I doubt it. You’re stupid all on your own.
Coming from you, milroyj, I’d consider that a compliment.
I agree for the most part, that attacking someone just because their parent happens to be an unpopular elected official is a cheap shot.
On the other hand, I think it’s fair game to dink the Bush twins for boneheaded stuff they’ve willingly done on their own, such as the underaged drinking binges. I don’t care who your parents are, that’s just stupid on any level. :smack:
You gotta be kidding. Have you gone ‘Fiery Southern Baptist’ on me? College-age kids drinking strikes you as stupid? What next, decrying the evil that is Rock and Roll?
The stupidity of underage drinking is certainly questionable. The legality of it isn’t. And, be honest, if Chelsea Clinton had been cited for underage drinking while Bill was in the White House Tom DeLay probably would’ve impeached him again.
According to this --> http://www.who2.com/bushtwins.html, the Bush twins were born on November 25th, 1981, which makes them 22, not 20. And they started college in fall 2000, so they’ve been there 4 years. That’s pretty average for a US college grad.
They’re non-identical, right? What do you call fraternal twins who are girls? 
Holy crap! The twins and I share the same birthdate! Of course, I’m 13 years older than they are, but still.
I agree with you, but I think maybe he was referring to them twice getting CAUGHT, using a fake ID, IIRC-I mean, they had to know that people would recognize them.
But I have the feeling that they did THAT on purpose to make a scene. Or to embarass their father.
[QUOTE=Kallessa]
Not only does the OP confuse me, but the sniping at Aldebaran really confuses me. I don’t see his post as being a put down of the Bush twins (after all, he said they were “only 20”, which implies he thinks they are young to finish a degree). Not only does the OP confuse me, but the sniping at Aldebaran really confuses me. I don’t see his post as being a put down of the Bush twins (after all, he said they were “only 20”, which implies he thinks they are young to finish a degree).
[QUOTE]
Yes. In the sense of “university degree” (see explanation below).
Yes. I asked for the differences.
To those who take that as an occasion to launch “attacks” claiming I “should” know about the US system: For the same money I can claim you “should” know that the USA and its education system is not The World and I can even add: open your eyes and learn something.
I think the main difference is that in the system where I did most of my studies (=the Belgian system) there are several forms of higher education.
You have higher education outside the university of the short type = 3 years and the long type = 4 years.
Schools of higher education outside the university are for several reasons linked with universities, yet they form a separate entity in the higher education system with other diplomes that do not give acces to doctoral studies. If you finish such a study and want it upgraded to a university diplome you need to do at least 2 (after long type) or 3 (after short type) of university after being permitted to enroll. Which is of course mostly the case when staying in your own studyfield, like for example when having done 4 years for translator and you want to become linguist (for example Romanist or Germanist)you only need to do an additional study of 2 years at the univ.
University studies take 2 years to become what is called (in Flemish)“Kandidaat” which means you have the required diplome for going further to become “Licentiaat”.
Licentiat is at least 2 more years (you must have done at least 4 years of Univ before you can ever receive an academic diplome anyway) but it can also take 3 years (for example law, without specialisation = 5 years of study in total) or 5 years (for example medicin = you can open a practice for general medicine after 7 years study in total).
If you have a licentiat (and of course when you have the required scores) you can have acces to doctoral study.
The main difference between higher education outside the university and university studies is that the first one gives a more practical preparation for the job you want to do (nursing, social worker, translator, several disciplines connected with computer science, several disciplines connected with trade, mathematics, engineer etc…) while university is in general more foscussed at providing for the acces to doctoral studies/academic carreer.
There is the last years a shift towards an other structure for the higher education system in Belgium following what is named the Bologna agreements. I didn’t follow it up that close but it seems they are going to implement a sort of Bachelor/Master system, with the bachelor having the ame to prepare for acces to “the jobs” while Masters preparing for academic career.
