Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 55
  1. #11  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Hartford, CT USA
    Posts
    2,024
    Quote Originally Posted by texanne92 View Post
    I was in the first class of women to attend West Point, so I can give a first hand comparison of the two types of collegiate environments. The environment created at the academies is that of one to pressure your physical, emotional and mental self to create a continuous pressure in all three areas with an expectation of high performance and honesty. It develops the ability to perform under pressure and promote integrity and character. There really is no comparison. I left the academy after two years, married and had a child. Six years later, I returned to college. Attending Tarleton State University in Texas, with the responsibility of a family and a job, I graduated at a valedictorian status from the College of Arts & Sciences with a Bachelor's in mathematics. Believe me, there is no comparison.
    Tarleton State University in Texas is hardly Columba.
     

  2. #12  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Warrior View Post
    This is a very silly line of attack. If one wishes to take academic credentials as a measure of intelligence, the comparison between McCain and Obama is a "no contest."

    The author blows a lot of smoke about the rigors of military school life in his implication that those rigors somehow equate to intelligence. He tells us that military school students "wake up early," "march to class" etc., etc. And, he implies that because Ivy League students don't do this, that somehow that compensates for the differing scores in their classes. But I'm not sure what marching to class has to do with intelligence.

    McCain finished at the bottom, bottom of his Naval Academy class. I think it would do a disservice to his fellow classmates, for example, to indicate that he was just as bright as them. They had to do the same physical exercises that McCain and somehow they managed to finish (way, way) ahead of him in their class. Similarly, it does a disservice to Obama, who went through Columbia and Harvard, was President of the Harvard Law Review, etc., to compare his academic achievements of those ofMcCain.

    Bad argument, Megs. I think even McCain would shy away from this one.
    I would have to see Obama's grades,thesis writings and his class ranking and the courses he took which he has refused to make available. At least that is my understanding. Makes me wonder if he is as smart as you think he is. If he can not write any better than his wife, then he is as dumb as a rock and was given special consideration due to his race. Plus, why all the secrecy about his grades. Could be he was at the bottom of his class also with that doping addiction.:eek:

    The qualities that military service instills in one over someone that has never been in the military does not have any benefits in the intelligence sector but from a leadership standpoint and love of country, it certainly may. Comparing Obama to McCain in those two qualities is no contest either. McCain wins hands down.
     

  3. #13  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Warrior View Post
    Tarleton State University in Texas is hardly Columba.

    And Columbia is hardly West Point .The service academy's were established to feed the Army and other branches of the military with officer candidates of high caliber in discipline,honor,leadership and of late technology .The average graduate of Columbia is meant to persue a career in business or acedmedia .West Point produces potential military leadership and has in the past produced
    such men as Grant,Lee,Patton,Eisenhower and other notable leaders .

    After graduation Columbia has little influence on her graduates other than the schools reputation and the constant demands of contributions from the alumni association.Admission to Columbia is highly prized and there is much competition.Admission to West Point is by Appointment .

    An applicant must obtain a nomination to be considered for an appointment to the academy. The sources of nomination are the President of the United States; the Vice President; U.S. Senators and Representatives; and the representatives of the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories. Special appointment categories include children of deceased and disabled veterans or of career military personnel, foreign students, regular U.S. army, U.S. army reserve, honor graduates of military and naval schools and ROTC, and children of Medal of Honor recipients. Candidates must be between the ages of 17 and 22 and must meet physical and educational qualifications.

    Cadets undergo a four-year course of instruction on full scholarship, with summers devoted to practical military training, and are paid a monthly salary. Graduating cadets receive a bachelor's degree and a commission as a second lieutenant. Women have been admitted since 1975 and, in the 1990s, they constituted more than 10% of the academy's 4,000 cadets. The West Point Museum contains ordnance and military trophies of historical interest. It is one of the most important college museums in the United States. George W. Cullum compiled a valuable biographical register of West Point cadets.
     

