Wong's lies about my education

[Stark]

I hear if an obvious troll (from TK lol) shows up and makes a grandstanding, content-free post and someone points out they're full of shit, everyone reading the thread must chase down all of the guy's claims or they're 'mindless sheep'. It's not like 95% of people looking at the thread aren't participating in the 'debate' and so have no such responsibility, and indeed many of those who are *did*. If you shrug and say 'what a full-of-shit toolbox', you're a Slave Of Wong, did you know that? That's why he can defend himself beyond 'rah rah you're wrong' and why Mike would never post a link to the source page.

OH WAIT.

Does this guy have any moves that AREN'T 'poison the well, declare victory'? I'm leaving the irony of describing anyone as 'mindless sheep' ON TROLLKINGDM alone for now.

[CaptHawkeye]

But, then, you have absolutely nothing that can defend your dishonesty, nor have you taken enough physics courses or dealt with enough physics programs to have any notion as to what a normal physics program is.

Oh if I had a penny for every time someone accused Mike of having inferior knowledge of science or physics to their own.

Actually, a couple years ago, you or someone else did. Regardless, I don't trust you not to, especially after you edited the damn checksheet before "quoting" it. You clearly think you can get away with bald faced lies.

So when do you intend to start showing us the slightest GLIMER of evidence for any of your claims? With a posting history of a mere 150, it shouldn't be hard at all to locate the post in question. But you're a chronic bullshitter, so I won't hold you to it.

[tjhairball]

Replied.

Choice quote:

Anyone can go to Appstate's website and see that you lied about the size of the core by omitting the line about 6-8 physics "electives" included within it, and lied about the number of courses needed to meet the 18 hour minimum for the field of concentration (6, not 4-5), further ignored the fact that the actual number of courses doesn't carry over very well (as indicated above, the 1150-1151/2010-2020 sequence is equivalent to six standard introductory courses), and completely ignored what the courses are actually in.

Read the fucking course catalog, folks.

[CaptainChewbacca]

How is a philosophy degree at all applicable to discussions of scientific mechanics?

[Coiler]

Why don't you put your responses here like a man instead of shuffling them back on trollkingdom?

[CaptainChewbacca]

P.S. You're just gonna get flamed for not posting. Put the text here, but link to the thread. That way anyone who wants to see it can click, but it makes it easier for folks here to read.

[tjhairball]

Another choice quote from the initial post, bringing up a truly objective measure that Wong has completely ignored and not mentioned in spite of the fact that I've pointed it out to him:

He also chooses to completely ignore the firmest and most final measure of a bachelor physics program's effectiveness:

Rate of successful graduate study.

Currently, about 5000 Americans graduate with physics bachelor's graduate each year, and about 500 graduate with physics Ph. Ds. 2,000 people get master's degrees in physics in America every year (including the ones that just came over here to get 'em. Sorry, no breakup by citizenship for master's degrees.)

Of Appalachian's physics graduates, 10% have gone on to successfully complete Ph. Ds and 50% have gone on to successfully complete master's degrees. The deviation from average bachelor's behavior can be explained perfectly by the fact that ~10% of the departments graduates included in those statistics are graduating from a terminal master's program - most of those too recently to have had a chance to earn a Ph. D.

Whaddaya know. It's like... a normal physics program with average results! Not a top school in physics, but I never claimed that.

Because, you know, when you're making claims about what constitutes a normal physic's bachelor's degree, it helps to compare with national statistics rather than bullshitting inaccurately about the number of courses without examining the course content.

[Stark]

Stop posing and either be happy with the link or post the whole fucking thing. This whole 'lol highlights from my teh awesum post' thing is fucking lame.

But then your aim is to get banned, so I guess it makes sense.

[tjhairball]

P.S. You're just gonna get flamed for not posting. Put the text here, but link to the thread. That way anyone who wants to see it can click, but it makes it easier for folks here to read.

Because then when it gets edited here, lazy ass mofos like yourself (or the stupid ones like Ossus, who can't figure out how to understand what the course requirements for a degree at Appalachian are) will think that's perfectly accurate.

But sure, I can let you be lazy and quite possibly dead wrong.

I went back there in response to Wong issuing a challenge to anybody with a "real science or engineering degree" to come disagree with him.

Here is the thread. I got banned about five minutes after posting what's now the initial post of that thread in another thread, apparently in order to prevent me from debunking Wong's subsequent lies about my education and alma mater, so I'm posting it here so y'all can at least have a look. Especially poor TK resident CaptainChewbacca, who seems like he got completely suckered by Wong. (Poor Chewie! Always check facts presented by honesty-deficient folks like Wong! Nub.)

Wong has claimed that a degree in physics from Appalachian involves a "core of six classes and 4-5 courses in a concentration, posting this edited version of the Appalachian Physics B.S.:

Curiously, not one of Stardestroyer.net's mindless sheep has seen fit to actually looked at the checksheet he edited out significant portions of. Nor have they bothered to even read and find out that Appalachian isn't a "community college."

Like the part where the physics core includes 6-8 more hours (2-3) classes, or the actual concentration checksheets, which make it clear that actual concentrations at App are a minimum 6 courses, not "4-5."

Or the part where, after the 62 hours in classes relating to the major, an additional 60 hours of credit are required... only around 30 hours of which are accounted for by the general core. Meaning that regular Appalachian physics students regularly take between 60 and 90 hours related to their major field of study, and 75 is quite typical.

Or the part where a standard (normal) class is 3 credit hours and represents ~10 hours of work a week (sometimes the ratio between credits and work is higher the physics department), meaning that what he's representing as a 5 year-course units related to the physics program is in fact 10-15 year-course units related to the program. Whoo! How's that for a "Big Lie?"

In comparison, he has posted this schedule for the University of Waterloo physics program, and claimed that the coursework for an Appalachian degree "...wouldn't even get you through the second year of an equivalent program at another university..." citing the large number of courses.

Reviewing this schedule, Appalachian's standard mathematical physics program would definitely get you through the first two years of this program even if you took minimal numbers of courses. The course breakup is different, of course; Appalachian likes to combine its lower level courses, which makes it difficult for freshmen to get AP physics credit in (because the intro course corresponds to AP Physics B and AP Physics C in terms of lecture material, and then has a lab tacked on.)

Heck, even being generous to Waterloo, most of the third year material is also covered at App, and there are a few things I recall covering that I can't figure out when they would have put it in before then. Of course, most of those were elective, like the course I took in differential geometry (and how are you going to talk much about general relativity without taking diff geo?)

(And Waterloo is supposed to be the #1 or #2 school in Canada for that kind of thing? Of course, since MIT only actually requires 13 "courses" it wouldn't make a good example for counting courses, even if it is rated higher. I guess MIT isn't such a good school, huh?)

He also chooses to completely ignore the firmest and most final measure of a bachelor physics program's effectiveness:

Rate of successful graduate study.

Currently, about 5000 Americans graduate with physics bachelor's graduate each year, and about 500 graduate with physics Ph. Ds. 2,000 people get master's degrees in physics in America every year (including the ones that just came over here to get 'em. Sorry, no breakup by citizenship for master's degrees.)

Of Appalachian's physics graduates, 10% have gone on to successfully complete Ph. Ds and 50% have gone on to successfully complete master's degrees. The deviation from average bachelor's behavior can be explained perfectly by the fact that ~10% of the departments graduates included in those statistics are graduating from a terminal master's program - most of those too recently to have had a chance to earn a Ph. D.

Whaddaya know. It's like... a normal physics program with average results! Not a top school in physics, but I never claimed that.

A "community college program," as the SDN-sheep are claiming? Bullshit. Inferior - with, mind, equally serious programs in mathematics and philosophy - to Wong's singular bachelor-level engineering degree? Bullshit, even leaving alone my assorted honors and accolades.

Good for a laugh when you realize just how much emotional investment Wong has in his engineering degree? Depends on your sense of humor.

Did I let myself get trolled but good? I'll grant that.

In which case you should follow the link instead of skimming the material. You'll see Wong lied. It's as simple as reading the actual checksheet and comparing it with the substantially abbreviated version he posted. 122 credit hours minimum, with <30 hours of that discretionary, 30 core (44 listed - 14 included in the major course of study), and a minimum of 62 credit hours of coursework within the major.

The concentration checksheets show that he also spoke falsely regarding the number of classes involved in a concentration.

If you do any background research, you'll see that he's misrepresented Appalachian State, which - far from being a community college, is consistently rated one of the top master's institutions in the region.

