Where's Pete's girl?
Dan Cornelius
Forgive me if I missed the news, but does any one know the details on
the
Pete - Delana Mulcahey breakup? After all these years, and all that
sobbing and
weeping after the U.S Open final last year, she's not at the AO, and
Pete never even
mentioned her during his victory speech. I watched almost all the
ESPN/ESPN2
coverage the past two weeks, and I don't think CLiff or Fred mentioned
anything
either. It's too bad, but I guess I'm not surprised. Delana's a lawyer
but Pete's
not even a high school grad. There's probably not much to him once you
get past the
tennis.
James Taylor
On Sun, 26 Jan 1997 04:32:55 -0500, Dan Cornelius <cor...@osu.edu>
wrote:
> It's too bad, but I guess I'm not surprised. Delana's a lawyer
>but Pete's
>not even a high school grad. There's probably not much to him once you
>get past the
>tennis.
I am not sure which prejudice is sillier: a) that lawyers are
interesting and have "depth" or b) that someone who has devoted his
life to a singular ambition [becoming the BEST tennis player in the
world] and succeeded at it, must not have any depth because he did not
"graduate from high school". You can find better benchmarks, I'm
sure.
jim
Nemanja Dundjerovic
> I am not sure which prejudice is sillier: a) that lawyers are
> interesting and have "depth" or b) that someone who has devoted his
> life to a singular ambition [becoming the BEST tennis player in the
> world] and succeeded at it, must not have any depth because he did not
> "graduate from high school". You can find better benchmarks, I'm
> sure.
>
Regardless of particulars, a law school graduate will invariably have a
more thorough thought process than a high school dropout. I don't think
the breakup has to do with this, though. I think Pete is too
concentrated on winning to have enough time to share with Delaina. If a
player devotes enough time to his significant other (i.e. Becker,
Agassi), his results suffer.
Ed Dybdal
Nemanja Dundjerovic wrote:
>
> Regardless of particulars, a law school graduate will invariably have a
> more thorough thought process than a high school dropout. I don't think
> the breakup has to do with this, though. I think Pete is too
> concentrated on winning to have enough time to share with Delaina. If a
> player devotes enough time to his significant other (i.e. Becker,
> Agassi), his results suffer.
Pete isnt exactly a great poster boy for staying in school. You drop out
and you get millions and millions of dollars. He will probably make more
money in his 15 year or so career than is ex lawyer will probably make
in her lifetime.
CyBear
Dan Cornelius <cor...@osu.edu> wrote:
>>Forgive me if I missed the news, but does any one know the details on
>>the Pete - Delana Mulcahey breakup?
>>It's too bad, but I guess I'm not surprised. Delana's a lawyer
>>but Pete's not even a high school grad. There's probably not much
>> to him once you get past the tennis.
I didn't know that that Pete is not an HS grad. The Pro Tennis playing
window of opportunity is relatively short and Pete has taken full
advantage of it since he burst on the scene in the 1990 US Open. At
25, he has only a few years left now. He can make his $millions$,
enter the record books, and knock off a night course later. And even
knock off a degree if he is so inclined.
But I doubt that your statement about 'not much to him once you get
the tennis' is true. They were together for several years as I recall
and you just don't do that if there is "nothing there". But whatever
the case, it's Pete's and Delana's business isn't it?
Perhaps you can find the information you need in the National Enquirer
at the supermarket your interest in people is at that shallow of a
level.
Donal Fagan
In article <32EC15...@achilles.net>, nem...@achilles.net says...
>Regardless of particulars, a law school graduate will invariably have a
>more thorough thought process than a high school dropout.
There are all sorts of theories about different kinds of intelligence. I've
read about aborigines that barely register on Western IQ tests but can perform
impressive feats of memory and reasoning on a more concrete level. There are
musical prodigies that are routinely called geniuses, what are their IQs? Once
his focus changes, Sampras could prove brilliant at other things. or, he could
turn out like Borg.
Donal Fagan
y...@boron.me.berkeley.edu
In article <32EBF4...@earthlink.net>,
Ed Dybdal <ed...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Nemanja Dundjerovic wrote:
>>
>> Regardless of particulars, a law school graduate will invariably have a
>> more thorough thought process than a high school dropout.
Generally speaking, tennis player level and intellectual
level do not correlate. Despite of this fact, I cannot
point any player in the best 30 with IQ < 90. May be Rios? :)
Speaking about Delaina: I recall a study
of correlation between spouses education level
and marriage longevity. They claimed that
big difference in education is bad for marriages.
>> the breakup has to do with this, though. I think Pete is too
>> concentrated on winning to have enough time to share with Delaina. If a
>> player devotes enough time to his significant other (i.e. Becker,
>> Agassi), his results suffer.
And this is true not for the tennis only.
O.
David Hoye
Nemanja Dundjerovic (nem...@achilles.net) writes:
>> I am not sure which prejudice is sillier: a) that lawyers are
>> interesting and have "depth" or b) that someone who has devoted his
>> life to a singular ambition [becoming the BEST tennis player in the
>> world] and succeeded at it, must not have any depth because he did not
>> "graduate from high school". You can find better benchmarks, I'm
>> sure.
>
> Regardless of particulars, a law school graduate will invariably have a
> more thorough thought process than a high school dropout.
This is quite patently bullshit, and I can name names. So could
you, if you thought about it for a bit.
For starters, thought about what? A lawyer will probably think
about a parking ticket more than a tennis pro. A tennis instructor can
look at someone play and think about ways to improve their strokes, or
game. Equating a public education, or even a university education, with
an ability to "think" is erroneous at best. Extreme cases like Einstein
come to mind, but even if you're just looking at university dropouts like
Bill Gates there are more than enough examples to go around.
--
Mike Hoye
K. Lee Tung
So then it is true that Pete and Delaina broke up?
She was not present (quite noticeably). Anyone know if Pete
stated a reason?
He doesn't seem much affected by it though, quite odd.
KLT
Nemanja Dundjerovic
I never said there aren't intelligent people who never graduated from
university or even high school. However, graduating from university
increases one's mental capacity greatly. It teaches one how to learn.
Pete does not have this, Delaina does. But like I said, I don't think
this has much to do with their (alledged) breakup.
Sanj
Donal Fagan wrote:
> or, he could turn out like Borg.
>
> Donal Fagan
Hi,
My response to this is, ... huh?
:)
Seriously, though, are you talking about his attempts at running
a business?
Sanj
--
The opinions expressed herein are mine alone.
Sanj
Dirk Van Rooy wrote:
> Thak goodness the standards of eduction are somewhat lower in America
> than here in Europe, or else there would be few interesting people
> left in the states.
Hi,
Could you elaborate?
I am curious. What do you mean by "the standards of education are somewhat
lower in America than here in Europe?" Are you talking about higher ed.?
David Hoye
Nemanja Dundjerovic (nem...@achilles.net) writes:
> David Hoye wrote:
>>
>> Nemanja Dundjerovic (nem...@achilles.net) writes:
>> >
>> > Regardless of particulars, a law school graduate will invariably have a
>> > more thorough thought process than a high school dropout.
>>
>> This is quite patently bullshit, and I can name names. So could
>> you, if you thought about it for a bit.
