BU- Northeastern

Colleges and Universities A-Z Boston University
21

<p>I've read Glashow's name numerous times in various books and articles. Off the top of my head, I've read about him in the latest edition of A Brief History in Time, The Fabric of the Cosmos, An Elegant Universe, Parallel Worlds, and a couple of articles in the New York Times, and Time magazine. Some of them (I think mostly the articles) discuss his leave from Harvard due to Harvard supporting string theory. I have been able to read enough about him to deduce this accurate. This is my proof. Now if you want the specifics, you can read the info from the sources listed above. </p>

<p>The funniest thing about your accusation is that clearly you were the one who went to Wikipedia yourself, and yet you wag the finger on a complete stranger, while at the same time admitting you don't know the "internal politics" of an institution, and then asserting that I don't know it either. Stephen Colbert does it while acting, you do it while...well, while being your natural self. Bravo.</p>

22

<p>"The funniest thing about your accusation is that clearly you were the one who went to Wikipedia yourself"</p>

<p>You sure like to attack people without any evidence whatsoever. What evidence do you have that I read Wikipedia about string theory? Why are you so sure that you are only one who have read Hawking, Kaku, and Greene? It's plain arrogant that you are making all sort of assumptions without providing an iota of proof. I stick to what I know and I don't make false claims for the sake of argument. You should not call people you don't know, whose work you can't comprehend (aside from popular science non-fiction and a few articles from the Times) "a stubborn old mule." </p>

<p>Look at your two claims here:
"our accusation is that clearly you were the one who went to Wikipedia yourself"
and,
"and yet you know the internal mentality and psychology of myself, to assume such childishly that I went to Wikipedia--what sense does that make? Shame on you."</p>

<p>Can you reconcile them? </p>

<p>You have provided ZERO evidence for your claims thus far. So now you are asking me to look for sources that you claim to be the truth! That's plainly outrageous. The authors mentioned above advocate for string theory and they have good reasons to do show. But none of them call Glashow or string-theory skeptics with cheap name-calling and make a childish fuss about it. They strive to prove their claims, not attack people who question them. They are SCIENTISTS.</p>

<p>Furthermore, how would you take if I said that I had read some where that Santa Claus truly exist and it has been scientifically proven, and when you asked for proof, I simply replied, "You look for it. It's there." Glashow might have very well left Harvard for the reason you mentioned, but you have not provided EVIDENCE to back up your claim. Your ad hominem attacks thus far are just plain obnoxious. When I don't know something, I ask for evidence that cures my ignorance. When you don't know something, you attacks your questioner.</p>

23

<p>"What evidence do you have that I read Wikipedia"--Reddune</p>

<p>I KNOW you went to Wikipedia because you wrote this:</p>

<p>"P.S.
I don't know the internal politics of Harvard Physics department, but do you have any proof that he left it because the department embraced String Theory, beside the uncited Wikipedia article?"</p>

<p>HERE'S YOUR FRICKEN PROOF EINSTEIN! You're as stubborn as king mule himself! Is that good enough for you Captain Science? Can we conclude this time-wasting discussion? </p>

<p>You should major in law. Or even better, political science. You'd make a great politician.</p>

24

<p>ok back to the issue at hand, since I don't know anything about String Theory - as a high school senior it seems to me that BU does have a little more prestige than NEU, although that might just be due to U.S NWR which I don't really care about that much.
But BU has an appeal to me that NEU just doesnt, and I'm not really interested in the Co-op thing...I applied to BU because I actually wanted to, and applied to NEU solely b/c they sent me a free app which took a minute to fill out, and I figured another safety school couldn't hurt.</p>

25

<p>I did a quick check Glashow bio on wikipedia when you made your unfounded claim on him leaving Harvard because for political reason. I found there was no source for such claim and then I asked you about it. So far you have repeatedly ignore the question and have resorted to name calling to cover your track.</p>

<p>I had made the wrong assumption that you were accusing me of reading the Wikipedia article on String Theory. I am a big enough person to say that I made a wrong assumption. I don't insult people's dignity and call them name when I am frustrated. You have demonstrated incredible childishness in your posts thus far (even for a high schooler). I don't know what is wrong with you or why you are looking for a fight, but I don't stay quiet for a bully--and especially not for one who can't buy a beer without a fake ID.</p>

<p>Your claim about String Theory and about Glashow have all been unfounded without any evidence whatsoever. You can attack me all you like, but the substance of your claims have not been proven. Either give us a link to your claim or stay silence.</p>

26

<p>Extraordinary, you are certainly the champion of hypocrisy--and you have proved it on more than one occasion. </p>

<p>Now in this post, you "I don't insult people's dignity and call them name when I am frustrated." Then you follow that sentence by calling me "childish" and a "bully," and for some reason, a bully "who can't buy a beer without a fake ID."</p>

<p>Do you have subscription to Nature. If so, google this "Top physicist crosses to Boston in search of like minds." In the article, they talk about him leaving Harvard since Harvard embraced String Theory. In the article, Glashow himself is quoted saying, "Harvard is at the top. BU is not in that category." I can't provide you with the link because you need a subscription to see it. BUT, just google what I told you to, you can see some sort of preview. </p>

<p>Now I hope I haven't embarrased you much (though some shame is due). Be a gentleman, apologize, and move on.</p>

<p>Oh, and by the way, this was fun, we must do it again sometime.</p>

27

<p>I didn't know calling a kettle black is an insult to the kettle. You are immature and a bully in your posts; and you're a high schooler who can't buy alcohol--is that a wrong assumption? Does that qualify as an insult? I think you are too thin-skinned and sensitive to any sort of criticism. Hopefully you will grow beyond it. Hopefully. </p>

<p>I think you think too highly of your posts; there probably isn't a reader beside me who must answer your outrageous claims and insulting posts. I don't know how much you have embarrassed anyone else, but you have embarrassed yourself plenty with your childish insults. </p>

<p>Now, about Glashow. I never deny what you claim about his reason for leaving Harvard might be, I had asked you repeatedly to cite the source for that claim. Now you cite Nature. OK. Mind if I ask what issue is it in? The whole point of our little discussion really isn't just about Glashow, but about accountability and what is to be claimed as truth or fiction and the citation of credible sources to support your claim. I think that I have helped you made some progress. You're welcome. The secondary reason is your rude attitude in your posts thus far. I don't think is a single one of them that is freed of insults. I have tried my best to point out your immaturity, but you refuse to accept it but continue to insult away.</p>

<p>I don't know if it has been fun for you not, or just saying it out of sheer frustration, but I'm willing to continue this till Kingdom Come.</p>

<p>P.S.
Why do you ask for an apology? Did my truth-speaking hurt you that much that you need psychical closure?</p>

28

<p>I know and work with a really good professor ( he has been in national news) in engineering. Do you think that helps my chances of getting in.</p>

29

<p>forget everything I said up top. I meant to make a new thread. Sorry</p>

30

<p>I apologize to you who-knew for hijacking your thread. I've asked the administrators to remove both mine and beautifulmind's posts to give you back your thread.</p>

31

<p>Nature 404, 798 (20 April 2000) | doi:10.1038/35009214</p>

<p>All the attacks I've mad against you center around your hypocrisy. I have provided my logic when insulting you in a rather orderly manner. I have even shown you a source that proves my argument about Shaldow. Now that I have defeated you on that matter, you go on to say that your central argument had nothing do to with Shaldow, but rather just my maturity. How dare someone with no consistency in argument, and with such consistency in utterly stupid hypocrisy, call me immature? Please, I wish not to continue this discussion with you any longer.</p>

32

<p>First off, who is Shaldow?</p>

<p>My first question:
"I don't know the internal politics of Harvard Physics department, but do you have any proof that he left it because the department embraced String Theory,"</p>

<p>and then another request:
"Please, provide some substance to what you are saying."</p>

<p>Your Claim:
"I have provided my logic when insulting you in a rather orderly manner."</p>

<p>The evidence:
- "HERE'S YOUR FRICKEN PROOF EINSTEIN! You're as stubborn as king mule himself! Is that good enough for you Captain Science?"</p>

<p>You'll excuse me if I find your, "orderly manner." a bit underwhelming. </p>

<p>After a while, you cite, "Nature 404, 798 (20 April 2000)" which basically answers my first question. So, thank you.</p>

<p>"Now that I have defeated you on that matter"
And what Matter is that? I remember asking you, "but do you have any proof that he left it because the department embraced String Theory." So by answering a question you have "defeated" the questioner? Huh? I'm a bit lost.
IT's like this:
Bob: Where is Jeff?
Mike: Jeff is in the caff
Bob: Thanks
Mike: Ah ha, I have defeated you.
Bob:...huh?</p>

<p>Second question:
"String Theory is named a "theory." but is it recognized as a theory in the eyes of all physicists? Is it a theory that has empirical evidences that support it on the scale of the theory of evolution or Einstein's two theories of relativity?"</p>

<p>Your answer:
"It is a theory. It is definitely not proven true, but it's a fricken theory. Old man Glashow doesn't even think it should be a theory, but who cares about him?"</p>

<p>I don't think this is an answer. It's attack on Glashow only. And your only claim to it being a theory is "It is a theory." Thus far, String Theory does not have empirical data to prove its point. </p>

<p>I conclude that your definition of a scientific theory and my definition are two different one. This is mine:</p>

<p>"I understand that in science nothing is proven 100%. But to earn the title of a theory, you have to show substantial data that back your claim and you must be able to test the theory over and over again through many experiments. Where are the experiments that give credence to String Theory?"</p>

<p>Later on
Your next point:
"The funniest thing about your accusation is that clearly you were the one who went to Wikipedia yourself,"</p>

<p>My reply:
"You sure like to attack people without any evidence whatsoever. What evidence do you have that I read Wikipedia about string theory?"</p>

<p>You then pointed out:
"I KNOW you went to Wikipedia because you wrote this:"but do you have any proof that he left it because the department embraced String Theory, beside the uncited Wikipedia article?"</p>

<p>Which of course is irrelevant here. I didn't deny I used wikipedia, I denied that I used Wikipedia to read about String Theory, but instead used it to check your claim on Glashow, and the source there was uncited:</p>

<p>Eventually, we moved on to you being an immature poster.</p>

<p>"you go on to say that your central argument had nothing do to with Shaldow"
...It doesn't. You can go back to read all my posts again, most of them deal with the question of whether String Theory can be classified as a theory on par with Evolution. There are still many dissent on the issue and Glashow is only one of chorus. His decision to move to BU was only a secondary question that I keep asking you to cite the source of your claim. I did not once deny that claim was a lie, I repeatedly asked for a source.</p>

<p>The conversation then ceased to be civil when you began the uncalled for personal attack beginning with the Colbert remark. </p>

<p>I am willing to compromise with you on what we have so far. I think there have been a series of misunderstanding as I pointed about above. And we can keep the peace. Or we can continue this.</p>

33

<p>First of all, I accidentally said Sheldow since his first name is Sheldon and last name is Glashow. Not hard to figure out though.</p>

<p>Secondly, I have homework to do, you are a complete liar and fraud by picking and choosing things from my post and rearranging everything in your advantage. THIS IS NOT FOX NEWS! So stop playing Bill O'Reilly.</p>

<p>TO ALL READERS, if you want to see the actual truth, just go back on re-read the posts made by both of us. It should be very clear who makes sense, and who doesn't!</p>

<p>P.S. I am not going to repost here, because this last post you made really, really crossed the line. NEVER PICK QUOTES AND REARRANGE THEM AT YOUR WHIM! That is very, very mean and misleading. I started to gain some private respect for you as a debator, but this is pure nonsense now. Goodbye.</p>

34

<p>"TO ALL READERS" and "I started to gain some private respect for you as a debator, but this is pure nonsense now."</p>

<p>Gosh I find it so laughable! You actually think we have readership! Just by this alone it shows that you just want a win-lose kind of argument. My advise is don't take this so personally, you are still young, there will be many like it. Things aren't white and black as you like it, there will be many shades of gray once you get to college. This is only a conversation with a stranger on your first month at CC. Finally, in case you haven't noticed that there isn't any post about our argument. Don't think too highly of yourself.</p>

<p>"you are a complete liar and fraud by picking and choosing things from my post and rearranging everything in your advantage. THIS IS NOT FOX NEWS! So stop playing Bill O'Reilly."</p>

<p>Gee! What is with the ad hominen attack again.You were improving with a cited post, and now you just revert back to your old fashion attack first and look later.</p>

<p>I think I selected the quotes that demonstrate the whole point of the conversation thus far. Can you find a flaw in it beside making broad general statement?</p>

<p>"the last post you made really, really crossed the line."
Huh? Again, I think you know where the line is. This is your first post:</p>

<p>"it should be noted that Glashow didn't leave Harvard because he was more impressed by Boston University, but because Glashow is a stubborn old mule."</p>

<p>Hmm...calling an imminent scientist a "old mule" really stays within the line of respectability. I think the charge of hypocrisy must be laid along with immaturity. I must have crossed the line while trying to follow you.</p>

35

<p>Not to get involved here, but calling someone a "stubborn old mule" in an initial argument shows quite a bit of preconceived bias that would inevitably discredit any argument thereafter. This issue was essentially null and void before it started. </p>

<p>Secondly, no one is comparing BU to Harvard, so I don't see the point of the comment in the first place. </p>

<p>Finally, why does it matter what reason this professor came to BU? Does it change the fact that he IS here? I think not. Why does it matter what circumstances brought him to BU? Obviously, he is someone that many people admire and respect, and now have a great opportunity to learn from at BU.</p>

36

<p>I know this is a thread comparing BU and NU, but isn't NU by default this year accepting less people than BU? NU had 2,870 spots and about 36,000 people applied (I think?). This means that NU would accept about 7,000 people to try and fill all of the 2,870 spots. But BU had 37,964 applicants for 4,200 spots. This means they'll probably accept around 10,000 people or less to fill those spots. So isn't NU more selective this year? Am I missing something?</p>

<p>BU is my number one choice. I was accepted into NU but into the Spring Semester instead of the Fall (along with 400 other people).
What does this all mean then?</p>

37

<p>Being selective doesn't mean having lower number of admission than the other person. It mostly has to do with the quality of the students being admitted as well. You can measure the quality of the students by their average SAT/ACT score for example or see which school has more admitted students (who will be attending) graduated from the top 10% of their class. One example of incredibly selective schools that have unusually high percentage of admitted student is Chicago with 40%ish. Chicago has the quality of a top-ten school but has an extremely high admission rate; it doesn't mean that it is at all easy to get in.</p>

38

<p>Yeah, you are drawing an incorrect conclusion from the data you gave. I have not checked the number of applicants for NU, so I will assume your number is true. Yes, NU would technically be more selective in that their acceptance percentage would be lower. But you have no data on the average statistics of the accepted students for each class. For all you know, the BU class had a higher average GPA or SAT among those accepted. </p>

<p>Let me use a hypothetical example that will make my point clear. Assume Harvard decides to admit about 55% of students who apply. Let us also assume that BU accepts 54% of students who apply. So technically BU is more selective. So what conclusion can be drawn from this? That BU holds its students to a higher admissions standard? Not in the slighest. This is where I think you are drawing a false conslusion from. Even if Harvard accepted 55% of its students, those students would still have a rediculously high SAT and GPA average, far higher than BU. Is BU more selective than Harvard? Yes. Is it easier to get into Harvard? No.</p>

<p>Obviously the disparity between Harvard and BU is exponentially larger than that between NU and BU. But don't let raw admission percentage fool you. When the quality of applicants is higher, a lower selectivity does not indicate a greater chance of acceptance.</p>

39

Can I get some updated opinions about BU vs Northeastern / overall / Engineering? Need to make a decision. Thanks