<p>Yeah, Sakky is going overboard demonstrating well known facts. Those who do not believe him, do some research.</p>
<p>To get back to the original question. Top programs get huge nubmers of applicants with outstanding grades and research experience. To a large extent they care more about research potential than grades, but low grades worry them. They care about letters of recommendation from well known professors. These are easier to get from MIT than from Colby due to the research oriented nature of the former. </p>
<p>If you are not going to have an impressive research background, then keeping the highest GPA, GRE and best recommendations you can get will be most important. I second those who say “do not let your government courses kill your GPA”. Even more important, do not let your gov courses distract you from your science courses, your science gpa and getting to know your science professors.</p>
<p>Again, sakky, you’re still missing my point. You’re continuing to argue against things I’ve already agreed with.</p>
<p>As far as countries with pespective, pretty much any industrialized country with a long history - the combination of an educated populace and a long history seems to give perspective. It was noted my Eric Faner in “Who Owns History?” that while we still beat each other up over racial issues that occurred 150 years ago (I’m referring to slavery, not the civil rights movement, lest you misinterpret my math), Britain has a well-thought out slavery exhibit in Manchester that addresses not just racial issues (which ar far less of the exhibit than it would be in the states) but also (and mostly) the economic effect of slavery on the area. We in the U.S still have major arguments over things like Smithsonian exhibits. Why? Because we have no perspective.</p>
<p>And once again, if you would reread the posts, you will see that you’re still arguing things I haven’t disagreed with. Nor have I ever said grades should be a huge determinent.</p>
<p>I continue to argue because I still disagree with some of your points, namely that there are these countries with long histories who have somehow obtained a better perspective on racial and religious matters than the US has. My take is that we’re all in the same boat. You never talked before about restricting this discussion to purely industrial countries, but if so, we can talk about that. The UK still has significant problems in dealing with its long and sordid history with regards to its treatment of the Irish. France? Look at the Muslim riots in the Parisian suburbs that occurred last year. Germany? At one time, Germany was arguably the most industrially and scientifically advanced nation in the world, and dominated the ranks of the Nobel Prize winners in the first half of the 20th century. But that didn’t prevent the Holocaust. Heck, to this day, Germany has significant problems in integrating non-German immigrants, especially the Turks. </p>
<p>It seems to me that no country has really solved this problem of racial or religious integration at all. Each country has its own demons.</p>
<p>Well, I’m certainly not the only historian to argue the perspective issue on behalf of other countries, as there are reams of books on the subject, but we’ll just have to agree to disagree. And please, don’t get me started on the Irish question unless you want to read my defended undergrad thesis. We’ll just leave it at the fact that Ireland until very recently couldn’t really be considered an industrialized country, and education (at least the content) was extremely spotty and used mostly for indoctrination into one faith or another. Hence the reaason it doesn’t fit the equation. BTW, the Muslim riots again are recent, so that goes towards my point.</p>
<p>There are very specific exceptions, such as the Turks and the Jews in Europe, but there are also very specific reasons why they are exceptions to the rule, which are far too lengthy and complicated for the scope of this forum. Those reasons don’t apply to any groups in the US. Traveling in other industrialized countries (apart from France, who has a long history of hating everyone who doesn’t fit a particular creed/ethnicity/etc. - again for it’s own historical reasons), you notice the lack of racism and concern for religion - it’s rather palpable, but it takes awhile to put your finger on it. Most of the UK, Germany, Italy, Greece, Scandinavia, plus Australia, New Zealand, Canada…the list goes on.</p>
<p>Again, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.</p>
<p>I’m not talking about what happened in Ireland. </p>
<p>I’m talking about the attitudes of the British with respect to Ireland. The UK was the first country to industrialize. Yet let’s face it. The attitude that the British had towards the Irish was downright racist. Heck, to this day, the British and the Irish still have tensions, despite the long history of British industrialization. Not to mention the fact that the UK has been specifically condemned.</p>
<p>I don’t even think there are ‘very specific’ exceptions. The Roma are routinely discriminated against in almost all European countries, including the industrialized ones. All of Western Europe has had to grapple with the Muslim immigration problem (i.e. Danish cartoons, the incidents of Theo van Gogh and Pim Foutuyn in the Netherlands). The strong tensions felt by refugees of the various Balkan conflicts who scattered throughout Western Europe. </p>
