My initial reaction: Now, I am in no way going to defend this obviously sexist Facebook message, but I am also not going to say I was as shocked as Lisa Belkin when reading it. Being the recipient of several variations of the same message, I felt indifferent — if not completely unmoved — by the evident sexist remarks. If anything, the message was just some boys being immature…

Lisa Belkin provides several other examples of “after-class sexism” that exist at other universities. From the Delta Kappa Epsilon chapter at Yale, chanting, “No means yes, and yes means anal,” to Kappa Sigma fraternity of Southern California who refer to women as “targets” who “aren’t actual people like us men,” there were many examples to pick from. Princeton junior Jared Griffin adds to this general feeling by correctly observing: “When the guys go [out] they are laid-back, casual, like they are going to class. But the women come in, in short cocktail dresses, makeup, high heels…”

Alright, now it is time for some self reflection. The more I read Lisa Belkin’s article, the more it sounded like my own university’s campus. It is true that women still dress up much more than men, that guys tend to throw the parties and thus have the control of the situations, and that direct sexism is still all around us. This does not make me feel proud. Maybe the worst of it is that I wasn’t shocked by the Sigma Nu Facebook message, or that I don’t give it a second thought when I witness someone doing the “walk of shame” early in the morning. Perhaps Lisa Belkin had the right reaction to all of this information after all: it really is wrong that we, as woman, submit to this type of treatment.

What do you think readers? Is sexism on college campuses still explicit and real? What can we do about it? Share your stories here. 

The article cited a variety of reasons why the parents thought that this “present” was appropriate. My personal favorite was, “it was a way for us financially to give them money without having to die.” Well, that’s a bit much.

But regardless, it got me thinking. Just because some parents can afford such a luxurious gift (to think I had my fingers crossed for some new baking pans…) does that make it appropriate? Is buying a brand spankin’ new pad really going to help grads get on their feet, pinch pennies and save up for their own place one day? Not having to worry about cramming three people into a tiny apartment and paying an outlandish amount of rent does sound pretty awesome…

Or is it absolutely way too much, simply delaying the real world and preventing kids from learning the value of a dollar? Because I think scraping by as a new grad is a rite of passage, not to mention that living in a tiny, budget-friendly apartment is serious motivation to keep working towards the life you want.

I stated wondering how long these situations are going to continue on for.  In this case, it’s not like parents are assisting with rent, they are purchasing a home for their kids to live in (basically forever).

I wholeheartedly believe people are entitled to spend their money however they please, but this article is still a bit unsettling. What do you think? If you had a couple extra million, would you set your kids up post-grad or would you want them to struggle like the rest of us? Do you think you’d be able to accept such a huge gift from your parents?

After months of studying and working my post-grad ass off for the LSAT, I finally got my score. After weeks of waiting and anxious e-mail checking (I had to remove email messages from my Blackberry because every time my phone lit up or beeped, my heart would stop), the message letting me know whether or not I’d be able to apply to the schools I’m interested in or not appeared. As the message sat in my inbox, I took a deep breath to see the reality of what I’ve worked so hard for.

And instantly, I felt disappointed.  See, because I have student loans from undergrad, I am very cautious about paying for law school. In order to combat massive amounts of student loans, my goal was to go to law school with the bulk of my expenses paid for or a full-scholarship. Depending on what law school you want to go to, the option of a scholarship could be determined by one to two points. And unfortunately, where I want to be and the amount of money I want is not a reality right now. Talk about a cold hard slap in the face!

With months of dedicated LSAT studying behind me, I feel discouraged. If money wasn’t an issue, I would just dust myself off, suck it up, take the test again and not worry about the outcome or the prospective costs. However, money to pay for school is the end-all-be-all for me right now (you know, unless I win the lottery or the Publisher’s Clearing House comes to my place with a big check and balloons). It sucks, but hey, a girl has to look at the big picture and consider everything.

A lot of people feel the liberty to say “told you so” to me right now. However, feeling a setback from the score doesn’t surprise me like some may think. My goals and scholarship options were set very high. I went into this knowing the very specific set scores for different schools and what it would take to get the money I need. Trust me, it’s been on my mind for months.