Nor is the physics program the only thing I completed. My undergraduate program involved slightly more coursework than a typical bachelor+master's degree combination in a single subject ... yes, that included a senior thesis and 60+ semester courses actually taken (and passed.)

I'm just that damn good at school, Chewie.

No master plan. I actually didn't intend to use that account anymore.

And it was actually a double degree, one of which had a double major on it. Total of three major programs completed. The computer system fucked up a bit when I switched my program from a triple major BA to a double major BS plus single major BA.

E=TJHairball]Since he has unbanned me, but is liable to dishonestly edit or remove from public view, I am continuing the conversation here and linking to posts.

There are several dishonest claims Wong has made about my education. First, he has engaged in a blatantly obvious lie:

As you can see from actually reading the requirements, there are an additional 2-3 physics "electives" included in the physics core, and he has heavily edited the checksheet requirements. As can readily be seen from the concentration checksheets, concentrations include a minimum of 6 courses.

Total, this is a minimum of 62 credit hours, i.e., the equivalent of just over 10 standard yearlong courses or a minimum of 18 out of 38 (corresponding to 21 out of 41 in "standard" three credit units) semester courses.

In addition to this, physics majors take an additional 30 hours of discretionary courses, which often mostly consist of courses related to the major. I was no exception in spite of my additional majors; there were easily at least a half dozen additional courses on my transcript that could have gone on my checksheets but didn't. The total program thus generally includes 10-15 yearlong course units related to the major.

Bullshit. Technical colleges do cover more, but not that much more. There is, at best, an additional year's worth of physics being covered.

Review, in detail, the courses taken by a physics major at Waterloo, and - let us say a mathematical physics concentration. What Wong didn't mention was that these were not the minimum requirements for the physics program in general, but the recommended complete course of study for "Honours Physics" seen here.

CHEM 120/120L, 123/123L: These are equivalent to an introductory chemistry sequence. Not required, but not physics either. Equivalent to Appstate's CHE 1101, 1110, 1102, 1120 sequence. (This is incidentally required for physics BAs, and which I had credit for before I moved over to the BS program.)

MATH 114, MATH 127, MATH 128, MATH 227, MATH 228: Curiously enough, these are the exact same math courses we see on the Mathematical physics checksheet at Appalachian. I've taken all of these - and, of course, many more.

Seven elective semester courses of any type. Appalachian's program includes ten.
Two elective 300 or 400-level half-normal credit physics labs and two elective physics courses - corresponding, credit-wise, with the 6-8 hours of "physics electives."

PHYS 10 Physics Seminar A series of guest lecturers, films, et cetera physics students are expected to attend for their entire career as a Waterloo student. That this is a credited course is why the Waterloo course count is unusually high. Honors physics students at Appalachian are "expected" to attend such.

PHYS 121/131L 122/132L These courses partially correspond to PHY 1150/1151 at Appalachian.

PHYS 252/252L Electricity and Magnetism/Laboratory This partially corresponds to the PHY 1150/1151 (mainly in the lab work) and partially to PHY 2010/2020.

PHYS 139 Scientific Computer Programming: This course in C++ scientific computing has no precise equivalent at Appalachian. There is a course not yet on the official checksheet which, nonetheless, all recent mathematical physics graduates have been "advised" to take, PHY 4020 Computational Methods in Physics and Engineering, but PHY 4020 requires strong familiarity with differential equations, and PHYS 139 does not.

PHYS 232L Measurement Laboratory This is roughly equivalent to PHY 2210 in position and actual laboratory work, although the course description makes it clear this is mostly intended to teach material that students taking PHY 4210 cover as part of the incidental work for a course that regularly consumes 20 hours per week. The lecture content of PHY 2210 actually corresponds to material covered in PHYS 239, an elective course.

PHYS 234 Quantum Physics 1 Partial overlap with the Modern I/II 3210/3220 sequence and partial overlap with PHY 5640/4640 Quantum Mechanics. However, Diff Eq is a coreq for PHYS 234, and a prereq for PHY 4640.

PHYS 256/256L Geometrical and Physical Optics/Laboratory PHY 4620 Optics
Seven electives which are not required to be anything in particular (as opposed to ten.)

