What role do elite universities play in your countries political and cultural lives ?
I ask because of something both Shelf and Brazen have said, they've both bemoaned that because of other diversion in their school/college lives they didn't take study seriously and missed out on applying/going to Oxford or Cambridge University.
Now I've met both of them and from their postings here I don't doubt that both of them are of the calibre to have studied at such institutions, but I find it a bid sad that we have this divide between Oxbridge and all the rest in this country, I'm not sure it's entirely healthy.
On finds aspects of the divide popping up in unusual places, there a tough BBC quiz program called 'Only Connect' and when the contestants are introduced there's usual a quick description of job title, academic background and possible a funny or character trait to make these egghead seem more 'normal'.
But what's weird is, only Oxford or Cambridge universities or colleges are ever mentioned, so quite a few contestants will be described as a Cambridge graduate or did PPE at Baliol, but I've yet to here anyone being described as having done X at Y or Z redbrick university. I think the only exception was when a team was entirely composed of Exeter uni. alumni and was call that or something similar.
It's as if having been to Oxbridge the person in question need some special respect ?
So what do you think of your country's academic elite ?
heh, I'm the same. If only I had actually studied in school the way Japanese kids do I could have gone to Oxbridge...and of course if I'd been better educated on what going to university meant so I would have done fun, easy things like history and politics rather than concentrating on what I actually believed to be useful and relevant but difficult and dull (maths, physics...). It would have to be through some dodgy back door affirmative action for peons thing of course, I don't have the breeding for the front door, but it would certainly have guarantied me a job at the end of it.
I agree though that the over emphasis on Oxbridge in Britain sucks.
Hell, I hate the entire education system of overly focusing on exams rather than actually learning.
With the way things are...its a catch 22. Oxbridge is the best because it is the best. It sucks in most of the very talented folks.
Its not just in academic related things that Oxbridge is over-represented either. British comedy is highly biased towards Cambridge/Oxford (I can't remember which one it is has the footlights).
Oh and I came across this story:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-16604050 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-16604050)
Quote
Magdalen Oxford gets rejection letter from student
A student has sent a rejection letter to the University of Oxford following her interview for a place there.
Elly Nowell parodied the institution's own rejection letters, stating Magdalen College "did not quite meet the standard" of other universities.
Ms Nowell, 19, from Winchester, Hampshire, told the BBC the interview left her feeling like "the only atheist in a gigantic monastery."
A university spokesman said it received only a few complaints from applicants.
He added: "Of the 10,000 interviews that we conduct over the course of the admissions period it is a very low number."
'Traditions and rituals'
Ms Nowell's letter began: "I have now considered your establishment as a place to read Law (Jurisprudence).
"I very much regret to inform you that I will be withdrawing my application.
"I realise you may be disappointed by this decision, but you were in competition with many fantastic universities and following your interview I am afraid you do not quite meet the standard of the universities I will be considering."
Should the university wish to "reapply", her letter continued, "while you may believe your decision to hold interviews in grand formal settings is inspiring, it allows public school applicants to flourish... and intimidates state school applicants, distorting the academic potential of both".
She also criticised Magdalen College's "traditions and rituals", and the gap between "minorities and white middle class students".
However, the university said in a statement: "Of the seven UK students who received offers for law and joint school courses at Magdalen, only one was from an independent school."
'Media exposure'
Ms Nowell, who went to Brockenhurst College, said she applied to the university to keep her options open but now hopes to be accepted into University College London.
She said: "It was while I was at interview that I finally noticed that subjecting myself to the judgement of an institution which I fundamentally disagreed with was bizarre.
Ms Nowell's letter wished the university "every success" in the future
"I spent my entire time there laughing at how seriously everything was being taken."
But former Magdalen College student Gemma Pouncy said her state school background did not pose a problem when she applied at the university.
Ms Pouncy who is 22 and from Somerset, added: "When I went to interview I felt that I was put at ease. I felt challenged but I expected to be challenged.
"Yes I felt in awe but it made me want to study there more.
"All my exposure of the place had come through the media but it wasn't like that at all."
Ms Nowell admitted that her email was not meant to be taken 100% seriously.
She said: "Oxbridge is a fairly ridiculous and prominent elitist institution, yet unlike the monarchy or investment bankers it is rarely mocked.
"Even comedians tend to avoid Oxbridge as a subject.
"Being a successful student should depend on the student, not on whether or not a couple of academics have deemed you to shine in a twenty minute interview."
Oh and for better or worse she came from my old college. :blush: :bowler:
The Ivy league is ridiculously dominant in all phases of elite life so far as I can see. Specifically Harvard and Yale but the others have alumni in top positions all over the country.
But we also have Berkeley and Stanford and a few other elite universities that are not Ivies.
Chinese generally have great respect for academic excellence. The name of a university carries great weight. There is a crucial difference between Chinese and the British though - in China, an overseas institution is considered somewhat superior. So Harvard and Cambridge are much better than the best local institutions, and an average overseas institution is better than an average local institution.
There is some justification for this. One because if someone has studied overseas, there is some gurantee of his English proficiency, which is a skill that is absolutely crucial but in short supply in this part of the world. Two, many local Chinese universities will admit someone because of his family background. People know that overseas universities do the same. But someone's ties in HK/China are usually not that important to an overseas university. So overseas universities are considered more trustworthy judges of character/ability.
In HK, if you are a Harvard graduate you can pretty much pick whatever private sector office job you want. You also pretty much have to be a graduate of the local big 3 universities to get a meaningful office job. But the civil service is another matter. The civil service is not allowed to pick candidates based on GPA, university name or discipline studied. They can only use their own anon exam results and interview scores. Even if you're a Harvard graduate, if you fail the civil service exam, you fail the exam. The civil service interviewer is also likely to come from an average university. People also don't pay any attention to a candidate's academic background during elections. In HK, the civil service dominates the political scene. Legislators usually have community organiser backgrounds.
Quote from: Monoriu on January 18, 2012, 09:30:24 PM
.....
But the civil service is another matter. The civil service is not allowed to pick candidates based on GPA, university name or discipline studied. They can only use their own anon exam results and interview scores. Even if you're a Harvard graduate, if you fail the civil service exam, you fail the exam. The civil service interviewer is also likely to come from an average university. People also don't pay any attention to a candidate's academic background during elections. In HK, the civil service dominates the political scene. Legislators usually have community organiser backgrounds.
So you're saying some aspects of HK public life are more meritocratic ? :unsure:
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2012, 09:34:44 PM
So you're saying some aspects of HK public life are more meritocratic ? :unsure:
I didn't say that. I am just saying that the local political scene is not dominated by elite universities despite the Chinese preference for university names.
I don't have a problem with it.
My question is, again, if not elite universities, then what? There has to be some way to pick people with reasonable cost.
Quote from: Monoriu on January 18, 2012, 10:22:40 PM
My question is, again, if not elite universities, then what? There has to be some way to pick people with reasonable cost.
Well elite universities aren't really reasonable as far as cost to the individual.
Quote from: Monoriu on January 18, 2012, 10:22:40 PM
My question is, again, if not elite universities, then what? There has to be some way to pick people with reasonable cost.
Perhaps the way you frame your question, betrays your bias/mindset ?
What about systems whereby people rise to the 'top' in various fields of life, by virtue of their own merits ?
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2012, 10:25:20 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on January 18, 2012, 10:22:40 PM
My question is, again, if not elite universities, then what? There has to be some way to pick people with reasonable cost.
Perhaps the way you frame your question, betrays your bias/mindset ?
What about systems whereby people rise to the 'top' in various fields of life, by virtue of their own merits ?
Well for one, it typically is one owns merits that get one into an elite university (amongst other factors like cash...).
More to your question though - how are employers supposed to figure that out? Just churn through a morass of hires until they find someone good?
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2012, 10:25:20 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on January 18, 2012, 10:22:40 PM
My question is, again, if not elite universities, then what? There has to be some way to pick people with reasonable cost.
Perhaps the way you frame your question, betrays your bias/mindset ?
What about systems whereby people rise to the 'top' in various fields of life, by virtue of their own merits ?
It is easy to say "by virtue of their own merits." But exactly how do you pick someone out from a crowd? Imagine yourself facing the resumes of thousands of people, but you only need one. What do you do?
Quote from: Monoriu on January 18, 2012, 10:31:18 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2012, 10:25:20 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on January 18, 2012, 10:22:40 PM
My question is, again, if not elite universities, then what? There has to be some way to pick people with reasonable cost.
Perhaps the way you frame your question, betrays your bias/mindset ?
What about systems whereby people rise to the 'top' in various fields of life, by virtue of their own merits ?
It is easy to say "by virtue of their own merits." But exactly how do you pick someone out from a crowd? Imagine yourself facing the resumes of thousands of people, but you only need one. What do you do?
Mono you're narrowing it down to job applications, the thread is about the political and cultural clout, or otherwise, of these institutions.
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2012, 10:34:07 PM
Mono you're narrowing it down to job applications, the thread is about the political and cultural clout, or otherwise, of these institutions.
The problem of picking a suitable person out from a crowd applies to both job applications and many other situations. Not to mention that getting a good job is a crucial step in obtaining political clout further down the road.
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2012, 09:07:58 PM
So what do you think of your country's academic elite ?
Incredibly overrated, and the sense of elitism is perpetuated by the continual cultivation of their own self-serving mystique. They are the original self-licking ice cream cones.
Quote from: garbon on January 18, 2012, 09:57:32 PM
I don't have a problem with it.
Of course you don't. You're gay. It's a well-known scientific fact that fags are complete snobs when it comes to branding.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 18, 2012, 11:28:23 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 18, 2012, 09:57:32 PM
I don't have a problem with it.
Of course you don't. You're gay. It's a well-known scientific fact that fags are complete snobs when it comes to branding.
If you have a good marketing team - you can't be all that bad. ^_^
A proportion of my friends went to Oxbridge and many didn't. The ones who did were all quite serious-minded folk who had developed an interest in a particular subject (usually a science) at a relatively early age. The ones who didn't were under-performing layabouts who drank too much and had very eclectic intellectual interests. It is a small dataset, but IMO they let the right ones in.
Mind you, nearly all of these people were from families that had only become middle-class due to the success of their working-class fathers in the 50s and 60s, a golden age of social mobility in the UK. Some of them actually got a bit chippy when they realised that some of the other undergraduates were actually a bit dim but came from more elite social backgrounds.
I agree.
I don't really regret not going to Oxbridge. I'm not sure I'd have enjoyed it, but I do regret not working harder at school. But that's for different reasons. Personally I also regret not working harder at university as well as at school. For example I remember lots of research seminars that sounded quite interesting that I didn't go to, though I thought about it. I wish I'd taken advantage of the space and diversity of uni to study a bit more.
I have far more problems with public schools than Oxbridge.
We don't really have elite universities as far as I can tell. Sure, some universities have a better reputation in a certain field, but there is no cultural or political clout for certain universities and the elites aren't drawn from just a small set of universities either.
I gave this some thought. Canada as far as I can tell really does not have a particular subset of schools that are markedly superior to all others. Some schools are somewhat more thought of than others - U of T, McGill, Dalhousie, UBC, U of A, but our political and business elite are hardly dominated by grads from only those schools. It's nothing like the situation of Oxbridge, or the US Ivy League.
Given how the US and UK are so similar to us in so many things though I wonder why that is. Perhaps just a factor of being such a geographically huge country, but without such an enormous population? I know in legal recruiting there are only 12-15 schools producing graduates, so large firms can easily assess candidates from all of them - there's no need to start weeding people out merely by which school they attended.
Seems to me the Canadian situation might be explained by lack of longevity.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 19, 2012, 10:05:30 AM
Seems to me the Canadian situation might be explained by lack of longevity.
Compared to the US? When were the prestigious universities founded?
In Canada (according to some quick wikipedia searches), U of T is from 1827, Dalhousie is from 1818, McGill is from 1821 and Queen's is from 1841.
Or did you mean something else?
I think Harvard and Yale go back to the 17th.
Quote from: Jacob on January 19, 2012, 10:25:32 AM
Compared to the US? When were the prestigious universities founded?
1600s
Age alone does not make a university prestigious in these parts.
Quote from: Zanza on January 19, 2012, 10:52:35 AM
Age alone does not make a university prestigious in these parts.
Naturally not but it does give a university a chance to build up prestige over the generations. Especially since for awhile these literally trained EVERYBODY who was in the elite.
