about how pulling fire alarms isn't "civil disobedience" but a sign that you have the mental capacity of a two year old (HURR DURR ME PULL RED THING FEEL GOOD HURR DURR) and that you're wasting my state tax money by needlessly summoning fire trucks, but I think typing this has calmed my rage into a state of apathy.
Because though there may be poor dumbasses around me in my ivy tower, at least they're not stupid enough to take over buildings and interrupt class because of something that would GIVE THEM MORE MONEY.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there's just one brain-dead girl with great tits protesting at each school because it feels good to temporarily feel empowered and important. And maybe that causes 99 guys to do the same at a chance to get in her pants. And maybe that causes a chain reaction of mob mentality. Kind of like church groups.
I sure hope so.
Oh and 48-10 is the prediction.
=
- Over 33% of all UC students will never see a penny of this fee increase.
- Students whose families make under 70k/yr will never see a penny of this increase
- Students whose families make under 120k/yr will only see a portion of this increase
- 33% of all UC students received Pell Grants.
- The new plan is projected to actually increase the number of students receiving 100% coverage by 2%
- The new plan starts an initiative to raise an additional 1 billion in private funding which is double the current amount. All proceeds are going to scholarships, fellowships, and other gift aid.
- 33% of all proceeds from the fee hike will be set aside to mitigate the impact of higher fees and other costs on undergraduate students with financial need.
- 50 and 33 percent of revenue generated by the increases will be set aside to provide financial aid for graduate academic students and professional school students respectively.
- That's a total of 66-83% of the fee hikes going directly back to students in need.
- UC's return-to aid practice, combined with 2009-10 increases in Cal Grants, federal Pell Grants and federal tuition tax credits will provide enough additional resources to cover the full amount of the fee increases already approved for 2009-10, and the 2009-10 mid-year increase for nearly three-quarters of UC students with family incomes below $180,000.
| | |
|  
| | |
| I'm torn.
I don't know whether to trust the smartest girl I know or to go with the advice of the savviest guy I know.
Both are successful people nearing thirty. She hugs the mainstream Asian "more school equals more safety" approach.
"Your sub-3.5 GPA and 170+ LSAT score can't get you into a T3 (top 3) school, but you will most likely get into a T6 school and graduate near the top of your class in three years... which means you'll most likely pass the bar exam... which means with Chinese and an international focus you'll most likely partner in around three years at the age of 28."
He embodies the American Dream approach.
"Why would you waste three years of your life and $150,000 to get a law degree? With just $50k you can start your own business in China. If you fail, learn from your mistakes and start another business with the remaining $100k. If you want the easy path, join an international consulting firm for a few years, network and party at a T5 MBA school, and you're set for life before you turn 30."
Of course, they are both correct.
We've been brainwashed into believing that more education is always better and that assumption has been true up until this point. And suddenly, here comes the divide. Do I trust my Asian tendencies for financial security by slaving away for years at NYU, Columbia, Chicago, or whatever the fuck law school I end up in or do I co-term for a Master's degree and ride on the prestige of the Stanford rolodex?
-A tedious decade for a secure future or an enjoyable decade that sets the tone for the future?
-Would I rank better in the academic world or in the corporate world?
-Would I be better as a nerd or as a slut?
I don't know the answers to any of these questions. But I sure like the sound of "slut".
| | |
|