<p>I find it especially interesting to note that the long history and prestige attached to soccer in Europe has also been deeply connected to racism and hooliganism. I guess we know what people’s real attitudes are with regards to race as soon as you give them a few drinks and get them excited by sports. Go to a European soccer game and you may see attitudes and statements with regards to black players that are more in line with the Jim Crow South. </p>
<p>UCLAri - LOL - yeah, well, there seems to be an issue about what precisely the Chosen People were chosen for…</p>
<p>Sakky - Since Ireland is my area, I promise you there’s not an event or an attitude involved with that whole disastrous conflict that I’m not familiar with. You can’t separate what happened IN Ireland with attitudes TOWARDS Ireland. They’re inexorably linked in a vicious cause and effect web. The prejudices involved go both ways, and they can’t accurately be described as simple racism or religious intolerance, although in the interests of expediency it generally is. And while Britain was industrialized early, Ireland wasn’t until rather recently (outside the Pale and Belfast).</p>
<p>There are prejudices in every country, just as every person has their own. It’s just that in many countries, it doesn’t permeate their everyday existence. This quality is highly correlated with a long history and First World status. Perhaps in a few hundred years we’ll be over all of this (and probably on to something new, but hopefully not quite so viciously). In the meantime, as my original point was, let’s not be so hasty to invoke prejudice for the reasons the world turns - it only fans the flames. If you’re a Jew in France applying to grad school today, you get to complain. If you are a Jew in the US applying to grad school today, not so much. Now if you’re an Arab trying to catch your flight from New York to Jerusalem…</p>
<p>Yeah, well, then, I don’t particularly see the point then because one could then attribute the problems of American racism down to industrialization or lack thereof. For example, the reason why was it that it was people of African origin that were enslaved in the Americas, and not, say, the French or other Europeans? It was because, frankly, Africa was industrially backwards and technologically weak. Slavery itself was a consequence of weakness, because slavery is an activity of opportunism. Asian societies enslaved weak Asian societies. African tribes enslaved weaker African tribes. Strong MesoAmerican tribes enslaved weak ones. Strong European nations enslaved weak European nations until such time as they got strong. </p>
<p>Hence, just like you could say that racist attitudes towards the Irish are a product of historical economic weakness of the Irish, one could say that American racism towards African-Americans today is basically a product of historical weakness of African tribes. It’s all true, but so what? It doesn’t justify the existence of racism, whether in the US, in the UK, or anywhere else. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m afraid I still don’t see it. India has existed as a culture for at least 5000 years - yet look at the prevalence of the caste system to this day, which is one of the most racist systems of social stratification ever known to man. Japan has existed for thousands of years - yet look at the xenophobia that permeates Japanese culture. China as a culture is also thousands of years old, but I wouldn’t call Chinese culture to be one that is highly accepting of foreigners. Far from it, in fact. </p>
<p>Nor do I see First World status as being particularly antithetical towards racism. If anything, it actually ENHANCES racism because it encourages the belief that you deserve to rule over others. Maybe we should ask the Indians how they felt about being ruled by the British. Or the Arabs. Terms like “White Man’s Burden” and Social Darwinism as a philosophical concept existed precisely because of First World status - as some countries became industrially strong, they were able to impose their will on other ethnic groups (and they did). The US was able to exterminate or displace Native Americans through superior technology and industry. The British were able to rule 25% of the world through superior technology. </p>
<p>In fact, one could say that it was precisely industrialization that caused societies to become MORE racist, not less. For example, Fascism took a hold in highly industrialized countries like Germany and almost took over in in 1930’s France and was a strong factor even in the UK (Oswald Mosley) precisely because industrialization caused millions of people to leave the farms to work in factories, and these people then became destitute because of the Great Depression, which fanned the flames of extremism, including Fascism. In contrast, Fascism has never been particular popular in rural peasant societies. China and India, for example, have never had serious fascist movements. Fascism has generally only been a feature of industrialized societies such as Western Europe or (in some ways) Japan. </p>
<p>The point is, I don’t see how racism is negatively correlated with societal age or with industrialization. In fact, if anything, the opposite seems to be true.</p>
<p>I don’t recall ever trying to justify racism - at this point you’re just making an argument that isn’t there, bouncing around form point to random point and putting words into my Quick Reply box. You don’t understand my points. Fine. Either agree to disagree or do your research - there are plenty of books in the history section of your local bookstore or library that will explain my points further. I’d explain myself, but I don’t feel like transcribing 20 years of scholarship into a forum.</p>
<p>DeepSeekPhD, at the very least, could you restate the main points that you think you disagree about with sakky? I’d like to understand your points.</p>
<p>I would, except that whenever I make a point, he chooses to answer it with an unrelated answer, so I am actually unsure that he disagrees with me at all. I suspect he just likes to argue. But my main points were basically in my first two or three posts, I believe.</p>
<p>Believe me, I understand your points just fine. I just disagree with them.</p>
<p>I will point out specifically where I disagree with you:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>You assert that racism/prejudice is negatively correlated with societal age and industrialization. I believe this is false - if anything, there is actually a POSITIVE correlation. After all, look at extremely old societies such as India, China, and Japan. Free of racism? I don’t think so. Look at the history of fascism. Fascism is one of the most racist philosophies known to man, yet the rise of fascism is intimately linked with industrialization. Not too many rural peasant societies become fascist. </p></li>
<li><p>You assert that Europe is less racist than is the US. Really? Tell that to a Jew. Or an Arab. Or a Turk. Or an African. Or to the Roma. Or to the victims of ethnic cleansing during the Balkan conflicts of the 1990’s. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>If Europe is so much less racist than is the US, then what are all these racial soccer incidents all about? These seems to be like the kinds of things that Jackie Robinson had to put up with to integrate Major League Baseball in the 1940’s - yet these are recent events in Europe. </p>
<p>1) Again, you misunderstand my point. India and China do not have First World status, and Japan only this last 50 years. There is a correlation between countries with BOTH First World status and age of country. Again, there is tons of scholarship on this, so until you do your research, I don’t choose to argue this point. It’s due to higher levels of education and lower unemployment rate (due to the industrialization). And rural coountries don’t become fascist? Really? Because Sicily was a hotbed of fascism during WWII, and even still harbors some of it. (As a person of Sicilian ancestry, I’m rather ashamed of that, but the truth must be told, I’m afraid.) The rise of fascism is not a result of industrialization, rather, it’s the other way around. Countries that embrace fascism spur industrialization further to fulfill their goals. See Germany and Italy on that one.</p>
<p>2) Balkans aren’t exactly industrialized, a problem endemic throughout the former Iron Curtain countries. Plus, much of the problem in the Balkan region is due to arbitrary borders imposed after WWII.</p>
<p>3) Racial soccer incidents? Oh yeah - kind of like all the racial incidents in the US after Rodney King, Martin Luther King, etc. etc.? Also consider that the riots after assasinations and court decisions in the US were due to angry mobs that felt oppressed, in Europe, it’s drunken idiots looking for trouble. The former tells me a lot more about the state of the society as a whole. I didn’t say Europe lacked racism, I said it was not the kind of pervasive every day racism we have here. Stop twisting my words.</p>
<p>Huh? Germany? Germany was one of the most industrialized countries in the world BEFORE turning Fascist, in fact, arguably the most industrialized in the world. Look at the slew of huge industrial firms that existed in Germany before the rise of Hitler. Germany had the highest rate of urbanization, the highest literacy rate, the highest usage of steel, coal, and electricity, and by far the most science Nobel Prize winners of any nation in Europe before anybody had ever heard of Hitler. </p>
<p>Think of it this way. Germany almost won WW1, before it was a Fascist nation, and almost singlehandedly. Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and Bulgaria were of little help to Germany, yet Germany had actually defeated Russia (the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was basically a surrender document), had nearly starved the UK to surrender through submarine warfare and had come very close to defeating France. Germany was able to do this because of its tremendously strong industrial base. The only reason it lost was because of the intervention of the US, which tipped the balance in favor of the Allies. </p>
<p>I would also like to hear your explanation of how fascism spurs industrialization. Oh really? Seems to me that the Nazis actually HURT Germany’s industrial power, most notably by killing and expelling the Jews, including Jewish scientists and engineers in Europe, many of which fled to the UK and to the US, serving to develop the technological bases of those countries at the expense of German industry. And in fact, Hitler and the Nazis did very little to foster the development of the German industrial base until about 1942 when Albert Speer was put in charge of the German economy and put the economy on a full war footing - but that was 3 years AFTER the war had already started. </p>
<p>In fact, anybody who has studied Naziism will note that Naziism as a philosophy is fundamentally ANTI-industrial. Hitler wrote how he wanted to return Germany to an idyllic state of rural pastoralism and deep ties to romanticism which is a fundamentally anti-industrial mindset. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And where is the fascism in, say, subSaharan Africa? Or rural India? Or rural Western China? </p>
