February 21

Hello, I am a graduating high school student and a recruited athlete with excellent academic qualifications. I have received "likely letters" from the University of Pennsylvania, Cornell University and Duke University. The most important factor, ironically, is not the quality of their sport teams, but rather, the education that I will be receiving. I would like to go on to a prestigious medical school and become a doctor later on. In the fortunate event that I should be accepted to all 3 institutions, which one, if by only a slight margin, is better in terms of prestige, social life and ability to grab an employer's attention?

According to the US News and Report, Penn is above Duke, which is above Cornell. But rankings are not always the best indicator of the quality of the schools and can vary depending on which one you look at.

Thank you for your time. Hustle (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Durham, North Carolina is known as the "City of Medicine" mainly because of Duke University and its various hospitals. Remember that at Duke you are also 8 miles from Chapel Hill, North Carolina which also has an excellent medical school. At Penn, you'll be in downtown Philadelphia, Pennsylvania which has a number of well-regarded hospitals and medical schools. At Cornell you'll be in Ithaca, New York which is a small town in the middle of nowhere. Although, it should be noted that your undergraduate degree can be in just about anything when applying to med school; I have read somewhere ^{[citation needed]} that chemistry majors tend to have higher acceptance rates at med schools than biology majors. Also, just because you do undergraduate at one of these schools does not mean that you would not attend a medical school at another place. If you want my honest opinion, they are all top-notch schools, and I have known people to go to and love all of them. You may have to base you decision on more than their academic reputation, which is pretty much equal between them all. Other factors like size of the school, location, city vs. rural campus, extracurriculars, interviews, specific programs, etc. should all come into play. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy League is Ivy League, and you might end up deciding that medicine is not for you. Of the three, I'd say choose whichever of the two Ivy League schools is most agreeable to you (location, weather, etc.) or whichever offers you the best financial package. But, if you're a basketball player, Duke might be a little harder to pass up. —Eustress ^talk 05:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. For my undergrad, I'm mainly looking for a social and fun experience, yet at the same time receive a top-notch education. For Med School, I plan on applying to many different ones and may not stay at the school I went to for undergrad. I actually live in a medium sized city, so both a large city like Philly or a tiny rural town like Ithaca would be a pleasant change for me. Hustle (talk) 07:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"better in terms of prestige, social life and ability to grab an employer's attention"

Prestige- 1. Duke 2. Cornell 3. Penn Duke is hands down the best known name in the South. 2. Cornell is well known. 3. Educated people here on the west coast are generally not aware of the reputation of Penn and assume it is a public university. Employer reputation - should be no different from the prestige evaluation. Social life - As a city person I would prefer Philly. (Just b/c Cornell is in NY don't assume you will be visiting NYC often. You will make rare visits only. So NYC will definitely not be part of your social life!)

But you know what my honest advice is? Go to your state university for free. As a doctor you undergraduate degree will add no value to your career prospects. It will simply be more expensive. There are many state universities with honors college programs that group students with high caliber SATs together. You can go to those schools for free on a merit scholarship and still have the benefits of a good education with bright peers. I know many people who went to expensive private schools, paying out of their own pocket for the privilege. They admit they made a mistake. Since we are going to go through a long recession that may even continue beyond your college graduate, it's even more important to consider the costs you might be bearing.

Watchwait (talk) 08:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second what Watchwait said. Save the money, or your parents' money, and go to a quality public school. When you're 40, or even 30, no one will care that you went to Duke or Cornell for your undergrad. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not exactly true. If you want to get into a quality medical school then the prestige of your undergrad institution does play its role. There are only a handful of public schools with the prestige of those schools he mentioned. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For me, cost is not really an issue as due to my family's poor financial circumstance, I qualify for near-complete need-based financial aid. How do the three school's prestige stack up internationally? Hustle (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably review College and university rankings and go from there if you want to look more into rankings. Also, I suggest talking to a university counselor regarding student financial aid. Uncle Sam can only get you a little over $5,000 (max) per year with a Pell Grant, and private need-based grants are competitive. Yes, you can get loans, but if you're planning to attend med school, I'd shoot to exit your undergrad with little to no debt. —Eustress ^talk 05:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you thinking about majoring in? If you know that then you may want to look and see what the professors in that field are doing research in. If one or two pique your interested, then apply to that school. You can become a research assistant, boost your resume for med school and enjoy what you're doing at the same time.--droptone (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to live and work legally in the United States without paying taxes that can be used to fund the US armed forces, the Pentagon, the DHS or the CIA? NeonMerlin 00:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Taxes are all pooled together, you can't distinguish which purposes your particular dollars go towards. If you want to avoid funding the US military, you need to leave the US. I can't see how it would work anyway. It's obviously unfair for you to pay less tax (you still benefit from the military whether you fund it or not), so if you want to not fund the military, you need to fund something else more. The funding requirements haven't changed, so that means someone else will be funding that something else less and the military more, so all you've really done is swap your taxes with someone else. It doesn't achieve anything. --Tango (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC

Even if you don't pay income taxes, almost everything else you purchase or consume has a tax component built into the final price. As Tango points out, no individual gets to say where specific tax dollars are spent. // BL \\ (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the idea that the benefits of military protection are non-rivalrous and non-exclusive make it a public good in Economics. The idea that everyone in the world benefits from it is one of many in the hegemonic stability theory. Just interesting side notes.NByz (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you wouldn't care much for the lifestyle. Income below a certain (very low) threshold is not taxed (or, more accurately, no tax is paid), and subsidence farming is certainly a viable (though unexciting) possibility. Most land is also subject to property tax, so you either need a sympathetic landlord (which might be considered cheating), land that is part of a Native-American reservation, or to live entirely on public property. Practically speaking, you'd probably be much happier emigrating to a country whose policies you actually agree with. – 74  03:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in articles like War Resisters League, National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee, Conscientious objection to military taxation, Tax resistance and their external and internal links.John Z (talk) 07:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note that all the agencies named by the original poster were federal. From what I gather, property taxes in the United States are levied at the local level — no property tax revenue will be used to directly fund any of the agencies listed. Now, it's possible that a local police force (funded by your property taxes) may cooperate with the FBI (for example) as part of an investigation, so I suppose it comes down to how picky you're willing to be about who gets what money.

Similarly, sales taxes in the United States are levied at the state and local level; goods can often be purchased without making a direct contribution to federal coffers. Be cautious here, however. Many items – including gasoline – are subject to excise taxes or import duties which are collected directly by the federal government. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, don't make any phone calls or buy any cigarettes or alcoholic beverages if you want to avoid paying excise taxes. Gasoline has an excise tax too, but it's not directed toward the government's general fund. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henry David Thoreau refused to pay his taxes because he didn't want to fund the Mexican-American War. He did get thrown in jail, but he did write Civil Disobedience while there. bibliomaniac15 00:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary question

Which nation, either current or in the past, has managed to combine a high level of law-and-order with a low-level of military activity the most successfully? One could say that Switzerland has kept out of trouble, but on the other hand they have national service. New Zealand would be my first guess, but I'd like that to be trumped, please almost-instinct 13:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While Switzerland may have pretty much every able bodied man in the army, their military activity is extremely low. There is lots of training, but that's about it. Also, if you're an immigrant, you wouldn't be eligible for national service anyway. --Tango (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that means that there's a healthy disincentive for would-be invaders. I was wondering if any nation had successfully decided to do away with armies and militarism, and but retained a civilised level of law-and-order. I can't imagine it happening (maybe I've read too much George Orwell on this subject) but am wondering how far in that direction a nation has got. In NZ's case their remoteness is obviously doing a lot as a natural defence almost-instinct 14:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland was protected by on-site U.S. forces until recently but now is going it alone without a standing army. Of course, geography plays an important factor there. Rmhermen (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't you know, we have an article: List of countries without armed forces. – 74  15:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That makes for interesting reading. Clearly being surrounded by water helps! Or being tiny and nestled up against a much larger civilised country. How about tweaking the question: which non-island nation with a population over, say, 2 million, has the lowest per capita spending on armed forces over a sustained period and/or has the most war-free history over the last couple of centuries? Hard to quantify that second part, sorry almost-instinct 15:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought was Costa Rica. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by military expenditures looks promising, but you would have to balance that with some useful "law and order" metrics. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the per capita list there, interesting to note the positions of NZ, Canada and Japan. Have we any "law and order" stats? almost-instinct 19:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by intentional homicide rate would be one data set. NByz (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is Category:Wars by country (incl. NZ, Canada and Japan), but it seems a labourious task to get some meaningful stats out of that. Clearly, homicide and other stats on crime would pertain to "law and order" but crime rates seem to be fairly unrelated to military spending. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OP, there is a way, if my information is correct. Some years back, a British journalist resident in Hong Kong was posted to the US. Since the UK and HK don't tax residents abroad -- and the US doesn't tax foreign correspondents living in the US -- he was effectively living tax free. Again, it is a story I was told directly by the person involved, and with no other support. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He would have to pay tax on any money he took back to the UK or HK, so it's just money spent in the US that would have been tax free. I'm surprised the US don't tax foreign correspondents that are being paid in the US (the money would need to go into a US bank account), but I guess there are lots of strange tax laws, so it's far from impossible. --Tango (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A friend of mine asked me this.Can anyone figure it out?? I'm at a loss....

3 MEN GO INTO A MOTEL. THE MAN BEHIND THE DESK SAID THE ROOM IS $30, SO EACH MAN PAID $10 AND WENT TO THE ROOM.

A WHILE LATER THE MAN BEHIND THE DESK REALIZED THE ROOM WAS ONLY $25, SO HE SENT THE BELLBOY TO THE 3 GUYS' ROOM WITH $5.

ON THE WAY, THE BELLBOY COULDN'T FIGURE OUT HOW TO SPLIT $5 EVENLY BETWEEN 3 MEN, SO HE GAVE EACH MAN A $1 AND KEPT THE OTHER $2 FOR HIMSELF.

THIS MEANT THAT THE 3 MEN EACH PAID $9 FOR THE ROOM, WHICH IS A TOTAL OF $27, ADD THE $2 THAT THE BELLBOY KEPT = $29.

WHERE IS THE OTHER DOLLAR?

Thanks in advance... 117.194.231.8 (talk) 06:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems problematic, but it's just an abuse of math. The guests paid $9 each, $27 total, of which the hotel kept $25 and the bellboy kept $2. There is no reason to add the $2 to the $27 that the guests paid (since the $2 is *already included* in that amount), but adding the $3 that the guests received as a refund ($1 each) does indeed produce the original $30 value. So, in summary, the fact that 27 + 2 ≠ 30 is neither surprising nor noteworthy, but the word problem incorrectly suggests otherwise. – 74  07:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These things used to drive me up the well known, too. I've put it in a couple of equations that may help seeing it clearer.

charge A $30 /3 = $10 each

charge B $25/3 = $8 1/3 each

overcharge $5 = $1 2/3 each

reimbursement $3/3 = $1 each

final charge $27/3 = $9 each

= 25 change B + $2 bellhop tip (or $2/3 he embezzled from each of the men)

= 30 charge A - $3 they got back

(Mathematicians please don't bite. I know it's not proper math syntax.) Hope this helps. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 08:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could read the article: Missing dollar riddle. --Anonymous, 09:49 UTC, February 21, 2009.

