How hard is brown?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Brown University
61

<p>Um, yeah, social inequality is bad. </p>

<p>And I believe you missed my point on the "6th grade level" comment. She was asking to have it explained to her in simple terms, not literally at the 6th grade level. It's called a joke. </p>

<p>Here's where we just disagree on sink or swim. I think it's morally negligent to let people sink, espeically when doing so does not damage or inhibit the "natural swimmers" beyond annoying them. Deal with being annoyed. </p>

<p>And it's not a choice between a few incredible and many mediocre. How about many very good? And here's why: </p>

<p>Sometimes potential needs to be unearthed. Sometimes people that are / can be great at something are not immediately great at it, and have to have their abilities nursed and their confidence bolstered. This is not a bad thing, and if you take the "well, you naturally just suck at this" approach, think of how much talent you're leaving behind. Not enough emphasis is put on effort, and not enough merit is given to the notion that many things are learned and not God-given. "Talent" is overrated. </p>

<p>I'll give you an example. I took ceramics in the 10th grade. Up until then I was a total, complete science kid. I thought I had absolutely no artistic potential whatsoever. But I wanted to try ceramics. So I did. And I was TERRIBLE. But I stuck with it (and I needed a good grade), and after a couple months of a lot of effort and an abundance of VERY supportive teaching, I got to be pretty good. It was quite the turn around. Now I'm actually an art major, focusing in ceramics. And I'm extremely good. I have a piece in the Hillel show right now. Go look at it!! lol. Now imagine if my teacher was all about sink or swim, and didn't help me develop my skills? I wouldn't be here as a potter today. </p>

<p>This is not the exception to the rule. This happens all the time. I think it also happens when confidence comes in to play, like it did for me when I thought I had no artistic ability, and I would either be a great potter or a terrible one, with no room to grow or for effort to take its effect. And confidence does come in to play greatly here at Brown, when so many Valedictorians arrive here to discover they aren't the smartest kid in school anymore.</p>

62

<p>Well I can give you an example too. In my highschool class of 28, 14 of us took part in at least one national olympiad, 10 were members of a national team (of the sciences - math, physics or CS), and 6 took part in an international olympiad. 6, out of a total of about 22 that a country can send spread out over the 3 subjects (including the mini international olympiads).
Why is that? Because the level in all subjects was that high. As I've said, it wasn't cut-throat competition. Because nobody cares about grades there. You don't care about stupid grades when you have higher ideals. But there was competition. In the math, physics, or CS, practically only the respective olympians existed in the class, because the rest were simply too far below. Did this hinder the rest in any way? I don't think so, even students who got a 70/100 in math (horrible horrible grade) I'm sure know a LOT more compared to..other people.
And everybody knew his place, and was happy with it, and minded his own business. I know how bad I was compared to the CS olympians, but this only made me aware of how much more there is still to learn. If you don't have anyone higher than you, you'll think you're at the top already. In my opinion that would be horrible and sad, from any perspective.</p>

<p>And I'm not saying you're supposed to be good at everything. Like I said, I wasn't good at CS, but I never ever would have dared interrupting the teacher when he was doing something more advanced, just because I was stupid. I would go and study it alone, get a tutor, or just suck it up and get a bad grade.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And confidence does come in to play greatly here at Brown, when so many Valedictorians arrive here to discover they aren't the smartest kid in school anymore.

[/quote]

Well are you sure they discover that? They will just be told that it's ok, that talent isn't god given blabla.</p>

63

<p>communism isn't a bad idea on paper, dude, it's just far too idealistic to be feasible in reality. but you really can't argue that its ideals of equality are bad or should be ignored.</p>

<p>ClaySoul gets it right here.</p>

<p>and this notion that the drive for self-improvement just ends if there is no one above you is ********. it is an innate aspect of the human race to crave progression. not having a "bigger fish" won't stop you. you think bill gates just stopped working once he made his first billion?</p>

64

<p>Communism doesn't work because it is a bad idea on paper. The problem is not that it's too idealistic but that it preaches the wrong ideals. There is no way, neither in theory nor in practice to eliminate differences between people. Some people are better than the others so even saying that social inequality is a bad or good thing is beside the point. That's simply a fact of reality.</p>

65

<p>you are thinking like a capitalist. some might be "better" than others at a certain skill or job, but that doesn't mean they are overall "better" people. </p>

<p>the point is to put people on an equal footing in the social, political, and economic world. that means relegating people to the jobs they do best, while preventing any huge disparities between people in order to keep any sort of class system from developing. it has nothing to do with eliminating inherent differences. the goal is not uniformity, but rather to use the talents of the people for the greater good of the entire community. how is this bad on paper?</p>

<p>the problem is that people are corrupt, especially when given power, so any sort of government that has the responsibility and power to fairly distribute money, food, shelter, etc. is going to eventually wind up getting someone in charge who abuses it. that's the simple fact of reality.</p>

66

<p>It's bad on paper because
a) You have very vaguely specified goals.
b) You don't give any reasons for your goals.</p>

<p>For instance, what do you mean by the greater good of the community? Since community is just a bunch of people, by greater good, do you mean the good of each and every person in the community or the good of a majority or just a minority?
If it's the first one, then how do you show that you can achieve the "good" (whatever that means) through government force.
Why is it good to prevent huge disparities between people? How is say economic equality inherently good?</p>

<p>These are not just "practical" questions. If you want to make a system look good on paper, you have to answer these basic questions. A theory has to have some sort of justification in reality. </p>

<p>As for the point of people being corrupt, that's like saying that friction is evil. You can't proclaim an arbitrary system "good" and then say that the reason it doesn't work is because people are "bad". Would you say that the reason a steam engine cannot be practically used in a car is because it is the cars that are bad? No, you would go back to the design table and design a gasoline engine which actually works. Similarly if a social system doesn't work, you don't whine about people being bad. You go to the design table, figure out what was wrong with your social sytem and design a new one that actually works.</p>

67

<p>First, Negru, you're being offensive in your use of the word retard. Don't harp on me for being PC, you're using it in a specific context that is very offensive. Real retarded people have IQs well below 100. Real retarded people don't go to Brown (maybe there is an exception here, correct me inf I'm wrong). And no, the people who get to Brown are not stupid. They just suffer in confidence when they are suddenly surrounded by people who are as brilliant as they are. </p>

<p>Second, of COURSE a teacher should answer someone's question when they have one!!! Students in no way shape or form should just accept a bad grade or hire their own private tutor. That's why we have teachers, not just text books, slide shows, and tests. The students don't owe you anything, like you have some kind of sacred right not to be bothered by their "terrible stupidity and ignorance." If they have a question, they get to (and should get to) ask it. That's how people learn!! DEAL. </p>

<p>Communism is a great idea on paper. Daveb is right. It's not about eliminating inherent differences, but about presenting equal opportunities and responsibility. The problem is that it cannot work on a large scale. This is because in order to so radically change a country into a communist state, you need a very strong government. But communism is not the presence of a strong government (that's socialism). It is the absence of one, and everyone working together. But no one individual who has been in that strong governmental group is simply going to give up their power for the sake of communism, and no population can work together on that scale. </p>

<p>The problem with social darwinism (or its result, social inequality), is that the playing field is not level. It works on the assumption that the best of the best will always rise to the top, while the worst of the worst will sink. Well let me tell you how many positively brilliant people are stymied by their inner-city circumstances and how many stupid as dirt people are rocketed by their own (paris hilton anyone?)</p>

68

<p>you didn't seriously just compare using an engine in a car to using a social ideal within a community, did you? that's the most asinine thing you could say. the parts that make a car function do not have minds of their own. they are inanimate objects. I'm not even going to dignify what you said by going any further, because I debunked it enough right there.</p>

<p>And yes, obviously the greater good of the community refers to the good of every person within the community. Don't be facetious. And stop saying "you" as if I am the person who created communism/socialism. If you want a more clearly defined set of goals and/or reasons for those goals, go read the communist manifesto and get back to me. I am only saying that the ideals that go behind communism and socialism are appealing, yet they do not work because POWER CORRUPTS. End of story.</p>

<p>As for your question as to how economic equality is inherently good, it doesn't take much to think this through yourself. Equality blocks poverty; that means people aren't left for dead on the streets. Equal medical treatment that is provided by economic equality means a lower mortality rate. Need I go on?</p>

<p>And thank you very much, ClaySoul. Your Paris Hilton example should quiet everyone down now. It really doesn't need more discussion.</p>

69

<p>strangely, in the real world, paris hilton seems to get people talking :)</p>

70

<p>Ha, you ARE just being PC. I'm not from your country, so I don't care about being PC for the sake of being nice. If someone is stupid, I will call them stupid, don't worry about it. People need to know their limits. If someone takes offense in finding that out, it's not my problem I was the first to bring it to their attention. That was highschool's job.</p>