  4. #14  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Hartford, CT USA
    Posts
    2,024
    Quote Originally Posted by megimoo View Post

    And Columbia is hardly West Point ...
    The military academies are tasked with completing a different kind of education than most universities and colleges in this country. Therefore, to compare the physical training, etc. required to successfully complete one of the academies to other universities, whether it be Columbia or Tarleton State is a specious comparison. That said, however, the academies are not particularly known for their level of scholarship, research, and educational rigor, and are typically (and justifiably) not measured along those standards.

    The original article tried to mix these additional physical and specifically-military requirements of the academies into a comparison of other universities which, as I noted, is faulty in that that type of training is not within the purview of other universities. In my response to the poster, I was making the point that to compare West Point to Tarleton State in a discussion comparing Annapolis to Columbia is doubly specious, as Tarleton State is "hardly Columbia."
     

  5. #15  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Warrior View Post
    The military academies are tasked with completing a different kind of education than most universities and colleges in this country. Therefore, to compare the physical training, etc. required to successfully complete one of the academies to other universities, whether it be Columbia or Tarleton State is a specious comparison. That said, however, the academies are not particularly known for their level of scholarship, research, and educational rigor, and are typically (and justifiably) not measured along those standards.

    The original article tried to mix these additional physical and specifically-military requirements of the academies into a comparison of other universities which, as I noted, is faulty in that that type of training is not within the purview of other universities. In my response to the poster, I was making the point that to compare West Point to Tarleton State in a discussion comparing Annapolis to Columbia is doubly specious, as Tarleton State is "hardly Columbia."
    You seem preoccupied with the physical aspects of the Point as in the marching to class and the demands of physical training.True the demand for a healthy cadet and the discipline are true but their academic standards are as high or higher than any civilian college.

    Most kids at Columbia or even MIT for that matter are into passing grades and beer and pizza .The academy insists on high grades and offer strong incentive for every cadet to excel.The internal tutoring is intense for those having a difficult time of it.The full potential of each candidate is never reached without a certain degree of stress and this has proven to produce great leaders.Even those in the low ranks of the standings are much better and more self assured people and than when they first came into the academy.The past graduates have established the excellence of their training and they assume much greater responsibility's upon graduation than the average college graduate .
     

  6. #16  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Hartford, CT USA
    Posts
    2,024
    Quote Originally Posted by megimoo View Post
    You seem preoccupied with the physical aspects of the Point as in the marching to class and the demands of physical training.True the demand for a healthy cadet and the discipline are true but their academic standards are as high or higher than any civilian college.
    ...
    That is simply not true, as can be verified by looking at purely academic ratings from many sources. Moreover, the admission procedures as described in your previous post do not, necessarily promote academic merit...

    An applicant must obtain a nomination to be considered for an appointment to the academy. The sources of nomination are the President of the United States; the Vice President; U.S. Senators and Representatives; and the representatives of the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories. Special appointment categories include children of deceased and disabled veterans or of career military personnel, foreign students, regular U.S. army, U.S. army reserve, honor graduates of military and naval schools and ROTC, and children of Medal of Honor recipients
    Remember, these 100 Senators and 435 Representatives (plus DCs) are the same people who have, on this website TODAY, been described as idiots, asses, and know-nothings. While many nominees, I'm sure, do have significant academic achievements, many are also there as a direct result of political patronage.

    And remember our last POTUS who graduated from a military academy?
    Last edited by Cold Warrior; 10-05-2008 at 05:24 PM.
     

  7. #17  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,421
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Warrior View Post
    That is simply not true, as can be verified by looking at purely academic ratings from many sources. Moreover, the admission procedure as described in your previous post do not, necessarily promote academic merit...



    Remember, these 100 Senators and 435 Representatives (plus DCs) are the same people who have, on this website TODAY, been described as idiots, asses, and know-nothings. While many nominees, I'm sure, do have significant academic achievements, many are also there as a direct result of political patronage.

