Experts Round Table Network

Hello, I didn't know there was an other "dissident" community around ;-)

When I joined EEE (www.europeanexperts.org), I think we were the only ones around gathering "Experts" deceived from you-know-which-dot-COM-site 8-)

From memory, I thought I would NEVER see COBOLdinosaur leave you-know-which-site ;-) especially given the canonical age of his subscription & ranking achieved in the hall of fame.

I notice you seem to have started very recently (15 Sep 2005?) so I wish you a lot of good luck.

Happy new year 2006 and see you soon around.

Regards

VGR

PS : If it's in your interest, cross-linking between the two sites can become an habit, as our ASP skills are low compared to yours, and may-be some database-related or PHP-related TAs from ours can help your visitors too ;-)

PPS : if I can help here, please tell me.

---------------
former 2002-2003 top-1 expert ("guru") on PHP, MySql and Pascal. I had something like 80% answers/posted ratio. Well, not that impressive given the tech level on ee.COM, huh ? ;-)

Glad to see you here VGR. And although ERT is an initiative thanks to Cd&, this website is a democracy and everyone has a say in the management. It's not a profit minded spam fest like EE.

- Srirangan

The site is not intended to be anti-EE or anti anything. Certainly there are a lot of people here who have issues with the way that site has been degraded, but there are many (including a number of PEs) who work both sites and we are not looking for a war.

This site was started to try s different approach is all.  It was already in the planning stages when things got a little crazy over there; and it would have been start no matter how events had unfolded.

VGR, if you are interested in partnering the sites email me at partners@expertsrt.com and we can talk about it.  I am about a month away from have things set up so partner sites will be able to access our forum and content with their own branding on the pages as an extension of their sites.

If your back end is php I can probably set it up so your users can use the EEE logon without having to have a seperate login for ERT.  

Glad to have you here.  You will find there are few old time HOF level experts here.  Feel free to wander around the site and participate.

Cd&

BTW,

How did you find the site.  I am just starting to do promotional stuff and knowing what channels are already being used helps.

Lexxwern, when returning to eee.org, told me about this new site ;-)

I liked lexxwern a lot when on ee.com so I clicked the link to see what was around here :D

Then I discovered he was an Indian :D (one more! I already have 11 Indians out of 74 Experts on eee.org ;-)

Well, about "war" : I wrote "deceived people", not "waring rebels" :D

I already spent some time around, tried to help a bit [hello RQuadling], and I encourage you and your fellow Mentors to also have a look at what we have open in eee.org, at :

[advertising strictly forbidden by the Rules ON]
http://www.europeanexperts.org
[advertising strictly forbidden by the Rules OFF]

See you later ;-)

:thumbup: Salute

Welcome VGR  :D

Hello you New-Yorker of mine ;-)
(or New-Amsterdamer ? ;-)

Well, I asked myself two things after reading the site more carefully :
- as it is run from Canada, are prople like you (from the USA) happy with it ? (I remember having read some articles describing the [rather bad] general opinion of "americans" towards Canadians)

- as it is run from Canada, do you have a majority of Canadians registering ? [little provocation ON] Do you also attract some "real Canadians" (French-speakers) too ? [little provocation OFF]

I also asked myself what was to be understood of "If you flame, or bait an Editor or Mentor, you invite suspension of your account on ERT" : "baiting" ? Like a "bait" (appât) in game, fishing or chase ? (something to attract a bigger prey) ? My scholar English is probably not on par with real users' :D

Anyway, enjoy Big Apple and salute Woody for me ;-)

As long as everything be fair, democratic and we all behave like true gentlemen and ladies, we should not have a problem. And the best part is the democracy.  :notworthy:

That was a question for an "American", but thanks for pointing out the democratic flavour of the site ;-)

[JOKE ON]
If I understand well, given India demographics compared to USA, soon you'll take over the power on ERT :D
[JOKE OFF]

Well, I for one won't support another Indian just because he or she is an Indian. I will vote for what I believe to be best. That's the way this site should work. It has nothing to do with country, religion, ethnicity, race, skin color etc.

I've got nothing against Canadians, except that a bunch of them drive down to NY and try to get me to pay too much for a Christmas tree each year [-( :wink:  

There will always be the little bit of back and forth. We make fun of the way they say 'about' ('aboot'), they make fun of how feeble-minded our president is. I think it's mostly in good fun from both sides...The truth is, each county relies heavily on the other. I'd say among average Americans there may actually be more animosity towards the French  :-$

The fact is, most Americans act stupid. Most Canadians act stupid. Most people everywhere act stupid.* If you've got your head on straight, you can be a friend of mine, wherever you're from.


*But then again, I guess that means the articles you read might be right.

ROFL

"Most people everywhere act stupid" : and then you defend a democratic model ? ;-)))

huh huh huh 8-)

Democracy is government by the masses, and masses are stupid (you said it). In fact, it's teratocracy ;-)

GOOD democracy (like the Greek model) was more a elite-ruling model ; very few inhabitants were citizens.

In short, if you believe in "most people act stupidly" (which I support also, myself counted in), then you simply can't say democracy is the best political system ;-)
In fact, it's the worst.
Really, it's perhaps the best worst system not being an "enlighted autocracy" ;-)

Where did I support rule by the masses? :-s I think you're confusing me with Sri :wink:

That's certainly not how ERT will work. The power to make important decisions will eventually be in the hands of the Governing Council, and right now, I consider the participants here to *be* your 'enlightened few' -- no one here is too busy eating his French fries (no pun intended!) to think about the issues, and everyone here is well above average intelligence. Mentors will have more pull than the average member, and the standards for being a Mentor will be high.

And then there's the issue of voting: most people don't, and in general education and intelligenece are strongly correllated with taking an active role as a citizen. In general, stupid people also happen to be relatively lazy and disinterested. Good thing too, because if it were the other way around, we'd really be in trouble.

absolutely :D

In fact, probems in true democracy begins when the "stupid masses" are pushed to vote [in a "good" way of course] by irresponsinle political (usually extreme-left wing) leaders ;-)

no offense intended, but it's the current situation here...

Enough with politics, it's far from being interesting nowadays ;-)

err....evidence? Meaning, (1) where are the stupid masses running the site, and (2) how is it being encouraged?


Now there I can certainly agree with you...however it can sometimes be entertaining (and sad at the same time).

excuse-me, quiproquo : by "here" in meant "in my country", not "in ERT" ;-)

I think it's anice introduction, I for sure already have adversaries poisoning their daggers in my back :D

:sign5:  <hiding the pen-knife I had ready for VGR>

ahhhh, NATIONAL politics. I should have caught that I guess  At least the politicians in your country know how to speak their own language.  :sad3:  :D

is there a place where you can badly speak about a Member because you know he is probably a ee.com spy ? or a fight-club to start a small flame war ? The Lounge ? :D

yes:

http://lounge.expertsrt.com aka http://www.suspendedexpert.com

I think the only rule over there is that you aren't allowed to inflict direct bodily harm to other members...or something like that ;-)

Many French speaking Canadians would be offended if you referred to them as real Canadians.  They prefer to think of themselves as Quebecois.

As to ERT democracy, the weighting of the Governing Council will give Mentors control with 5 of the 10 positions and the Site Admin (me) being the 11th member.  That pretty much guarantees the people who actually provide the support in the tech forums are going to be in control, and that is the way it should be.  Having the other groups on the Council, also guarantees that they will have a voice, but they won't be able to dominate the site.

