<p>what does economics have to do with emotion?</p>
<p>Similar thing is put forth in Steve Landsburg's The Armchair Economist - if there is a free park in the town you wait for 30 minutes in line to get on the rollercoaster. If there is a fee of say $5 you wait 10 minutes. So in both cases YOU PAY THE SAME COST and are EQUALLY HAPPY. This is called the indifference principle. Same analogy can be made here. I did not intend to make a negative statement, rather make a positive economic one.</p>
<p>"what does economics have to do with emotion?"</p>
<p>Economics has to do with everything.</p>
<p>I feel like this is a pointless waste of my time, but regardless; statements like that are normative and analyzing it seems completely unnecessary to me- why wud u waste mental time analyzing the rationality of a statement that is evidently a product of an innocent appreciation of the quality of character of some ppl on CC-</p>
<p>Obviously ur argument makes rational sense, but it just seems unwarranted-</p>
<p>Oh puh-leeze, bumpitybump said "I hope you all get in" which is a general, if unprecise, way of well-wishing - if anything, it's hoping that empathy, compassion, and good-heartedness might give us the things we want, namely admission to a school. This argument is getting really otiose and mean-spirited. We're not here to impress or correct eachother, turning emotions into quantitative data analysis is an imperfect process at best, even our intuitions tell us that from the start.</p>
<p>and u seem a bit tensed up...Life is definitely not serious enuff for u to view every situation as deserving an economic analysis-</p>
<p>gud luck applying economics to a romantic relationship wit someone for instance!</p>
<p>Thank you. </p>
<p>I do not think you understood what I meant and that I made a POSITIVE statement, but still, whatever. I am used to exchanging such thoughts with my friends and professors here, applying economics to real life situations like this, but it seems like I offended you with something, I do not know how. So please accept my deep apologies and forget what I said.</p>
<p>Moral of the story: There's a time and a place for everything. Good luck all . . .</p>
<p>actually I'm just amused-</p>
<p>But it's cool- I just think u shud chill out a bit-</p>
<p>"Moral of the story: There's a time and a place for everything."
That is true, we talked earlier in the thread about the prisoner's dilemma and Dr. Nash and everybody seemed to enjoy the real life application of economics then. I do not know what I did wrong now to cause all that resentment, but I apologize. Seems like it's not the right place indeed.</p>
<p>"actually I'm just amused"
That's why I wrote this.</p>
<p>"I just think u shud chill out a bit"
You are probably right.</p>
<p>Gud luck with Harvard Atanas!</p>
<p>Thank you, bumpitybump, good luck to you too.</p>
<p>I feel like Malthus - people were willing to crucify him after his major work, although he simply made a positive statement. Anyway, let's forget about it and enjoy the 3-4 days left before we are all rejected...</p>
<p>Hey some of us believe in Kharma, that's all I'm saying.</p>
<p>way to think positively!</p>
<p>So guys one specific question..if an interviewer writes a good report on a transfer applicant..do you think that applicant will most likely be admitted? or can the decison still change regardless of the result of the interview? </p>
<p>Hope for the best, prepare for the worst!!!</p>
<p>well I guess it depends on if the other people who were interviewed got good reports as well...</p>
<p>probably...well,thats why people say you really NEVER KNOW...:) good luck!!!</p>
<p>How would you guys rate your interviews on a scale from 1 to 10 (10 being the best)?</p>
<p>Interviews don't matter that much, according to my interviewer. It's just a way to make sure that "you are not an axe-murder", according to her words.</p>
<p>If you think about it, it is logical. Every interviewer is different, has different standards and different personalities, so interview results can not be that trustworthy. Also, don't forget that there are people who live in areas where there are no Harvard Alumns, they don't get interviews but the admission officers must still consider them equally.</p>
<p>My personal theory is that, Harvard first chooses a pool of people they want to seriously consider and interview them (excluding those hands-down acceptance and out of reach students). After a 'cleansing' process to root out those 'axe-murders', they are set to pick and choose from the leftover canadiates.</p>
<p>7- sniff sniff...</p>