To be honest, the LSAT is a beast of a test. It’s something you have to work at, and I feel confident in my ability to score where I want. But right now, I can’t help but pause. Is the universe trying to tell me something? First, the score from my December exam and now, the most recent New York Times article entitled “Is Law School A Losing Game?” Call me crazy, but I believe that things happen for a reason. Sometimes the reason doesn’t make sense initially, and well, that completely sucks at the moment, but I like to believe in the long-run it makes sense. Right now, I feel like analyzing everything before I decide my next move is key.

But just like a lot of post-grad decisions, the answers to what to do next don’t come easy. Do I want to go to law school? Yes. Do I want to add $160,000 of debt on top of my undergrad loans? Hell no. Do I want to take the LSAT again in hopes of getting what I want? Yes. But should I even have those expectations? I don’t know.

Regardless, I’ll let you guys know. With so much to look forward to in the coming months and the longer I am out of college, I know things have to look up.

Where is Charlsie going next? Where is she coming from? Get all your answers here.

Now, I’m as big of a Seinfeld fan as anyone. I’m most certainly the master of my domain, I’ve eaten at the real “coffee shop,” Tom’s diner (the food’s not that great), and vetted more than a few potential partners for their spongeworthy-ness. Hell, I’m pretty sure my current career as a magazine writer in New York was inspired in part by subconscious, youthful admiration for the Seinfeld heroine herself. But would I advocate a full-on renaissance of Elaine’s style? Initially, my answer was an adamant “no!” But then I realized that the Elaine look has already been in revival for quite some time.

Nine months’ time, to be precise.

Since the premiere of our favorite fist-pumping partygoers on The Jersey Shore last December, I knew I’d seen Snooki before. That hair? That sass? That cute-meets-cuckoo persona? She’s totally a tanned-up, dressed-down street version of Elaine!

Don’t believe me? Evidence that Lainey and Snooks were separated at birth:

1.  Neither of them can dance.

2.  They’re always hanging around the same bunch of dudes.

3.  They’ve been known to shove people around.

4.  They occasionally reveal their nether regions to the public.

5.  Oh yeah, and The Pouf.

The likeness is uncanny.

Ladies, what do you think? Do any other similarities come to mind?

I am the perfect product of a 20-something generation.  I am 23 years old, I’ve graduated college, I’m single and I live at home with my parentals (wow, typing it in a sentence just made me realize how pathetic it all sounds).   I’m doing a bit of freelance blogging and slowly looking for jobs (by slowly I mean sifting through jobs that don’t give me a heartbeat and leaving my energy for the ones I truly love).  Living the dream can be a slow and patient process, but I have the drive to let the dreams settle in.  I want to find that perfect job.  I want to do something I love and as long as it’s going to take me – I am willing to let it ride.

And according to a recent New York Times post, that makes me (and the rest of us) lazy and immature.

The article states (in a rather condescending way, I might add) that it is taking longer than every for 20-somethings nowadays to grow up.  They claim a confident march towards adulthood is rare these days and getting there is happening later then ever: “Kids don’t shuffle along in unison to the road of maturity, they slouch toward adulthood at an uneven, highly individual pace.” Woah. 20-somethings can still read, you know.

The article continued with support from sociologists saying this gap change in generations is called, “the changing timetable for adulthood.”  They claim the transformation to adulthood is: completing school, leaving home, becoming financially independent, marrying and having a child.  Wait, does that mean I’m 23 and not an adult (assuming I’m living at home, financially dependent not married and with child)?  Besides making me feel like an ultimate failure, I think it is totally wrong (or maybe that’s just my 20-somethingness talking).  Although it might look like I’m living the same life I was at age 5, I have an education and a future. I have a plan. I am making my way towards the milestones that qulify me as an “adult.”

I am not lazy, immature or shirking my responsibilities.

Contrary to what sociologists might say, our generation is growing up. The world has changed since our parents hopped on the path to adulthood, especially the economy.  With a faltering job market, it’s increasingly difficult for 20-somethings nowadays to jump out of college and find a job.  Also, since it’s the norm to go to college now, the competition is more concentrated.  Back in the ’70s people that went to college really stuck out.  Now to stick out, we have to go to deeper extremes – like getting our masters. Which takes longer.