>>
>> For starters, thought about what? A lawyer will probably think
>> about a parking ticket more than a tennis pro. A tennis instructor can
>> look at someone play and think about ways to improve their strokes, or
>> game. Equating a public education, or even a university education, with
>> an ability to "think" is erroneous at best. Extreme cases like Einstein
>> come to mind, but even if you're just looking at university dropouts like
>> Bill Gates there are more than enough examples to go around.
>>
>
> I never said there aren't intelligent people who never graduated from
> university or even high school.
No, you said "invariably". This means "without exception". I pointed out
to you that there are indeed exceptions, and hence your statement is
incorrect.
> However, graduating from university
> increases one's mental capacity greatly. It teaches one how to learn.
> Pete does not have this, Delaina does. But like I said, I don't think
> this has much to do with their (alledged) breakup.
You're making a gross generalization about learning and thinking
processes. It is a mistake to think that specialized knowledge equates to
"intelligence".
--
Mike Hoye
Donal Fagan
In article <5ciiqe$s...@oscva.orbital.com>, "ssiva\""@\"orbital\".\"com
says...
>Seriously, though, are you talking about his attempts at running
>a business?
Yeah, mostly. He seems to have run through a lot of money and a few
marriages. He was a dud as a commentator. Ironically, I read once that
he thought Vitas Gerulaitis picked up too many checks.
Donal Fagan
ga...@lehigh.edu
In article <5ch5k8$3...@agate.berkeley.edu>, y...@boron.ME.Berkeley.EDU () writes:
>In article <32EBF4...@earthlink.net>,
>Ed Dybdal <ed...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>Nemanja Dundjerovic wrote:
>>>
>>> more thorough thought process than a high school dropout.
>
>level do not correlate. Despite of this fact, I cannot>point any player in the best 30 with IQ < 90. May be Rios? :)
>
>Speaking about Delaina: I recall a study
>of correlation between spouses education level
>and marriage longevity. They claimed that
>big difference in education is bad for marriages.
>
>
>
>>> the breakup has to do with this, though. I think Pete is too
>>> concentrated on winning to have enough time to share with Delaina. If a
>>> player devotes enough time to his significant other (i.e. Becker,
>>> Agassi), his results suffer.
>
>And this is true not for the tennis only.
>
>
>
>O.
There have been several articles written about this in general. Chris Evert
says that one reason she and Connors didn't last was that they could not
"support" each other on the tour - both were still up and ocming stars, there
was no way either could be relegated to "cheerleader". Her marriage to John
Lloyd lasted as long as it did because John was not a "star".
Chris and others have stated how hard the tour is on the spouse or significant
other. The focus is on the player and his or her needs: making travel
arrangements, hotel reservations, meal arrangements, practice time, workouts,
nutrition, etc. The player needs to be focused on upcoming matches.
Look at the tennis marriages that seem to be working and we will find that the
spouse is in a supportive role: Edberg, Becker, Connors, Lendl.
McEnroe's wife wanted to return to her career, that didn't work, he needed her
on the tour, end of marriage.
Jury's still out on Agassi, but he and Brooke haven't tied the know. But here
is another gap in education - Brooke graduated from Princeton, Agassi?
Even the long term relationship of Navratilova and Nelson lasted as long as
Judy knew and accepted her role as nurturer of the star, among other reasons.
As for Pete's ex, well, she probably wanted to embark on her career. Most
likely she didn't want to limit her practice to lucrative tennis contracts.
It's had to travel around the world when you have briefs to prepare, research
to do, etc. And let's face it, the new lawyers in a firm probably get the
dregs of research to do.
The life of being the significant other to a tennis pro is not easy. Is it
any wonder that some stay only a short while, because they want more from life
than what the tour gives them.
I can admire those that leave the tour because they want more - for the woman,
it's finding a man and having kids. And we can gain a measure of appreciation
for those that stay on the tour because being the "best" is what they strive
for, choosing the glory or the quest for glory at the expense of well,
whatever you want to call it, happiness in a relationship? family life?
Gail A. Fullman, Senior Consultant
Phone: (610) 758-3113
Fax: (610) 758-4983
E-MailL ga...@lehigh.edu
Steve Barnard
Dirk Van Rooy wrote:
>
> So in America, you only become interesting after getting a degree ?
> Thak goodness the standards of eduction are somewhat lower in America
> than here in Europe, or else there would be few interesting people
> left in the states.
Hundreds of millions of people live in the US. Just because one US
resident posts something stupid that doesn't make it official policy.
A partial list of interesting people from the US with no degree:
- Elvis
- Muhammad Ali
- Little Richard
- John McEnroe
- Bill Gates
Steve Barnard (PhD)
Kirill Semenov
On 27 Jan 1997, David Hoye wrote:
> Nemanja Dundjerovic (nem...@achilles.net) writes:
[...]
> > Regardless of particulars, a law school graduate will invariably have a
> > more thorough thought process than a high school dropout.
>
> This is quite patently bullshit, and I can name names. So could
> you, if you thought about it for a bit.
>
> For starters, thought about what? A lawyer will probably think
> about a parking ticket more than a tennis pro. A tennis instructor can
> look at someone play and think about ways to improve their strokes, or
> game. Equating a public education, or even a university education, with
> an ability to "think" is erroneous at best. Extreme cases like Einstein
> come to mind, but even if you're just looking at university dropouts like
> Bill Gates there are more than enough examples to go around.
While I agree that the original argument confuses education and thinking
ability, I tend to agree that more likely than not, a university (law
school) graduate will make a far more intellectually developed individual
than a high-school dropout. Exceptions like Einstein and Gates are just
that. I am more than certain that outside of tennis Sampras is about as
exciting as a root canal. I would venture to say that it is impossible to
become a well-rounded interesting person when your life is dedicated to
excelling at a single thing; Gates and Einstein are perfect examples of
this.
KIRILL SEMENOV
ksem...@iname.com http://www.scar.utoronto.ca/~93semeno
93se...@wave.scar.utoronto.ca
ax...@torfree.net GO LEAFS GO!
7103...@CompuServe.com
Steve Barnard
Nemanja Dundjerovic wrote:
>
> > I am not sure which prejudice is sillier: a) that lawyers are
> > interesting and have "depth" or b) that someone who has devoted his
> > life to a singular ambition [becoming the BEST tennis player in the
> > world] and succeeded at it, must not have any depth because he did not
> > "graduate from high school". You can find better benchmarks, I'm
> > sure.
> >
>
> the breakup has to do with this, though. I think Pete is too
> concentrated on winning to have enough time to share with Delaina. If a
> player devotes enough time to his significant other (i.e. Becker,
> Agassi), his results suffer.
I don't know Delaina, but she is in all liklihood a golddigger. She is
much older than Sampras and she hooked up with him right after he won
the USO at age 19. His career toook a nosedive right after that.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe she's a wonderful, selfless person. But I doubt
it. Look for a big-money palimony suit, which will prove me right.
Steve Barnard
Charles Lin
Sanj ("ssiva\""@\"orbital\".\"com) wrote:
|| Dirk Van Rooy wrote:
|| > Thak goodness the standards of eduction are somewhat lower in America
|| > than here in Europe, or else there would be few interesting people
|| > left in the states.
|| Hi,
|| Could you elaborate?
|| I am curious. What do you mean by "the standards of education are somewhat
|| lower in America than here in Europe?" Are you talking about higher ed.?