The biggest threat to democracy on the site is me; but the return of the dinosaurs has always been a threat.

As for the Americans... someday when their society matures we will offer them Canadian citizenship.  Until then they will have to be content to visit one of the few places in the world where they are welcomed and accepted for the awkward, and aggressive rotweilers that they are. In our history as a nation they have never been a threat to us because we have never been a threat to them; unlike European countries with a long history of hostility and lack of trust for their neighbors.

As for the lounge; when this site was starting up, we wanted to avoid hvaing a loung directly on the site, and Rod an dI decided that SE would be a perfect annex that allows ERT to adhere to a strict code of professional conduct, but still provides for an area where barroom behaviour is acceptable.

citizenship? I don't need no stinkin citizenship!
.
.
.
.

WOOOOF!  :-#  :glasses7:

Don't hold your breath. I'm not.  :sad3:

BTW: Welcome to the Insane Asylum, VGR.      :wink:

"Welcome to Arkham" ;-)

as for "real canadians" (sorry for case and typos, it's 6:30am here), I maintain. I know what is Québec. It's not independent yet, but who knows ? But given the country's history (who discovered it, who named it, who etc etc etc) Canada is French. As are one third of the USA superficy.

but whatever... :D

have a nice day anywhere all over the world. (yawn)

Long Live The Anglosphere! Long Live Brittania!  :scratch: Long Live Srirangan.

We love Canadians. They have great beer and they make us feel not so silly.

The Lounge is in America, if that helps, but as you have seen from the world map, despite the other issues in the world, we pretty much get along well. If not, we speak our mind and it all gets worked out.

No that is not a rule. LOL.  

 By the way.  USA (since America is two continents) is not a democracy...(thank goodness). It is a Federal Republic.

If it were a democracy in the strictest sense, the rights of the minority could be abused by the majority, (not that this has not happened).

I think you have to be a Polictical Science major to get the nuances, but basically the founders were well aware that as a "mass" people can be stupid and flighty and could screw thinks up with out some limits.  Those are, the Federal (judiciary, constitution and bill of rights) and the Republic (your representatives) and your Executive leader.

In a democracy you would have direct representation and the majority could override the laws, such as the bill of rights, without the protection from the Federal judiciary to uphold the constitution.

Not perfect, but much better than a straight democracy.

Similarly, the lounge is a benevolent dictatorship compared with the technical portion being a democracy.

HA! OK, I've reviewed the lounge rules and I can now recite them by heart...no more misinformation from me  :glasses7:

LOL, It isn't that much to remember.

There's Rules???  :scratch:

Yeah apparently...but I forgot em again  :^)

Why Americans love Canadians.

They are ceaselessly amuzing.

http://www.suspendedexpert.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=856&PN=1&TPN=1

yeah, yeah, I knew people from the USA mock the Canadians and their social security systems. it must smell too socialist to them :D
Anyway, I wonder if it's not pure jealousy.
(and yes, I know Canadians have a lot of problems with their very costly system, but it's better than nothing. At least, it's better than having to go to India to get a surgical operation for one-tenth of the USA price :D )

Actually, I think I'd go to China for medical care.

I was just writing a friend about travelling outside of the US. I think most Americans are very confused and conflicted about forign countries, including Canada. A combination of fascination and fear. But maybe that is just a human trait...to be a little fearful of what you do not understand.

Of course, Americans as a rule would rather get their education via Hollywood movies than reading or travelling.

probably, people from Louisiana are more "fascinated" by Canada than Milwaukee (WI) inhabitants, right ? ;-)

well, the main problem I see is not that much the isolationnism temptation (pondered by the "big stick" politics and such imperialist madness eruptions from time to time) but more the "NIH syndrom"

It's rather surprising, viewed from here, how can "americans" be stubborn, short-sighted, short-memoried and close-minded up to the point of affubling themselves with such a pityful sundrom as the "not invented here" (as a side bonus, it's funny seeing them argue over one "typically american thing", especially when it was in fact NOT invented "here" ;-)

I encountered not so many years ago "Americans" who where surprised, visiting France, that there was electricity and television. How can this be ? No Frenchman is as stupid as this, even the worse one.

Correct to a point. I wager most of the inhabitants of Detroit have never been to Windsor.



Hey, that's great. maybe you will get indoor plumbing soon, LOL.

I met an American businessman on my last trip to Vietnam and made the mistake of asking him if he was enjoying his visit.  

He complained about everything. In the course of the conversation I determined that he had ventured outside of the American owned 5 star hotel very little and was accompanied by bi-lingual Vietnamese businessmen when he did leave.

He complained about the corrupt Government and especially customs and the police. He was not searched entering the country nor were his bags. He never had contact with any police. No one anywhere had asked him for a bribe of any kind, accosted him or even looked at him funny.

He complained about the crime and especially pick pockets. He was not the victim of a crime nor did he have his wallet taken. I found out he carried less than $20 US in VND anyway and he seemed a little miffed when I said who cares if you lose $20.

He complained about the price of beer. Of course he only bought American or European beer from the bar in the hotel and paid them an alful lot less than it would have cost in a similar Hotel in the US. I drank plenty of local beer and paid about 50 cents each.

He hated the markets because people got too close to him and they speak to loud, and it smells near the fish stalls and they ripped him off. I asked what he bought and he got a 100% Silk robe and matching nightgown and paid $15 US. I asked him if he negotiated, and of course he did not. He showed me his purchase and it had a price tag on it for 160.000VND which is the price for a forigner and is only about $10, so he is pretty stupid. Either he paid more than it was marked or he can't convert prices in his head. I bought 5 of the same things for 70.000 VND each, which is less than half the asking price, and only $22 US total, but I decided not to mention that.

This went on and on. Finally I asked him what he expected when he arrived. He said he thought it would be like Chicago.

To be fair, I've met Eurpoeans who had some mighty strange ideas about America. I met one visitor who wondered if he might see a Cattle Drive when he visited Kansas City.

You would lose the bet. With just about any way you want to define "inhabitants of Detroit".  You would have to stretch the urban boundary substantially beyond the city itself and what would normaly be considered the metropolitan area.

They can gamble tax free, can drink two years earlier, prostitution is not illegal.  The waterfront is all parkland, health care is free and it is not difficult to scam a health card.  The crime is less than 5% of Detroit' and less than 2% of for violent crimes.

The premium on the USD not as high as it was but still substantial.  Just one event, the Freedom Festival fireworks show put a million people along the river on the Canadian side in a city of 300,000.  

Most important is we get along and respect each other, because we depend on each other.  In some cases like the auto industry the border does not exist.  There is better co-operation between police and fire departments between Windsor and Detroit than there is between Detroit and its suburbs.  

So if you want to make the wager let me know what authority will be used to valiate the results; and if it is a legitimate source, I'll be happy to let you join the "Roy took my money" club. :^)

However I will agree that most Americans do not know a great deal about what the world outside of the U.S. is like.  Nor do most people in the world know much about other places.

Yes and no. It's understandable that the 50% (minimum) of the world's population which has to strive for food or water doesn't really have the time for "knowing about other countries", but coming from well-fed, well-educated [at least that's what they say] and well-being, and why not well-wealthy "Americans" it's a bit surprising for me.

They have the brains, the time, the money, the leisure to know about the world they live in. The fact that 30% of themselves can't place U.S.A. on a world map is astonishing. Let not talk about Ulan-Bator, Oslo or Adis-Abeba. How strange.

Interesting...  

Why would you expect Americans to be like Europeans?  It is a different culture, a different history, a different system of education.  The priorities are different. How success or failure is measured are different.  