In addition, we have different goals than the generations before us. We grew up hearing we could be whatever we wanted to be and that we should never settle. Unlike the jobs our parents took – the ones that offered a good salary and benefits for their new families – we aren’t looking for just any job- we are looking for jobs that make us happy, fulfilled. And that takes a little longer.

Does that mean we’re less “grown up”?
Absolutely not.

The term growing up has changed.  Previous generations may have endured more difficulties in making money for their children or not being given the solid opportunity to dream big, but we 20-somethings have that opportunity now. My parents have always told me to, ‘follow my heart.’  Even if that means pursuing a job that is unconventional. And living at home with them does not mean I’m not growing up. Not getting married or having kids by the time I’m 25 does not mean I’m not growing up.

It means I’m taking the time to be pragmatic and figure out exactly how I want to spend the rest of my adult life.

And I don’t know about you, but that seems very grown up to me.

It doesn’t mean that some things aren’t better faked.

Sometimes you just don’t have the time to read the New York Times every morning, or take up sailing to impress the hot preppy guy in your economics class, or even make sure your life isn’t a complete disaster. In this case, sometimes a girl just has to fake it. Hey, you think I actually have time to read the whole Economist every week to fit in with my superstar Ivy peers? Hells no.

How to Fake Knowing About Current Events:

1. Pick up the Economist from the library, read the first 5 pages where they summarize all the major events that happened in the past week in bullet points.

2. Skim the world section of the Times every morning, usually you can pick up the main points in 10 minutes- things in Iraq continue to go to hell, terrorism lives on, etc.

3. Every Sunday the Times summarizes all the major news stories of the previous week. Plus all the stories rock.

How to Fake Sexual Skill

1. You don’t really have to; most guys are thrilled to have you naked at all.

2. Reverse cowgirl. It’s so easy, but so effective. It’s like girl on top, only you face backwards. Guys love this move, especially if you’re wearing cute underwear.

3. A little moaning always fixes everything. No seriously, it does. Bonus points for a hair toss now and then.

How to Fake Being Preppy (in case your boyfriend invites you home … in CT)

1. Put on cable knit sweater, add pearl earrings, throw on some Sperry’s. Bonus points for sporting pink and green.

2. Apply pink blush to the apples of your cheeks so it looks like you just got back from brisk row.

3. Throw a copy of “The Official Preppy Handbook” in your monogrammed L.L. Bean tote (you know – in case you need to sneak off to the bathroom for a reference).

How to Disguise the Freshman 15:

1. I can’t stress this enough; A black turtleneck. It makes your chest look huge and your waist tiny.

2. Dark denim jeans, knee length skirts, empire waists, black leggings. Whatever you do, avoid flats and skirts together like the plague.

3. If you don’t have time to exercise, 50-100 lunges a day will firm things up in a couple of weeks.

How to Fake Knowing About New Music:

1. Always have an obscure band to reference. Even better, have two: “Yeah, the new stuff from Arcade Fire is great, for sure, but doesn’t it sound a little like the Coke Squirrels’ second album?”

2. Memorize the names of the top bands on College Music’s Top Lists and listen to a clip from each on www.myspace.com. Throw around names liberally.

3. There is nothing like iTunes for checking up random bands without actually bothering to listen to, or pay to hear their full songs.

How to Fake Looking Good After Pulling An All-Nighter:

1. Visine and an eyelash curler for your bloodshot eyes; apricot blush for your pasty complexion; a high, tight ponytail for that sophisticated European scholar look.

2. Take off those grim sweatpants and throw on a pair of equally comfortable low slung cargo pants, tight camisole, topped off with a little cardigan. It feels like PJs but looks so damn good.

3. Lay off the coffee unless you want to kill your stomach lining; wash down a caffeine pill with a tall glass of orange juice instead. It’s a buzz with vitamins and minerals.

So who’s to blame for the late night ponderings?