I suspect that's what he meant. The argument was that Pete Sampras
was uninteresting because he was a high school dropout and that people
who had a degree (say, a bachelor's) were more interesting. The US
probably graduates many more bachelor's degree per capita than in Europe.
Dirk suggests (probably accurately) that this means it's easier to get
a bachelor's in the US than the equivalent in Europe. This makes sense
if you believe that European and American high schools produce about
the same quality of students. If few people go to college in Europe,
it stands to reason that only the most qualified go to college. Hence
if 10% of the high school population in Europe goes and 50% of the
high school population goes in the US, and most people get their degree
at some point, then it's likely that the US universities have to be
somewhat easier to pass.
That's more at the bottom of the stack. I believe those who are
doing particularly well at a university are getting a quality education,
however.
--
Charles Lin
cl...@cs.umd.edu
Irwin Pui-Yin Choy
He doesn't seem much affected by anything when he is playing a match
:)
----------------------------------------------------------
Irwin Pui-Yin Choy
e-mail: pyc...@unity.ncsu.edu, pyc...@usa.net
Master of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management program
North Carolina State University
Dirk Van Rooy
Dan Cornelius <cor...@osu.edu> wrote:
>Forgive me if I missed the news, but does any one know the details on
>the
>Pete - Delana Mulcahey breakup? After all these years, and all that
>sobbing and
>weeping after the U.S Open final last year, she's not at the AO, and
>Pete never even
>mentioned her during his victory speech. I watched almost all the
>ESPN/ESPN2
>coverage the past two weeks, and I don't think CLiff or Fred mentioned
>anything
>either. It's too bad, but I guess I'm not surprised. Delana's a lawyer
>but Pete's
>not even a high school grad. There's probably not much to him once you
>get past the
>tennis.
So in America, you only become interesting after getting a degree ?
Donal Fagan
In article <5chnnc$l4q$1...@vnetnews.value.net>, k...@value.net says...
>
>So then it is true that Pete and Delaina broke up?
I just read in today's New York Times that their relationship ended recently,
and suddenly. The article did not elaborate.
Donal Fagan
K. Lee Tung
In article <5cjkei$c...@camel5.mindspring.com>, DonFagan@mindspringdotcom
(Donal Fagan) wrote:
He seemed unaffected and quite focused. Perhaps this was purposeful and only
temporary, though I like the idea that he doesn't have to necessarily have a gf
all the time.
KLT
--
Eyem jst a Tnns Bm
Markian
Charles Lin (cl...@cs.umd.edu) wrote:
: I suspect that's what he meant. The argument was that Pete Sampras
: was uninteresting because he was a high school dropout and that people
: who had a degree (say, a bachelor's) were more interesting. The US
: probably graduates many more bachelor's degree per capita than in Europe.
: Dirk suggests (probably accurately) that this means it's easier to get
: a bachelor's in the US than the equivalent in Europe. This makes sense
: if you believe that European and American high schools produce about
: the same quality of students. If few people go to college in Europe,
: it stands to reason that only the most qualified go to college. Hence
: if 10% of the high school population in Europe goes and 50% of the
: high school population goes in the US, and most people get their degree
: at some point, then it's likely that the US universities have to be
: somewhat easier to pass.
Not entirely accurate, the lower numbers in European higher education(if
they in fact are lower) may also have something to do with being able to afford
to go to university.
Markian Jaworsky.
Donal Fagan
In article <5cknpe$5s0$1...@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>,
jawo...@yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au says...
>Not entirely accurate, the lower numbers in European higher education(if
>they in fact are lower) may also have something to do with being able to
>afford
>to go to university.
I recall that in some European countries there was an important examination to
determine if one could even attend what we would call "high school". Some
teachers I have spoken to claim that European educational achievements seem a
bit inflated because they don't include the people that don't pass these tests.
Donal Fagan
Donal Fagan
In article <5cistd$27...@ns5-1.CC.Lehigh.EDU>, ga...@Lehigh.EDU says...
>Look at the tennis marriages that seem to be working and we will find that the
>spouse is in a supportive role: Edberg, Becker, Connors, Lendl.
I wonder about Jimmy and Patti. They went through a stormy period. Later, they
were in a commercial together trying to play lovey-dovey, and it just wasn't at
all convincing. It might have been bad acting.
But your point is well taken.
Donal Fagan
Steve Barnard
Kirill Semenov wrote:
>
> While I agree that the original argument confuses education and thinking
> ability, I tend to agree that more likely than not, a university (law
> school) graduate will make a far more intellectually developed individual
> than a high-school dropout. Exceptions like Einstein and Gates are just
> that.
Einstein not only graduated from the University but he did rather well
by most people's standards. Gates would have graduated from Harvard
easily but he had more important things to do, like start Microsoft
Corp. and begin making $20 billion.
Steve Barnard
Stewart Gilles
Sanj <"ssiva\""@\"orbital\".\"com> writes:
>Dirk Van Rooy wrote:
>> Thak goodness the standards of eduction are somewhat lower in America
>> than here in Europe, or else there would be few interesting people
>> left in the states.
>Hi,
>Could you elaborate?
>I am curious. What do you mean by "the standards of education are somewhat
>lower in America than here in Europe?" Are you talking about higher ed.?
>Sanj
I think he was talking about "standards of seduction" :-) ;-)
>--
>The opinions expressed herein are mine alone.
--
Gilles Stewart VROUM __o stew...@ere.umontreal.ca
Services informatiques VROUM _`\<,_ (514)343-6111 poste 5248
Pavillon administratif (*)/ (*)
Universite de Montreal ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
slade
Hey, I'd take 9 GS titles any day over this PhD I'm working on! Hell,
playing tennis well requires a tremendous amount of mental discipline
and intelligence. Non-choke players like Sampras display real genious
on the court.
As for lawyers and intelligence: I guess many of you who are assuming
lawyers to be so "smart" have never had to live with law students--not
the most intellectually inspired bunch.
--
"Ignorance may be bliss, but it's still ignorance."
Engima
Charles Lin wrote:
What do you mean by "the standards of education are somewhat
> || lower in America than here in Europe?" Are you talking about higher ed.?
>
> was uninteresting because he was a high school dropout and that people
> who had a degree (say, a bachelor's) were more interesting. The US
> probably graduates many more bachelor's degree per capita than in Europe.
> Dirk suggests (probably accurately) that this means it's easier to get
> a bachelor's in the US than the equivalent in Europe. This makes sense
> if you believe that European and American high schools produce about
> the same quality of students. If few people go to college in Europe,
> it stands to reason that only the most qualified go to college. Hence
> if 10% of the high school population in Europe goes and 50% of the
> high school population goes in the US, and most people get their degree
> at some point, then it's likely that the US universities have to be
> somewhat easier to pass.
>
> doing particularly well at a university are getting a quality education,
> however.
>
> --
> Charles Lin
> cl...@cs.umd.edu
I first need to get a degree to understand what you wrote - what 10%,
50% blah blah. I thought the orginal issue was what happened to Pete's
girlfriend !