But other very old universities in the US, like William and Mary, are not elite. So it is not age alone.
Most universities in England are not very old. But Oxford and Cambridge were founded back in the 13th century. No more universities were founded till the 19th century, instead new colleges were added to the two old ones.
I would imagine the situation in Germany reflects former political fragmentation, with each of the more prestigious political units having it's own university for some time.
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2012, 10:46:03 AM
Quote from: Jacob on January 19, 2012, 10:25:32 AM
Compared to the US? When were the prestigious universities founded?
1600s
Not all of them. Even in the Ivy League, only Yale and Harvard are that old--most of the rest of the Ivy League schools were founded in the 1700s, and Cornell IIRC wasn't founded until after the Civil War. And Stanford, which is arguably the most prestigious American university outside the Ivy League, wasn't founded until the 1890s IIRC, well after dozens of state universities that are just mid-level schools in terms of prestige.
I don't think that even Harvard and Yale, though, have the same cultural dominance in the States that Oxford and Cambridge have in the UK.
Quote from: dps on January 19, 2012, 11:03:06 AM
Not all of them. Even in the Ivy League, only Yale and Harvard are that old--most of the rest of the Ivy League schools were founded in the 1700s, and Cornell IIRC wasn't founded until after the Civil War. And Stanford, which is arguably the most prestigious American university outside the Ivy League, wasn't founded until the 1890s IIRC, well after dozens of state universities that are just mid-level schools in terms of prestige.
Well ok pretty much anything founded prior to 1776 has a certain bit of cache. Well except Rutgers.
We don't have elite universities in the sense that they command special respect in wide circles or are well established in general culture, like for instance Oxford/Cambridge etc. What university you went to pretty much only matters within your professional field. The main divide is between the older unis and the large number of new (<40 y/o) "universities" out in the boonies that are no where near qualified to carry the name.
Uppsala (1477) and Lund (1668) universities have the most traditions and are respected, Uppsala in particular if I may say so. Other high status places are the Royal Institute of Technology (1827), Chalmers University of Technology (1829), the Stockholm School of Economics (1909) and Karolinska Institutet (medicine, 1810).
Stockholm University (1878) has no special rep. It's big, 'sall.
Quote from: dps on January 19, 2012, 11:03:06 AM
And Stanford, which is arguably the most prestigious American university outside the Ivy League, wasn't founded until the 1890s IIRC, well after dozens of state universities that are just mid-level schools in terms of prestige.
Stanford's prestige is arguably a result of the PC and internet revolutions.
Brain: how did a uni in Sweden end up with a name like Chalmers?
I suppose we should be grateful that Chalmers does not specialise in nautical technology :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 19, 2012, 11:39:24 AM
Quote from: dps on January 19, 2012, 11:03:06 AM
And Stanford, which is arguably the most prestigious American university outside the Ivy League, wasn't founded until the 1890s IIRC, well after dozens of state universities that are just mid-level schools in terms of prestige.
Stanford's prestige is arguably a result of the PC and internet revolutions.
Uh, no. I know that it was considered a prestigious school back when I was in jr high and high school in the 70s.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 19, 2012, 11:39:24 AM
Quote from: dps on January 19, 2012, 11:03:06 AM
And Stanford, which is arguably the most prestigious American university outside the Ivy League, wasn't founded until the 1890s IIRC, well after dozens of state universities that are just mid-level schools in terms of prestige.
Stanford's prestige is arguably a result of the PC and internet revolutions.
Brain: how did a uni in Sweden end up with a name like Chalmers?
QuoteChalmers was founded in 1829. The university is named after the major benefactor, William Chalmers, one of the directors of the successful Swedish East India Company in Göteborg.
His father was a Scotsman who moved to Sweden in 1722.
Quote from: dps on January 19, 2012, 11:46:42 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 19, 2012, 11:39:24 AM
Quote from: dps on January 19, 2012, 11:03:06 AM
And Stanford, which is arguably the most prestigious American university outside the Ivy League, wasn't founded until the 1890s IIRC, well after dozens of state universities that are just mid-level schools in terms of prestige.
Stanford's prestige is arguably a result of the PC and internet revolutions.
Uh, no. I know that it was considered a prestigious school back when I was in jr high and high school in the 70s.
And certainly Stanford has long been seen as the pinnacle of education in California. That's the sole reason that I actually applied.
Up until the dot.com boom I considered Berkeley more prestigious than Stanford.
The university where I got my degree was founded in the XVth century. It's no big deal.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 19, 2012, 11:59:56 AM
Up until the dot.com boom I considered Berkeley more prestigious than Stanford.
I always just considered them a bunch of misguided lefties, at best.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 19, 2012, 10:30:41 AM
I think Harvard and Yale go back to the 17th.
Ah okay yeah. That's a significant difference.
Quote from: dps on January 19, 2012, 12:11:30 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 19, 2012, 11:59:56 AM
Up until the dot.com boom I considered Berkeley more prestigious than Stanford.
I always just considered them a bunch of misguided lefties, at best.
When trying to look up on this - found this interesting article on rankings:
http://www.usnews.com/news/national/articles/2008/05/16/the-birth-of-college-rankings
QuoteWhen U.S. News started the college and university rankings 25 years ago, no one imagined that these lists would become what some consider to be the 800-pound gorilla of American higher education, important enough to be the subject of doctoral dissertations, academic papers and conferences, endless debate, and constant media coverage. What began with little fanfare has spawned imitation college rankings in at least 21 countries, including Canada, China, Britain, Germany, Poland, Russia, Spain, and Taiwan.
Today, it's hard to imagine there ever was a void of information to help people make direct comparisons between colleges, but such was the case in 1983 when we first ventured into the field. The editors back then, led by Marvin L. Stone, thought the project was worth attempting because a college education is one of the most important—and most costly—investments that people ever make. (Of course, that perspective is even more relevant today when the price of an undergraduate education at some private universities hovers in the $200,000 range.) So the magazine designed a survey and sent it out to 1,308 college presidents to get their opinions of which schools offered the best education. The winners: Stanford (National Universities) and Amherst (National Liberal Arts Colleges).
