How hard is brown?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Brown University
81

<p>What you're saying is basically "oh wouldn't it be great if electrons were a little bigger, to be on equal footing with protons?" Sure it sounds very "fair" or "good" (whatever that means) that both should be equal, but if you then think about consequences, about where that will really lead, you will see why this would be a horrible idea, even on paper, and thus the principles that drive it become not so good as well.</p>

<p>Like someone else said, a system should be based on the way people work, not the other way around.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Who could argue about the "nobility" of wanting everyone to have the same material things, same access to resources, food, education, etc ?

[/quote]

I would. I do not approve of such a world where everyone has the same material things. Everyone should have the material things he earns. Plus obviously what he inherited. That is a right of his by birth, and I'm not against it, since it is the right that drives and has driven humanity..and all life, since..ever. Of course, this should not however influence the opportunities one has. If it will, well, fine, humanity isn't perfect, but depriving the poor is better then punishing the rich.
Because you know, if you are so troubled by the horrible conditions poor people live in, and advocate communism, you know what you should do? Give everything you have to the poor, instead of saving it for your children or yourself. And see how your work efficiency varies when you know that none of what you do will bring you or your family any good. Before you are ready to do that, I would say that you have no idea what you're supporting, even remotely, even if you just like 0.00001% of it actually. That 0.00001% part of it is just as "evil" as the whole thing.</p>

82

<p>No, we are not saying it would be better for electrons to be as big as protons. Electrons are not sentient beings. They do not think, they do not feel, they do not live. Your rebuttal is lost on a non sequitur.</p>

<p>You are also ignoring the notion that people can change. Adaptability is part of nature. If the people were to WANT such a system, it could be done. Stronger measures would need to be put into place to keep the government in check, though, or else everything gets stuck on dictatorship of the proletariat phase, as reflected in modern "communist" governments.</p>

<p>Again, we are not advocating communism! Can you grasp that before we move on? NOT ADVOCATING COMMUNISM. Nor are we saying punish the rich (and you're morally suspect if you want to "punish the poor."). And regardless, the point of socialism is not to live in utter poverty; unless the entire system were to move to give up material possessions, no one would be able to sustain his or her self by just giving everything to the poor. If anything, following the ideas of socialism that you love to bring up in a democratic society would entail giving charity, donating food, etc. to the poor (which I do plenty of), but not necessarily giving EVERYTHING you have to the poor.</p>

83

<p>Negru, I believe that we disagree in principle and that's alright.
[quote]
Everyone should have the material things he earns.

[/quote]
I do not have a problem with that. But, how about the weak, the sick, the disabled and the not "so smart"? Don't you think that "ideally" ( and here we have the term again ) society should provide the basic needs for them? I believe that "ideally", I should have no desire to own a Ferrari, a yacht and a TV in every room in my house. "Ideally", I should be content shopping at Walmart and not be thrilled to go to Neiman Marcus. Why a Rolex when I can tell the time with a Timex?</p>

<p>Please notice that I say "ideally". I am not a hypocrite. I would like a Ferrari, and anything else that my earning power will allow me have. Yet, I find impossible to argue the noble idea of all things being equal.</p>

84

<p>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Wise words</p>

85

<p>Well, if everybody owned a ferrari, it wouldn't be a big deal anymore, so it would lose all it's meaning.</p>

<p>Sure, I'm not saying that the unable should be left to die. But they shouldn't be driving ferrari's either. And certainly not because of the taxes I'm paying. If people care about sustaining the unable, they are free to donate. Making everyone donate through taxes however is not ok.</p>

86

<p>What's the problem with something as meaningless as a Ferrari losing its value? Why must people live the high life and gorge themselves on indulgences? Why does greed have to serve as the grease for the gears of people's lives?</p>

<p>So you're fiscally conservative. Fine. </p>

<p>No one is saying give the poor people ferraris. In fact, no reasonable sum of money collected through taxes on the populace would amount to enough to do anything like that. All we are saying is keep the poor from dying, i.e. providing decent health care, giving them aid if they are between jobs or unable to sustain their family while working multiple jobs, etc. There are people in this world who are not as fortunate as you to be able to say, no I will not give some of the money I earned to those people who have nothing, even if I could afford to do so, believe it or not. And it's a much smaller number of people than many choose to believe that are in such a situation because they are simply unwilling to work.</p>

87

<p>First, before I jump into this, I didn't say I wasn't being PC. In fact, I acknowledged that I was beign PC, but asked you not to harp on me about it because sometimes being PC is important. There is a difference between being "stupid" and "mentally retarded" (in todays linguistic contexts). The people you think are stupid are not retarded. And no, you don't have cooking fragile-x syndrome. </p>