Dar
DonFagan@mindspringdotcom (Donal Fagan) wrote:
> k...@value.net says...
> >So then it is true that Pete and Delaina broke up?
>
> I just read in today's New York Times that their relationship ended recently,
> and suddenly. The article did not elaborate.
That's because the Times editors probably read it here first. They are
waiting on *us* to elaborate :-)
dar
(declining to tell the *real* reason)
-------------------------
Will play tennis for food.
-------------------------
Dar
cl...@cs.umd.edu (Charles Lin) wrote:
> I suspect that's what he meant. The argument was that Pete Sampras
> was uninteresting because he was a high school dropout and that people
> who had a degree (say, a bachelor's) were more interesting.
Diplomas aside, I've read more than one profile of Sampras that paints him
as a rather coarse, immature, one-dimensional sort of person. Like this is
a suprise for a professional tennis player.
This reported image of Sampras (in variance with his "nice guy" persona)
has been changing of late ... whether because Sampras is maturing into a
nicer person or because of sympathy for him because of his recent
travails, I don't know. But he seems to be defintely in a phase where he
is re-evaluating what is important and necessary to his life, and maybe
the death of his coach/friend had something to do with this. It seems that
Delaina might not have made the cut.
dar
Dar
st...@megafauna.com wrote:
> I don't know Delaina, but she is in all liklihood a golddigger. She is
> much older than Sampras and she hooked up with him right after he won
> the USO at age 19. His career toook a nosedive right after that.
I like the way your fevered, conspiratorial brain works! I'm right there
with you, bud ...
I think Sampras finally woke up after 6 years of thrall to this leathery
perpetual law student and said, Hey, I can afford to put younger, prettier
bimbos in my box seats.
Plus there have been rumors (OK, OK, malicious "Globe"-reported
scuttlebutt) circulating for a long time about Delaina sleeping around on
Pete (with a fellow law student, who was later accused of stalking her,
and there is always the question of how Andre Agassi got possession of
those risque boudoir photos of Delaina that he left behind in a Scotsdale
hotel room).
> Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe she's a wonderful, selfless person. But I doubt
> it. Look for a big-money palimony suit, which will prove me right.
Am I dreaming? I thought I read (if not here, then where?) a couple of
days ago that Ms. Mulcahy has indeed brought forth a $5-million palimony
action.
y...@boron.me.berkeley.edu
The only scientific explanation why Daleina broke up with
Sampras is "7th year itch". They have been together for 7 years,
and 7-th year is a critical one in relationships. They
did not pass the critical point.
Just read in the "Inside Tennis" magazine that their "divorse"
was initiated by the girl, not by Sampras.
BTW, in the article Sampras confirmed that he does have
that strange middeterranian blood condition which causes
minor fatigue problems. He said he does not take any medications
to fix the problem.
Ostap.
Kimmo Kuusela
BTW, was Tim Gullikson married?
-- K.K.
Sing-Gin Louie
The N.Y. Post mentioned that the two had split but did not give any
reason. I am also curious as to why the two broke up.
--
"This is the end..." - Jim Morrison
David Hoye
Dar (dgo...@emory.edu) writes:
> DonFagan@mindspringdotcom (Donal Fagan) wrote:
>
>> k...@value.net says...
>
>> >So then it is true that Pete and Delaina broke up?
>>
>> I just read in today's New York Times that their relationship ended recently,
>> and suddenly. The article did not elaborate.
>
> That's because the Times editors probably read it here first. They are
> waiting on *us* to elaborate :-)
>
> dar
> (declining to tell the *real* reason)
What, are you dating Pistol Pete, Dar?
--
Mike Hoye
James Kershaw
>Not entirely accurate, the lower numbers in European higher education(if
>they in fact are lower) may also have something to do with being able to afford
>to go to university.
>
Isn't the immediate cost in America relatively high for tertiary education?
In Germany (for example) attendance at university is basically free (providing
you get in). All you need to do is handle living costs, which most students are
able to do by working part time.
James.
James Kershaw
In article <32ED4E...@megafauna.com>, st...@megafauna.com says...
>
>Dirk Van Rooy wrote:
>>
>> So in America, you only become interesting after getting a degree ?
>> than here in Europe, or else there would be few interesting people
>> left in the states.
>
>resident posts something stupid that doesn't make it official policy.
>
>A partial list of interesting people from the US with no degree:
>
>- Elvis
I accept this one. Although most interest only comes from media hype -
without which no-one would know about him.
>- Muhammad Ali
I'm not sure about him. How interesting can a man who went around hitting
people for a living be?
>- Little Richard
Who's he?
>- John McEnroe
One of the worst experiences tennis has ever had. Single handedly ruined
the reputation of Tennis as a Sportsmans Sport.
>- Bill Gates
Why is he interesting? He would be interesting if he was attempting to
open up the computer industry, organise colaboration on open systems, and
not just closing it up and sucking everything possible out of the industry
and its customers. To my mind he is an uninteresting, blood-sucking leech.
> Steve Barnard (PhD)
Now here's an interesting person. :-)
James.
youn...@acsu.buffalo.edu
Steve Barnard wrote:
> I don't know Delaina, but she is in all liklihood a golddigger. She is
> much older than Sampras and she hooked up with him right after he won
> the USO at age 19. His career toook a nosedive right after that.
I didn't like seeing her in the box all the time. Some others were
Judy Nelson and Barbara Streisand and Sanchez-Vicario's mom.
I read that she used to be the girlfriend of Sampras' agent, and
got involved with Sampras only after his USO win. I don't know if
the agent is the IMG guy in the box. Anyway, it's true that
Sampras' family was quite worried about the old woman's intentions
at first because of that.
Maybe there's nothing wrong with that. Edberg's wife Annette
used to be the gf of Wilander. I once saw of picture of them
kissing in an article around 1988-89 in an article titled,
'Do Annette Olsen's Men Rise to Become No.1s'? And what's with
the story of Andre's possession of his rival's girl's photos?
Maybe for sometime Delaina's been gathering evidence to be
used against Pete at the trial. Maybe she went to law school
to learn that? Lot's of maybes. Not necessarily my beliefs.
Young
Kenneth Pon
Kirill Semenov (93se...@scar.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>> Nemanja Dundjerovic (nem...@achilles.net) writes:
>> > Regardless of particulars, a law school graduate will invariably have a
>> > more thorough thought process than a high school dropout.
>While I agree that the original argument confuses education and thinking
>ability, I tend to agree that more likely than not, a university (law
>school) graduate will make a far more intellectually developed individual
>than a high-school dropout.
Since when are lawyers "intelligent"? They just swot a whole bunch of facts
and learn how to bend the law. Throw some math in their direction and
they'll get dizzy. The only thing lawyers can do is screw people people out
of their hard-earned money. It wouldn't surprise me if Delaina did this to
Pete because she thinks he's a dumb jock.
