This was the article I wrote for this year's Synapse paper.
Why is Synapse so sexy?
A recent study found preliminary results that UCSF Synapse Editors are 3.6 units sexier than counterpart non-Editor students. Conducted by an anonymous research team in the Synapse masthead, this was a double blind randomized controlled trial with nearly two score participants, a baker's dozen of whom were randomly assigned the role "UCSF Synapse Editor." While legend has it that selection of candidates for these coveted positions falls under great scrutiny, a new insider source suggests that the Editors were actually chosen by a random process in which "Golden Toothpicks" were inserted into free Synapse Thursday meeting sandwiches in the style of the ploy formerly known as Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Critics of this study claim that Synapse editors were unfairly biased to having voracious appetites.
The assessment of attractiveness was conducted in a double blind fashion where sight-impaired members of the community were invited to score participants. We can only hope that participants' acne did not spell out haikus of love in Braille. Preliminary results indicate an increased attractiveness of Synapse Editors of 3.6 units (standardized to the sexiness of Harrison Ford as he appears in the upcoming Indiana Jones). No statistical analysis was reported; it seems that Synapse Editors failed to pass the Student's t-test. They attribute this to their dedication to this flagship of publication which leads the scientific community with groundbreaking articles such as this one.
A Synapse Editor and blogger who wishes to remain anonymous lest she get mobbed by her hometown
Although the study was funded by Synapse, the newspaper claims that the same independent oversight committee that assures the quality of these articles also judged the study to be valid. This evidence was sufficient to quell even the harshest responses by critics.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment