Toolboxnj

As a sidenote I attend the "most diverse" university campus in America according to U.S. News and World Report

Sure, we must look after our interests and that's why we should employ rational measures to avoid civilian South Korean, Japanese, and Taiwanese casualties. These are our allies economically, militarily and intellectually as are Israel and most of Europe. While we should place our interests first, this does not give America the license to completely disregard everyone else unless there is simply no choice. You wouldn't indiscriminatly fire into a crowd to stop a pickpocket just because you have the right to self-defense. Like I said, we have the moral right to destroy the DPRK, but is it in our interest or is it militarily feasable at this point? It doesn't appear that the DPRK is a threat to America even after this "display" where the long-range missle malfunctioned 45 seconds after launch. I'm confident that the CIA and military know more about this than both of us so I reserve them to make the judgement. One can even argue that a military assault on the DPRK would actually be sacrifical of America and could provoke Russia and China into a conflict. And I take offense that you twisted my comments into something they weren't and implying that I subscribe to the Kantian tradition. Be more careful, sir.

Well, not quite. From my understanding this loophole was closed in the late 80s and that only grandfathered VULs of this kind exist. Today you need to pass the 7-year test or else it becomes a modified endowment fund that can adversly affect your taxes. Some broker-dealers have VULs that just barely skeek under the test, but they aren't benefitual because of all the costs and penalties you can pay. From my experience, just max out your tax-deferred vehicles (401k, 403b, IRA) and you should be better off than a VUL. Agents love to sell the VUL, WL and annuities because they get a monster commissions for selling them.

Problem is the conventional weaponry trained on Seoul on the DPRK side that can inflict perhaps millions of injuries and casualties to South Koreans. As a realist, the United States has to be careful because of the global dynamics. I'm just in favor as anyone here to eliminate the DPRK, but there is also a certain measure of critical thinking that we need to have.

I would use it to create more wealth and more jobs in America and around the globe. I would also help finance an organization that spread Aristotelean philosophy in the Middle East. Perhaps I'd commit money for a university program for "Capitalist Studies". 22, Grad Student

That's odd because I usually like Stein's commentary on most issues. I'll Lexis the transcript of the show tonight and check it out.

Maybe the United States will learn from Israel in regards to dealing with terrorism.

Maybe in your parents' eyes you do deserve it. Either you have a self-image problem or harbor some guilt for something you've done in the past. Even so, if your parents do not deduct you on their taxes you can take on the FAFSA yourself and put your own taxes on it. That way you'll get access to more grants and loans, even though $3000/yr isn't too much at all for undergrad. I'd talk to your parents about it too. Open up some communication lines with them.

It's my understanding that the parent is the child's guardian until it has the faculties to perform on its own. A child, as an individual, has the right to life and property but the parent is its custodian that holds these responsibilities in trust until the age of majority. It would be criminal to abuse or neglict children that are in your care or that have been entrusted to you. If you wish to give up custody of the child, that is certainly your right. But so long as you hold that position of trust with a child (and you could argue that elderly adults can be in this position as well) then it's your job to take care of them.

If I have time between terms I'll go out to CO for that

Little too much money for me this year, but I'll be there for the 2008 conference where ever it is

Eh, perhaps it was a paper. Got my brain all in a knot there.

The best I can do is direct you to David Buss' website. I've read his book Evolutionary Psychology. He's a leading figure in the E.P. area.

Tara Smith is working on one right now. I went to her lecture on the topic at NYU this winter.

We've gotten totally off the subject, but I guess natural selection has no effect on the people we are today according to some on this forum. While evolutionary psychology may not provide all the correct answers (and also comes into conflict with the philosophic underpinnings of this forum and Objectivism), to simply address the science out of hand is not scholarly nor prudent. I had the same suspicions myself when studying the subject and yes, there are many deficiencies in the study because E.P. scholars try to create correlations where no correlation exists simply for their agenda. Some seemed very silly, like a study where mate quality was linked to dancing ability. However, to claim that any and all research in the area is tripe is not advisable either.

I never claimed that we are determined by our genes to a particular fate as some radical evolutionary psychologists would claim. But it's clear that natural selection and evolutionary factors lead to what man and other animals are today. It has been evolutionary scientists that have Marxist inclinations (like Robert Trivers, a former Black Panther) that have pionnered discoveries in parental investment and reciprocal altruism that have been found in humans and lower/higher animals. Do we dismiss these findings out of hand because they come into conflict with our philosophical beliefs? No. We challenge them and be critical because the more critical we are the more truth we will find. Why would questioning fluxuating asymmetry's effect on mating violate the sanctity of the individual? Racehorses that are more symmetrical tend to run faster (it's been empircally proven), but the most symmetrical horse may be the slowest of them all. How is this study an offense to those that pride individualism? It merely provides a possible explanation that more symmetrical horses have had more offspring and throughout hundreds and thousands of generations we have the horse we have today. Yes, that one horse that runs slow has the potential to stud hundreds of horses and that would be something that is interesting to study. A Canadian study found that step-fathers are 40x more likely to murder a cohabitant newborn (less than one year old living in the same house) than a biological father would. Does this mean that all individual step-fathers are murderers and should be treated as such? No. Does this mean that we may find and develop a theory to why this occurs? Sure. We can and evolutionary psychologists use their theory of parental investment to give their explanation of what is going on in these households. There has been volumes of data and studies dedicated to this topic. Sure there are differences between men and women and anyone who says no has not been observant of human nature.

Evolutionary psychology is extremely useful for explaining some, but not all, human behaviors using ultimate or distal explanations. Why, for instance, do women prefer more effeminate faces where there is less pathogen stress and more masculine faces where there is greater pathogen stress? Why do the clothes people wear (for instance, a Burger King uniform verses a business-suit) have a greater effect on how women rate a potential mate's attractivness than men? Is fluctuating asymmetry (FA) an indicator of mate quality? Some studies suggest it is. I think these are interesting questions and I was rather skeptical at first as well. While evolutionary psychology cannot be applied to individual cases, I do believe it may be helpful in explaining overall trends. Also, some of the founders of the social evolution movement (like Trivers) are well-known Leftist scientists and one has to be aware of this. The Mukogodo of Kenya tend to treat their daughters with better care and love than their sons. Using evolutionary psychology we provide possible explanations to why this is true. I won't go through the whole study, but the conclusion was that parents value daughters more so they may have a chance to marry into higher classes between the tribes in Kenya. There is also the theory of reciprocal altruism which is very interesting, studies on male aggression with genetic and adopted children, sperm competition and Kipsigis’ bride wealths.

Yes. The admissions officer won't make an empirical calculation, but it's rather a judgement call. Basically, every university has "draw schools" which they receive multiple applications from each year. They form relationships with the administration and guidance dept. in those schools for recruiting purposes. So the admissions officer can generally get a feel for the quality of student that comes from each school by talking to the depts and looking at the transcripts. They won't make detailed comparisons, but it's one of those exceptions to the rule. I would assume so. Honesly, Asians may have a tougher time than whites because of reverse discrimination. We didn't differeniate between Asian and white. We didn't differentiate between A-s, As and A+s. That would have taken forever. A B+ would be a B and a B- would be a B. It just would have taken too much time to do the recalcuations and it probably evens out in the end.

These are all good questions. The college I did work for was a private university. They worked off the altruistic premise that most universities operate under: that minority students are inherently disadvantaged and a more "level playing field" is needed. I'm not sure of the legality of the practice or whether the private university is mandated to accept more minority students. On the application itself it asked for your race and I guess these included white, black, hispanic, native-American, etc. If you were considered a "minority", you where coded as such in the database. So they could do a search for all minority candidates to reevaluate them later on. It's funny because this upper-middle class white girl in my high school applied to Harvard as a 1/8 Native-American and qualified for minority status. I had better SAT and GPA than her and she got into Harvard on the basis of her "minority status", although she was probably better off than I was.