This joke is often used in Pantomime in the UK, it must date back to the invention of money. I repeat my comment from yesterday... old jokes are new to those who have not heard them.86.197.175.121 (talk) 11:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)DT[reply]

If you actually try it with coins / poker chips whatever, it becomes easy to visualise. The first point is that at no time are there less than 30 coins in circulation, so none have "disappeared". At the end of the transaction the hotel has 25, indicating that each man paid a hotel bill of 25 divide by 3 = 8¹/₃ NOT 9 each ! The point is they have been ripped off by the bell boy to the amount of ²/₃ each, being a total of 2. At the end of the day, nothing is missing, as they have the balancing value of 3 in their pockets !--41.15.133.227 (talk) 04:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

in laymans terms what id global recession or meltdown and how do we get rid of this and how is US economy effecting the world economy. is american economy directly responsible?? is it true that, russia was not effected by the great depression of 1929, but how??thanking you in advance

You could start by reading Global financial crisis of 2008–2009 and relevant articles linked therein. The article on the Great Depression has a section on the Soviet Union and a couple of promising looking links on its economic events around that time. 88.112.63.253 (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The financial crisis, which has triggered an economic crisis (likely both are the first-ever ‘global’ crises of their kinds), is based on a loss of faith in the value of certain bonds (a short-hand term I’ll use for Mr. Layman that includes many other kinds of financial instruments). The people who would normally buy these bonds from those who hold them don’t think they’re worth much (if anything), which means those who hold these bonds feel like they’ve suffered a loss. The path to stability requires finding a willing price, or value for these bonds. Once that is done, buyers will buy and sellers will sell (the definition of a willing price).

Since economies cannot be held responsible, the blame shouldn’t be placed there. Rather, it might be more useful to place the blame with those who created these special kinds of bonds, and those who decided they were valuable investments. As for Russia (the USSR, in the 1920s and 1930s), it was only very poorly integrated with the rest of the world during the Great Depression, and so was more strongly affected by its own internal affairs. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I remember an arcade game in the 70s or 80s, it was a diving game where you are a diver with some kind of underwater jetpack and you mission is to attack a submarine with a spear gun. Does anyone know what the game I am talking about is called? Thanks. 86.137.97.95 (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was it an arcade game or a console system game (or both). If console, do you know which system(s). Jungle_Hunt fits part of your description. It has an underwater diver with a spear attacking alligators. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A game for the Atari 2600 sounds similar but I'm not sure if it was also an arcade game. Sea Quest [1]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My father gave me a bottle of wine that he said was very old and im trying to research it with no results.Hope you can help. The name is Cocai Italico. Below that is Di Scodovacca. Below that is Azienda MERK Agricola. Below that Scodovacca/Italia. Below that Vino Da Tavola. To the left of that e 0,750l. On the side of the label it says IMBOTT.DA V.G.A.-S.STINO-ITALIA 11,50%VOL. The label has an etching of a vineyard and a family seal with MERK and what looks like a Knights helmet above it. The label surrounding the cork says Az.Agricola Merk. Below that CONTR.IVA A-2 SRP R.I. 7650/UD. Any help ?

Is this (http://www.vinigeretto.it/ing/Linea.asp?Linea=Merk) any good? The name and logo match the brand and there are a series of bottles but none match that - though presumably this is their 'currently buyable' selection. If it is the brand i'd use that as a term for seeking out more info about this particular bottle. ny156uk (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem to be a table wine from Aquilea, between Udine and Trieste in the Friuli area of NE Italy. There are a lot of Google hits, but it is all in Italian :( --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Table wine. e 0,750l there are 0.75 liters of wine in the bottle. IMBOTT.DA V.G.A.-S.STINO-ITALIA that's the company that put the wine into the bottle. 11,50%VOL is the alcohol content (remember they use , instead of . for decimall). Cervignano del Friuli is what Scodovacca it:Scodovacca is a part of. Azienda is company. "Azienda Agricola" would usually be translated as "farm" but would most probably be "vineyard" here. MERK seems to be their name [2]. The vineyard is int the Province of Udine. The number R.I. 7650/UD is some registration number there. Hope this helps. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]