If you need any convincing that lawyers don't have a "thorough thought
process", just look at Marcia Clark. She's supposed to be a great laywer,
yet in the O.J. trial, she suggested that an expert with a PhD in toxicology
wasn't qualified to analyse blood because he only had a "Doctorate in
Philosophy"! <PhD=Doctor of Philosphy? Duh!>
Lawyers are many things - including slimy, leeching parasites - but for
Pete's sake, please don't call them intelligent. :)
Kenneth Pon
rvoice
If he's not going to marry her after all those years, she might as well
leave him and find someone else who would love her enough to put a ring
on her finger. What is this thing about a lawsuit? The only place I've
read this info is here. Can this rumor be verified?
rv
Markian
y...@boron.ME.Berkeley.EDU wrote:
:
: The only scientific explanation why Daleina broke up with
A blood condition that causes minor fatigue?
Oh, then that might explain why Hrbaty had a break on Sampras in the fifth
set, a player who Sampras had never heard of, "I've never heard of him.",
and Moya never looked like winning a set against Sampras in the final.
Markian Jaworsky.
:
:
: Ostap.
Kenneth Pon
youn...@acsu.buffalo.edu
Kenneth Pon wrote:
> Since when are lawyers "intelligent"? They just swot a whole bunch of facts
> and learn how to bend the law. Throw some math in their direction and
> they'll get dizzy. The only thing lawyers can do is screw people people out
> of their hard-earned money. It wouldn't surprise me if Delaina did this to
> Pete because she thinks he's a dumb jock.
>
> If you need any convincing that lawyers don't have a "thorough thought
> process", just look at Marcia Clark. She's supposed to be a great laywer,
> yet in the O.J. trial, she suggested that an expert with a PhD in toxicology
> wasn't qualified to analyse blood because he only had a "Doctorate in
> Philosophy"! <PhD=Doctor of Philosphy? Duh!>
>
> Lawyers are many things - including slimy, leeching parasites - but for
> Pete's sake, please don't call them intelligent. :)
>
> Kenneth Pon
Once again you are way out in the left field, Ken. Such
stereotyping and downright prejudice just serve to discredit
your own comments. Maybe you don't care a crap what others
think of you. I was amused at your mentioning of Marcia
Clark story. Why are you thinking this is typical of
lawyers? You make much more egregious assertions in your
postings on a regular basis which leave many to question
your 'thought process.' And if you know only the likes
of Clark and really believe the OJ trial was the 'trial of
the century,' you got some serious waking up to do.
Just to set some 'basics' straight, math is important but not
integral to someone's intelligence. Lawyers wouldn't be lawyers
if people didn't have a need for them. That applies when you lie
in bed writhing in agony because some drunk clipped you or you
were unfairly prejudiced because of your skin color. You don't
realize the level of 'thought process' and judgment and common
sense involved in putting together a good case. And if you do
some serious wrong before Clark, she'll put you away like
there's no tomorrow.
Young
Charles Lin
James Kershaw (james....@monash.edu.au) wrote:
|| Isn't the immediate cost in America relatively high for tertiary education?
|| In Germany (for example) attendance at university is basically free (providing
|| you get in). All you need to do is handle living costs, which most students are
|| able to do by working part time.
It can be extremely expensive. The cheapest way for most people
to attend a university once they have completed high school is to
attend a state university. The state offsets the costs for the
student to attend. So, it might cost a state resident anywhere
from 2000 to 8000 US dollars to attend. Students attending a
state university who are not residents of the state (for example,
a New York resident attending a university in Maryland) will pay
a higher cost. Living costs are not being counted.
Parents typically pay this cost, though state universities are
cheap enough that if you work, especially during the summer, you can
manage. The expensive universities are private which are not funded
by the state. Examples include Harvard and Stanford. There tuitions
are nearly 20000 US dollars per year. Students afford this primarily
through low-interest loans, part-time work, and "scholarships". Such
students will often pay back these loans after graduating.
So, it's not free, but the general feeling is that education
is important enough, even for the average person, that parents will
help out. State universities make it affordable enough that students
can work and cover tuition (barely). Finally, scholarship money
exists for students meeting certain criteria, and they can often
help qualified students by covering most of the costs of an education.
I know a few people who have practically gone through an undergraduate
education for free, but this is quite rare.
--
Charles Lin
cl...@cs.umd.edu
Ed Dybdal
Actually its not that rare at all...if your parents dont/didnt claim you
on their taxes then all you have to do is lie and say that you dont live
with your parents and then you are eligable for numerous grants...I know
plenty of people who attended different branches of the State University
of New York and paid a few hundred dollars compared to the 4,000 normal
tuition. I would have did this to go to NYU since their tuition is
$20,000+ but since that college is private it is much harder to get a
grant.
r...@brainlink.com
kenn...@usa.net (Kenneth Pon) wrote:
>
> Kirill Semenov (93se...@scar.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>
> >> Nemanja Dundjerovic (nem...@achilles.net) writes:
>
> >> > Regardless of particulars, a law school graduate will invariably have a
> >> > more thorough thought process than a high school dropout.
>
> >While I agree that the original argument confuses education and thinking
> >ability, I tend to agree that more likely than not, a university (law
> >school) graduate will make a far more intellectually developed individual
> >than a high-school dropout.
>
> and learn how to bend the law. Throw some math in their direction and
> they'll get dizzy. The only thing lawyers can do is screw people people out
> of their hard-earned money. It wouldn't surprise me if Delaina did this to
> Pete because she thinks he's a dumb jock.
I know your comments are tongue-in-cheek; I only want point out that
1) the LSAT is one tough exam; and,
2) a good lawyer buddy of mine taught Calculus at the University
of Maryland's "adult ed" college to supplement his income after
he earned his JD, but before the first ambulance drove by. :)
That said, the legal process does at times seem to be played for its
sheer dollar-exchanging capacities.
Richard
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Steve Barnard
James Kershaw wrote:
>
> In article <32ED4E...@megafauna.com>, st...@megafauna.com says...
> >
> >Dirk Van Rooy wrote:
> >>
> >> So in America, you only become interesting after getting a degree ?
> >> Thak goodness the standards of eduction are somewhat lower in America
> >> than here in Europe, or else there would be few interesting people
> >> left in the states.
> >
> >Hundreds of millions of people live in the US. Just because one US
> >resident posts something stupid that doesn't make it official policy.
> >
> >A partial list of interesting people from the US with no degree:
> >
> >- Elvis
>
> I accept this one. Although most interest only comes from media hype -
> without which no-one would know about him.
>
> >- Muhammad Ali
>
> I'm not sure about him. How interesting can a man who went around hitting
> people for a living be?
Among other things, Muhammad Ali deeply affected race relations in the
US (for the better, IMHO) and effectively protested the Vietnam War.
Some people argue that he's the most famous person on Earth. I don't
know about that.
>
> >- Little Richard
>
> Who's he?
An all-time great old rock-and-roller. I might have mentioned James
Brown and Jerry Lee Lewis, too.
>
> >- John McEnroe
>
> One of the worst experiences tennis has ever had. Single handedly ruined
> the reputation of Tennis as a Sportsmans Sport.
The single most *interesting* (not lovable) person in a sport full of
colorless characters. Some others (non American) are Nastase,
Ivanisevic, and Becker.
>
> >- Bill Gates
>
> Why is he interesting? He would be interesting if he was attempting to
> open up the computer industry, organise colaboration on open systems, and
> not just closing it up and sucking everything possible out of the industry
> and its customers. To my mind he is an uninteresting, blood-sucking leech.
>
As a Mac lover and as someone who appreciates true technical innovation
I despise Bill Gates and Microsoft, but I do find him interesting. His
unauthorized biolography Hard Drive was pretty interesting. The guy
must be the shrewdest operator on the planet. Hey, Henry VIII was
interesting but you wouldn't have wanted him to marry your daughter.
> > Steve Barnard (PhD)
>
> Now here's an interesting person. :-)
>
No I'm not.
Steve Barnard
Stéphane Di Cesare
On 28 Jan 1997 21:22:34 GMT, james....@monash.edu.au (James Kershaw)
wrote:
>Isn't the immediate cost in America relatively high for tertiary education?
>In Germany (for example) attendance at university is basically free (providing
>you get in). All you need to do is handle living costs, which most students are
>able to do by working part time.
The cost of colleges in the US is much higher than in most of Europe,
where university are unexpensive (here in Sweden, it costs about $ 70 a
term). The problem is more about the level of these universities and
colleges : you have to prove they have more or less the same level to
say that it means something that more people go to college in US than in
Europe, or the opposite.
Stéphane Di Cesaré
Lunds Tekniska Högskola - Datateknik
Sweden
Joe Ramirez
slade <aa...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>Hey, I'd take 9 GS titles any day over this PhD I'm working on! Hell,
>playing tennis well requires a tremendous amount of mental discipline
>and intelligence. Non-choke players like Sampras display real genious
>on the court.
>
>As for lawyers and intelligence: I guess many of you who are assuming
>lawyers to be so "smart" have never had to live with law students--not
>the most intellectually inspired bunch.
>
I spent three years living with law students -- when I was in law
school.<g> Despite the odd cretin or two -- fortunately, stringent
entrance requirements kept their numbers down -- the environment was
the most intellectually stimulating I have ever encountered. Perhaps
you got a box of duds; try switching brands.
Joe Ramirez
P.S. Can't-Resist-Department: It is imprudent to disparage the
intelligence of other groups of people in messages containing words
like "genious." Somebody might attempt to exploit your innocent
mistake!<g>
Kenneth Pon
youngkim (youn...@acsu.buffalo.edu) wrote:
>Kenneth Pon wrote:
>> Since when are lawyers "intelligent"? They just swot a whole bunch of facts
>> and learn how to bend the law. Throw some math in their direction and
>> they'll get dizzy. The only thing lawyers can do is screw people people out
>> of their hard-earned money. It wouldn't surprise me if Delaina did this to
>> Pete because she thinks he's a dumb jock.
>>
>> If you need any convincing that lawyers don't have a "thorough thought
>> process", just look at Marcia Clark. She's supposed to be a great laywer,
>> yet in the O.J. trial, she suggested that an expert with a PhD in toxicology
>> wasn't qualified to analyse blood because he only had a "Doctorate in
>> Philosophy"! <PhD=Doctor of Philosphy? Duh!>
>>
>> Lawyers are many things - including slimy, leeching parasites - but for
>> Pete's sake, please don't call them intelligent. :)
>And if you know only the likes
>of Clark and really believe the OJ trial was the 'trial of
>the century,' you got some serious waking up to do.
Excuse me, but wasn't Marcia Clark handpicked by the DA of LA for this high
profile case? So surely she must be high calibre as far as lawyers go. For a
case which supposedly cost the county of LA more than $9 million, she sure
made some stupid errors that would embarrass even the common man in the
street. An "intelligent" person wouldn't make such ridiculous errors. The
tax payers of LA deserve better "intelligence" than this.
>Just to set some 'basics' straight, math is important but not
>integral to someone's intelligence.
Law is a better measure of one's intelligence than math? Is law integral to
someone's intelligence?
>Lawyers wouldn't be lawyers
>if people didn't have a need for them.
Lawyers wouldn't be lawyers if they didn't want to screw people out of their
money. I have yet to meet a lawyer who is more interested in helping his
clients than in how much money he can get out of them. Money, ego and status
are the only things lawyers are interested in.
>That applies when you lie
>in bed writhing in agony because some drunk clipped you or you
>were unfairly prejudiced because of your skin color. You don't
>realize the level of 'thought process' and judgment and common
>sense involved in putting together a good case.
You don't realize the level of 'thought process' and judgment and common
sense involved in putting together a great tennis game. How can people say
that Delaina is more "intelligent" than Sampras just because she's a law
graduate? Now I wonder - is Delaina or your lawyer as "intelligent" as
Marcia Clark?
>And if you do
>some serious wrong before Clark, she'll put you away like
>there's no tomorrow.
O.J. did some serious wrong before Clark and she didn't put him away. Young,
your fascination with lawyers borders on perversion.
>Young
Kenneth Pon
Cindi K.
> If he's not going to marry her after all those years, she might as well
> leave him and find someone else who would love her enough to put a ring
> on her finger. What is this thing about a lawsuit? The only place I've
> read this info is here. Can this rumor be verified?
It was not even a rumor. It was just pure speculation.
Cindi
youn...@acsu.buffalo.edu
Look, an "intelligent" person would not make the mistake of
labeling a bunch of people because of the conduct of a person
from the group. I don't care what you think of Marcia Clark
or likes of hers. Just don't draw some crazy analogy and
inference from the actions of an individual.
> >> Since when are lawyers "intelligent"?
Maybe you and I are using this term in a different context.
I wasn't equating "intelligence" with being "smart." I
was thinking more in terms of IQ and education and general
knowledge and capacity to reason above certain level. You
can be intelligent but not very smart. By the same token,
you can be smart but not very intelligent. Where do you
fit in? Both? Neither?
> >> If you need any convincing that lawyers don't have a "thorough thought
> >> process", just look at Marcia Clark. She's supposed to be a great laywer,
> >> yet in the O.J. trial, she suggested that an expert with a PhD in toxicology
> >> wasn't qualified to analyse blood because he only had a "Doctorate in
> >> Philosophy"! <PhD=Doctor of Philosphy? Duh!>
> >>
> >> Lawyers are many things - including slimy, leeching parasites - but for
> >> Pete's sake, please don't call them intelligent. :)
>
> >Just to set some 'basics' straight, math is important but not
> >integral to someone's intelligence.
>
> Law is a better measure of one's intelligence than math? Is law integral to
> someone's intelligence?
Jeez, man. You are again twisting my words which seems to be your
specialty. I meant intelligence is a culmination of many things.
Law to a lawyer is just a part of the equation. Math to a
mathematician is just a part of the equation. It's hard to measure
intelligence. But it's relatively easier to spot lack of
intelligence.
> >Lawyers wouldn't be lawyers
> >if people didn't have a need for them.
>
> Lawyers wouldn't be lawyers if they didn't want to screw people out of their
> money. I have yet to meet a lawyer who is more interested in helping his
> clients than in how much money he can get out of them. Money, ego and status
> are the only things lawyers are interested in.
Boy, calm down. This is true to a degree, I admit. But, surely
you meant not all lawyers. Besides, are lawyers worse than
politicians? Next door Joe Schmo? Are you more honest and hard
working than an average lawyer whoever that may be? I laugh
at lawyer jokes. Are you joking by any chance?