Help of Belgian members is welcome here because I might be wrong about this interpretation 
Any way: In my opinion there are a lot of problems to solve for having this work without damaging the whole standards and level of the provided education. I don’t see for example how someone in a studyfield I did (Arabic and Islamic studies) can have a good enough knowledge of the languages in only 3 years in order to justify a final diplome that gives acces to related jobs. (And then I only speak of the languages).
Comparing education systems, including primary and secundary school (and even pre-school) as they form the basics for the higher education system, would in my opinion be an interesting debate for GD.
Salaam. A
Sorry…I should have done preview… If Coldfire could fix my coding I would be grateful. (I have also no clue about the education system in the Netherlands. I think it is comparable with Belgium though.)
Salaam. A
Excellent … about the only thing worth reading in this thread. I would also like to point out that UT Austin has a pretty strong English department, so I would guess Jenna’s no intellectual slouch. Pretty cute too.
This is something I don’t understand about the US curriculum. (I think the UK has the same studyfield “English only”)
I mean: English is only one language and the first language of the students at that. Besides the normal linguistic, literature, cultural studies (and the normal first-year general education courses like philosophy, sociology etc…): What has this program to offer that it has its focus at English-only for 3 years?
This is indeed a “strange” studyfield to me.
Salaam. A
English in the U.S. as a major usually means the study of literature and, to a lesser extent, grammar and composition theory. Those who aim to teach English at a secondary school will usually take a wide variety of courses in American, British, and world literature, while those wishing to pursue a graduate degree will specialize in a certain area. Some schools also offer English linguistics as a track or speciality.
Well I’m sorry, but this sounds to me as an extremely easy studyfield. One one language - that is your own - and then even limited.
I think I’m going to open a thread in GD… Comparing education systems and studyfields seems really a good subject to open a debate.
Salaam. A
I had a nice, long post all composed and then I lost it when the browser crashed. Suffice it to say that aaslatten has pretty much said everything that I did, and more succinctly as well.
One other possible study is of the history of the language and of Old and Middle English. Any classes in this area would probably be grad-school level, though I suppose some colleges might offer one as a 400-level undergrad. I know someone who has gotten an advanced degree in English with this general area being the subject of his doctoral thesis. My guess at the person who would be most known among the general population would be JRR Tolkien. For example, he did what is (apparently) a really good translation of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. I’ve seen a text of the original and I’m told that the dialect it is written in makes it much harder than Chaucer.
Aldebaran, you open it up and I’ll recompose my original post there, including the big long list of possible English-department classes where I go to school.
This is a guy who just bragged (over in GD) about how he “rather frequently” visits the U.S., as an indicator of how much he supposedly knows about the evils of our society.
Looked more like he was just seeking additional ammo with which to sneer at GW Bush.*
If one really wants to learn about differences in educational systems, one asks intelligent, non-loaded questions, instead of smirking about the graduation ages of Bush’s daughters as supposed proof that they are intellectually superior to their father.
And if one is sincerely interested in learning about graduate studies in English, one takes the trouble to learn more about exactly what they entail, before sneering about how it’s an “extremely easy studyfield”.
If an American made these sorts of superficial, dismissive and ignorant comments about another nation or culture, we’d say that person personified the stereotype of the “Ugly American”. It’s just as embarassing and unacceptable coming from a non-American.
*And for the umpteenth time, why bother with this inconsequential crap and drag someone’s family into it, when there so many real and pressing issues to use against GWB?
Hear hear, Jackmannii.
On a small tangent, though (regarding something I saw on CNN today): did I see correctly that around 4,000 students decided to skip the graduation ceremony? Seems like a pretty big number, to me.
In any case, I think that both Bush daighters should be proud of themselves for completing their college work, and their parents should be just as proud as any other parents that have children graduating from college.
LilShieste
Find a single soldier in Iraq that didn’t volunteer, and I’ll eat my underpants.
'Til then, you’re an asshole.