I find it very strange that you would attempt to understand why Americans are the way they are by trying to apply European expectations, and to use the European logical norms to determine what a "correct" resposne or behaviour would be from an American.

I suspect that a certain percentage of tha group who cannot find the U.S. on a map did not consider the exercise important enough to even look at the map.  That is the way they are.  It does not matter what is important to you or I.  They are culturally different from Europeans, and Canadians are culturally different from both of you.

We either accept that we are different and get on with finding ways to get along or we go back to the kind of 20th century nationalism that destroyed Europe twice, and created role for horrfying weapons to this day.

Quite frankly I don't care what the Americans do inside their own country or in Iraq or whether they can find something on a map; unless it means they are not going to be supplying me with grapefruit for breakfast in the morning or cutting off the supply of Cuban cigars.

 :^)

I trust your proximity and personal knowledge. Clearly a poor choice given the attractions you mention which would cause the travel.  Also proves the falacy of applying a general theory to a specific example.

I do not think the point is invalid, just invalid for Detroit.

because they ARE Europeans having emigrated. well, I don't quite agree with that.not completely. We share a common history. In fact, all the world shares a common history. Of course, if you're not interested in the world...that's THEIR problem. If they can't teach geography properly, they should perhaps concentrate on lesser matters, like running after cows with a lasso or killing bears for their fur.
that's clearly true for them. But the measure of success in a mathematical or geographical problem, ie the ability to find "the" solution, is objectively defined. You succeed or not. It's as simple as this.



THAT's "interesting" !!!

Do we have Aliens on Earth ? ;-)


Amusing. In the first WW, there was not so much destruction ("collateral damages" ? ;-) but a lot of soldiers dead, and veru few Americans.
In the second one, the vast majority of the destructions was made by the Americans and English, against civilians.
And the "horryfying weapons" were put into war (against civilians, again) by the Americans, I think ;-)
(even if the Germans were also researching the nuclear bomb, and were ahead of all other countries in technology at this time)

I don't see any trace of "nationalism" in recognizing how strange it is for any Earth's inhabitant to be unable to locate himself on his own planet.

I think both of your persectives have some validity.

As an American I would expect better general knowlege of history and geography than some of our population show but find it laughable to allege 30% of the population can not find USA on a globe. I know better, but I'm basing that on living here and knowing the people rather than looking in from a distance. I also know what kind of crazy news is written.

Remember the are three types of lies: Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics.



More likely they didn't think it important enough to remember.



That is very, very true. Keep in mind also while I may complain of certain things typically found in the "Average" American being "wrong" by my point of view, I certainly am not bashing my country or my culture. While I would like to see better from people, I probably expect too much.



That's the part I find most fascinating. While I perceive a bit of a condescending tone from VGR I can accept that he is coming from a different perspective and has a different frame of reference. It is definately a trap to try to interpret others only from your frame of reference because you will get the wrong interpretation. It is also hard not to do that.



I do!!! (You can get Grapefuit from Chile, BTW). I have argued for years we should not invade countries overseas. If we just have to fight, we should attack Canada. I had a good reason to invade at one time, but it slips my mind right now.

That's just silly. A majority of Americans may have come from Europe, but most of my Eurpoean ancesters were here in the 1700s. Three hundred years of experiences uniquly ours certainly is going to change the culture.


Now who has lost their capicity for understanding the world outside thier little corner.  What makes you think we let any bears survive to be hunted? We also don't lasso cattle except to put on shows for Eurpoean tourists. They do however do that in Argentina.


Is it? Faults, no faults, good points or bad, America is wildly successful. Some of the swagger and arrogance is well deserved.



Maybe, but that is not the point. America is so vast and culturly diverse it is easy to ignore everywhere else. It hardly matters to many people where Douai is if they live somewhere so vast they won't even hope to see all of it.



War is an evil thing. The French have no claim to being any less blood thirsty than any other human. Just less successful at war. Dien Bien Phu and the Congo leap to mind. Oops...I'm American, I'm not supposed to know about other peoples history. The Vichy government was a sterling example of French superiority as well.

Face facts, you are quick to find fault outside your little corner of the world yet you conveniently ignore history you find inconvenient.

Many Americans and Canadians valiantly perished for the benefit of France.

 
 North Americans stop being Europeans hundreds of years ago.
 
Even while Canada and the U.S. were part of European Empires we were no longer European.  In those hundereds of years we have had waves of immigration from all parts of the world each add to and changed our culture.  Each internal struggle we had change our culture.  Each war we fought in changed our culture.  Each success; each failure; each discovery; and each search for our identity changed our culture.

It is exactly the same for the Americans but with completely different experiences. We live next to each other and yet there are vas differences in us.  For that matter there are regional differences between regions of either country that are greater than teh cultural differences between France and Russia or Turkey.



Then why should it be OUR concern.

I'm going to just ignore the comments about the Wars Europe unleashed on the world in the 20th century out of respect for the nine members of my family that died in those wars; defending european freedom, and preserving european culture.


Where I live we get invaded every weekend.  Our weapons(strong beer, strippers and cuban cigars) have never failed; and on Monday morning the local jail is full of .. erm .. POWs who we release if they promise not to come back (... Uhm... Well they can come back if they have money to spend, alright).

I think there is a lot of prejudiced wrongness in all you write about History, especially during WW I & II, but I won't comment due to the respect I have for History :D

Anyway, you don't have an "history" topic in here.

What was the topic's subject, by the way ?

About the cultural "huge" differences between Canada (Québec excepted) and USA, I still am dubitative because the frontier was not established so long ago and the New-England people were the same occupying both areas. The difference I see is the mosaical structure of Canada, with ethno-linguistically separate "squares" on the map, like Germans there, English there, French there, etc. It's amusing.

The situation here is quite different : even if the frontier between Northern France and Belgium was officially established only in 1830 and you would expect the "two peoples to be the same culturally and ethnically" - which is true for the ethny aspect - the actual cultural separation dates long back up to the Middle Ages and even before, so no wonder people ARE so different across that "imaginary" borderline called a frontier.

Let's take an example : I see no reason why people from the Yellowstone area (discovered by La Vérendrye and his sons) in U.S.A. should be culturally different from the Canadians living just a bit north to them, do you ? They are of the same origin, and the cultural differenciation usually comes from environmental differences. Here, there is none.
I'm only a bit surprised U.S.A. (let's say the norhthern part of it) and Canada (Québec excepted) revendicate such a cultural difference. The difference with Mexico is trivial, but the other one is not.

Perhaps the fact that canada is still in the Commonwealth and had perhaps a longer English influence ? I doubt it, but I'm not on site.

As for the "30% story", it came out of a U.S.A. study in the 1980s

Well let's see Wyoming was populated by primarily English and Irish migrantes, and was part of the American Wild West era of nation building.  There were major wars between the Americans and the indians.  The region was settled and populated a hundred years before the railroad arrived.

To the North the land was settled by Ukrainian immigrants. The most common second language today is still ukrainian.  The region was not populated until after the railroad arrived, and the indian population was already pacified (read subjugated) the exchange of people, goods and ideas was virtually non-existent until the 1940s.  With those kind of differences in origins, history; added to 100 years of isolation, why would you be surprised that there are differences, in attitude.  

In fact I find it quite amazing that there are many similarities.  You live in a tiny country.  I live in one that require 3 days by train, adn a week by auto to cross east to west.  Can only be traversed from North to South by air.  Where there are Towns with roads to connect them to any other place.  With the longest seacoast of any country in the world.  On three oceans, and occupying a third of a continent.