> You don't realize the level of 'thought process' and judgment and common
> sense involved in putting together a great tennis game. How can people say
> that Delaina is more "intelligent" than Sampras just because she's a law
> graduate? Now I wonder - is Delaina or your lawyer as "intelligent" as
> Marcia Clark?
I'm a very cautious person and I would never say something downright
as foolish as that. To me, it just appears Sampras is pretty
dumb compared to lots of people. Also lots of people would
probably be more "intelligent" than Pete. I'm sure some laywers
are dumber than Pete. But they are probably more "intelligent."
> your fascination with lawyers borders on perversion.
Maybe, maybe not. I'm studying to become one. :) I think
Marcia Clark is more intelligent and smarter than me which
I'm sure would make you look down on me even more. Not to
mention you considering me one of the "slimy, leeching
parasites." In the meantime, I've gotta complete my take-home
exam on Federal Pretrial Criminal Practice. I need to issue
proper warrants for arrest and search, figure out a sentencing
range for a bunch of criminals, and fight the prosecutor to
get my motion heard. Looks like another all-nighter. Well,
it's been fun, I gotta go.
Young
James Kershaw
In article <32EFD0...@megafauna.com>, st...@megafauna.com says...
>
>James Kershaw wrote:
>>
>> In article <32ED4E...@megafauna.com>, st...@megafauna.com says...
>> >
>> >Dirk Van Rooy wrote:
>> >>
>> >> So in America, you only become interesting after getting a degree ?
>> >> Thak goodness the standards of eduction are somewhat lower in America
>> >> than here in Europe, or else there would be few interesting people
>> >> left in the states.
>> >
>> >Hundreds of millions of people live in the US. Just because one US
>> >resident posts something stupid that doesn't make it official policy.
>> >
>> >A partial list of interesting people from the US with no degree:
< List of people, comments deleted, explanaitions deleted >
This is getting away from tennis, but I find interesting people to be the genuine
people that I interact with. This is why I suggested Steve Barnard is an
interesting person, and why I rejected several famous people as interesting.
I don't like the media telling me who is interesting, most of whom I couldn't give
a damn about. The worst media for this is in the field of womens magazines, but
all forms do this hero worship and privacy invasion thing.
People listed amongst my personally most interesting include the grandfather of my
wife's bridesmaid (a soldier in the 1WW German army who went AWOL to visit his
wife and new born daughter - travelling without documents for quite a distance.
He was also an engineer (and a "foreigner") working on the Snowy Hydro Electricity
scheme. This list generally does not include people made famous by the media.
There are exceptions:
Sir John Monash holds a little interest for me - an Engineer, General, Scholar : a
builder of incredible dimension (one of the best bridges in Melbourne, the designer
of the Victorian Electricity grid, and others, but who is best remembered as a killer
of people (Army General).
Anyway, Tennis players unless they exhibit some character worthy of admiration are not
interesting to me. John MacEnroe falls in this catagory. Stefan Edberg is one I do
find interesting. Wally Masur is another interesting player. Woodforde is marginally
interesting - especially after over-ruling the umpire and getting their doubles opponents
to accept it.
Thats it,
James.
Wendy Grossman
In article <32EC15...@achilles.net>, nem...@achilles.net (Nemanja
Dundjerovic) wrote:
> > I am not sure which prejudice is sillier: a) that lawyers are
> > interesting and have "depth" or b) that someone who has devoted his
> > life to a singular ambition [becoming the BEST tennis player in the
> > world] and succeeded at it, must not have any depth because he did not
> > "graduate from high school". You can find better benchmarks, I'm
> > sure.
> >
>
> Regardless of particulars, a law school graduate will invariably have a
> more thorough thought process than a high school dropout. I don't think
> the breakup has to do with this, though. I think Pete is too
> concentrated on winning to have enough time to share with Delaina. If a
> player devotes enough time to his significant other (i.e. Becker,
> Agassi), his results suffer.
Yes, and also let's face it, the world's #1 tennis player has to run his
life so that tennis is the only important thing, not just for himself but
for the others around him. If you're a law school grad with a career of
your own to build, it must get pretty frustrating if your choices are
EITHER not to see the guy you're involved with 300 days of the year OR to
spend all your time sitting in the stands cheering him on.
wg
Wendy Grossman
In article <5ch5k8$3...@agate.berkeley.edu>, y...@boron.ME.Berkeley.EDU ()
wrote:
> In article <32EBF4...@earthlink.net>,
> Ed Dybdal <ed...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >Nemanja Dundjerovic wrote:
> >>
> >> Regardless of particulars, a law school graduate will invariably
> > have a
> >> more thorough thought process than a high school dropout.
>
> Generally speaking, tennis player level and intellectual
> level do not correlate. Despite of this fact, I cannot
> point any player in the best 30 with IQ < 90. May be Rios? :)
>
The best comment about this I ever saw (I think it was in Feinstein's
book) was: You have to be smart enough to do it (play tennis), but dumb
enough to think it's important.
wg
Wendy Grossman
In article <5ch1vf$m...@camel5.mindspring.com>, DonFagan@mindspringdotcom
(Donal Fagan) wrote:
> There are all sorts of theories about different kinds of intelligence.
> I've read about aborigines that barely register on Western IQ tests but
> can perform impressive feats of memory and reasoning on a more concrete
> level. There are musical prodigies that are routinely called geniuses,
> what are their IQs? Once his focus changes, Sampras could prove
> brilliant at other things. or, he could turn out like Borg.
>
The claim that IQ testing could possibly measure any sort of raw
intelligence as opposed to ability to take standardized tests according
to a particular set of prejudices is absurd.
wg
Dar
bs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (David Hoye) wrote:
> Dar (dgo...@emory.edu) writes:
> > That's because the Times editors probably read it here first. They are
> > waiting on *us* to elaborate :-)
> > dar
> > (declining to tell the *real* reason)
> What, are you dating Pistol Pete, Dar?
That's .357 Magnum Pete <wink wink>
dar
-------------------------
Will play tennis for food.
-------------------------
David Hoye
Dar (dgo...@emory.edu) writes:
> bs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (David Hoye) wrote:
>
>> Dar (dgo...@emory.edu) writes:
>
>> > That's because the Times editors probably read it here first. They are
>> > waiting on *us* to elaborate :-)
>
>> > dar
>> > (declining to tell the *real* reason)
>
>> What, are you dating Pistol Pete, Dar?
>
> That's .357 Magnum Pete <wink wink>
Say no more.
--
Mike Hoye
dvr...@vnet3.vub.ac.be
>In article <5cknpe$5s0$1...@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>, jawo...@yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au says...
>
>>Not entirely accurate, the lower numbers in European higher education(if
>>they in fact are lower) may also have something to do with being able to afford
>>to go to university.
>>
>
>Isn't the immediate cost in America relatively high for tertiary education?
>In Germany (for example) attendance at university is basically free (providing
>you get in). All you need to do is handle living costs, which most students are
>able to do by working part time.
>
>James.
This thread is running somewhat out of hand. My original comment was
intended to be "sarcastic", because I do not believe education per se
makes you interesting.
Concerning the cost of education : It's relatively easy/cheap to get a
higher education in Europe. If you don't have enough money, there is
a very good system of grants, which you can receive purely on the
basis of financial parameters. I do believe the cost in America is
higher.
