Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 February 2

= February 2 =

Getting into university
Everywhere in the media, I hear that it's "hard" to get into university, but is it? In my senior years of high school, I have an average of 86%. Should I have nothing to worry about when it'll get time for me to apply to a university? Is it just "hard" for average students who have marks of 70%-75% to get into university? -- Codell [ Talk ] 03:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Where are you located in the world? The use of the word university instead of college seems to indicate to me that it might not be the US. You should be consulting with an advisor either at your school or independently who can guide you through the proccess. Also how well you do on the SATs/ACTs etc will have an impact. Half-way through senior year seems a little late to be thinking about this though, you better get a move on. After looking at your profile I see your from Canada this site looks good http://www.schoolfinder.com/Gradvmedusa 05:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Call the university or universities you want to attend and ask them.


 * Even which province you're in (assuming you're in Canada) will make a HUGE difference. There's no "Canadian educational system"; there are 13 systems, one for each province and territory, and there's more variance between the provinces than there are between many European nations.


 * Your chances of being accepted are influenced by which province you live in, which province you're planning on studying in (if not your own), and what you're planning on studying. Unless you're planning to study in the US you likely won't need to take SATs, but (for instance) in Alberta your marks on provincial exams are as important as your grade percentage. It also depends on whether your high marks are in academic, artistic, or vocational courses, and even how the university you're planning on attending views those types of courses. (It even depends on how registration is set up - in Ontario you apply to a central university registry and then choose which university you want to attend, which means that every university has the same requirements, but in Alberta and B.C. you have to apply to each university individually, and each university and faculty has slightly different requirements.) Every province has quotas that state how many Canadian students from out of province can be admitted; these quotas don't apply to students from the Territories or PEI or those applying to certain faculties such as medicine or law (and can be different depending on where you live - in the West, students from other Western provinces get priority over students from Ontario and Quebec), but they can prevent you from attending your university of choice.


 * I often think American students are put through the wringer to far too great an extent. Not only do they have to graduate with high marks AND write SATs, they (and even their FAMILIES!!!!!) have to go through interviews! I can't imagine any university here basing admission on how one's FAMILY handles an interview - in fact, I think it's blatantly illegal in most provinces. When I went to university in Alberta in the early 80s even interviewing prospective undergraduate students was strictly forbidden. -- Charlene 13:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In reply to Charlene comments, admisssion procedures vary widely in the U.S. by school. Interviews are not required everywhere. In fact, I got an admission letter from a college to which I had merely sent my SAT scores but never sent an application to. Schools vary in how selective they are - especially prestigious and smaller schools which receive far more students than they can accept so they have more elaborate procedures to find the "best" students for the school and, as far as legally possible, the "best" mix of student diversity. Schools like Harvard and Yale accept only about 10% of applicants. Here is a list of the lowest acceptance rate school: . But generally, speaking the U.S. has more than enough places for every student at some college - just not necessarily their first or second choice. The U.S. also takes in half a million international students (one-third the number studying abroad in the entire world) Also Americans take tests, not write them. Rmhermen 15:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The most selective U.S. colleges and universities reject a great many applicants who have perfect 4.0 grade point averages and/or perfect SAT or ACT scores, and/or who are National Merit Scholarship Finalists and/or who are their schools valedictorians. If they are athletes who can help the school have a winning season in a major sport, or if their parents went to the school (makes them a "double legacy") or if their family is rich and might give a million dollars to the school, or if their grandfather is on the board of trustees, or if they are a famous persons offspring, or if they are famous themselves such as an actor, they can be admitted with just about any test scores and grades. But there is always a college experience available to anyone who finishes high school or who passes the GED (in the U.S.). They can attend a community college and take courses in the same topics as at the selective colleges, perhaps using the same textbooks, perhaps taught at a less frantic pace and with more remedial education. They can attend a smaller and less selective 4 year college. They can take remedial math or remedial English if they have trouble in those area. They can then transfer to a college to complete a 4 year degree program, or obtain a 2 year Associates degree. Getting into a college is the very easiest part, compared to passing the courses. Then getting out with good grades and recommendations is the key to getting a good job or getting into a good graduate school, unless they possess any of the helpful attributes listed above which help one get into a selective college. Edison 16:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't care much for the notion that it's 'hard' to get into university. First, those who get in may be inclined to feel superior to their non-collegiate brethren. Not good. Second, those who get in may feel like they've got a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and stay the course even if university does not suit them. Also not good. That said, there's plenty of benefits to going to university, but it's hardly the be-all and end-all of learning. It's best to think of a university as a business, first and foremost. Vranak

In general it's hard to punch above your own weight - this comment might apply to 'big money' courses like law.. In general just about anyone can go to university - as long as they try to do a subject they're good at. But there's a lot of snobbishness etc - where a degree in ancient history/the classics is considered better than one in pottery. Also universities make a big fuss about how good they are - despite the fact that from an economic point of view they are entirely parasitical. Now I'm older I release that my university degree is a load of bullshit and 'big names' in university life a bunch of self-promoting retards. That shouldn't shop you from from enjoying time at university if you go - most people do enjoy it.. It like a butlins for geeks. And by the sound of it you should have no problem getting in.83.100.183.48 18:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * See also this article about students without bombastic grades getting into university. BTW 83.100.183.48, at university you will not just find some self-promoting retards, but also tenure lovers, paper writers, non-teaching professors, etc. Mr.K. 22:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolute paradise - why did they kick me out?83.100.183.48 23:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably because you are not an idolater and you did not let them transfer their memes into your brain.Mr.K. 18:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes the 'meme transfer' really pissed me off, and continues to piss me off more and more every year - as for idolatry - ?213.249.232.136 19:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You were not worshipping the bunch of self-promoting retards = not an idolater.Mr.K. (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry I was thinking of idolatry as in golden calf..213.249.232.136 20:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

To narrow it down more, I'm from Ontario, I'm halfway through grade 11, and I take all the academic science courses (biology, chemistry, physics, space science, medical, etc.) and history courses. I'm planning to study here in my home province and go to a University, not a college. Wow, you all make the American system sound so corrupt (No offence intended). Now, Vranak, I totally agree with you. Happiness in life is more important than just having wads of cash and feeling superior. I just like science and history and am looking to further my education in the field, and if I can get a good job for it, all the better. Thank you everyone for the help so far.-- Codell « T » 02:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I too got all that bullshit about a good job - (I'm from the UK by the way) - now say you were doing chemistry - where I am there are more than 20 chemistry departments taking say 60 students a year - that's 1200 chemistry graduates a year - are there that many real vacancies for chemists in the UK per year - answer - no nothing like that. Ask yourself this - who told you that you would be earning big money because you got a degree.. Did someone actually tell you that - or were you just allowed to keep impression that a degree was a ticket to a wealthy lifestyle.. I feel bad (sort of) for being such an ogre about this - but unfortunately the rose tinted assumptions of the young don't always match up to the realities of life. Have a good time at university by the way.213.249.232.136 19:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ghana during the First Persian Gulf War
How was Ghana involved in the first persian gulf war in 1990-1991. I know they didn't deploy troops to Kuwait, but did they do anything else? And does anyone know solutions that helped the war stop? I already viewed the wikipedia page on here, but it wasn't much help. Thanks!

-I choose to remain anonymous

Does anyone know anything about this topic?

Classical authors who have acted as spokespeople for the regime
In the book "Who Killed Homer", the authors state that "no important Classical author ever becomes a mindless spokesman for the regime." I could think of Virgil, for one. Am I correct here, and are there any others? The Mad Echidna 04:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you really see Virgil as a 'mindless' spokesman for the regime? He provided Augustus-and Rome-with a great foundation myth; but surely the Aeneid goes far beyond the limits of bare political necessity?  Propagandists never achieve the sublime.  Clio the Muse 12:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you can read the first page of this article without a subscription. "The new approach, developed initially by Brooks, Parry, Clausen, and Putnam, is profoundly pessimistic, for it finds that the Aeneid speaks with two voices, as Parry puts it, those of personal loss as well as public achievement.  That is, the poem's successes are accompanied by failure&mdash;of Aeneas, of the Augustan order, and of human nature in general and its ability to attain its ideals."  Obviously, not everyone agrees with this reading of the Aeneid, but Virgil's poem certainly contains all the material needed to support it.  It's a rare modern reader who can come away from the poem's last page with the feeling that he's just heard the closing statement of "a mindless spokesman for the regime."  Wareh 20:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The literary form one should be looking at is panegyric. Poets like Claudian who wrote panegyrics were otherwise occupied, perhaps more mindfully, on other occasions. Propagandists for the regime multiplied once that regime was Christianized and the classical schools were closed down. "Mindless" is the word that renders the opening statement unintelligible: "Many important Classical authors served on occasion as spokesmen for the regime, and in the fifth century they were replaced by Christian ones." --Wetman 20:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course, one wonders what might be meant by the term regime. In the twentieth century, many notable writers got kudos for writing support for left wing ideals, highlighting the faults of Western Institutions. George Orwell wrote 1984 and Animal Farm. Steinbeck wrote the Grapes of Wrath. Fitzgerald wrote The Great Gatsby. Then there was that book/movie All The President's Men. Yet, in many ways, all these books' writers fell into a trap of endorsing a populist view, occasionally at odds with reality.