<p>And exactly, I'm not talking about it in general, but in a specific context, namely physics. Just like I am probably very retarded when it comes to cooking. And no I'm not going to cry if someone says I'm a lousy cook. I wasn't raised in an ignorant society, where everybody is special, and everybody has awards and crap, and telling me I'm actually not special, but stupid, is like a rock from the sky to my head. They should deal with that, not me with them.</p>

<p>Everybody is NOT special. Everybody CAN be special, but being special is not necessary, not simply by birth anyway. "oh don't worry you suck at math, and physics, and reading, and getting a job, and making friends..I'm sure you're good at something..look, you can flip coins all day! see, you are special!"
I'm such an elitist prick aren't I?</p>

<p>And I will consider people special or retarded just as I see fit, this is the way it should be. They can then try and prove me wrong, or not care.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Communism is a great idea on paper. Daveb is right. It's not about eliminating inherent differences, but about presenting equal opportunities and responsibility.

[/quote]

I prefer "responsibility to the responsible". I'm pretty sure you actually do too.</p>

<p>So you may think equality is good. Others don't. Who is right? What's then the best thing to do, impose it on those who don't like it, or not impose anything? With this simple reasoning, even if you assume communism is good, you can see how non-communism is better. The whole idea was improving quality of life overall, right? Well what if MY quality of life goes down?</p>

<p>Besides merit, competition would really have no place. Where would we be today without competition, starting with the most basic forms of competition, biological in nature? Bacteria or living in caves, that's what we would be (depending if you believe in evolution or not)</p>

71

<p>This thread is special.</p>

72

<p>Yes well it ****es me off when people who lived their whole life in a capitalist country start saying oh communism is sooo good. Well implement it yourselves here then if you like it so much. At least here I'll get a chance of living it more, since in romania communism is now illegal, for some reason.</p>

73

<p>woohoo midterm grades from physics 153 are back :))</p>

<p>I think I had the time of my life so far here. The professor was absolutely <strong><em>ed because the grades were so low. He actually said "I am *</em></strong>ed at you! This is the worst class I have seen in 10 years. Education is getting horrible, people are no longer required to think, but just regurgitate what they are taught".
Exactly what I have been saying. People take it for granted to just be given solutions and info like babies. Here comes the choochoo, open wiiide.
And whenever something new appears that nobody showed before how to do, they're like **.</p>

<p>The prof actually told us 3 weeks in advance EXACTLY what the test was going to be about. A very very NOT WIDE subject. Still, 60% of students got < 30%.</p>

<p>And it was an open book exam! Almost everything you needed to write was in all the books.</p>

<p>I felt like in highschool again :). Where if you do not do the hardest possible problems that exist, everyone calls you the worst student in the universe. And it has good results. Students are not babies, they should not be used to being treated like spoiled brats.</p>

<p>Did I also mention that most of the students have no idea how to do the homework, so they just went to the prof and demanded something easier?
***.</p>

74

<p>
[quote]
Communism is a great idea on paper. Daveb is right. It's not about eliminating inherent differences, but about presenting equal opportunities and responsibility. The problem is that it cannot work on a large scale. This is because in order to so radically change a country into a communist state, you need a very strong government. But communism is not the presence of a strong government (that's socialism). It is the absence of one, and everyone working together.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is exactly right. The failure of comunism is its idealism. It does not take into account the individuality of "humans", their intrinsic differences and their "flaws". A communist society needs no "money". People work for the good of the commune, produce what is needed and consume only what they need as well. </p>

<p>To expect that a whole society could ever "think" in those terms is absolutely utopic. </p>

<p>Karl Marx was an idiot.</p>

75

<p>negru, I never once said that communism was something that should be implemented in the US. I just said it was great on paper, but far too idealist to be realistic. And then moviebuff and claysoul reiterated that. </p>

<p>That doesn't mean the values involved should be ignored. The idea of "equality for all" is still something people should strive for, whether its on social issues or just as simple as lowering poverty levels.</p>

76

<p>How about striving for "everyone gets what one deserves" ?</p>

<p>Equal opportunity, sure. Communism has nothing to do with it tho. I mean it does, but the other types of equality imposed make this kind have no meaning anymore, so basically you're destroying the thing you wanted to obtain in the first place. </p>

<p>What you want is equal opportunity for one to prove himself. Equal opportunity that his application has the same chances as other equal applications, based on merit. Wouldn't a meritocracy be better than communism? </p>