Expecting anything less than cultural diversity within that context is unrealistic.  Having that diversity without conflict, and unresolvable differences is Canadian.  Even in Quebec; in every vote the majority vote to remain Canadian.  If they day comes when they seperate that will be resolved without force of arms or a civil war.  We will do like we have always done; sit down and do the paperwork.  Because one virtually all Canadians have in common is we would rather fill out forms then get into a fight.

The Americans Would rather drink beer and watch TV sports mor than anything else; but they need gas for their SUVs, and there is lots of oil in Iraq.

Well, not quite so. Continental France has one-fifth to one-seventh of the superficy of U.S.A. Calling such a same-order-of-magnitude difference the one between "tiny" and "large" is ridiculous IMHO.
To relativise your perception of your country in the world, remind yourself that it's only half the size of Russia.

As for population, the ratio is only 4.6:1 with France, not that much in comparison with the superficy of the country.

Of course, your density of 28 inhabitants/km² means mainly that a lot of space is under-exploited and explains why you need such lengthy transportation means. We've a density of 70 inh/km²

I also doubt you've more seacost length than Canada with their myriad of islands, or than USSR/Russia, but I didn't measure it. You can guess if I'm right or not by looking this nice CIA map : (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/maps/us-map.gif)

This "CIA" site confirms that USA have 19,924 km coastline, and Canada has 202,080 km - quite a difference with what you wrote - and even Russia has more than USA : 37,653 km

You also don't have real mountains while we've a lot of different ones ; those induce greater diversity and isolation during history of various communities that are now part of the nation.

We also have the longest railroad network in the world, and it's a completely modern one where you "drive" at 300 to 500 km/h, which explains why we don't have to take the plane to go from north to south except for some destinations (like Paris-Nice) :D

Not counting the other territories, mainland France has also access to three sea/oceans and we've one-third of the world's exclusive fishing territories.

Thanks for the details on differences between Wyoming settlements and northern ones, it's nice to find someone that knows about his country. I learned things today.

I think there is some confusion there. I am Canadian not American. When I said we have the longest coastline, I am talking about Canada.

Two years ago spent two months building a network in a place called Pelly Bay, on the artic ocean. Food there costs 5 times what it is in the south because every thing must come in by air except for about 4 weeks of the year whenit is possible for ships to reach them through the ice pack.

Outside communication(telephone, television, internet) require satelite. That and conventional radio get disrupted for weeks at a time becasue of magnetic storms. In the winter there is no sunrise and sunset, it is dark 24 hours a day. The most language is neither English or French but the local inuit dialects.

Do you think you can understand the culture of such places, or ue your own cultural experience to assess them? There are hundreds of such places in Canada. Do you think that such a place in Labrador 4000 kilometers away would have shared culture; or that either of them would be part of the same culture as those in the big cities of the south?

The French speaking Metis of Northerm Manitoba have more common with the English Speaking Cree of Quecbec that they do with the French speaking majority in Quebec.

There is no way that you can generalize about our culture applying European standards because no European, no matter how well educated, can understand the culture without being part of it, any more than I can understand the culture of France, or India or Kenya without being part of it.

All we can hope to do is recognize that there are cultural differences and accept the fact that there is not one culture superior to another. The world would be better without political boundaries, where every human could just go where they wanted and explore as they please. The simple fact is that we are all limited by not just boundaries, but by governments who apply varying amounts of control the flow of information and the content of education.

Ther was no confusion as to the country you belong to, but perhaps I miread you ;-)

You're absolutely right that Canada is almost an entire world apart. Only Russia probably beats it about complexity, immensity, strangeness, low density :D

Have it not be for the average temperature, I would probably have loved living there.

I also think Canada - in its whole, not only Québec -  owns a lot to France and has a special place in our heart.

For us, America - in its whole, again- is a bad memory about incury and short-sight of almost all of our previous rulers, even if the british had a part in the whole game against us, as usual (Terre-Neuve -> Newfoundland, Nouvelle-France -> New Scotland, destruction & deportation of Acadie's population etc)
(http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/nllefce/images/nllefce1.gif)

in which place do you live exactly ?

I live in the city of Windsor in the province of Ontario.  I can locate where I live o a globe.  Within the the city of Windsor I live in a area called Sandwich which was once a seperate town, and is the oldest permanent settlement in Canada West of Quebec. The site of the original Jesuit mission around which the town grew is within a kilometer of my home. The border with the U.S. is also within a kilometer.

This might help you get idea of size diversity, and of Ontario. In area we are double the size of france.  You will find Windsor at teh southern most opart of the map here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario

As far as the French and English colonization of North America, My education has taught me that the European were far more the savages than the peaceful people they subjugated and had their culture torn from then through the religious persecution started by the French and English, and unfortunately continued by us well into the 20th century.

The French should be ashamed of themselves for what they did to native tribes.  The English should be ashamed of themselves for what they did to native tribes.  Canadians are ashamed of what they did to native tribes.  In some cases we have appologized, but there is nothing we can do restore the rich cultures and traditions that were lost.  All we can do is try to help those natives who are trying to  restore what has been damaged but may still be saved.

The lesson to be learned is that you cannot judge the value of another culture.  You can only recognized that it exists, that is has a right to exist, and destruction of a culture is as much genocide as killing the population off.

yes, except that the behaviour of France with the native Amerindians was the opposite of Britain's

Our Algonquin and Hurons ALLIES helped a lot less numerous French forces to fight against the aggression of British rednecks helped by the bloodthirsty Iroquois.

The behaviour of European nations is not the same when it comes to colonies, like in Africa for example. France, Spain, Portugal, Britain and germany all had a different "style" for their colonies. Some introduced "civilisation", others just put up trading posts, others kept the people segregated, others did mix, some just exploited toe resources, others built schools and hospitals and ended slavery in Africa, both between "Niggers" and by Arabs, etc

I hope you enjoy the stay near the "Grands Lacs"

Were the French or their Indian allies any less blood thirsty?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Massacres
See, for example, Feb 8, 1690, in which they destroyed the town  of Schenectady (obviously the Iroquois were not the ones involved in this, but the event is true nevertheless),
The French involvement in the French and Indian War (I'm sure you call it something else, but I'm not sure what) had to do with territory disputes between the French and British. Helping the Native Americans was an after thought.

The French Revolution, for whatever good it produced, was one of the bloodiest, most horrific events in history...somewhere all the noble philosophical ideas got lost amongst all the decapitation.

Native sentiment regarding the French in Viet Nam was little different from those of any colonized country (except perhaps that they had the additional complaint that the French failed to protect them from the agression of the Japanese), and the French interests there were no more altruistic than those of any other colonialists:
Declaration_of_Idependence_of_the_Democratic_Republique_of_Viet_Nam  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Indochina_War#Declaration_of_Idependence_of_the_Democratic_Republique_of_Viet_Nam)
That was less than 75 years ago.

From 1970-1990, France was the second largest supplier of arms to Iraq. Like the US, your government can speak all it likes of lofty ideals; in the end it's mostly after money and power just like everyone else.


But arguing over these things is silly. Europeans, Americans, and Canadians have all been responsible for now unthinkable aggression against native populations throughout the world. Native populations have been responsible for equally horrific acts, and there is little reason to believe that 'natives' would have been any more 'civilized' if given the means to commit such destruction. I don't defend their actions, but I also don't feel any personal guilt for what they did. The truth is, it is simply racist to believe that the white men invading America were any more 'civilized' than the people they were invading. People have been butchering each other forever. Those who butcher best have won not only the spoils of war, but the privlige of recording history as they want to. The idea that they owe their advesaries an apology or compensation is a very new, and somewhat amusing one.