PHYS 258 Thermal Physics Corresponds to PHY 3230 Thermal Physics.

PHYS 263 Classical Mechanics and Special Relativity This is not, reviewing the syllabus, actually equivalent to PHY 3010 Classical Mechanics, which includes Hamiltonian, Lagrangians, and calculus of variations, and therefore corresponds to PHYS 363. The special relativity unit is tucked in with PHY 3210 Modern Physics I, and the remainder of this material is found in PHY 2010/2020.

PHYS 334 Quantum Physics 2 Partial overlap with Modern II 3220 and Quantum Mechanics 5640/4640. (Expectation values, Zeeman effect, et cetera.)

PHYS 360A Modern Physics Laboratory 1 Included in PHY 4210.

PHYS 363 Intermediate Classical Mechanics PHY 3010 Classical Mechanics.

PHYS 364 & 365 Mathematical Physics 1 and 2: Junior level course. About half this material is covered in MAT 3130 or PHY 4020 at App. Of course, everything in the course descriptions sound strangelyfamiliar to me, with my substantial additional work in mathematics.

PHYS 335 Condensed Matter Physics: Junior level course. Not covered in a normal M.P concentration at Appalachian..

PHYS 359 Statistical Mechanics: Junior level course. Should cover material more advanced than found in PHY 3230 Thermal Physics, which includes introductory statistical mechanics.

PHYS 441A/B Electromagnetic Theory: 441A (electrostatics, magnetostatics, and macroscopic descriptions of dielectrics) corresponds mostly to material covered in PHY 2020 Intermediate II. 441B corresponds by description to PHY 3020 Electromagnetic Fields and Waves, which deals with magnetodynamics, electrodynamics, Maxwell's equations in full differential glory, and plane waves.

PHY 434: Senior-level quantum course including material not covered at Appalachian. And that rounds out the requirements.

What's not covered in a typical Appalachian's mathematical physics program that is required at Waterloo? A semester of statistical mechanics. About a semester of quantum mechanics. About a semester's worth of "mathematical physics" material. A semester of condensed matter physics. A couple semester-courses of additional lab-work. 2.5 units, as Waterloo measures it, or about a semester's work in physics.

As I pointed out, it's generous to call it a year of material covered at Waterloo but not Appalachian, and saying "less than two years" is complete and utter bullshit.

He has also claimed:

Which a cursory look at community college programs dispels, as does the rate at which Appalachian physics graduates successfully go on to complete their master's degrees and doctorates.

brianyeci also said something interesting and worth replying to:

10+ hours per week per course is very typical of physics courses at Appalachian. The 3 credit hour standard is supposed to correspond to about 10 hours of work.

10+ hours per week per course is also very typical of students in any 3000 or higher level philosophy course at Appalachian.[/QUOTE]

[tjhairball]

How is a philosophy degree at all applicable to discussions of scientific mechanics?

Replied:

How is a philosophy degree at all applicable to discussions of scientific mechanics?

Well, Chewie, philosophy programs teach about things like this:

• Critical thinking.
• Consistency and the big picture.
• Logic.
• Argumentation.
• How we can claim to know things.
• How to uncover bias.

These are absolutely crucial, and Wong fails horribly because of his inability to put together the big picture, work logically, pay attention to consistency, or put forth serious claims to knowledge.

[Stark]

Needs more baseless claims of mod abuse! Needs more grandstanding! Come on, at least do something interesting or unique before you get banned and go chuckle with your buddies.

[Kane Starkiller]

So we went from "three times education as Wong" to "My university progarm barely lags a year!".
How much more backpedalling should we expect hairball?

[brianeyci]

So you're still saying you got three times the education with a B.Sc with three concentrations than someone who's got an engineering B.Eng?

And you're still saying you got some "lofty vantage point"?

What utter bullshit. I looked at that course catalogue: six to eight hours of physics electives. That is not six to eight credits, or six to eight half credits.

Six to eight

hours

So by omitting that, he left out nothing of substance unless you seriously think that six to eight hours more of electives is equivalent to a full credit or even a half credit. He does not know your university's system to know what semester hours mean: well boo hoo to you, I took some time to figure out below and it's still bullshit.