My remark about the quality of education in America is based purely on
the Vesalius students I know (I work at a university, I regularly have
to score articles written by Vesalius people). The standard of these
classes is usually (of course there are exceptions) remarkebly low,
especially when it involves mathematics and statistics. The American
students I know usually have a very bad background on these subjects,
worse then their European collegues.
At the same time I'm convinced that the really good (and expensive)
universities in the States are better rhan the really good
universities over here.
Of course, I could be wrong...
Mikhail Solodov
>youngkim (youn...@acsu.buffalo.edu) wrote:
>>Lawyers wouldn't be lawyers
>>if people didn't have a need for them.
That's a very naive point of view.
Michael.
David Hoye
Why?
If there wasn't a demand, why would people keep going through law school
to supply it?
--
Mike Hoye
Mikhail Solodov
This doesn't really belong here, so I will be very short.
The issue here is what is boosting the demand.
At least to some extent, this is a self-promoting system.
You need lawyers to fight other lawyers. Yes, it's not
quite that simple.
But a problem is thre.
Michael.
Steve Barnard
Michael,
If you are ever arrested for a crime you didn't commit or slapped with a
frivolous lawsuit maybe you should retain Andre Agassi to represent you.
There are two sayings I like:
1. A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged.
2. A liberal is a conservative who's been arrested.
Steve Barnard
Irwin Pui-Yin Choy
bs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (David Hoye) wrote:
>
>Mikhail Solodov (sol...@monterey.cs.wisc.edu) writes:
>>>youngkim (youn...@acsu.buffalo.edu) wrote:
>>>>Lawyers wouldn't be lawyers
>>>>if people didn't have a need for them.
>>
>> That's a very naive point of view.
>
>Why?
>
>If there wasn't a demand, why would people keep going through law school
>to supply it?
I won't say it's a naive point of view, but it doesn't give us much
information. We need so many types of professionals in this world,
why would somebody wants to be a lawyer, rather than, say, a sport
facility manager?
Irwin
----------------------------------------------------------
Irwin Pui-Yin Choy
e-mail: pyc...@unity.ncsu.edu, pyc...@usa.net
Master of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management program
North Carolina State University
Steve Barnard
Each to his own, James. You make some good points. Who am I to argue?
The most interesting person I've ever met was a guy who lived next to me
in a dirt-poor part of town when I was a grad student. He painted
beautiful watercolors of natural scenes, traveled through North America
by hopping freight trains, told fascinating stories, was an alcoholic
and drug addict, and is (I'm sure) dead by now. The most interesting
people I've met are the "lowlifes" that I knew before I was relatively
rich and successful.
Steve Barnard
HEsco51385
>>>>>> The issue here is what is boosting the demand.
> At least to some extent, this is a self-promoting system.
> You need lawyers to fight other lawyers. Yes, it's not
> quite that simple.
> But a problem is thre.
> Michael.>>>>>>>>
The problem is a judicial system that promotes litigation.The US has the
highest percentage per population of lawyers in the world. We have 10
times more than Japan in relation with the population.
Lawyers do not contribute to the productivity of the US to compete in a
global economy. They are parasites that drain our ability to compete
globally by raising the price of our products with the liability cost.
None of the other countries in the world have this problem.
Hernando
David Hoye
Irwin Pui-Yin Choy (pyc...@unity.ncsu.edu) writes:
> bs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (David Hoye) wrote:
>>
>>Mikhail Solodov (sol...@monterey.cs.wisc.edu) writes:
>>>>youngkim (youn...@acsu.buffalo.edu) wrote:
>>>>>Lawyers wouldn't be lawyers
>>>>>if people didn't have a need for them.
>>>
>>> That's a very naive point of view.
>>
>>Why?
>>If there wasn't a demand, why would people keep going through law school
>>to supply it?
>
> I won't say it's a naive point of view, but it doesn't give us much
> information. We need so many types of professionals in this world,
> why would somebody wants to be a lawyer, rather than, say, a sport
> facility manager?
More money, presumably.
I still assert that supply and demand economics prevails here.
If people were willing to pay enough sport facilities managers the same
money, I posit that we'd see the same glut.
--
Mike Hoye
Steve Barnard
HEsco51385 wrote:
>
> >>>>>> The issue here is what is boosting the demand.
> > At least to some extent, this is a self-promoting system.
> > You need lawyers to fight other lawyers. Yes, it's not
> > quite that simple.
> > But a problem is thre.
> > Michael.>>>>>>>>
>
> The problem is a judicial system that promotes litigation.The US has the
> highest percentage per population of lawyers in the world. We have 10
> times more than Japan in relation with the population.
Japan also has something like a 99% conviction rate. No thanks.
Steve Barnard
Steven R. Zuch
On 6 Feb 1997 04:10:19 GMT, hesco...@aol.com (HEsco51385) wrote:
>The problem is a judicial system that promotes litigation.The US has the
>highest percentage per population of lawyers in the world. We have 10
>times more than Japan in relation with the population.
>Lawyers do not contribute to the productivity of the US to compete in a
>global economy. They are parasites that drain our ability to compete
>globally by raising the price of our products with the liability cost.
>None of the other countries in the world have this problem.
>Hernando
Just because a profession does not directly lead to our increase
productivity to enable us to compete world wide, that does not mean
that the profession is not needed or desired. Hey, how do tennis
players add to our productivity :) ?
Getting back to tennis, maybe we should get rid of chair umpires and
lines people, and just let the players call their own lines and
interprit the tennis rules. John McEnroe would agree with this;
ironically, his father is a lawyer.
Steven R. Zuch
Cogent Management Inc.
JTENNISP
Pete and DeLaina are history, for now (and maybe for good). Wish both of
them well and find another subject instead of a tangent.
Samir Bhakta
Steve Barnard <st...@megafauna.com> wrote:
:people I've met are the "lowlifes" that I knew before I was relatively
:rich and successful.
Attention everyone: drinks are on Steve! :-) :-)
- Samir
HEsco51385
6 Feb 1997 04:10:19 GMT, hesco...@aol.com (HEsco51385) wrote:
>The problem is a judicial system that promotes litigation.The US has the
>highest percentage per population of lawyers in the world. We have 10
>times more than Japan in relation with the population.
>Lawyers do not contribute to the productivity of the US to compete in a
>global economy. They are parasites that drain our ability to compete
>globally by raising the price of our products with the liability cost.
>None of the other countries in the world have this problem.
>Hernando
<<<<<<Just because a profession does not directly lead to our increase
productivity to enable us to compete world wide, that does not mean
that the profession is not needed or desired. Hey, how do tennis
players add to our productivity :) ?>>>>>
American tennis players make more money overseas than here, they help the
US with the balance of payments ,also they pay US taxes (I hope;-).
The legal profession produces a lot of useless and harmful litigation
that undermines our ability to compete in a global economy. The legal
profession directly decreases our productivity by raising the cost of
doing business in the US with large liability insurance.
The US is almost out of the small planes business because the liability
for a small plane is the same as for a 747, thanks to the lawyers. We
could do with about one fourth of the present number of lawyers.
Hernando
Steve Barnard
That's "relatively", Samir -- relative to when I hung out with lowlifes
as a grad student. Snapple all around, bartender.
Steve Barnard