Not exactly. We would record the grade as it was with the school. So if the school's scale was 93-100 and they got a 93 we would calculate it as an A. If the scale was 90-100 and they got a 90 we would also record an A. We wouldn't take a 90 from a 93+ school and make it into an A... on purpose. There were times where either out of ignorance or lazyness we would give the student a higher grade, but never a lower grade than they deserved. We never took a 92, for instance, and turned it into a B without consulting the grade scale first. Therefore, the students from the "90-100 = A" schools had a slight advantage because their students had an A at 90 while others may have needed a 93 for that A. Whether or not it made a difference or not is unknown, but out of 5000 applicants perhaps this flaw in the process kicked a couple kids in or out. This flaw, though, is nothing compared to the lowering of standards for non-white students. We aren't talking about lowering the SAT standard by 50 points, but over 200 points for minority students!

International students are a totally different matter. I personally have no clue to be honest. International students were handled by a different department since they were much more sensitive to travel restrictions, student visas and because they had a different financial standing. I only did US students. To answer your question more directly, yes, BS classes are not included BUT this doesn't mean failing photography in senior year doesn't hurt you. Generally your "core" classes are taken into account like English, Math, Science, History and Foreign Language. We didn't weight (or weigh?.. ugh) subjects, but if a student got As in everything but got Cs and Ds in math we sometimes would overlook that since it was a liberal arts school (this would be something for the admissions committees to look at). Some schools give numerical grades (83, 99, 72) and some schools give letter grades (A, B, C) on their transcripts. If I recall correctly, New York has all letter grades because they are standardized that way. But, an 85 at one school can be different than an 85 at another school. For example... If your school's grade scale is: A (90-100), B (80-89), C (70-79), D (65-69) then an 85 would be a B and would be counted as such. What about the school that has the following grade scale: A (93-100), B (86-92), C (78-85), D (70-77)? If you recieved an 85 in a class you would probably get a C+ which is certainly lower than a B. So it's the admissions officers job to get the grade scales and then acquire the actual letter grade. Typically a school will send the scales with the transcript so it's easier for the officer to make the distinction. But, what if they do not have a grade scale? If he/she is lazy (and I was at times on those cold January days) I'll just assume that 90+ is an A and 80-89 is a B hereby giving credit to students who may not have earned it. Your "recalculated GPA" then is a product of your effort and the grade scale of your school along with the schools of the students you are competing against. You could take two identical transcripts and they could be totally different students depending on what the scales are at your school. Therefore, the students with the MOST advantage are those who list letter grades and have liberal grade scales (like one where an 80 is a . The students with the disadvantage are those with tougher grade-scales and numerical grades obviously. It is up to the officer to judge whether the student is entitled to "help" in his GPA after looking at the transcript to make things a little more fair.

One can look toward social evolution for an answer on the topic, and I believe I can throw my $.02 in. I read a study of bridewealth payments in Kenya when I was in undergrad and - lo and behold - parents of younger girls received higher bridewealth payments for their daughters. At a girls first menses she is available for marriage since she can have children. The younger you can have children, the greater chances of reproductive success you should have. A girl who has her first menses at 11 has a higher probability of having greater children than a woman at 15 for obvious reasons. But in today's civilized society (in general, what is called "The West") there are no longer these reproductive pressures... in fact, some Western countries (Japan, Russia) will experience population contractions over the next 20-50 years. While we could use the Kenyan bridewealth study as an examination of biological or evolutionary interest, the moral argument does not stand any longer (Naturalistic Fallacy: Explanation does not equal justification). Politically and ethically, libertarians say "so long as both parties 'consent' than anything goes", including sex with minors, public executions, duels to the death and other things that are morally abhorrent. But also, one cannot be prosecuted because of thoughts particularly sexually crude thoughts of children due to free speech and free thought "rights" (individual rights). There is also the subject of neoteny as defined as "Retention of juvenile characteristics in the adults of a species" (dictionary.com). As humans we are attracted to other humans with more youthful appearances and also strive to be more youthful ourselves (everything from cosmetics and face creams to plastic surgery and lifting weights). It's no surprise that teens aged 12-17 who attempt to look older gain attraction from those adults who would find pedophilia morally repugnant. .