You are right about one thing. The number of credits doesn't translate properly. In most science based universities with a rigorous program, science credits are a half credit. Therefore, everything that is taught in your courses would be taught in a half semester program at UW, not a full year course. So you have nine divided by two: three point five credits worth of physics knowledge, and another one point five credits worth of Calculus knowledge.

That is five credits worth of science and math, and plenty of room left for philosophy which you said took the majority.

You got 90 semester hours for an equivalent of a fourth year student. So thirty two semester hours to graduate with a physics major, so that's the equivalent of 35% of your degree physics. One point five plus three point five is five, or five out of 20 in one of the universities out here, around 25%, matching my 35% number. Meanwhile, a real physics specialist program has 13 or 14 full credits out of 20 as required, or 70% required credits.

You're so full of bullshit it's not even funny. By the way, what the fuck is a semester hour? Is a semester hour exactly what I think it is, ONE FUCKING HOUR of required class? Because if it is, it'd be utterly pathetic: you got real physics first year courses with 78 lectures 39 labs and 26 tutorials, giving 143 hours alone for a single fucking class. What a joke your unviersity seems to be.

[brianeyci]

You bring up a lot of fucking red herrings tjhairball, but the fact of the matter is it takes 32 + 12 + 8 semester hours to consider yourself a physics major, and a 90 semester hour student is considered 4th year in your college. So no matter how you cut it, at best 60% of your diploma is relevant to the material, and I don't see how it could be 60% given you made your claim that most of it was philosophy.

At worst, if 90 semester hours considers you as a 4th year and not graduated (your brochure was not specific) and if it takes 120 semester hours or so to graduate, then you've got 43% of your diploma math or science. If you want core science only that's 32/120 = 26% of your diploma science.

Damn scary shit, really three times the education! Give me a break retard.

[Stark]

Brian, don't ask questions or do maths: he justs wants to cut and paste from his (doubtless rehearsed and triple-edited) Troll Kingdom posts. Remember how he claimed in his original post that it took him half an hour to write?

[brianeyci]

I just want to know if a semester hour is what I think it is, one fucking hour of class.

I almost want to call them to find out, because I don't trust this "lofty vantage point" and "three times the education." I have never heard anybody with a mere B.Sc. say he has three times the education of an engineer.

If it takes 140 semester hours to graduate, then it's around six and a half semester hours to equal one full credit out of twenty (the out of twenty for diploma system is what I'm used to.) So his math and physics major is 8 full credits out of 20 in my university.

Bog standard stuff, most places think of 8 out of 20 as a major (for him, around 52 out of 140). The issue isn't that it's not good enough: it's that he went on about his three times and lofty vantage point bullcrap.

[SirNitram]

'IT'S GONNA GET EDITED!!!!!1111oneone'

Wow. You're pathetic. Point to a post where someone has edited it. Because, and this will shock you, it's possible to check.

[Terralthra]

I don't know about AppState's semester-hours, but in the CSU system, a credit/semester-hour refers to an hour of class-time per week for the length of the term, be it quarter or semester or whatever. This is combined with the assumption that each hour of class-time requires an additional 2-3 hours of studying/homework activity.

[brianeyci]

Then my guess was right. If 52 out of 140 of his credits are physics math concentration then that's really around 7 or 8 credits out of 20 or only 30 - 40 percent of his degree physics and math.

It doesn't justify the claim of three times the education at all, not in terms of time, or quality.

The "lofty vantage point" should be stickied for all time, so anybody can come on and look at the sheer arrogance of him and laugh their balls off.

The only thing Wong is guilty of is not knowing exactly what a semester hour is. Well boo hoo, he missed the 6-8 semester hours which is equivalent to ONE whole fucking credit out of twenty (or two half credits), since it takes around six semester hours to be the same as one credit up here.

It's pretty pathetic that he's going back to philosophy is relevant. Wong issued the challange his terms were clear: science and math and engineering only. It's like going to James Randi and trying to change the terms of the million dollar challenge, the parts that can't be changed. There is no negotiation, no debate, he issued the challenge meet the conditions and take it or leave it, but tjhairball seems to think this is some kind of dickwaving contest.

[Darth Servo]

P.S. You're just gonna get flamed for not posting. Put the text here, but link to the thread. That way anyone who wants to see it can click, but it makes it easier for folks here to read.