That academic-reputation-only method was repeated in 1985 and 1987. In 1988, we started to use statistical data as part of the ranking methodology, evaluating those numbers along with the results of the survey. In 1997, in another pioneering step, the America's Best Colleges rankings made the leap online at usnews.com. The online version, viewed by millions, has substantially more information and extended rankings than there is room for in the magazine.
Of course, we've changed the ranking formula over the years to reflect changes in the world of higher education. In general, the biggest shift has been the move toward evaluating colleges less by the quality of the students they attract (inputs) and more by the success the school has in graduating those students (outputs). We operate under the guiding principle that the methodology should be altered only if the change will better help our readers compare schools as they're making decisions about where to apply and enroll.
Higher ed's response. It helps to have this principle to focus on when the inevitable criticisms of the rankings and their influence arise. Chief among the criticisms is the idea that it is impossible to reduce the experience that any given college has to offer to a number on a list. A fair enough observation, but one that does little to help the student who will have to choose just one to attend. Another criticism of the rankings is that they often substitute as a sort of performance evaluation measure for the school and its employees. U.S. News is keenly aware that the higher education community is also a major audience and consumer of our rankings. We understand how seriously academics, administrators, and governing boards study and analyze our rankings and how they use them in various ways, including benchmarking, alumni fundraising, and advertising to attract students.
Based on the success of the college rankings, we decided to expand the process to other levels of education. The America's Best Graduate Schools rankings debuted in 1990 with annual listings of medical, engineering, law, business, and education schools.
Our newest education ranking is America's Best High Schools, first published in the fall of 2007. It identified the 100 best public schools out of more than 18,000 across the nation. Just as when we embarked on college rankings, setting up the process wasn't easy, but it's already proved to have enormous weight with our readers.
Quote from: Zanza on January 19, 2012, 10:52:35 AM
Age alone does not make a university prestigious in these parts.
Nor here, or at least law school-wise; it may be something of a necessary condition, if far from sufficient. USC Law: old as shit, considered shit.
I suppose I regret not doing better in high school, as I could've gone to a much better university if I'd actually given a shit during high school--on the other hand, my flameout freshman year had nothing to do with my smarts, and ultimately I rather enjoyed my second try. I'm pretty sure the name of the school is less important than the fact I wasted my time on a hobby instead of vocationally-minded training. -_-
I
do regret not going to either a significantly better law school (I could conceivably have made it into a Tier 1), or a significantly worse one (free or vastly reduced ride in exchange for bumping up their LSAT median). And rank/"prestige" matters a lot for law schools, at least in the U.S. The top schools are, of course, Yale, Stanford and the Mihali School of Law and Class Warfare.
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2012, 09:35:17 AM
I gave this some thought. Canada as far as I can tell really does not have a particular subset of schools that are markedly superior to all others. Some schools are somewhat more thought of than others - U of T, McGill, Dalhousie, UBC, U of A, but our political and business elite are hardly dominated by grads from only those schools. It's nothing like the situation of Oxbridge, or the US Ivy League.
Given how the US and UK are so similar to us in so many things though I wonder why that is. Perhaps just a factor of being such a geographically huge country, but without such an enormous population? I know in legal recruiting there are only 12-15 schools producing graduates, so large firms can easily assess candidates from all of them - there's no need to start weeding people out merely by which school they attended.
I am going to disagree with you BB. In my experience the business and legal elite in Canada come from the schools you listed. Sure there are few outliers that come form the U of M but they are the exception that proves the rule.
I agree with you regarding the political elite but that is, I think, explained by the fact we dont really have a "political elite" in the same way as the US or UK.
Quote from: Monoriu on January 18, 2012, 10:22:40 PM
My question is, again, if not elite universities, then what? There has to be some way to pick people with reasonable cost.
Scores on standardized tests and licensing exams trump coming from elite schools by a long shot in the US medical field if you want to be in private practice. You could go be a graduate of the Harvard School of Medicine, but it won't help you one bit in residency if your USMLE Step 1 score is below that of a kid who went to a low tier state medical school.
I'm sure name brand helps more if you're interested in academic medicine, but there's no money to be had in that.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2012, 03:14:46 PMI am going to disagree with you BB. In my experience the business and legal elite in Canada come from the schools you listed. Sure there are few outliers that come form the U of M but they are the exception that proves the rule.
I agree with you regarding the political elite but that is, I think, explained by the fact we dont really have a "political elite" in the same way as the US or UK.
I don't think I've had enough exposure to business and legal elites to argue this one way or the other, but I'm interested in who you consider the business and legal elite of Canada.
Legal Elite: Partners in major law firms (what's a major law firm?), judges (past some level - provincial supreme court and up?) and senior lawyers in the civil service?
Business Elite: named officers and board members of significant corporations (what makes a corporation significant?)?
Something like that?
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2012, 10:25:20 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on January 18, 2012, 10:22:40 PM
My question is, again, if not elite universities, then what? There has to be some way to pick people with reasonable cost.
Perhaps the way you frame your question, betrays your bias/mindset ?
What about systems whereby people rise to the 'top' in various fields of life, by virtue of their own merits ?
Seems to me the really really old Chinese civil service test method is a pretty great one. At least in concept.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 19, 2012, 06:25:47 PM
Seems to me the really really old Chinese civil service test method is a pretty great one. At least in concept.
In concept. That was a test of calligraphy and poetry writing.
Quote from: dps on January 19, 2012, 11:03:06 AM
And Stanford, which is arguably the most prestigious American university outside the Ivy League,
Very arguably. University of Chicago, Johns Hopkins, MIT and Duke would argue that very much.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 19, 2012, 06:25:47 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2012, 10:25:20 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on January 18, 2012, 10:22:40 PM
My question is, again, if not elite universities, then what? There has to be some way to pick people with reasonable cost.
Perhaps the way you frame your question, betrays your bias/mindset ?
What about systems whereby people rise to the 'top' in various fields of life, by virtue of their own merits ?
Seems to me the really really old Chinese civil service test method is a pretty great one. At least in concept.
In theory yeah.
That still leads to the problem that some people are excellent at tests whilst other, possibly very clever, people aren't. And testing has little bearing on work in the real world.
And of course that the rich and privileged can afford all sorts of tutors who know the inner workings of the test and can prepare them for it, have better teachers, a better study environment, etc....
I really hate the test based focus of education.
Its a big part of the reason university in Sweden was so much better than in the UK; the majority of assessment was practical and in take home exams.