Mod's note: Split from a related thread on "Diversity Essays" for school admission. Maybe if I get the time I will. I wouldn't want to give any bad information, though, since every school is different and each office looks for different qualifications. My best advice would be to get good (or great) grades, study your brain off for the SAT/ACT and apply EARLY! Also, form a personal bond with an admissions officer; get to meet them, by pleasurable... make them not want to reject you. But in the end everything comes down to two numbers: your official SAT/ACT and your recalculated GPA. The GPA your high school gives you is worthless. This is because in most states (NY isn't one of them) local districts do not standardize their grading systems. If you live in New Jersey, for instance, a 3.2 in Westfield H.S. is different than a 3.2 in Rumson Fair-Haven. So the admissions officer (and their junior cohorts) have to go through each transcript and count how many As, Bs, Cs.. etc you have and then assign you a brand new GPA so that you can be compared to the rest of your peers. This is extremely time consuming and tedious. The best thing a high school can do is lobby their state for a universial format for transcripts so that college admissions officers can dedicate more time to essays, interviews, honors projects, and recommendation letters instead of re-doing all these damn transcripts. This way the officers know right off the bat which classes are academic and which were electives (Calculus vs. Photography). I'll tell you exactly what happens after Feburary. When all the necessary information comes in (transcripts, offical SAT, letters, fees) the officers go right to the transcript and SAT. They take the transcript and cross out all your BS classes like art, gym, etc and count how many As, Bs, Cs, Ds, and Fs you accumulated over your 3 1/2 years in your academic classes. They then average the grades together and assign you a new number that is compared to the rest of your peers. They also count all your honors and AP classes and place this aside. With this new number they take your SAT and go to a grid. The grid has two axis, the GPA on the Y-axis increasing from bottom to top and then SAT on the x-axis decreasing from left to right. So the highest numbers are in the upper-left and lowest numbers in lower-right. The grid is broken into boxes which correspond to a GPA and SAT. The highest would be 3.5GPA/2200+ SAT for instance and would say "automatic yes". So if you have those numbers you are automatically in. As the boxes go to the right and bottom they change from automatic to "yes", to borderline, conditional and finally "no". Depending on where you are on the grid will reveal your fate. If you are on the borderline then the officer will make a judgement call about your honors/AP classes and whether you should be rewarded for it. I always thought it was totally unfair that a high school student takes 15 Honors/AP classes (like me) is judged on the same grid than a guy who didn't take any honors classes. I don't know if other colleges do it differently, but that's what my school did. Anyways... The grid also changes week to week getting progessively less "accept" boxes to where in April and May it is tougher than say January. If you are on that borderline, the admissions offical will look at your essays and letters and then will choose (or choose not) to advocate you. Finally in May-June all the rejects are put into a pool where the ethincity of the rejects is coded. So if you are hispanic, black, native-American or any other "minority" you get a shot at a new grid. This grid is much easier than the original and every minority candidate is then judged with this grid until all the spaces at the college are taken up. Thats affirmative action for you.

John Stossel's book Give Me A Break was my real introduction to libertarianism in college. Prior to reading it I was a stunch conservative. If you want to introduce someone who is apolitical to small-government politics, that book is probably the best thing you could buy them (even better than anything written by Ayn Rand).

Just for the record, admissions essays are hardly read at the undergraduate level. I worked in undergraduate admissions and only those candidates that are on the borderline in terms of GPA and SAT are reviewed to that extent. If you are at the point then a good essay will help you. Generally admissions officials have a BA/BS at most, are fairly liberal but also are very fair. While I wouldn't write an essay against diversity I would provide examples where diversity is in fact a benefit. We are apt to think of affirmative action when the word "diversity" comes up, but diversity is much more than that. Diversity of ideas in a group may be a benefit, for example.