<p>THAT SAID</p>

<p>Serious lapeses of logic and priorities going on here. It's worse to punish the rich than the poor? Look at how we punish the poor in this country. We deny them health care. Look at how we punish the rich. We increase their taxes and deny them ferarris. Boo frickin hoo. </p>

<p>Rich people have a birth right to their inheritance? Not only does this completely contradict your meritocracy argument, but it completely supports my argument of evidence of unequal opportunity. Those who were so blessed by God to have wealthy parents have a much easier shot at proving their intelligence and succeeding than those blessed by God to foodstamps and an abusive or absent father at age 3. This is exactly why we have affirmative action, and exactly why we should strive to eliminate unequal opportunity. Some brilliant people simply can't afford the SAT coaches they need to get those good scores and get into Harvard. Or Brown. Furthermore, this is what is wrong with your argument about people having what they earn, what they "deserve." Well, the playing field is not level. Some people have a substantial running start to the finish line. We need to recognize and compensate for that. </p>

<p>I also resent your implications about people expecting to get paid for doing nothing useful in factories. Have you ever worked in a factory? No. And neither have I. But I know people who have and its hard and demeaning work. And your work, as a doctor, or a physicist, is no more noble or better than theirs. </p>

<p>Your agrument about donating all of my personal funds to the poor is a typical response of someone too greedy or too blinded by their own importance to give up a tiny percentage of their own income in taxes. Why wouldn't I do that? Well, it wouldn't work. I don't have enough money. But how about everyone, everyone, pay 1% more on their income taxes, inheritence taxes, and yacht sales tax. Then we'd actually see something happen. </p>

<p>And the most perposterous thing you have said is that some believe in equal opportunity, some don't, but it's unfair of me to impose my view on you. It's not about YOU. It's not about me, either. It's about those who are oppressed, those who are getting treated unfairly!! What's going to happen to you if poor people are given more opportunity? You won't get that ferrari? Cry me a big sloppy river. </p>

<p>And a few more things</p>

<p>Those limosene liberals, yeah, you have a point. But by the same token, you have neocons espousing values of democracy while destroying it at home, and conservative pro choicers who care about the sanctity and value of life up until someone is actually born. Then those babies can go to the dogs. </p>

<p>And you know what, I am going to be that wacko liberal and go out and say that I AM promoting socialism. Not communism, because 1. communsim and socialism are two very different things, as I hope we have established by now, and 2. communsim can't work, wherease socialism can. No, I'm not a pure socialist, I just share some socialist values, like taxing the rich heavily. So Negru, your charity through taxes is necessary. It's a moral obligation of the privlidged to help out the downtrodden. Because check it, Negru, though your brilliance and hard work have surely been the main things that have gotten you where you are today, you are also a product of your social circumstance and privlidged position in society, just like most of the people on this board. Many people don't have that and despite working just as hard as you or being just as brilliant as you, they can't get to where you are. Just ask why, I can talk all day.</p>

88

<p>@ClaySoul - there's a difference between not providing free healthcare to the poor and robbing the rich of their money (Yes we call it taxes for niceness and I'm not claiming that it's possible to totally do away with it but the procedure is essentially that). You are using physical force (the threat of jail) in the latter but not in the former.</p>

<p>If you don't allow the rich to keep their produce (I'm not concerned with inheritance here. The rich people don't just include the ones with inheritance - most of the Forbes Top 100 made most of their money), then don't expect the rich to keep doing all the hard conceptual work which creates innovations (like drugs, medical equipment, etc.) that are actually necessary for the poor to survive. I don't want to really get involved in a debate here but I would like to refer you to a really great essay on this by Paul Graham - <a href="http://paulgraham.com/gap.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://paulgraham.com/gap.html&lt;/a> on income inequality. And no, he is not just some rich dude with a large inheritance - he was a poor guy who got rich by creating wealth.</p>

<p>And as for lapses of logic, that's a rich thing to say when all you are making is arbitrary assertions (work of a doctor/physicist is no better than working in a factory?????!!!! Don't forget that the person able to feed himself by working in a factory today would have remained a peasant at the mercy of ordinary diseases without a doctor or a physicist. How can you claim that's it's a moral obligation to help the poor. As far as I can see, it's just an arbitrary assertion. No proof, no justification, not even a definition of what morality is and it is that way. People are product of their social circumstances? How do you explain Thomas Edison? Henry Ford? Howard Hughes? Doubtless there are some people who were brilliant, did brilliant work and got the short end of the stick (the inventor of the TV comes to my mind - the company didn't respect his patents) but how can you punish the majority because of a minority? How do you show that your punishment will actually solve the problem of the minority and make everyone happier (including the majority) since that's the goal of socialism, isn't it? Good of everyone, not just a select group.)</p>