    And remember our last POTUS who graduated from a military academy?
    They are idiot asses, but the recommendation procedure is pretty rigorous and it is an honor to be chosen. Granted, the legacy aspects are there, but to be recommended is a lofty proposition. The Senators do not get unlimited recommendations (I think they only get 2 per year, but I could be wrong on that).

    Two of my colleagues have children in the academies right now. One at the Naval and one at West Point. The one at West Point is a legacy (her grandfather went there), the one at the Naval Academy is not. Both were tops of their classes at very academically rigorous private schools and had some pretty impressive extra-curriculars.

    A third "kid" that I was involved with regarding admissions chose to go to Columbia instead of the Naval Academy due to early admission standards. Funny, although he was top of his class at another tony private school, what really got him into Columbia was his status as a national champion in crew. Columbia most certainly opened lots of doors for him, and financially I'm sure he's doing much better than had he chosen the Academies, but I'm not certain he got a better education. The liberalism running rampant there was pretty tough for him to swallow and he found that, other than the other athletes there, most of the students were pretty freakish.
     

  8. #18  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Hartford, CT USA
    Posts
    2,024
    Quote Originally Posted by Phillygirl View Post
    They are idiot asses, but the recommendation procedure is pretty rigorous and it is an honor to be chosen. Granted, the legacy aspects are there, but to be recommended is a lofty proposition. The Senators do not get unlimited recommendations (I think they only get 2 per year, but I could be wrong on that).

    Two of my colleagues have children in the academies right now. One at the Naval and one at West Point. The one at West Point is a legacy (her grandfather went there), the one at the Naval Academy is not. Both were tops of their classes at very academically rigorous private schools and had some pretty impressive extra-curriculars.

    A third "kid" that I was involved with regarding admissions chose to go to Columbia instead of the Naval Academy due to early admission standards. Funny, although he was top of his class at another tony private school, what really got him into Columbia was his status as a national champion in crew. Columbia most certainly opened lots of doors for him, and financially I'm sure he's doing much better than had he chosen the Academies, but I'm not certain he got a better education. The liberalism running rampant there was pretty tough for him to swallow and he found that, other than the other athletes there, most of the students were pretty freakish.
    I am sure that the academies attempt to keep control of the nomination process as much as possible, as it would be prone to deteriorate into pure political patronage. Moreover, private universities, and particularly Ivy League universities, have their own problem with legacy admissions (how else could have GWB gotten into the Harvard MBA program after his record at Yale? For that matter, how else could he have gotten into Yale?).

    Although I don't have your personal experience, I have to suspect that there are many admissions based on patronage. I wonder, for example, how qualified McCain was in his admission. He went to a fine high school, but from the articles I've seen didn't seem particularly distinquished, at least academically (that's an inference, only btw).

    And yes, Columbia is a particularly liberal institution, as is Harvard. I watched that fairly closely over a period of four years. However, the academic standards and offerings are also extremely high. Columbia's dental school, for example, is the highest ranked in the nation, with extremely modern facilities and equipment. Additionally, up until his death recently, they had one Nobel winner on staff.
     

  9. #19  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Warrior View Post
    I am sure that the academies attempt to keep control of the nomination process as much as possible, as it would be prone to deteriorate into pure political patronage. Moreover, private universities, and particularly Ivy League universities, have their own problem with legacy admissions (how else could have GWB gotten into the Harvard MBA program after his record at Yale? For that matter, how else could he have gotten into Yale?).

    Although I don't have your personal experience, I have to suspect that there are many admissions based on patronage. I wonder, for example, how qualified McCain was in his admission. He went to a fine high school, but from the articles I've seen didn't seem particularly distinquished, at least academically (that's an inference, only btw).