Because then when it gets edited here,

Evidence of editing your posts? Nope, didn't think so. Just more flinging empty accusations so he can go back to his little circle-jerks and brag about insulting the big-bad-warsies on their turf and then brag about getting banned (but lying about the reasons).

But sure, I can let you be lazy and quite possibly dead wrong.

I went back there in response to Wong issuing a challenge to anybody with a "real science or engineering degree" to come disagree with him.

First, you need to put quotation marks around the name in the quote tag.

Code: Select all

[quote="person's name here"]

Second, you aren't even trying to debate. You made a post bragging about how you "already had equal or superior math, physics, logic, et cetera coursework to that presumably completed by Michael Wong.", " lofty vantage point, having approximately three times the relevant education as Michael Wong" and once those lies were exposed, you're now backtracking to try and nitpick Mike's decision to not cite every last little footnote on those pages, painting them as lies.

Here is the thread. I got banned about five minutes after posting what's now the initial post of that thread in another thread,

When Mike bans someone here, he makes it VERY public like this. You're just being a whiny bitch now.

apparently in order to prevent me from debunking Wong's subsequent lies about my education and alma mater, so I'm posting it here so y'all can at least have a look.

If thats what Mike really wanted, why would he allegedly "unban" you? Because you're simply lying about being banned in the first place, thats why.

Especially poor TK resident CaptainChewbacca, who seems like he got completely suckered by Wong. (Poor Chewie! Always check facts presented by honesty-deficient folks like Wong! Nub.)

Ah, wonderful, another entry for the "English-to-Trektard" dictionary.

Suckered: grow up, face reality and get an education.

Wong has claimed that a degree in physics from Appalachian involves a "core of six classes and 4-5 courses in a concentration, posting this edited version of the Appalachian Physics B.S.:

Correction, he ESTIMATED the number of courses based on the number of units required.

Curiously, not one of Stardestroyer.net's mindless sheep has...bothered to even read and find out that Appalachian isn't a "community college."

Curiously, not one of SD.net's intelligent citizens has claimed it's a community college. The statement was GLORIFIED community college. Learn what the full phrase means.

Or the part where, after the 62 hours in classes relating to the major, an additional 60 hours of credit are required... only around 30 hours of which are accounted for by the general core. Meaning that regular Appalachian physics students regularly take between 60 and 90 hours related to their major field of study, and 75 is quite typical.

In other words, HALF the degree doesn't have to be math/science courses.

Whoo! How's that for a "Big Lie?"

Pretty pathetic given you needed to lie about what Mike did and did not actually say to generate said "Big Lie"

Whaddaya know. It's like... a normal physics program with average results! Not a top school in physics, but I never claimed that.

So you admit, your claims of having "three times" the education of Mike, having a "lofty vantage point" was all bullshit.

even leaving alone my assorted honors and accolades.

Like the fencing club? That doesn't mean jack with regards to one's education. It simply means one has free time.

Good for a laugh when you realize just how much emotional investment Wong has in his engineering degree? Depends on your sense of humor.

Emotional investment: being proud of one's accomplishment.

The dictionary entries just keep rolling in. Keep 'em comming hairball. You're better at this than JMSpock.

In which case you should follow the link instead of skimming the material. You'll see Wong lied. It's as simple as reading the actual checksheet and comparing it with the substantially abbreviated version he posted. 122 credit hours minimum, with <30 hours of that discretionary, 30 core (44 listed - 14 included in the major course of study), and a minimum of 62 credit hours of coursework within the major.

How does not including electives and general education that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with physics or math constitute "editing"? Oh, thats right, you're looking for ANYTHING to criticize after your public humiliation.

If you do any background research, you'll see that he's misrepresented Appalachian State, which - far from being a community college, is consistently rated one of the top master's institutions in the region.

Again, glorified community college =/= actual community college. Hairball is just in brocken record mode now, mindlessly repeating the same aaccusation over and over because he has nothing else left.

I'm just that damn good at school, Chewie.

So good you didn't realize that negative energy was not something that could be "released" as a weapon.

And it was actually a double degree, one of which had a double major on it. Total of three major programs completed. The computer system fucked up a bit when I switched my program from a triple major BA to a double major BS plus single major BA.

I don't suppose you'd care to explain why App St's graduation list ONLY has "Thomas Joseph MacIntee" listed with Physics and Philosophy & Religion degrees listed; no math degree?