Well, according to a recent article in the New York Times, it seems the culprit is me. Well, me as a lady, at least. Alex Williams, the author, argues that the real problem with dating in college comes from the fact that there are more girls on campus than guys and the reason men act the way they do in college is because (in most cases) there are less of them and they can get away with it. The article even suggests that, because of the the general laws of supply and demand, it is the women who have to assert themselves romantically or they will be left alone on Valentines Day to “stare down George Clooney movie over a half empty pizza box.”  Um, ouch.

In a situation where women outnumber men, the article states, “men have all the power to control the intensity of sexual and romantic relationships.”  Therefore, if they do not get what they are looking for with one woman, it is easy for them to move on to the next.  A woman, however, doesn’t have that luxury since her pool of potential suitors is much smaller.

Does this lopsided population gap in college really describe the backwards dating behavior?

Maybe I am just bitter because Valentines Day is creepin’ up on me like ‘The Situation’ at Karma, but I’m not so sure. I don’t know about you, but I never walk around my campus thinking, “Why are there so many more girls on this campus than guys?!” I’m usually walking around pleading, “non-losers, please stand up and wave that button-down-clad arm around.” The issue in college is not that girls outnumber guys, it’s that most of the guys out there are living up to the college ideal set out by their douchey frat brother ancestors.

College is about hooking up, adding to “your list”, and being a dude. And that wouldn’t change regardless of how many girls were out there.

I mean, look at Ivy League schools. Studies say the population there is pretty equal and I’m willing to bet any woman at Yale will agree: there are a lot of d-bags out there. And what about the real world? The ratio of guys-to-girls out there is probably more even than on a college campus and, according to our very single editor, girls still deal with the same jerks, same overanalyzing and the same heartache out there. (Editor’s Note: True story. Sigh.)

Ok, don’t get me wrong, I understand that there are good men out there, but I’m not going to begin to blame a population inequity on the reason why I haven’t quite found mine yet.

So what do you think?  Do men really have more social power because there are less of them? Or are the rules of the dating scene equally established among both parties?

“I have a paper to write, I can’t waste an hour waiting for the only elliptical that works.”
“I need to run on the treadmill for at least 45 minutes, and since I have a paper due tomorrow, that’s out of the question. I probably just shouldn’t go at all.”
“I’m not waking up at 7am to get in an hour workout before class.”

You know the deal.

I know that if I don’t clock in at least thirty minutes of cardio per session, I feel like my gym outing has been a waste and a failure. And I’m always hard on myself if I leave without doing crunches, even if I’ve run a couple of miles. In short — going to the gym has become about the time clock, but according to a study published in the New York Times, I’m going about things all wrong!

A couple of years ago, researchers from the National Institute of Health and Nutrition in Japan observed two groups of rats paddling in a small pool. The first group completed two 3-hour workout sessions, and the other group engaged in interval training, moving for twenty seconds and then resting for ten seconds for a total of 14 reps. The scientists were trying to figure out if prolonged exercise did more for the body’s endurance (ie., your ability to work out for longer, which translates into more calories burned) than the shorter/quicker exercise method. They found that both groups exhibited the same molecular changes that correspond with endurance gain, coming to the conclusion that we might be working out for longer than we really need to.

“There was a time when the scientific literature suggested that the only way to achieve endurance was through endurance-type activities,” Dr. Martin Gibala, a professor at McMaster University in Ontario, told the Times. He explained that people often choose to exercise casually for hours instead of just exerting as much energy as possible for a shorter amount of time. “We describe it as an ‘all-out’ effort,” Gibala said, noting that it is the kind of exercise that often forces people “out of their comfort zone.” While Gibala’s team has only studied this method for swimmers and cyclists, he believes that it might prove true for runners as well.

Gibala says that this method – pushing yourself to your limit for a shorter period of time – might aid in weight loss in addition to contributing to increased endurance in athletes and ordinary gym-goers alike. “The rate of energy expenditure remains higher longer into recovery,” meaning that you might continue to burn calories for a longer period of time after you leave the gym.

Less time at the gym?
More calories burned and increased endurance?

Put away the clocks and timers and get moving!

"I take 10 minute showers! I'm killing the planet!"

For the past few months I’ve been talking your ear off about why the earth is in trouble and how you can go green to save our environment.  And while it’s great to do whatever you can to protect the planet, there is such a thing as caring a little too much. According to the New York Times, there has been an increasing amount of people that report anxiety and stress because they feel like they are never as green as they would like to be.  And, believe it or not, such anxious thoughts about the environment can have negative impacts on your emotional state, your health, and your relationships.

How do you know if you’re just a concerned citizen or full-blown green stress case?  Read on for the answer and for ways to manage if you’re glowing green just a little too brightly.

Are you green stressed? There’s a huge difference between being concerned and being down right obsessed.  Before you go any further, ask yourself a few questions:  Are you happy with your efforts to help the environment?  Do you feel like you’re doing enough to go green?  Are you willing to give up your green efforts to preserve some of your favorite activities?  If you answered yes to all of these questions, then congrats!  You are helping in a way that is both healthy for the environment and healthy for your well-being.

Didn’t pass the test? Then you may have some anxiety issues related to going green. With all of the information out there, it’s hard to feel like you’re ever doing enough to counteract the rest of the world’s indifference.  Before you start ripping your hair out, realize that this is more of a psychological issue than an environmental issue.  An obsession with going green is just the same as an obsession with losing weight or making money – you never feel like you’re doing enough.

So how do you fix it? Unless your stress is very severe, a quick reality check is just the ticket to snap you out of it.  First of all, think about all of the things you already do to help the environment.  Do you recycle?  Turn off the lights and water when you’re not using it?  Bike or walk to work or school?  Believe it or not, most people don’t do any of these; you’re way ahead of the game!  On a similar note, don’t compare your efforts to those of others!  Not all environmentally friendly methods are compatible with everyone’s lifestyle.  Pick your favorites and make a pledge to stick to those.  As time goes on, slowly try to incorporate other changes into your routine if it works.  Which brings me to my last point…

What is important to you? We already know that the environment is high on your priority list, but think about the other things you enjoy doing.  Personally, I love to go out, drink a few beers, and hang out with my friends.  I’m not going to let the fact that I’m wasting a few aluminum beer cans ruin my night.  Going green is all about protecting your passion, so be sure that you protect all your other ones as well!

"I'm running for the pizza. I'm running for the pizza!"

Ever wonder why those treacherous treadmill sessions haven’t turned you into the next Gisele?
Are you one of those people who thinks that you can eat a slice of pizza after leaving the gym because the body is supposed to burn more fat on days that you exercise?

Well, step away from the pizza, woman.

According to a recent article in the New York Times, the commonly held belief that you continue to burn calories for hours after exercising (commonly known as “afterburn” — you know, the idea that you get a “free meal” that day because you burned 400 calories on the elliptical) is actually a myth!

Researchers from the University of Colorado School of Medicine in Denver observed a number of different groups of people ranging from athletes to people that were both sedentary and obese to see how their bodies use calories and if the processes were different. Each group spent 24 hours in a room called a calorimeter (a special room that measures calorie burning activity) followed by riding a stationary bike for the same amount of time at the same level of aerobic intensity.

After all that was done, the scientists found that none of the groups (even the athletes, who are believed to have higher metabolisms after years of intense exercise) experienced afterburn, and surprisingly, most of the subjects burned slightly less fat on the days that they exercised.

“The message of our work is really simple,” lead researcher Edward Melanson told the New York Times. “It all comes down to energy balance,” which means that unless you burn more calories through exercise than you eat, you are not going to lose weight. Melanson went on to state that people burn an average of 200 to 300 calories per session, which is less than a bottle of Gatorade and just a little more than a bottle of the misleadingly-named Vitamin Water. Just a little somethin’ to think about.

Melanson also reported that working out at an low intensity (ie. riding the elliptical at an intensity of 3 instead of 10, so you feel the burn less but move your legs more often and quickly) burns more fat calories than working out at a harder intensity. Furthermore, it’s important to keep your heart rate between 105 and 134 beats per minute, which marks the parameters of the fat burning zone.

So the next time that you think you get a “free” lunch, think again!
You may also wanna switch that post-workout beverage to G2….