<p>Besides, let’s talk more specifically about Italy. I don’t dispute that fascism was popular in Sicily. But where was it most popular? In Northern Italy, which was (and still is) the most industrialized part of Italy. Mussolini came from the North. A disproportionate number of his lieutenants came from the North. Mussolini became prominent within the Fascist movements in Milan, which is a Northern city. </p>
<p>Look, I never said that fascism could never appear in rural societies at all. I said that if there is any correlation, the correlation is that fascism tends to appear in industrialized sectors as opposed to rural sectors. </p>
<p>Don’t tell me to do my research. I have done it. And those are the facts as I see them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So? The Balkans are still part of Europe. You never specified that you were looking only at certain parts of Europe.</p>
<p>Besides, just like you seem to want to exclude certain parts of Europe, I should be allowed to exclude parts of the US. Where is the bulk of the racism in the US? It’s in places like the South, the Mountain States, and Appalachia, places that have historically lagged in industrialization. Racism is also prominent in the inner cities, which used to be industrialized but have been becoming de-industrialized in the last few decades. </p>
<p>So just like you want to exclude the “bad” parts of Europe like the Balkans, I should be allowed to exclude the “bad” parts of the US. So if we only compare “good” Europe to “good” US, I don’t see that the former is any less racist than the latter is. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Those riots are similar to what happened in the French suburbs last year. In either case, it’s about mobs attempting to express discontent with their lot in life. </p>
<p>But racial soccer incidents are an entirely different thing. I agree with you that it’s about drunk idiots looking for trouble. But the US also has lots of drunk idiots going to sports contests looking for trouble. But you never see fans at an NFL game waving KKK flags and Nazi swastikas. You never see fans taunting players of the opposing team with the “N” word or other racial slurs. You see a lot of catcalling and booing and biting insults of the other team being called out, but it almost never gets racial. But you do see that in Europe. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not twisting anything around. I am simply taking everything you say at face value. You say that there isn’t the pervasive racism in Europe that there is in the US. To that, I would say that we ought to ask a Jew whether that’s really true. Or a Muslim. Or a Roma. Or any of those other ethnic groups. </p>
<p>Now, yes, I have heard all of your explanations. You say that the German Holocaust was an exception. French riots are an exception. The British attitude towards the Irish are an exception. The hooliganism of Spanish soccer fans is an exception. The Danish Mohammad cartoon incident is an exception. Italian Fascism is an exception. Heck, Mussolini’s granddaughter, Alessandra, was elected to the European Parliament as a far-right candidate, not very different from what his grandfather espoused. All of these are ‘exceptions’. But how many exceptions do you really need before you have to concede that there is actually a pattern here? </p>
<p>The point is, I do not agree that European racism is less pervasive than US racism. Seems to me that it’s basically the same.</p>
<p>And you have done the same with my words. Again, you know what they say about those who live in glass houses. </p>
<p>Shall I quote you some rather interesting books about European anti-Semitism and the history of fascism, and the current problems of European racism? Believe me, I have done a LOT of reading on this subject. </p>
<p>Let’s face it. Europe has a problem with racism. America has a problem with racism. The rest of the world has a problem with racism too. I have never seen any credible evidence that Europe is truly ‘better’ when it comes to racism. After all, I have to do is point to the Holocaust, and that should really be the end of any discussion of the supposed benign nature of Europe. Nor was this just a “German thing”. Many European nations, under German military control, ENTHUSIASTICALLY gave up their Jews for liquidation. For example, under German rule, the French Milice shocked even many Nazi German officers with their brutality and their thoroughness in eliminating Jews. Similar anti-Semitic groups popped up in every other country that the Germans conquered, with volunteers from conquered nations enthusiastically signing up for the Waffen SS. </p>
<p>Look, the point is, Europe has featured some of the bloodiest ethnic strife in history, and to this day, Europe continues to suffer from significant racial problems. Again, let’s talk about the Roma, the Turks, the Arabs, the South Asians, all of whose communities report ethnic problems. I don’t see how one can claim that Europe is better on the racial front than the US is.</p>
We’ll just leave it at the fact that Ireland until very recently couldn’t really be considered an industrialized country, and education (at least the content) was extremely spotty and used mostly for indoctrination into one faith or another. Hence the reaason it doesn’t fit the equation. BTW, the Muslim riots again are recent, so that goes towards my point.</p>