<p>Paper, paper, it has no meaning. If you too too would have lived it, you would no longer associate communism with ideals of equality in opportunity, but with laziness, unfairness, complete lack of individuality and purpose in life, and lack of freedom just knocking on the door, to keep it together when people wake up eventually. It will always end up this way, exactly because it's as stupid on paper, as it is in real life. Proven so far by absolutely all the places it was tried. </p>

<p>It's a known fact that today in all ex-communist countries, only the poor lazy thieving peasants, factory workers who want to get paid for doing nothing, or nothing useful anyway, retired people from not so intellectual jobs, and generally people with at most high-school education vote for socialists and approve of communism. Now, the difference between us and you, is that we lived it, we know what it actually is, so the choices are made aware of true implications. </p>

<p>So you go on saying how good communism is, while at the same time enjoying your TV and good food. And toilet paper.</p>

<p>This like people who say, oh all the evil technology around, I would love to live in nature again, that is where we belong. Well you are free to go in the woods then. </p>

<p>Be careful what you wish for.</p>

77

<p>Ah, there we go, the key words.</p>

<p>Equal opportunity = fantastic thing, and much harder to reach than many American's realize.</p>

<p>Equal results = not always a very good thing, as far as I'm concerned.</p>

<p>I'm liberal economically and socially because I believe that equal opportunity must be protected as possible and that there should be a certain baseline that all people are at regardless of ability. Ceilings, however, are a different story altogether and are exactly why I'm not communist/socialist.</p>

<p>That being said, good for your professor, Negru. Do you think that it's just because of lack of background and being challenged previously, or lack of talent on the part of hte instructor? I think you do miss a HUGE point, and that is the power of a good instructor truly interacting with students in a dynamic environment which goes far beyond what you can read in a book. I hate courses that can be learned from a book and professors who don't strive to make their courses more than that-- perhaps that's the true problem and the level of other students is not the issue. Unfortunately, it's not easy to do this in the sciences the way it can be in humanities/social sciences, and only the best instructors are able to do this. I'm not sure how many of those instructors teach in the physics department as I only have very limited interaction with PH here at Brown.</p>

<p>There are a lot of things I could say in this thread but I definitely don't have the time or desire to get caught up in an argument at the moment. That being said, I actually think Negru knows where I stand on this based on previous conversation.</p>

<p>To put my position out there as simply as possible-- you're all missing a huge middle ground where I sit.</p>

78

<p>Negru, I think you are confusing some basic principles.</p>

<p>Communism is a philosophy and as such it has never been fully implemented as a political nor economic model in a large society. The countries that you are referring to were actually "trying to build socialism" with the ultimate goal - once reached that stage -, of "building communism". One of the stages in the construction of socialism is the "dictatorship of the proletariat". That was the stage where the collapse of the system occured.</p>

<p>I think you are misunderstanding what we are saying here. Who could argue about the "nobility" of wanting everyone to have the same material things, same access to resources, food, education, etc ? Wouldn' that be great? The problem is that it is not possible nor practical. There will always be people that work harder than others, that are smarter than others, that are more motivated than others. There will be greed, avarice, jealousy and envy and every quality, good and bad, of the humna spectrum.</p>

<p>I think your frustration comes from seeing people "preach" something that they do not "practice" ( Al Gore spending mega fuel and resources in a private jet yet talking about global warming or those "Limousine Liberals" that like to talk about equality and helping the poor yet have million dollar wardrobes...) that 's a different story.</p>

<p>To reach communism, a society has to reach a special "conscience". Is it possible? No.</p>

79

<p>Negru, you still misconstrue what I am saying. I wasn't asking for communism, or wishing for it, or anything like that. I wasn't saying democracy is bad (if you go back to my initial statement, I mention that republican democracy has the main ideas I appreciate, in terms of human equality). I wasn't even hailing communism and lauding it with approval. Just some of the ideas behind it, i.e. that people should be held on equal footing, and that the poor shouldn't be just left to wallow in their peril. </p>

<p>But, yknow, keep on putting words into my mouth or whatever</p>

<p>And I really don't think applications could be feasibly evaluated with communism (that would essentially mean the first few thousand apps read get accepted, the rest don't, no?), but whatever floats your boat for examples.</p>

80

<p>And thank you, MovieBuff. I wasn't going to continue to argue whether or not the tenets of communism have been successfully implemented anywhere (because Negru isn't listening), but you hit the bullseye.</p>

<p>This is a great thread, btw</p>