Bickering about who was the worse butcher or who should feel more guilty or pay back or apologize more is ultimately a waste of time. As Roy said, you cannot give back what was taken. What you can do is admit that everyone has engaged in these aggressions (because they have), and decide that the ultimate cost to everyone involved is too great to do it again.

You miss the point.  What gave European nations the right to occupy lands that did not belong to you and subjugate the people who occupied them.  What gave you the right to impose your language, religion, political system and values.

You had the power and technology to do so; an so you did.  Now that the Americans have the poser and technology you criticize them for doing exactly wht you did for eaxactly the same reasons, using exactly the same justification.

I don't approve of many things the Americans do; however they ar behaving no different than France and Britain did in North America, in their struggle to control resources and wealth.  No different.  Then Spain, Portugal, the Dutch, etc...  

The only difference now is that France lost its place on top of the heap as the result of 20th century wars that disolved the French empire. The history of nations dominating others does not justify a continuation of it, but the former world powers have no credibility when they criticize the current big dog in the junk jard for doing wht they historically did when they had the power.

At the end of World War II Canada had the third largest navy in the world;  we dismantled it;  We had one of the largest, and most modern air forces in the world; we dismantled it.  We have had nuclear technology for 50 years.  We build power plants not bombs.

Perhaps the biggest cultural difference that makes North Americans NOT european is that european culture is still centered around empires that no longer exist, and the perception that you were doing good thing, by bullying; stealing land and resources, and commiting genocides.

If today any nation did what France and other European Nations did to the native peoples of the Americas;  France to its credit would be among the first to condemn them... but your hands are not clean; what is worse is you consider some great acheivements, that are viewed by many in my country as atrocities, and crimes against humanity; but back then there were no rules. So it is history.

We recognize that not everyone thinks the way we do, and the Americans remain or friends; the British remain our friends; The french remain our friends, and there are very few places in the world that Canadians are not welcomed as friends

well, I perhaps "miss the point", but if you live in that country, and if the country does exist as such, it's thanks to the European nations that "had no right to occupy lands [etc etc]"

The land belongs to the one that works on it. To that extent, the vast plains of northern America were desert. I condemn the manner in which the U.S.A. successively broke all the peace treaties they made with amerindian nations, but sadly they just did it because they were the strongest.

By the way, people you call "native americans"  are no more "native" than the Europeans that came in the 5th, 9th, 12th and finally 15th century. No more than the Africans that probably came also. No more than the Melanesians that came more than probably also. Nobody knows who were the first inhabitants of the Americas.

An imposition of The European values and culture of that time.



A part of the American culture and value system of that time.



That is irrelevant.  The issue is not who was here first or how anyone came in possession of a piece of land.  The issue is whether, it is acceptable to impose your ownership on land and resources that are already occupied.  Is it acceptable to impose your religious beliefs on others.  Is it acceptable ban local custom and governance because you have a "better" system and the power to impose it.

Historically humans have been subjected to "might is right" govenance from the begining of recorded history.  Those with the power always think they are doing the right thing and those that do not have the power criticize the action; oppose the action; and in some cases stand up and fight against it.

Right now the Americans have the power.  They are imposing their culture and political system in Iraq for the purpose of exploiting the oil.  Just as the Europeans did in Canada to exploit the furs.



The Europeans did not create the land and did not evolve the country.  The merely altered the course of history.  Without European interference, the world would still have diveloped.  Their would still be countries on all the continents.  Some might not be as well off, some might be better off.  We will never know because what has happened has happened.

We have a different view of history because we live in very different place, with much different versions of history taught to us; with much different sources of information available, with very differents networks of friends and contacts.  As a result we see things differently, we order our lives and our priorities differently, and given the same facts and circumstances we may very well come to diffent interpretations and make different decisions.  We may both be right within our own cultural context, but neither of us can say the other is wrong because we are not loking for the same answer, and probably not even asking the same questions to reach a decision.

So we can savour those differences, because if we all thought the same it would really get boring.

I perfectly agree with you, but three remarks :


At the time the land was discovered, the country seemed almost unoccupied. That's always the problem with nomadic tribes. The plains seemed unoccupied at first sight.
The Amerindians themselves do not consider the land as theirs, and they would have shared it under other circumstances and probably with more respectful incomers.

An other example : South Africa. When the White (Boers) came in by the south, the land looked unoccupied (and thus available), it was not until 180 years or so that they encountered, a lot more to the north, their first neighbours. Despite this occupation fulfills your criteria of an "available land", look at what happened since then and who's calling South Africa "their country by right" ;-)


A clear consequence of all religions that believe they are the only one and have the Truth. All monotheistic ones, in fact, but not only those ;-)

At that time, converting the "savages" had two "useful" consequences : 1) they were saved from being abused or enslaved, 2) they were saved from Hell and had a chance to go to Paradise. Wasn't that a good reason ?
Especially when "local customs" involved human sacrifices or anthropophagy.


A result of that time's "civilizing effort". After all, the most successful civilisation of a given time has ALWAYS tried to expand its "benefits" to a greater area. This has been tru e for Egypt, it has been true for China and Japan, it has been true for Europe, it is now true for U.S.A.

We should perhaps discuss a greater problem I perceive from the terms you use ("arrogance" etc) : we should perhaps define what is a civilisation or culture made of, 'cause I doubt an history of 200 years - even if isolation level was complete, which was obviously not the case - is enough to produce a "brand new civilisation and culture". Your refusal to consider northern America as a pure result of European culture is surprising to me. I think you don't answer the same as me to "what makes up a culture?" and "what constitutes a civilisation?".

This thread is probably not the right place to discuss that, and I like to discuss such things in a more impartial environment than on an American-Canadian IT forum and with more educated people than IT people having googled or wikipedanted for ONE case where French amerindians allies did something wrong, in stead of getting a greater picture, a synthetic view  ;-)

Maybe not - the lounge would certainly have been a better place to stir up American-Candaian tensions. You were the one who started this discussion, and the one who has caused it to persist.  This is not an American-Candadian site: we have members from the USA, Canada, India, Italy, the Netherlands, Scotland, France (not only you), the United Kingdom, Australia, Norway, and Oman. As for objectivity, you seem to be the most uncomfortable of anyone here to admit that your country has made mistakes motivated purely out of self interest, and that your people are fundamentally no better or worse than any others.


As luck would have it, I am probably at least as well, if not better educated than you are, though I make a point of not flaunting it, and none of the participants in this discussion have demonstrated any lack of education, only a difference in opinion. As it happens, I cited several instances in which the French were 'wrong' by modern western standards, not just one. Rod cited others. It wasn't necessary for me to google in search of random events in which the French comitted atrocities during the French and Indian War, only to look up the massacre at Schenectedy which I knew of beforehand because it is near the town where I grew up (which itself was attacked by British-allied American Indians during our Revolution). However, the page I cited certainly does contain others.


The bigger picture has been painted above for you repeatedly, and it is that no one's hands are clean in a historical context. Either people can argue about what happened in the past and let it dictate how they will act in the future, or they can learn from it and move forward.