Consider Arthur Miller's The Crucible. There is a direct association between the outrage one naturally feels when a movie producer who supports totalitarian communism is given restricted democracy, and the unjust witch trials in Salem. It is an irony that more modern research has suggested ergot poisoning as a plausible explanation for what happened at that community, when people are so much more comfortable believing Miller's thesis of evil and sadly misled humanity.

It wasn't just the twentieth century where great, respected books support the populist view. Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species was a great work that made few of the wild claims attributed it by radical activists wishing to support their majority view, that of simple folk. Karl Marx and Engels wrote something that seems to have much support in many institutions, yet fails in profundity stakes. After all, who could question the phrase 'common good'? The Three Musketeers, and those following, (Twenty years after, Vicomte de Bragelonne, Madame de la Valliere and The Man in the Iron Mask) were great works that did much to endorse the populist view of the relative importance of things. Charles Dickens wrote much that people believed in, regarding fairness in the face of disparity between wealth and poverty. Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace was despised by Fyodor Dostoevsky, who replied with Crime and Punishment, yet which work is remembered better? Which is the greater?

I think those who write books that aren't endorsed by the vast majority of mankind, are few, little liked and little remembered. Neitsche, Maquis de Sade (John Lennon tried), Hitler. DDB 09:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If Neitsche is Nietzsche, you should know he is extremely popular at least in my country, Brazil, very liked and remembered very often. TV shows, high school and college students and newspapers often refer to him. I thought this happened worldwide as well. By the way, there was also a best seller book, When Nietzsche Wept by Irvin Yalom, which will become a movie now. And there is a Brazilian movie about him, Nietzsche in Turin.People like Nietzsche.I don´t understand why you say that about him. And I thought Marquis de Sade was "pop" nowadays, there is a movie about him as well...


 * I think people who wrote books that aren´t endorsed by the vast majority of mankind were forgotten exactly because of that. Their books were not published, sold and copied (during European middle ages, for instance, the priests decided which works would endure and which would not) and so we can´t know if they are few or many.A.Z. 09:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There were 95 Theses
How many are now inapplicable?

132.239.90.211 06:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * See The 95 Theses.  is a listing of them in English. Per Exsurge Domine, Pope Leo X wanted Luther to retract 41 of them. That should have left about 54 of them as undisputed at that time. The Catholic Church no longer sells indulgences to reduce the time spent in purgatory, so doubtless many of the 95 theses are no longer applicable to the Church in this era. Since the Church does not now sell pardons and since St. Peters has been built and paid for, many of the theses no longer address corruption in the Catholic Church. Edison 06:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

But can we make new ones?

Computer generated pornography
I was looking for the above and found that there is only an article on Poser porn and nothing by a more straight forward description. Is this all that there is on wikipedia on this subject or have I missed something in my search?83.100.183.48 20:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably isn't much more information... 惑乱 分からん 21:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Beards
Looking at the article on beards I notice that there is much on beards in ancient greece.. But I was hoping to find more on beards in china - attitudes etc maybe some interesting quotes. Would this be a suitable addition - surely confucious must have said something on the subject - he had a beard I believe - has any one got any good sources or excellent quotes?83.100.183.48 21:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I found an interesting story about a man being arrested in China for wearing a beard.

...Umar Aziz paid the price for sporting a beard in China...

...All was well with Aziz till one day in 1995, when he and his wife were taken into custody by the Chinese police.He was charged with sporting a beard, seen as a symbol of Muslim identity and a rejection of Communist philosophy, and supporting the anti-China movement...

...He was tortured and beaten on a regular basis for four long years before being released. His wife died in police custody...

Entire story found on this page: Rediff -- Codell « T » 03:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for not being any help. but I had to mention, Gee, was it only the beard that got them jailed? What about the wife? Did she have a beard too? DDB 05:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

A couple of questions about fascists
1. Are there any countries in the world where the government self-identifies itself as 'fascist'? The answer to that is arguably yes. In the 1930's Michael Aflaq, the chief the theorist of baathism, modeled his then theoretical ideological system on European fascism, The one difference was it empathized Arab people as "the master race." The Syrian gov's offical ideology is baathist.

2. Are there any elected politicans anywhere in the world that represent a political party with 'Nazi' in the name?

Thanks very much. --84.68.213.80 22:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"Nazi" meant nationalist in German, so in that sense, yes, right-wing parties with the word "Nationalist" in various languages exist.


 * Nazi did not mean "nationalism" in German; "Nazi" was short for "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei", meaning "National Socialist German Workers' Party". It's specific to the party. Skittle 23:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, of course there's the American Nazi Party, and the British Nazi Party, though to my knowledge neither of them have had any electoral success. Then again, unless your name is Bernie Sanders, you have to be either a Republican or a Democrat to make it anywhere in US politics.


 * Of course you also have guys like former KKK Exalted Cyclops, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia in Congress. Of course, like I said, it's practically impossible to get into congress without being either a Democrat or a Republican. Naturally, then, Byrd joined the Democratic Party and got elected Senator. Naturally as well, this particular Exalted Cyclops is one of GWB's fiercest critics in Congress. Loomis 00:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * But, of course, having somebody evil who hates you doesn't make you good. Hitler and Stalin hated each other, after all. StuRat 03:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You're of course correct on that one, Stu. I just threw that last bit in for fun. I suppose it's very similar to the old "the enemy of my enemy MUST be my friend" logical fallacy. But speaking of Hitler and Stalin, I can't help but quote Churchill once again, speaking upon the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941: "If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons." Loomis 22:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's a little strong to call Byrd "evil". Putting the Klan into context (the 1940s) is very important, and that the activities of the Klan, as well as the violence it is infamous for, varied over time. I'm not an apologist for the Klan's or for any form of racism, but using the blanket term of "evil" for anyone who was a member of it is just stupid, just as it is stupid to call all Germans who were in the Nazi government "evil". --24.147.86.187 15:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * But we're talking about a former Klan officer (Exalted Cyclops), not an ignorant tobacco chewing hunch-man. If "blanketing" the term "evil" over the top 20 Nazi/KKK officials is stupid, then I don't like the word "stupid" anymore. What he represents now is a different fact that I leave for people like Mnemeson to consider. freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  03:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The number two Nazi was Hermann Göring. I wouldn't call him evil. Misguided maybe. Power-hungry maybe. But evil? No. The same goes for Rudolf Hess, the number three. And definitely for Albert Speer. I wouldn't dispute the label for people like Hitler and Himmler, but I think there's a danger of overusing it. -- Necrothesp 14:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Henchmen often do the worse evils than do the leaders. And again it depends on what time you are talking about: the Klan's history is marked by some periods of high violence, some periods of little to no violence. To use the term "evil" to describe political positions one no longer finds palatable is intellectually sloppy at best. Harry Truman, Hugo Black, and many other people started their political careers in the KKK as it was considered by many at the time to be something of a leadership and cultural organization, not too different from the Rotary Club today. And heaven help us if we decide that all people who previously espoused racist views are "evil"! It wasn't until the 1960s that the KKK became wholly synonymous with unfettered racism and blunt violence. --140.247.250.175 17:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Robert Byrd was indeed historically a member of the KKK, but as I recall he currently scores 100% positive ratings from the NAACP. Which would indicate his views might have changed.  Subtly.  --Mnemeson 19:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * David Duke served a term in the Louisiana state legislature. Corvus cornix 18:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed he did. (?) Loomis 04:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Winnie was willing to make a "favourable reference to the Devil", who he'd suggested in 1918-20 should be assassinated, & look what it got him. He'd have done better to condemn totalitarianism & call off Harris. Trekphiler 04:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)