Since he has unbanned me, but is liable to dishonestly edit or remove from public view, I am continuing the conversation here and linking to posts.

Evidence of this ban and subsequent unban? Didn't think so. The broken record once again.

[Master of Ossus]

Hairball: Are you going to bother to respond to the fact that my B.A. ECONOMICS degree demonstrates substantial overlap with your course requirements from App. State? Sorry, but yours is not a lofty scientific vantage point (let alone one that compares to a science degree from a top university) if a B.A. in a liberal arts field required me to take somewhere around half the enumerated courses you took while I was studying Economics and English and Math on the side. And this is from your own checklist, btw. What did you use for the fill-in-the-blank sections? Math in Many Cultures? Archaeoastronomy? Communications?

I also like your claim that the rate of successful graduate study correlates with the strength of the underlying bachelor's degree while ignoring all those niggling little details that real statisticians have to deal with. Things like "selection bias," for example. Can't be any of that in your statistic, nosiree.

And let's face it: you're up against a degree from Waterloo. That's not some bog-standard Engineering degree, but one from a widely recognized elite program that takes in great students and carefully trains them. There is a HUGE difference between competing with average students in your courses and having to deal with the best and brightest minds available that goes WELL beyond the number of enumerated courses.

The average SAT score at App.State was around 1100, just prior to the addition of the SAT Writing component. That's not bad: it's a little better than the national average for colleges. When you try to compare that to elite programs, though, that's pretty crappy. The college I went to is part of a close-knit consortium that includes 4 other colleges, including Pitzer College (SAT average around 1200--a little higher than App.State's), and the courses taught at Pitzer, and the average student going there (there were exceptions) were NOTICEABLY weaker than those from Harvey Mudd (average SAT score around 1500) and Pomona (average SAT score between 1450 and 1500). You cannot show the equivalency, let alone the superiority of your education (as per your original claim) by saying that your college tried to get students to work hard because you're trying to compare yourself to a tertiary education institution that works with MUCH, MUCH higher caliber students. There is no comparison there, and they're not equivalent. Average Waterloo students attending App.State would almost certainly DESTROY their classmates, academically, provided that they didn't get bored and leave. Average App.State students wouldn't even get into Waterloo.

Edited for grammar and slight additions (twice, sigh).

[fusion]

Great, if you can't beat them head on, whine about how they are fake. WOW. Are trekkies getting stupider by the minute? or are they getting more desperate?

[Darth Wong]

I love the way he simply ignores the fact that I posted links to the source documents and openly invited any and all readers to see them for themselves, and draw their own conclusions about the relative strengths of the two programs. I ignored the 6-8 semester hours because it's part of the 32 core semester hours that I quoted, so the total number of hours indicated on my post is exactly correct, despite his spin-doctoring bullshit. It's not added on.

And why does he keep harping about how many students go on to complete PhDs, as if all PhDs are equal? Oh wait, he does the same thing with Bachelor's Degrees now, doesn't he?

And I see he's complaining that I didn't post our E-mail exchange. Well here's a choice quote from that exchange:

Have some damned honesty or reading comprehension. The course of study I took, if taken by a student who passed a little over 12 hours a semester (a very typical full time pass rate at Appalachian, including drops, repeats, and fails) would have taken seven straight years of study.

Jesus Christ, a typical full-time pass rate at Appalachian is 12 hours per semester? Is that a university, or a vacation resort?

This guy honestly doesn't seem to have any comprehension whatsoever of what a real program looks like. Honestly, he just gets more and more pathetic with each post.

[Junghalli]

I didn't know university classes with such tiny amounts of instruction time even existed. I've never taken a class that met less than three hours a week.

[Darth Wong]

Like the part where the physics core includes 6-8 more hours (2-3) classes, or the actual concentration checksheets, which make it clear that actual concentrations at App are a minimum 6 courses, not "4-5."

Ooooh, so I quoted the total number of core and specialization hours correctly, but I didn't bother to check the calendar to convert it accurately into the right number of courses. OMG, you got me! Instead of comparing 34 core courses to 9, it should be 34 to 11, or maybe even 12 if you choose courses with small class times! OMG, this changes everything!

Go through the rest of his rambling diatribe if you like; this just struck me as particularly hilarious.