A culture is pattern of attitudes and behavior that characterize the functioning of a Community... with Community defined in the broadest terms.

civilization:  Is marked by a presence of rules for the purpose of governance, maintenance of order and the exchange of commerce

The Ashanti nation in africa had advance architecture, urban infastructure including sanitary sewers before Paris was even a city.  They were subjugated and sold as slaves by Europeans.

The native North American tribes, had a system of trade and commerce that was better organized than Europe's, a legal system that recognized the importance of individual libery before the Europeans arrived, a religious system that recognized a creator, and linked that religion to a political system that closely resembled the aritocracies of Europe.

They did not need training in trade, the law, religion or political organization... both the Ashanti culture and the NA tribal cultures were destroyed, because ignorant Europeans had, through hundreds of years of waging war on each other, developed advanced weapons technology.



So you think there is a winnable debate... there is not.  We can discuss such things as friends.  It does not matter what arguments I present;  you will not be won over.  It does not matter what points you make; I am going to be unmoved.  Such debates have been going on for hundreds of years. Please feel free to take it where ever you wish; or perhaps I can just beg for a French passport and promise to be more European and you can claim victory.

For me it is not a contest.  It is simply pointing out that it does not matter what you think North Americans should be or how we should view history.  It is useful to exchange ideas and listen to a different points of view, but in the end we are what we decide we are.  

You can point to a radish and call it a chair; perhaps even present evidence and research to win a debate that proves the radish is a chair.  However, it will still be a radish no matter how many times you call it a chair; and the only proof I will need will come when I eat is with my salad.

Now that said I will tell you that there are people in Canada who have been here for a number of generations who will refer to themselves as Irish, French or Chinese.  That is fine there is not requirement that you call yourself Canadian to be one.  However the majority of Canadians would be at least irritated if not offended to be told that they are European; and a very large majority of Canadians consider that on Balance Europe owes us far more than we owe them.


So perhaps we shall just agree to disagree, and you cn keep your misconceptions about North America, and I will keep mine a bout Europe.

Cd&

of course :D

Now, please give me a break, please.

ridiculously false
how open-minded.

well, I leave you and your "unwinnale debates" ;-)

Can someone give me an overview of the argument? I want to step in but I don't feel like reading all of it.

Is it racial? I have a thing or two to say about races  :scratch: ...

It seems to be a blend of "Chaos Theory" and the "Butterfly Effect".

ROFL

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/geosurvey/highlights.html



(1) 17% of young "americans" practice a second language, against 54% of young French and 89% of young Swedish. This explains partly the results.
(2) the geography courses are mandatory all along the classical studies in France. I guess they are not in U.S.A., from what National Geographic wrote.

I was right, I'm right, I'm always right, I'm the strongest, I'm the best, I won, nanananèreuh :D (no more childish that "you started it" ;-)

We generally don't need to know another language...ever since English replaced French as the language of diplomacy.


Don't you think it's more likely that we are just intellectually inferior?


You said we couldn't place ourselves on the globe...quick - google that and report back.



Hey! That seems to be part of our culture that the French have appropriated: race riots. But that's just the beginning -- Pretty soon they'll all be eating Burger King and driving SUVs.

----
edited to show last qutoe is from Esopo

I'm so glad to see that you boys are playing nicely here.   :wink:

It's all in good fun  :D ...mostly  ;-)
A friend of mine is French (lives in Paris, I met him here n the US), a very smart guy. He thinks I like crappy music. I think some of the cheese he eats is too smelly. But we get along  :wink:

Well, in all of my years I've found that in any culture you can find intelligent people and you can find really stupid people.  Ignorance is everywhere...it's not prejudiced.  And statistics were invented for statisticians and really don't mean squat in the real world.

Half native here, no idea what tribes, and to be honest I'll be quite happy to leave America soon.  I'm not sure if things will be much different or better in England but I know I'll be a happier person there.  I've spent too many years "dumbing down" to get along with the people around me.

Yeah, that is one of the few parts of our culture that I really do not understand, and that I've grown to really hate. Somewhere along the line being stupid (or more correctly, acting stupid) became the "cool thing to do." I've tutored school kids who are literally afraid to learn anything. I assume the same is true in other countries, but probably not to the same extent.

you moving to England?

Yes Sean.  By this time next year I should be living in Carlisle with one of our very own editors here, muso.   :D

Kewl, are we invited to the wedding?  Or maybe just the housewarming?  Or just the saturday night beer drinking contest at the local pub?

Why is it that every keeps trying to marry us off?   :scratch:   We'll be living together for the moment so the pub sounds like a wonderful idea.   =D>

Just in case you change your mind, please insert a "I Object" for me, at the proper place.
Living in "sin", is much more fun.

Speaking of which, I think I will gift myself with two 25 year old co-eds, for my big Five-Oh this year.    :glasses7:

Speaking of which, I think I will do the same thing for my big 2-5 next year. Although in my case I'm sure there will be no transactions involved.
 :wink:   :D

 :scratch:  I wasn't going to charge them....

It's only a matter of culture, not of necessity.
Google for the languages on Earth and the number of speakers ;-)

I don't think so. But you've the educational system you built, so you deserve it ;-)

I love Whoppers. I wouldn't consider myself a regular but I am no stranger to the King.

http://www.subservientchicken.com

Have it your way!! (or so they say)

fun

OK  :D http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_total_speakers
Approximately 170-200 million people speak English as a second language. That's more than other languages, except for Chinese and Hindi, and in those regions, people typically speak several languages out of necessity as a result of the lingual diversity. I rather doubt that most people (including in Sweden and France) learn English for reasons other than its practicality.

Most people in the US do not travel outside of their country because it is so large, and we only border one nation where English is not the oficial language. Even when they do travel, the people Americans encounter in other countries speak English, and would often rather converse that way with Americans (this is not true in France, of course). People in the rest of the world have more incidental and unaviodable contact with English than we do with other languages. The fact that we hav fewer multilingual citizens may in part be a result of intellectual and cultural apathy, but it also makes a certain degree of intuitive sense, and in and of itself is not eveidence of any inherent flaw.

Speaking of the vastness of the US, I think you'd find that speaking of our "culture" or our "educational system" as if they are cohesive and homogeneous entities is fairly misguided. We have something like 65% as many people as the EU as a whole. None of my comrades is unable to find himself on the globe, though some of my compatriots may be ignorant in that respect. The cultures of the northeastern, southern, midwestern, and west coast are not one and the same. In some of my travels to other parts of the country, I have often had the feeling that I was 'in another country.' Luckily we have enough in common to sick together as a nation, and enough space (and tolerance) to hapilly maintain our different ways of life.


Hardly -- you want to claim ownership of cultures that are not yours. Hitler wanted to destory them. At any rate, I apologize for not using the quote="VGR" and quote="Esopo" to make it clear who said what...I assumed anyone who was actually reading the thread would have known. My comment, of course, was mostly facetious (though if your country's race problems are not addressed, I predict you will face many of the same problems that we do) and I agree with your opinions on SUVs and fast food. Although every once in a while a Whopper really does hit the spot ;-)

By the way, one point where I bet the US would do better than the French is in identifying their own country as a 'nuclear' nation (if only because we have so many war mongers): according to the study you mentioned, apparently a quarter of your population cannot http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_GeoRoperSurvey_2.html

By the way, be sure to respond -- I voted for "8+ pages" and I hate being wrong ;-)

I want to address the point on education.

Yes, a great deal of Americans is ignorant and dumb. That is not news. ;)
Is not that there is not plenty of ignorance in the rest of the world, the matter is how outrageously blatant the ignorance is in a place with such a humongous budget for education and such access to information. Here, most people seem to think Africa is a country and the US is a continent. One of my English teachers in college confessed that plenty of students make it into college (private college) being completely illiterate!!