<p>Oh yeah, and England tried that trick of taxing the rich heavily in the 70s and it's status reverted from a developed nation to a developing nation.</p>

89

<p>Damn, ClaySoul. Well put.</p>

<p>Sid_galt, contrary to what everyone is led to believe, the "American Dream" that people praise is almost nonexistant, at least at this point in the country's development (although people like F Scott Fitzgerald would argue that it was always mythic, as material wealth doesn't give the happiness everyone seems to believe it does, but that is neither here nor there). It is incredibly hard to rise in social status when you have all aspects working against you (born into a poor family, thus deprived of the same educational opportunities that higher class children receive, so it's much harder to get a job and climb the ladder). The poor are treated unfairly in that they are not given an honest chance to better themselves. Employers don't want to hire people with little work experience and remedial education, as many below the poverty line tend to have.</p>

<p>And I don't believe ClaySoul was saying don't allow the rich to keep their produce. Just to give a SMALL percentage (read: 1% was his exact quote) more to taxes that would go into healthcare programs, better educational systems, etc. to help the poor actually gain the mobilization they need to rise in social status. This is not unreasonable. </p>

<p>Oh, and get this: if the factory workers don't show up, the doctors don't have the tools, meds, and machines necessary to treat patients. It all works together.</p>

90

<p>Wow. It's perfectly hilarious to hear Americans school a Romanian on Communism. Why does it seem like the only people still in love with socialism, in its various forms, are Westerners? The single most staunchly conservative person I have ever known is Russian, follwed by a Romanian mathematics professor. Although I do not especially like Negru, I have to agree (whole-heartedly) with him on this one: everyone should get what he earns. It's how the world does--and should--work. You don't work, you won't eat. Welfare impoverishes everyone in the end. (Every known anyone chronically on it? Then you know what I mean.) Mind you, I'm not saying people shouldn't help the poor. I am, however, saying that the government shouldn't be able to force us all to feed the poor. Our country is too liberal as it is and not actually free enough. Healthcare, education, welfare--privatize everything. </p>

<p>(Or, you know, argue about it on CC like we're all doing. :)</p>

91

<p>First of all, I was talking about workers that produce nothing useful. Yes, it sounds weird to you that that may exist, but in ex-communist countries, the state owns thousands of factories, which are now completely obsolete. All they do is eat money. For this reason they're called the black holes of these countries. They produce nothing, but lots of money goes into them. Now, the government wants to shut them down (as this was also a prime demand from the EU), but there you go: huge social outcry. All the workers want to get money, even if they're not doing anything useful to anyone. They're jut as good as the unemployed.
This is the kind of workers I was talking about. Moving on</p>

<p>So, I'm seeing some interesting idea here. Take the produce from the wealthy, so they will have to work, to produce continuously? So basically the rich are there to provide so that the poor can live off of them? If someone earns enough money, then let him have it and enjoy it. And you talk about morals. Well, can you compare absolute values of morality? How is giving money to the poor justifiable at the expense of taking it from someone. And not just someone, but the person who earned it.
I bet robin hood is one of your all time favorites haha.</p>

<p>Now, about opportunities. There was some other thread about this, but I gave up posting there. You are telling me if you have more money, you'll have access to a better education? How so? Is it well because that the better education costs more money? Well ok, I see, solving this problem is indeed desirable. But you're solving it the wrong way. The solution isn't giving more money to schools, nor to people so they can afford it, BUT making education have nothing to do with money in the first place. You need nothing more than a pen a paper to study anything. I should know, that's most of what we have where I come from. I never used much of anything else, neither my classmates, and we all seem to have ended up pretty fine. Of course, this only works up to college, that's why we left romania eventually, even tho you see me now praising its educational system.</p>