The test method is extremely onerous to operate. Only governments and professional bodies can afford it.
Quote from: Jacob on January 19, 2012, 06:17:02 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2012, 03:14:46 PMI am going to disagree with you BB. In my experience the business and legal elite in Canada come from the schools you listed. Sure there are few outliers that come form the U of M but they are the exception that proves the rule.
I agree with you regarding the political elite but that is, I think, explained by the fact we dont really have a "political elite" in the same way as the US or UK.
I don't think I've had enough exposure to business and legal elites to argue this one way or the other, but I'm interested in who you consider the business and legal elite of Canada.
Legal Elite: Partners in major law firms (what's a major law firm?), judges (past some level - provincial supreme court and up?) and senior lawyers in the civil service?
Business Elite: named officers and board members of significant corporations (what makes a corporation significant?)?
Something like that?
business elites - the folks that run the major business interests in the country;
legal elites - the folks that give the business elites legal advice.
What do you mean that Canada doesn't have a political elite like the UK or US?
I don't get the part about cultural dominance. How do graduates of elite universities dominate culturally?
I think it is safe to say that the "elite" universities in Canada don't dominate the cultural, political and business landscape to the extent that the American Ivy League or Oxbridge do. I would attribute this primarily to: lack of entrance exams for undergraduates, a relatively short history, a smaller, more spread-out population, and the fact that Canada has less global relevance, meaning fewer international applicants and thus less international prestige for our elite schools. In any case, it's certainly been my personal experience that a U of T degree is at most usually only marginally more well-regarded than that of a less prestigious university.
Just anecdotally speaking, I've worked in a couple fields since getting my initial degree from the University of Toronto, and I can't say it seems to have made a huge difference. In my current field, teaching, the fact that I've got 2 degrees from the University of Toronto with this or that award or scholarship seems to make zero difference in the job application process. No preference whatsoever is given to me over people who went to piss-ant universities.
On the other hand, using the phrase "University of Toronto graduate" in China (sometimes together with my accompanying tag-line of "Canada's best university") has led to a couple different opportunities for me here outside of work.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on January 19, 2012, 09:48:49 PM
I think it is safe to say that the "elite" universities in Canada don't dominate the cultural, political and business landscape to the extent that the American Ivy League or Oxbridge do. I would attribute this primarily to: lack of entrance exams for undergraduates, a relatively short history, a smaller, more spread-out population, and the fact that Canada has less global relevance, meaning fewer international applicants and thus less international prestige for our elite schools. In any case, it's certainly been my person experience that a U of T degree is at most usually only marginally more-well regarded than that of a less prestigious university.
Just anecdotally speaking, I've worked in a couple fields since getting my initial degree from the University of Toronto, and I can't say it seems to have made a huge difference. In my current field, teaching, the fact that I've got 2 degrees from the University of Toronto with this or that award or scholarship seems to make zero difference in the job application process. No preference whatsoever is given to me over people who went to piss-ant universities.
On the other hand, using the phrase "University of Toronto graduate" in China (sometimes together with my accompanying tag-line of "Canada's best university") has led to a couple different opportunities for me here outside of work.
I think the difference is that in Canada, it is so easy to get into a university. That kinda cheapens the value of a degree from a good university. In China, it is ultra hard to get into the best universities. People study years and years and burn their midnight oil and only the best of the best is admitted. So the value of a degree from, say, Peking university is very high. Employers often assume that the same is true in Canada, so they attach a lot of value to a U of T degree.
Quote from: Monoriu on January 19, 2012, 10:03:50 PM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on January 19, 2012, 09:48:49 PM
I think it is safe to say that the "elite" universities in Canada don't dominate the cultural, political and business landscape to the extent that the American Ivy League or Oxbridge do. I would attribute this primarily to: lack of entrance exams for undergraduates, a relatively short history, a smaller, more spread-out population, and the fact that Canada has less global relevance, meaning fewer international applicants and thus less international prestige for our elite schools. In any case, it's certainly been my person experience that a U of T degree is at most usually only marginally more-well regarded than that of a less prestigious university.
Just anecdotally speaking, I've worked in a couple fields since getting my initial degree from the University of Toronto, and I can't say it seems to have made a huge difference. In my current field, teaching, the fact that I've got 2 degrees from the University of Toronto with this or that award or scholarship seems to make zero difference in the job application process. No preference whatsoever is given to me over people who went to piss-ant universities.
On the other hand, using the phrase "University of Toronto graduate" in China (sometimes together with my accompanying tag-line of "Canada's best university") has led to a couple different opportunities for me here outside of work.
I think the difference is that in Canada, it is so easy to get into a university. That kinda cheapens the value of a degree from a good university. In China, it is ultra hard to get into the best universities. People study years and years and burn their midnight oil and only the best of the best is admitted. So the value of a degree from, say, Peking university is very high. Employers often assume that the same is true in Canada, so they attach a lot of value to a U of T degree.
Yeah, no question. The ease of getting into even the best universities (thus cheapening their value over less prestigious universities) was reflected in my "lack of entrance exams for undergraduates" reasoning. IMO, even though it's not fashionable to express this belief in educational circles, entrance exams make sense, and their benefits outweigh their evils.
And yeah, I've noticed my students in China and others here seem to assume that it must be ultra hard to get into U of T, when in fact I've known any number of middling-students who went there, just because it was closest to home or really just because they could (as opposed to going there because they were the best students).
I wish the Canadian universities had very selective entrance exams. Then my degree would actually mean a little more than a piece of paper. As it is, the employers turn to work experience for selection and graduates compete on who has the best internships, who knows the most relevant people etc.
Quote from: Monoriu on January 19, 2012, 10:30:02 PM
I wish the Canadian universities had very selective entrance exams. Then my degree would actually mean a little more than a piece of paper. As it is, the employers turn to work experience for selection and graduates compete on who has the best internships, who knows the most relevant people etc.
Although that's often the case here still. A Harvard degree with nothing to back it up still is a hard sell - although it may grant you the benefit of getting that first job interview.
Quote from: Monoriu on January 19, 2012, 10:30:02 PM
I wish the Canadian universities had very selective entrance exams. Then my degree would actually mean a little more than a piece of paper. As it is, the employers turn to work experience for selection and graduates compete on who has the best internships, who knows the most relevant people etc.
So in other words who comes from the 'best' background... <_<
So often the way in the UK actually. Being from Oxbridge gives you a huge leg up over the rest as does being from a red brick over a poly.
Internships are a huge plus though, and they're downright impossible to get/do for common students.
Quote from: Tyr on January 19, 2012, 11:12:13 PM
So in other words who comes from the 'best' background... <_<
I'm not sure I by that. My mother didn't come from a particularly good background...nor did she go to an undergraduate program that most people have heard of.
Stanford School of Truck Driving.
Quote from: garbon on January 19, 2012, 11:14:54 PM
Quote from: Tyr on January 19, 2012, 11:12:13 PM
So in other words who comes from the 'best' background... <_<
I'm not sure I by that. My mother didn't come from a particularly good background...nor did she go to an undergraduate program that most people have heard of.
I guess though that was in the days before living costs in world cities became ridiculously over the top for normal people to think about affording them.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2012, 11:21:45 PM
Stanford School of Truck Driving.
No that would have been a step up. :P
Jos, I'm not sure how that applies. My mother mostly lived in the burbs, although part of her schooling was in Los Angeles which to this day isn't too expensive for normal people to live in.
Quote from: garbon on January 19, 2012, 11:49:28 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2012, 11:21:45 PM
Stanford School of Truck Driving.
No that would have been a step up. :P
Jos, I'm not sure how that applies. My mother mostly lived in the burbs, although part of her schooling was in Los Angeles which to this day isn't too expensive for normal people to live in.
I've no clue about how things were for her.
The way things are in the UK though getting a decent internship for a typical student is hard.
1: You have to get the internship in the first place. You have to have the right connections to be invited along. You have to be able to pop down to London (they are nearly always in London) on a whim. Its difficult.
2: You have to be able to survive in London without any income. An internship is an unpaid full time job. You need someone to support you or some savings or somesuch. Living there as a student even for just a summer is very difficult.
Its a big problem which really needs sorting.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2012, 08:50:24 PMbusiness elites - the folks that run the major business interests in the country;
What's the bottom tier of "major business interests"?
Quote from: Monoriu on January 19, 2012, 09:34:47 PM
I don't get the part about cultural dominance. How do graduates of elite universities dominate culturally?
Not too many late night comedy writers
haven't graduated from the Ivy League.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 20, 2012, 06:24:35 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on January 19, 2012, 09:34:47 PM
I don't get the part about cultural dominance. How do graduates of elite universities dominate culturally?
Not too many late night comedy writers haven't graduated from the Ivy League.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsproutingdaisies.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F12%2Ftwofer-e1293660755259.jpg%3Fw%3D640&hash=684b6912c16509b699683db63d37cabbb779b6e7)
Quote from: Monoriu on January 19, 2012, 09:34:47 PM
I don't get the part about cultural dominance. How do graduates of elite universities dominate culturally?
The normal way one dominates culturally. They hold (to a absurdly disproportionate degree) important jobs in the entertainment industry.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2012, 08:56:12 PM
What do you mean that Canada doesn't have a political elite like the UK or US?
Just what I said. Why do you think we might?
Quote from: Jacob on January 20, 2012, 12:14:04 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2012, 08:50:24 PMbusiness elites - the folks that run the major business interests in the country;
What's the bottom tier of "major business interests"?
Software development companies. :P
Okay, in what ways does Canada not have a political elite? How doesn't Canada have a political elite? What's the differences that's led to that?
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on January 19, 2012, 09:48:49 PM
and the fact that Canada has less global relevance, meaning fewer international applicants and thus less international prestige for our elite schools.
It would be interesting to know as a percentage of overall school population or applications if this is actually true. FYI a considerable number of students in Canadian universities are now foriegn students although I dont have the numbers at hand.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2012, 09:54:56 AM
Okay, in what ways does Canada not have a political elite? How doesn't Canada have a political elite? What's the differences that's led to that?
First answer my question. Why do you think Canada has a political elite similar to the UK and particularly the US. In partial answer to your question look at the wealth of American politicians running for high office compared to that of Canadians running for similar offices.
Poland is quite the opposite of the usual trend because the elite universities here are the public ones (the University of Warsaw, the Jagellonian University in Krakow and the Warsaw School of Economics. This is because private universities have historically had a rather bad reputation here ("easy low quality school for rich kids who could not get past the entry exams into the public universities") although that's changing recently, I'm told (for example we are trying to recruit some private university graduates for the first time this year).
Is Oxbridge private or public?
Public.
Quotethe University of Warsaw, the Jagellonian University in Krakow and the Warsaw School of Economics
I got a list of their classes.
Black Bread 101
Black Bread without sawdust 201
Screen doors on submarines 101
Screwing in light bulbs 101
Screwing in light bulbs with less than 4 people 201, need approval from light bulb dean
Collaboration 101
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2012, 10:07:35 AM
Public.
Yeah but in the UK this word basically means 'elite' whereas over here a public school basically means 'shit'.
Ah yes, but in this case Sheilbh was using American to try and reduce confusion.
There is only one private university in the UK IIRC, namely the university of Buckingham. The rest are under government control though autonomous in lots of ways of course.
Did anything come of that idea for a private university of the humanities?
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2012, 10:33:36 AM
Did anything come of that idea for a private university of the humanities?
Was the thinking to alleviate Britain's crippling shortage of actors and writers?
I see. In Poland, public universities collect no tuition (at least in theory) so the difference is more pronounced - essentially a private university is the one where you pay tuition (and, correspondingly, there is an impression that since you pay, you are buying your degree).
The negative stereotype about private universities is based in that the first one used to enroll people on bullshit studies (marketing, management, advertising) that indeed were "degree shops". Now it is now changing, as I said, although for law and humanities public universities are still considered superior. On the other hand, the rare private science and technical universities are likely superior due to better funding and thus better equipment.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2012, 10:33:36 AM
Did anything come of that idea for a private university of the humanities?
Here it is :
http://www.nchum.org/
.......looks like it is up and running.
So, 2 private universities.
I think there will be more in the future, as the recent increase in student fees make freedom from the government attractive now that government financial support is so much lower.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 20, 2012, 09:52:44 AM
Quote from: Jacob on January 20, 2012, 12:14:04 AMWhat's the bottom tier of "major business interests"?