But, I am not talking about everybody.

The US is also a country with:

- 3 of the 10 most influential cities in the word (no other country can claim more than 1 city in that list)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city

- 12 of the top 20 Universities in the world (THES 2005)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Times_Higher_Education_Supplement

- Highest Gross Domestic Product ($41.8k per capita)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

And, last but certainly not least,

- The highest number of Nobel laureates

So, making a point about the US being an ignorant nation is just not possible. Perhaps a point could be made that education is not equally distributed, but that is not a problem limited to the US, and further, many would argue it is not a problem at all (keep them fat and focused on the entertainment industry and they won’t care if we destroy a country or two – they will actually enjoy it).


PS, I think we can stop here. I voted for 6.

as do at least 10% of ours ;-)
Perfectly agree with you. That's the situation I don't understand ; I would have expected such a big, populated & rich country to be more a "phare of civilisation", especially if it has the most Nobel prizes, the most rich cities, the highest PIB (=GDB) ;-)

nor am I.

Well, considering that I find this list perfectly artificial in its build, I suggest you compare comparable quantities :D
If you compare EU with 11 countries (or even the original CEE with 6 countries only), the ratio is a lot better. It's always better to compare 300 million people to 300 million people, on a similar land area (so to have a firm ground basis :D ).
Each european country has usually ONE and only ONE such city (of course). Why would we have more than one ? Historically, ONE city took prevalence over the others. Example for France : Lyon, once capital of the Gaule, left his predominance to Paris (Lutèce), the tiny town where the Franks established their royal power. But Lyon, Marseille and Lille all amount for roughly one million persons and are "regional metropoles" all by themselves. They're not Paris - centralized power rulz - but they have arguments too. All three are in your list, with strange rankings like "minimal evidence" for Lille, something I find distasteful to say the least.

Sure. I can also show you lists of rankings made with MY criteria, and probably your universities wouldn't rank very well :D

This is wrong. It's Luxembourg (sorry for you : it's in Europe ;-)
http://www.worldfactsandfigures.com/gdp_country_desc.php
U.S.A. has 6% more GDP than Cayman Islands and Bermuda Islands and even the TINY TINY San Marino is not far away... Funny, isn't it ? :D
Compare the comparable.


Sure. Did you take into account the high number of naturalized "americans" in the total ? ;-)
Did you count Gérard Debreu (1983 Nobel prize in Economy), born in France and French before being "American citizen" ?
If you compare Scandinavian and especially Norvegian - such a miserable country, isn't it ? When it come to PDB ;-) - with U.S.A. in Economy Nobel prizes, the comparison is not really in your favour.

Actually, if you compare the number of Nobel prizes (remember there is no Mathematics Nobel prize, which disadvantages Europe and France especially) with the population ranking, you get this picture where you can easily  see that France is above U.S.A. (http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/IQNOB4.gif)
(from http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/Nobels.html )


I never said that. I asked questions about an educational  situation I find "strange", that's all.

VGR,
I have nothing against your opinions, In my view you are welcome to have them as diverse as you will. But,

The Times Higher Education Sumplement is a UK based respectable publication. You may be able to come up with a different list, but you can't take credit away from the one the THES publishes. it is widely recognized.
http://www.thes.co.uk/site_information/about_the_thes/


First of all I am not really defending the US so I wouldn't feel sorry if it didn't have the higest GDP, but it does. Your numbers are from 2003, my quote is from the second quarter of 2005.


No, I did not. Given the obscenely large percentage of US Nobel prize winners (250+ from a total of 776 throughout history) I didn't deem it necessary to filter out the special cases. It would take a large amount of work to remove from that total all the "special cases" and you would still not end up with a number lower than the runner-up country.

Well, you're too kind to me :D

free speech ? Democracy ? Liberty ? In dollar we trust ?



Not really. It is widely accepted in the anglo-saxon world, but it brings up a lot of negative reactions in the rest of the world.

You can find reactions from a big Belgian university , ULg (ranked 196th) here http://recteur.blogs.ulg.ac.be/?cat=9
quoting/translating :



The recteur from that liegean university details how the T.H.E.S. ranking is built, and points out that it is composed : (2004 study, the 2005 doesn't ask for the Nobel or Fields stuff)
First it has been conducted by a London-based private firm called QS on behalf of the T.H.E.S.
That company begun by collecting data about each institution :
1. A « Peer review score », ie a notoriety study. It is conducted by asking a panel of 1300 scholars of 88 countries on all continents which were the most prestigious universities in their field. This amounts for 50% in the final calculation.
2. A measure of the impact of research, calculated on the basis of the number of quotes of the members of those institutions in « Essential Science Indicators » (published by Thomson Scientific, ex-ISI). A criterium favorishing indiscutably anglo-saxon and "hard" sciences. This amounts for 20%

On the basis of those two elements, QS made a selection of the first 300 after elmiminating specialized institutions that made less than 5000 publications over the year (a fast search with « Scholar Google » detects 27.778 for l’ULg in 2004, but by counting 2.530 publications for the CHU de Liège which « forget » to mention  the ULg, 658 attached to the Centre hospitalier universitaire de Liège and 2.600 of the l’University Hospital of Liège !)

Then, QS searched an information complement in the databases like the one from ISI, on the web sites, and by email or phone to the institutions themselves. The questions asked :

3. Le rapport d’encadrement (20 %) (staffing report?)
4. La proportion d’encadrants étrangers (5 %) (foreign staffing)
5. La proportion d’étudiants étrangers (5 %) (foreign students)

Alsa taken into account :

6. Number of laureates from Prix Nobel or Médaille Fields
7. Number and ratio of personnel belgian and internationals
8. Number and ratio of students belgian and internationals
 (excepted-Erasmus)
9. student mobility in exchange networks
10. number of students in 2nd and 3rd cycle
11. Le montant moyen du minerval pour les étudiants internationaux de 2è cycle et de 3è cycle [that's typically belgian IMHO]
12. total of spendings for bibliotheques

Clearly, if you want my opinion, this clearly states why I think this T.H.E.S. isn't serious at all.

Also, take into account that the Jiao Tong University of Shanghai also produces a classement, with very different results from T.H.E.S. and this is a clear text about "why it doesn't apply to us fairly" http://www.boivigny.com/index.php?action=article&id_article=225084

quoting/translating :


Quality hasn't anything to do with quantity...

Also, in the Financial Times there is an other classement which ranks the "écoles de commerce" (the 25 best MBAs, masters in management, in Europe)
Those French "grandes écoles" ranks respectively 1st (HEC), ESCP-EAP (2nd), Essec (7th), Grenoble EM (8th), EM Lyon (9th), Edhec (12th) and Audencia (16th)

So you see, "international ranking" doesn't summarize in T.H.E.S. and T.H.E.S. only.

All such rankings are automaticlly biased as soon as you determine the selection criteria.  IT is not possible to determine a set of factors, and weighting without bias.  The best you can expect to do is get some rating of how things rank for a narrow definition of "quality".  

Expecting a rating system for universities to be acceptable accross all cultures and systems of education is no different than expecting culturally diffrent groups to act the same way and agree on the same things when setting priorities.  