<p>The point is, there social status doesn't matter in education. Why? Because education has no money, most teachers earn about 300$ per month, but it still works. Sure, we don't always have heating during the winter, or clean bathrooms, but how does that influence anything? I'm pretty sure that the US spends more money on education than we do, but still all of our schools are state owned. Guess what, they don't get much money. I'm not talking computers or some other crap, but basic things like plumbing. So we rely almost entirely on PRIVATE donations. Did you catch that word? Private. Currently my ex highschool can afford very fancy stuff, and from donations only. And I am pretty sure there are a lot more opportunities for attracting donations here than there.
So, people can get better preps for the SAT if they have more money? Well that makes sense, but again the problem lies elsewhere. If this system of sats makes things so unfair, that AA has to be implemented, why don't you just give up the stupid system? I took the sats once too many times, to know they test not for intellectual ability, but for testing strategies. Well, here's a problem you should solve. How about instead of spending the money on helping kids a tutor, spend it on researching and implementing better tests than the SAT?
Or how about making colleges care about academics, and personal intellect, more than on ECs that indeed only people with lots of free time and money can pursue?
Wouldn't it be better the address the main problem, not the side ones that arise from it? The problem like I said is not letting people have their money, but that they can do too much with it, when they shouldn't be allowed to.</p>

<p>Also. Yes I believe that taking money from the rich is worse than not giving money to the poor. The former did a positive thing and should be rewarded, instead you want them punished. The latter did nothing, besides existing, and you want them rewarded. There is some foul logic here
And it's not about "oh what will 1% matter when they own a ferrari". Thats not the point. They could 10000 ferraris it's their money</p>

92

<p>ClaySoul,

[quote]
communsim can't work, wherease socialism can

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I believe you are probably referring to some "socialist ideas", which can be incorporated to a society, which is also very different. The "socialist model" for society has never worked and it remains just another philosophy. People, by nature, have their own best interests in mind and socialist nations are choked by government regulations in the name of the common good. Now, these same governments are formed by "people" whom by nature also have their OWN individual interests in mind!!!
A socialist eventually ends up seeing his job as something he is entitled to from his government regardless of his personal ability and productivity. Why strive for anything if you are "entitled" to everything? For a society like that to work you need a "greater conscience" for everyone to reach which in my opinion is rather utopic. People are all different in their abilities, morals, intelligence and so on.</p>

<p>It all looks good on paper, but WHEN applied, Winston Churchill said it best:</p>

<p>“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”</p>

93

<p>Oh and about the professor and the class. What he gave on the exam was trivial. All you had to know was 2 formulas, which we used extensively, and which are in all the books. The problems he gave were well known, well discussed in class, and thoroughly discussed in any thermo book. Maybe you are familiar with the van der waals gas? Like, even a 20 minute trip to wikipedia would've been more then enough to get at least 70%. And he told us, it was going to be on vdW and nothing else. How could 2 people have scored a perfect ZERO? And he was very very indulgent in correcting too.
It's certainly not his fault.
As for the homework, I don't have any background on what he's teaching now either. I never took any quantum mechanics, analytical mechanics, complex analysis, multivariable calculus, and lots of other advanced stuff needed, as this is a 3rd or 4th year course typically, but they have. So tell me, where does the difference appear? Oh I know, maybe it's because I'm used to attending classes from which I don't understand more than 30%. Well you know what, that's how you make good physicists. Not by feeding them like helpless babies.</p>

94

<p>And what of the people who CAN'T work, or can't work enough to provide? Everyone ignores that there are many people in poverty who are the sole breadwinners for families with multiple children, and that they oftentimes cannot work enough jobs to give the basics - just food, clothing, and shelter - to their family. These people should just be ignored? Just, oh well, sucks for them?</p>

95

<p>They can be fed by whoever cares. Don't make someone pay if they don't care. </p>

<p>And the only unable are the handicap. If they are both physically and mentally handicap. Otherwise, they can work something out. Now, if they make 5 children, and can't feed them all, that is solely their fault, and they alone should deal with it.</p>

96

<p>Robin Hood and I are tizight. </p>

<p>Thank you, Daveb, for bringing up a very important point about an ever-neglected and surprisingly large portion of our society. Everyone should go read The Body Silent, among many other books on the issue. </p>

<p>Negru, you are being morally negligent. Learn to care! Learn to help those who, literally, cannot help themselves. </p>

<p>And one need not be both physically and mentally handicapped to be prevented from working. Just one can incapacitate just fine. Just ask, I can talk all day. And, oh, yeah, that girl who grew up poor in a modern ghetto, was raped and impregnated by her father at age 15, later had an abusive husband and 3 more kids, went on a welfare system that makes upward mobility almost impossible because of its beuracracy and ill-thought out regulations...and now has uber PTSD and has a hard time working, yeah, that's TOTALLY her fault. </p>