Software development companies. :P
:lol:
I was talking more about the size. On one end of the scale, the guy who owns a corner store is obviously not a major business interest. On the other end, Toronto Dominion Bank, Manulife or Royal Bank are obviously major. In between that are companies like Goldcorp, Barrick-Gold, Morneau-Shepell, Jim Pattison Group, Orca Bay Sports - are they major business interests or is that too small? What about something like London Drugs? Or the Mark James group?
Basically I'm just curious roughly how big a business must be for you to consider it "major".
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2012, 09:51:41 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on January 19, 2012, 09:34:47 PM
I don't get the part about cultural dominance. How do graduates of elite universities dominate culturally?
The normal way one dominates culturally. They hold (to a absurdly disproportionate degree) important jobs in the entertainment industry.
Hmm. That seems quite odd to me, because the entertainment industry in HK is dominated by high school dropouts :lol:
Quote from: Monoriu on January 20, 2012, 11:20:28 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2012, 09:51:41 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on January 19, 2012, 09:34:47 PM
I don't get the part about cultural dominance. How do graduates of elite universities dominate culturally?
The normal way one dominates culturally. They hold (to a absurdly disproportionate degree) important jobs in the entertainment industry.
Hmm. That seems quite odd to me, because the entertainment industry in HK is dominated by high school dropouts :lol:
I don't think Valmy is talking about the talent so much.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 20, 2012, 11:24:53 AM
I don't think Valmy is talking about the talent so much.
Yeah I am talking about the writers on up to the producers and the executives and so forth
An amazing number of comedy writers come out of Harvard.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on January 19, 2012, 09:48:49 PM
I think it is safe to say that the "elite" universities in Canada don't dominate the cultural, political and business landscape to the extent that the American Ivy League or Oxbridge do. I would attribute this primarily to: lack of entrance exams for undergraduates, a relatively short history, a smaller, more spread-out population, and the fact that Canada has less global relevance, meaning fewer international applicants and thus less international prestige for our elite schools.
Add to that the fact that French and English universities operate in relatively separate worlds. Francophones know of McGill, of course - but UBC ? Dalhousie? They wouldn't know what to make of them. Likewise, I would venture, with Université Laval, or even Université de Montréal. And, in a lot of cases, I would venture that Canadian "elites" go elsewhere - to the US or the UK.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 20, 2012, 10:08:00 AM
Quotethe University of Warsaw, the Jagellonian University in Krakow and the Warsaw School of Economics
I got a list of their classes.
Black Bread 101
Black Bread without sawdust 201
Screen doors on submarines 101
Screwing in light bulbs 101
Screwing in light bulbs with less than 4 people 201, need approval from light bulb dean
Collaboration 101
lol
I've posted this before, but this is specifically for Marty:
After Harris encounters racism, Barney tries to explain bigotry to Wojciehowicz.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4-26UcGbaY
How did people make popcorn back then?
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2012, 11:26:30 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 20, 2012, 11:24:53 AM
I don't think Valmy is talking about the talent so much.
Yeah I am talking about the writers on up to the producers and the executives and so forth
The producers here are triads :ph34r:
Quote from: Monoriu on January 20, 2012, 04:36:15 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2012, 11:26:30 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 20, 2012, 11:24:53 AM
I don't think Valmy is talking about the talent so much.
Yeah I am talking about the writers on up to the producers and the executives and so forth
The producers here are triads :ph34r:
They attended the University of Life :cool:
Quote from: Monoriu on January 20, 2012, 04:36:15 PMThe producers here are triads :ph34r:
As are some of the actors.
I met some of them :)
Wait organized crime runs the entertainment industry? The government has no problem with entertainment dollars being used to fund criminal activities?
And why is there no legitimate industry? I know Mono claims anybody who does not work a boring job at a desk is of no consequence and has no prestige in China but surely that is not literally true.
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2012, 05:55:54 PM
Wait organized crime runs the entertainment industry? The government has no problem with entertainment dollars being used to fund criminal activities?
And why is there no legitimate industry? I know Mono claims anybody who does not work a boring job at a desk is of no consequence and has no prestige in China but surely that is not literally true.
Good God, Monoriu's existence is what they give people with prestige in China?
If the Triads funded Kung Fu Hustle it demonstrates a healthy ability to laugh at themselves. :)
Quote from: Jacob on January 20, 2012, 05:49:21 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on January 20, 2012, 04:36:15 PMThe producers here are triads :ph34r:
As are some of the actors.
I met some of them :)
Yes we know, and one of them is rather attractive :cool:
And you should make the effort to name drop more often, but only if accompanied with a photo. :D
Quote from: Ideologue on January 20, 2012, 06:40:36 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2012, 05:55:54 PM
Wait organized crime runs the entertainment industry? The government has no problem with entertainment dollars being used to fund criminal activities?
And why is there no legitimate industry? I know Mono claims anybody who does not work a boring job at a desk is of no consequence and has no prestige in China but surely that is not literally true.
Good God, Monoriu's existence is what they give people with prestige in China?
Do remember, in amongst the cute, down at heel office whimsy, are hints of the real Mono, the man who regularly flies throughout East Asia taking his wife to 90 dollar lunches.
Good point, that. HEY GUYS I WENT TO SINGAPORE TO BUY SHOES.
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2012, 05:55:54 PM
Wait organized crime runs the entertainment industry? The government has no problem with entertainment dollars being used to fund criminal activities?
They don't run all of it, not anymore, but they're heavily involved. It's not as bad as it used to be in the 80s and 90s.
QuoteAnd why is there no legitimate industry? I know Mono claims anybody who does not work a boring job at a desk is of no consequence and has no prestige in China but surely that is not literally true.
Basically what happened is that during the Hong Kong cinema boom, the triads realized there was a lot of money to be made from extorting film companies. If a crew is shooting a film anywhere outdoors (and Hong Kong is small, so there aren't that many options all told), it's not hard to make them waste time and spend a lot of money for nothing. This was particularly lucrative when HK cinema was bringing in a ton of money. This was exacerbated by the fact that shooting permits were sometimes problematic. Another revenue source was insisting that triad members be used as extras or for minor roles in the film.