It is called diversity, and we should be glad we have it. IT would be boring if we all did things teh same way; thought the same way; and agreed on what is important in the world.

yes...

but if I compare north-america's culture with a fictive, idealized and average low-denominator "european culture", It could be said we share a reasonably-broad basis ; from that common ground, the current differences of culture are difficult to understand (by me, at least)

For example, don't we share a society governed by a formal Law based on the formal Decalogue (Ten Commandments) ? Civil Rights derived from the universal declaration of human rights etc ?

In both, murder is evil, jealousy and greed are sins, charity is a virtue and your neighbour is your brother... no ?

I like diversity ; I only want to understand.

The whole idea of ranking schools is in general silly. What the students get out of them is far more the result of what the students do than what the schools have to offer, IMO. I went to one of the schools in the 'top 10' of the THES list and majored in physics. In the vast majority of my courses, I was virtually entirely self-taught and found the professors to be rather distracted and even disinterested. Many of them were there to grade more than to teach. The most valuable resources they had to offer were a good library and the internet, so I could read class notes from Canadian universities (don't gloat too much over this Roy  :wink:) where the professors had actually taken the time to think about teaching the material. My brother went to a small college that is well-respected here, but nowhere on the THES list. I think he may well have gotten a better education (and for less money). In the humanities, the situation was probably not quite so bad.

But the universities have nothing to do with the average population, or with the deicits we have been discussing. You don't learn to place yourself on the globe in universities; you don't learn to read, write and speak properly there either. And you certainly don't learn for the first time that the world extends beyond the borders of your own country. These are things you learn at home and in primary school.

The sad state of affairs (which is sad by both American and European standards) of our primary educational system is purely cultural, and despite the facts that the teachers often leave much to be desired and that the curriculum is often inane, the main problem is actually the students -- they don't want to learn. Parents are either disinterested, or they nag their kids to work, but they don't teach them themselves, or instill an appreciation of learning and knowledge in their children. The children hear their parents complain about how difficult life is and then plant themselves in front of the TV with their kids, where they see thousands of ways you can "make it" while intellectually ignorant. What's worse, these things are glorified so that children believe that anyone who works hard to earn a decent living is a sucker. It's all superficial, all about image and money.

When they go to school, these things are amplified, because children are naturally preoccupied with fitting in and being "cool", and because their parents have not prepared them to learn. Kids who do their homework and respond to the teachers' questions are suckers and kiss-ups. Kids who study at night instead of hanging out at the mall are losers. Especially in poorer communities, getting and education and going to college is seen as "selling out (to the Man)" or "forgetting you roots" by many people. In most schools, you have to pay a tremendous personal price for knowledge, and most children don't have the strength or the foresight to realize that it's actually worth it. And the ones who do choose to learn are often doing it only because they know they can make more money if they do, not because they actually enjoy learning. Thy have the resources to be much more educated than they are, but they choose not to use them.
When they grow up ignorant, they blame the system and expect a handout. They teach their kids the same crappy attitudes their parents taught them.

This isn't true for everyone, obviously, but I believe the problems are actually getting worse in many areas rather than better. The result is that we have many citizens who cannot even read a newspaper and comprehend it correctly.

Given that, it's not surprising that schools don't care much about teaching geography: they're struggling to teach people the most basic skills. It's not a matter of educational resources, it's a matter of getting the children to "take their medicine" or "eat their vegetables" or whatever -- to learn. Every year the schools take on more and more roles that have traditionally (and correctly IMNSHO) been the responsibilities of the parents. In some populations, this produces outrage. In others, parents are just as happy to relinquish the responsibility.

One other thing -- if you watch American movies, you'd be lead to believe that well-educated people were just born that way. We seem to love movies about geniuses who "just know stuff" because they are so super smart that all they have to do is glance at the cover of a textbook to learn quantum mechanics. The fact is that for however smart Einstein was, I've seen pictures of him buried under papers...even he had to work hard. But if you asked most Americans, I think they would grossly underestimate that.

I can't comment more on that than by admitting I do 100% agree ;)
Sadly, it's the same here. Some call that "americanization of society", but in fact the problem here is worse because the "problem population" is made of immigrants that don't want to integrate. And the first integration tool is school.


Same as here. Worse, in fact ;-)
That's why democracy is so diminished and demagogy and apparences so important.
I think that (sadly) the U.S.A. begins to understand our concerns about immigration, islamic veil and such because of the U.S. having a raising Spanish-speaking-only minority/majority (depending) that wants to live speaking Spanish only. I hope you can solve the problem in the future.

Absolutely the same as here, with the same results. Again, we have a lot of Maghreb immigrants - perfectly integrated, usually - that have rebel children leading to riots, revolts, degradations, sometimes murders, because they have lost all authority on them and because the childrendon't feel "at home" in France. They don't want to work hard as their parents, they don't wan to learn hard in school, they don't want to speak French (properly or at all), they don't want to be honest, they don't show any respect except for brute force, they spread chaos and destruction everywhere they pass and they can't even leave this country, 'cause they're in fact apatrids in their mind. If ever they knew what is a patry ;-)

As is said, "la France, aimez-la ou quittez-la." (and I think this is an adaptation of a U.S. slogan)

Well, even if not everybody can be a Ms, it's a disgusting humanity that I see.

There's hope though : I fell 100% in agreement with you, [MODE JOKE ON]nasty fatty greedy arrogant stubborn American[MODE JOKE OFF]! Isn't this wonderful ? Champagne! :D

Yes, that is a common retort of the right wing here ("America: love it or leave it"), which I believe came into popularity during our war in Viet Nam as a response to protestors. It's a double-edged sword. On the one hand, I agree with it. On the other, it helps to promote the complacency and arrogance that leads to so many of our problems.


Shoot. I guess that means we might not make it to 8+  :sad3:
Oh well, pass the Champagne ;-)

Those are characteristics that are common in many human societies.  Every civilized country has formal laws, and generaly those laws evolve from the basic morality of religious belief and custom.  The universal declaration of human rights is pre-dated by many legal and political systems that were designed to protect the rights of the citizens, though historically there has frequently been narrow definitions of who possessed such rights.

A culture is an accumulation of shared experiences. You have to look at the history of a country, to see how it was built; where its people came from; what internal and external issues they had to deal with; what wars they fought; who their traditional friends and enemies are; the basis of their economy; and many more shaping factors.

Consider just the building of railroads.  The countries in Europe, and North America built ralroads in the 19th century. For Americans this phase of history was a opening of vast new lands, wars with native peoples, and massive immigration to populate the new lands. They had a completely different set of challenges than those the Europeans faced.

The Americans had a period of huge economic development based on slave labor, and slavery was a central issue in the civil war they fought. They fought a war with Mexico, the Spanish-American war and twice fought wars with the British. In the first world war they were late to come and really had to be forced in.  Similarly in World War II they remained technically a nuetral while supplying the allied side.  They did not declare war on Germany until after the were attacked by the Japanese.  

They have never been overrun by an attacking enemy like most European countries have.  They have more ethnic diversity than European countries.  

They have some unique shared experiences that no other nation has.  The U. S. A. is the only country in the world that has visited the moon; used the atomic bomb in a war; and won the superbowl.

That last part is not humor.  Sports are an important part of shared culture and there is a huge difference in what sports are popular in North America and elsewhere.

It is a unique culture.  It is still a young and evolving culture, but it is distinct from any European culture that has contributed to shaping it, just as it is distinct from African and Asia cultures that have contributed it.

That does not mean that there cannot be some shared values and ideas, but it does mean that you cannot apply European standard to judge the value of something that is part of the American culture.


<education issues>

I am quite a bit older than both of you; class of '