<p>When it comes down to it, I just believe that the majority, the fortunate, have an obligation to help the unfortunate. And I'm not talking about a give away to lazy people (not to be confused with working but poor people), but about universal healthcare, a smart welfare system (it's not welfare itself but the way that it is implemented that keep people perpetually on it and create "lazy welfare mothers"), a smart disabilty system, and an equitible education system. And when it comes down to it, this is about money. Higher wages in inner city schools WOULD attract better teachers. And where is the only place that this much money can reliably and continually come from? Taxes. So suck it up, give it up. </p>

<p>And Sid_galt, I was reffering more to lapses in priorities about the moral issue, and lapses in logic in that "forcing equality on someone" is worse than letting inequality exist. And you're right, I'm not fully explaining myself in terms of the definitions of morals here, and I'm having trouble doing so because it seems so blatantly obvious to me that people who are fortunate should help people who are down-and-out.</p>

<p>Negru, you're missing a big group here called the working poor. It's not all lazy bums crying for handouts and rich prosperous people with their priorities and heads screwed on straight. There are a large number of people who work very hard but still are on welfare, still are below the poverty line, still struggle. And that's who we need to help. There are a lot of rich people who don't deserve it, and a lot of poor people who don't deserve it. </p>

<p>And Sid_galt, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say, yeah, the work of a doctor is not inherently superior to that of a factory worker. No, I'm not saying they should be payed the same. Not even close. Education, etc, and simple supply and demand is going to dictate that a doctor makes much much, more. It's more of a principle thing. We all get up in the morning and work hard, and those factory workers should recieve a lot more respect than they do. Afterall, they make those stethoscopes that the doctors need, right? And the tires on those rich people's ferraris. </p>

<p>And one more (probably repetitive) thing is that no, rich people should not go buy 1000 ferraris when there are homeless people with schizophrenia wallowing away in filth and starvation because there aren't enough hospital beds (and most hospitals are atrocious places anyways) just because it's their money. This may be an agree-to-disagree issue, here, but in my mind, the fortunate help out the suffering.</p>

<p>And whatever eco-social experiment the Brits did in the 70's is probably not a universal representation of what taxing the rich can do. Even slight increases in the right places can make big differences. </p>

<p>And furthermore, this country actually has a TON of money. It just goes to the wrong places. The pentagon budget is HUGGGEEEE, for example. We give money to school vouchers when we should give money to public schools that need it, etc. </p>

<p>And the same way that you are asserting those factory workers who actually do nothing seem to think they deserve a living wage and a job, those senators and those doctors sure seem to think they deserve really big paychecks for the work they do. No one is immune to greed on any level.</p>

97

<p>Oh, and affirmative action isn't about money, which is why the "affirmative action money" isn't being spent on a better testing system than the SAT....</p>

98

<p>


</p>

<p>But since there are other people who don't agree with this, until this such a statement is well defined and proven (For e.g., one way would be to show that not helping the unfortunate will ultimately lead to say misery for everyone), why should the government step in and force an obligation which can have disastrous consequences?</p>

<p>
[quote]

Higher wages in inner city schools WOULD attract better teachers. And where is the only place that this much money can reliably and continually come from? Taxes. So suck it up, give it up.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Firstly, just because it seems to be about money does not mean it is about money. You are assuming here for e.g., that good teachers are always paid better than bad teachers and therefore, higher pay would attract good teachers. How do you know that's true? Not only that, the person hiring the teachers would have to know very well how to distinguish between good teachers and bad teachers. It is not just about money</p>

<p>More importantly, since there are other people in the world who don't agree with you, why advocate forcing your viewpoint onto others?</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Fair enough. Though wrong things often seem blatantly obvious. Universality of time was blatantly obvious until Einstein's relativity came along. In fact, I'll even claim that anything that seems blatantly obvious is most likely wrong. Right ideas are a product of long, tiring, hard, careful thinking and testing - they aren't obvious at all.</p>

99

<p>I think our freshman at Brown should take advantage of sociology and development courses, maybe pick up a copy of "Class Matters" in the book store, perhaps even study abroad in Scandinavia to learn about the welfare state and how it's been so successful.</p>

100

<p>"You are assuming here for e.g., that good teachers are always paid better than bad teachers"</p>

<p>I don't think she was assuming that at all. Money would however lure a person into an inner city where they wouldn't otherwise go to teach. Poor schools usually get barely qualified teachers. Trust me I come from a Title I school (low income demographics) and they are always short on teachers because they quit due to low pay and bad environment/bad place to live. I would bet less would quit if they had some more $$$ to compensate. At least they would have an easier time replacing the ones who did quit. Money talks.</p>

<p>Either way - this thread was about how hard Brown is right?</p>