From there, they branched out a bit. The presence of certain stars significantly increased bottom lines. So much so, that it was completely worth it for unscrupulous producers to pay triads to threaten stars to make appearances in films. From there, it was only a short jump to actually producing films.
At this point, triad involvement is (I believe) less directly criminal simply due to the fact that their involvement has grown into legitimate business empires in the industry. At least one (if not more) of the big entertainment groups a basically triad businesses.
... the last console game I worked on draws significantly on this sort of stuff.
Quote from: mongers on January 20, 2012, 06:54:03 PM
Yes we know, and one of them is rather attractive :cool:
And you should make the effort to name drop more often, but only if accompanied with a photo. :D
Heh. She's not a triad member I expect.
Quote from: mongers on January 20, 2012, 06:57:21 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 20, 2012, 06:40:36 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2012, 05:55:54 PM
Wait organized crime runs the entertainment industry? The government has no problem with entertainment dollars being used to fund criminal activities?
And why is there no legitimate industry? I know Mono claims anybody who does not work a boring job at a desk is of no consequence and has no prestige in China but surely that is not literally true.
Good God, Monoriu's existence is what they give people with prestige in China?
Do remember, in amongst the cute, down at heel office whimsy, are hints of the real Mono, the man who regularly flies throughout East Asia taking his wife to 90 dollar lunches.
And you know damned well he's having awesome sex with his almond-eyed honey wife. Bastard.
Quote from: Jacob on January 20, 2012, 11:11:46 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 20, 2012, 09:52:44 AM
Quote from: Jacob on January 20, 2012, 12:14:04 AMWhat's the bottom tier of "major business interests"?
Software development companies. :P
:lol:
I was talking more about the size. On one end of the scale, the guy who owns a corner store is obviously not a major business interest. On the other end, Toronto Dominion Bank, Manulife or Royal Bank are obviously major. In between that are companies like Goldcorp, Barrick-Gold, Morneau-Shepell, Jim Pattison Group, Orca Bay Sports - are they major business interests or is that too small? What about something like London Drugs? Or the Mark James group?
Basically I'm just curious roughly how big a business must be for you to consider it "major".
I am not really sure what is in and what it out. Its more like porn. You know it when you see it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 20, 2012, 07:37:59 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 20, 2012, 06:57:21 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 20, 2012, 06:40:36 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2012, 05:55:54 PM
Wait organized crime runs the entertainment industry? The government has no problem with entertainment dollars being used to fund criminal activities?
And why is there no legitimate industry? I know Mono claims anybody who does not work a boring job at a desk is of no consequence and has no prestige in China but surely that is not literally true.
Good God, Monoriu's existence is what they give people with prestige in China?
Do remember, in amongst the cute, down at heel office whimsy, are hints of the real Mono, the man who regularly flies throughout East Asia taking his wife to 90 dollar lunches.
And you know damned well he's having awesome sex with his almond-eyed honey wife. Bastard.
:lol: :hug:
Quote from: Oexmelin on January 20, 2012, 03:14:58 PM
And, in a lot of cases, I would venture that Canadian "elites" go elsewhere - to the US or the UK.
If they do they dont come back in numbers to fill most of the positions of importance here in Canada....
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 20, 2012, 07:37:59 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 20, 2012, 06:57:21 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 20, 2012, 06:40:36 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2012, 05:55:54 PM
Wait organized crime runs the entertainment industry? The government has no problem with entertainment dollars being used to fund criminal activities?
And why is there no legitimate industry? I know Mono claims anybody who does not work a boring job at a desk is of no consequence and has no prestige in China but surely that is not literally true.
Good God, Monoriu's existence is what they give people with prestige in China?
Do remember, in amongst the cute, down at heel office whimsy, are hints of the real Mono, the man who regularly flies throughout East Asia taking his wife to 90 dollar lunches.
And you know damned well he's having awesome sex with his almond-eyed honey wife. Bastard.
Stop that. It's not healthy. PEOPLE IN CHINA ARE NOT HAPPIER THAN US.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 20, 2012, 09:04:24 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 20, 2012, 07:37:59 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 20, 2012, 06:57:21 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 20, 2012, 06:40:36 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2012, 05:55:54 PM
Wait organized crime runs the entertainment industry? The government has no problem with entertainment dollars being used to fund criminal activities?
And why is there no legitimate industry? I know Mono claims anybody who does not work a boring job at a desk is of no consequence and has no prestige in China but surely that is not literally true.
Good God, Monoriu's existence is what they give people with prestige in China?
Do remember, in amongst the cute, down at heel office whimsy, are hints of the real Mono, the man who regularly flies throughout East Asia taking his wife to 90 dollar lunches.
And you know damned well he's having awesome sex with his almond-eyed honey wife. Bastard.
Stop that. It's not healthy. PEOPLE IN CHINA ARE NOT HAPPIER THAN US.
When did Seedy become us?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2012, 06:42:22 PM
If the Triads funded Kung Fu Hustle it demonstrates a healthy ability to laugh at themselves. :)
Stephen Chow, the producer of and main actor in Kung Fu Hustle, was denied entry into Canada due to his triad connections.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 20, 2012, 09:04:24 PMStop that. It's not healthy. PEOPLE IN CHINA ARE NOT HAPPIER THAN US.
Some people in China are definitely happier than you, Ide. But I suppose you can take heart in the knowledge that there are some that are more miserable than you as well.
Quote from: Jacob on January 20, 2012, 11:08:48 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 20, 2012, 09:04:24 PMStop that. It's not healthy. PEOPLE IN CHINA ARE NOT HAPPIER THAN US.
Some people in China are definitely happier than you, Ide. But I suppose you can take heart in the knowledge that there are some that are more miserable than you as well.
In fairness, Mono doesn't really count because he's spending the wages of freedom as provided him by the former UK colony of Hong Kong. There are plenty of British people who are happier than me. Mongers. Sheilbh. Tyr. Gupta. Brazen. Rich. Probably David Cameron. Definitely Robert Webb, but maybe not David Mitchell. Neil.
Also sometimes I think you guys don't get it when I'm making a riff on my sad-sackery, rather than being a sad-sack per se.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 21, 2012, 01:11:34 AM
Also sometimes I think you guys don't get it when I'm making a riff on my sad-sackery, rather than being a sad-sack per se.
I don't know. You lay it on pretty heavily, so I expect it's pretty obvious to most people :)