    And yes, Columbia is a particularly liberal institution, as is Harvard. I watched that fairly closely over a period of four years. However, the academic standards and offerings are also extremely high. Columbia's dental school, for example, is the highest ranked in the nation, with extremely modern facilities and equipment. Additionally, up until his death recently, they had one Nobel winner on staff.
    QUESTION ABOUT COLUMBIA UNVERSITY SCHOOL OF DENTAL AND ORAL SURGERY


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DrNo7212-28-2000, 06:01 AM
    i had a friend who went to columbia
    and then subsequently quit. quite a number of ppl quit there.
    the dental school there isn't that good in my opinion.
    the rankings are too much like med school, w/ research money.. i didn't come to dental school to do research, i would have gone to grad school.

    nestled in the med school building, and taking the same courses as med students,
    you are treated as second class citizen at columbia.
    talk about lack of clinical experience!
    they start seeing patients in their 2nd semester of 3rd yr!!! can you say GPR or AGD? or lack of experience? some schools get your feet wet in your first yr. but most will get you fully involved in end of 2nd yr.

    hope it helps.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    turtleboard12-28-2000, 11:23 PM
    Not that I'm particularly partial to my Alma Mater's dental school, but I hear that NYU offers the best clinical experience of practically all dental schools.

    The downsides of NYU College of Dentistry? 1) The "dental center" is ugly, but it's one of the only dental schools I've ever seen that wasn't housed in the basement of someone's medical school. 2) Tuition is notoriously high, making it one of the most -- if not THE MOST -- expensive professional school in the country. 3) Not such a sparkling academic reputation, but then again, we're talking about a university whose claim to fame is its business school, law school, and its film school. http://www.studentdoctor.net/bbs/smile.gif


    Tim W. of N.Y.C.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DrNo7212-29-2000, 07:24 AM
    actually heard that tufts has the best clinical, and usc which is THE most expensive, has the best clinical teaching and experience. uconn supposedly has the best facility. u of md has its own dental school and building and planning on building a spankin' new building in couple of yrs if the economy doesn't turn too sour.


    Originally posted by turtleboard:
    Not that I'm particularly partial to my Alma Mater's dental school, but I hear that NYU offers the best clinical experience of practically all dental schools.

    The downsides of NYU College of Dentistry? 1) The "dental center" is ugly, but it's one of the only dental schools I've ever seen that wasn't housed in the basement of someone's medical school. 2) Tuition is notoriously high, making it one of the most -- if not THE MOST -- expensive professional school in the country. 3) Not such a sparkling academic reputation, but then again, we're talking about a university whose claim to fame is its business school, law school, and its film school. http://www.studentdoctor.net/bbs/smile.gif
    http://forums.studentdoctor.net/arch...p/t-28743.html
     

  10. #20  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Hartford, CT USA
    Posts
    2,024
    Quote Originally Posted by megimoo View Post
    QUESTION ABOUT COLUMBIA UNVERSITY SCHOOL OF DENTAL AND ORAL SURGERY

    ...l[/url]
    I'm not sure what you're getting at megs. First, you do realize that NYU and Columbia are different universities with different dental programs? Therefore, what value do Turtleboard's comments (that are posted twice) add to or detract from Columbia, the subject of the discussion. If you didn't realize this, you should stop cutting-and-pasting long enough to find out.

    Therefore, that leaves DrNo's comments, which are factually incorrect in a couple of things I can see immediately. Very few people leave the program voluntarily and, in fact, the graduation to admission ratio is probably above 80% (given a yearly class size of about 75). Several people do take more than 4 years to graduate, but few leave, particularly after the first year.

    Secondly, dental students see patients in the first semester of their third year. Yes, some schools do clinical work prior to this, but Columbia requires additional medical courses. Many of Columbia's graduates go onto specialities after graduation, while some go into research. Therefore, the delay of clinical experience. And yes, Tufts does have a fine program, but Columbia and Harvard are normally ranked 1 and 2 in the country.
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •