Why do Liberals want America to be like Europe?

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Originally posted by: chcarnage
The party banning must be difficult to understand in an ultra-solid political system where the only two parties with real power are are quite low-profile. The system isn't the same in Europe. Spain outlawed Heri Batasuna after it was proven that this party was nothing more than the political arm of the ETA terrorists. Seriously I can't think of an illegal party who didn't merit their status.

There is also the Belgian party that was banned. I believe that the banning of political parties is a very strict strangle on the people.

It gets more delicate with book bannings. While European countries ban books of Holocaust deniers and Nazi propaganda like Mein Kampf, the US maybe doesn't do this for the sake of free speech but I wonder if this risk is worth it. On the other hand there were bannings which I also think were unjustified like French ones about Algeria or euthanasia.

And it's a restriction of free speech, as I stated.

We've both pointed out flaws and limits of civil liberties on both continents and although I think I've pointed out more I accept those you named. Here's another argument: The US has world's biggest imprisioned people percentage which leads to the conclusion that either Americans are more criminal or (and that's my point) their laws are more strict, literally limiting liberty.

I don't think that you provided many flaws or limits, especially in regards to the actual citizens. In addition, I believe that most of these 'flaws' are present in many European systems. Many of these have probably existed for quite some time and so many people probably just don't realize it.

As for your jail analogy, it could be due to a more effective police force. The laws could actually be the same, but some European countries fail to fully act with their own laws at times.

My last post was a reply to your lament that Europeans are blind regarding their own laws. I named some American measures with no European counterpart to explain why sometimes the US attracts European attention.

Your one case was a justified reason. I was speaking of other cases where the people entirely focus on the US and don't even realize that their own government has been scheming behind their back, as evidenced by Canadians. It's sad.
 

chcarnage

Golden Member
May 11, 2005
1,751
0
0
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
There is also the Belgian party that was banned. I believe that the banning of political parties is a very strict strangle on the people.

You can get informations about this "great addition to the Belgian politic spectrum" here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlaams_Blok
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlaams_Belang (the for now legal successor party)
And this are relatively benvolent descriptions. Here's another (regrettably German) text about them:
http://lexikon.idgr.de/v/v_l/vlaams-blok/vlaams-blok.php

With some Americans, Europe just can't win. Either it's "look, they limit free speech! Party forbidden!" -or "Look at them! Extremist party X gets 6% in the national parliament of (insert European nation)!".

It gets more delicate with book bannings. While European countries ban books of Holocaust deniers and Nazi propaganda like Mein Kampf, the US maybe doesn't do this for the sake of free speech but I wonder if this risk is worth it. On the other hand there were bannings which I also think were unjustified like French ones about Algeria or euthanasia.

And it's a restriction of free speech, as I stated.

The cases I criticised aside, Europeans don't believe as much in letting speek freely extremists and then hoping that movies like "American History X" reach the same audience. They have no power now, but do this people deserve free speech? The US had no problems with them so far but like party prohibition, absolute tolerance comes with a risk.

I don't think that you provided many flaws or limits, especially in regards to the actual citizens. In addition, I believe that most of these 'flaws' are present in many European systems. Many of these have probably existed for quite some time and so many people probably just don't realize it.

As for your jail analogy, it could be due to a more effective police force. The laws could actually be the same, but some European countries fail to fully act with their own laws at times.

I'm aware of the fact that in the US the gap of rights between those who are citizens and those who are not widens.

I'm not a lawyer but I think it's easier to get a jail sentence in the US for drug abuse and small crimes. Then there's the controversial Three Strikes And You're Out Law in California... The percentage difference may be caused by a culture of unforgiveness which countinues concerning the living conditions in jail (reports of prison rape) and goes straight up to the application of the death penalty.

My last post was a reply to your lament that Europeans are blind regarding their own laws. I named some American measures with no European counterpart to explain why sometimes the US attracts European attention.

Your one case was a justified reason. I was speaking of other cases where the people entirely focus on the US and don't even realize that their own government has been scheming behind their back, as evidenced by Canadians. It's sad.

The problem is that I'm explaining a European point of view while being familiar with my country, knowing some others good and third ones not really. So I don't presume to know the situation of every European country concerning this laws, but I don't know equivalent laws to the named ones either. That said and without judging them, Canadians aren't Europeans either
 

Future Shock

Senior member
Aug 28, 2005
968
0
0
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Future Shock: I agree with everything you said, having spent so much time in Germany. And I agree.

But look at Germany. They are a prime example of socialist market economy in a downsprial, despite its best intentions. America is on one end of the spectrum, Europe on the other. What I would love is a good balance between the two.

I think that Germany is a special case - I don't think that they could be expected to assimilate the entiretly of the former East Germany, along with loads of other Eastern Eurpoean immigrants, and rebound in short order. This is the type of thing that takes decades to recover from, if not a generation. Can they do it? History shows that German culture is extraordinarily resiliant - I wouldn't bet against them. They will swollow their problems and move on. But give them a few decades - the conditions that existed in E. Germany and the former Soviet-bloc countries took decades to create, and will probabliy take as long to fix.

In fact, that same arguement can be applied to much of Western Europe - they are all paying to some degree for the unbundling of the Soviet-bloc, with a great deal of capital flowing from their businesses/governments into Eastern European countries (lower cost of labor, need to reform, etc.), which has limited investment capital in the Western EU. But this is temporary - if you define temporary as several decades until Eastern Europe can be fixed.

Future Shock
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Originally posted by: chcarnage
With some Americans, Europe just can't win. Either it's "look, they limit free speech! Party forbidden!" -or "Look at them! Extremist party X gets 6% in the national parliament of (insert European nation)!".

I realize this is shocking, but it would be pretty nice if some extremist party didn't garner a significant vote and did not actually require to be banned. And it's pretty shocking when it's the most popular parties.

Some Europeans just don't get it.

The cases I criticised aside, Europeans don't believe as much in letting speek freely extremists and then hoping that movies like "American History X" reach the same audience. They have no power now, but do this people deserve free speech? The US had no problems with them so far but like party prohibition, absolute tolerance comes with a risk.

You're simply proving what I have said, but the governments have abused the free speech rights of the people by banning things that really shouldn't have been banned in the past.

I'm aware of the fact that in the US the gap of rights between those who are citizens and those who are not widens.

I'm not a lawyer but I think it's easier to get a jail sentence in the US for drug abuse and small crimes. Then there's the controversial Three Strikes And You're Out Law in California... The percentage difference may be caused by a culture of unforgiveness which countinues concerning the living conditions in jail (reports of prison rape) and goes straight up to the application of the death penalty.

But then this is due to a different problem and not the problem that you hinted at.

The problem is that I'm explaining a European point of view while being familiar with my country, knowing some others good and third ones not really. So I don't presume to know the situation of every European country concerning this laws, but I don't know equivalent laws to the named ones either. That said and without judging them, Canadians aren't Europeans either

I understand the situation, but I really wouldn't be surprised if similar laws against these country's own citizens have been enacted well before the Patriot Act. Americans seem to go crazy over even the smallest sign of government 'encroachment'...Europeans seem to have accepted it, IMO.
 

chcarnage

Golden Member
May 11, 2005
1,751
0
0
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I realize this is shocking, but it would be pretty nice if some extremist party didn't garner a significant vote and did not actually require to be banned. And it's pretty shocking when it's the most popular parties.

Some Europeans just don't get it.

An extremist party with some percents in a national parliament doesn't mean breakdown or deadlock of a parliamentary democracy. A forbidden party doesn't mean that either. I repeat that neither can I think of a party where the ban wasn't justified nor do I know one which was popular nation-wide before the ban.

The cases I criticised aside, Europeans don't believe as much in letting speek freely extremists and then hoping that movies like "American History X" reach the same audience. They have no power now, but do this people deserve free speech? The US had no problems with them so far but like party prohibition, absolute tolerance comes with a risk.

You're simply proving what I have said, but the governments have abused the free speech rights of the people by banning things that really shouldn't have been banned in the past.

And you shield yourself from both the positive effects of party bans and free speech limitation and the negative effects of free speech in the US.

But then this is due to a different problem and not the problem that you hinted at.

I was only so free to integrate minorities (inhabitants without citizenship and arrested people) in my concept of measuring liberty.

The problem is that I'm explaining a European point of view while being familiar with my country, knowing some others good and third ones not really. So I don't presume to know the situation of every European country concerning this laws, but I don't know equivalent laws to the named ones either. That said and without judging them, Canadians aren't Europeans either

I understand the situation, but I really wouldn't be surprised if similar laws against these country's own citizens have been enacted well before the Patriot Act. Americans seem to go crazy over even the smallest sign of government 'encroachment'...Europeans seem to have accepted it, IMO.

No you don't understand because you've reached a point where your argumentation also is based on speculation about the rights and laws in European countries and about the alertness of European civil rights watchdogs.

In the end, it boils down to the question: Who is the more dangerous enemy, the state or your neighbor? How much protection of each is in order or needed, respectively? In my opinion, you argument like there never was a fallen democracy and free speech is the silver bullet to a perfect society.
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Originally posted by: chcarnage
An extremist party with some percents in a national parliament doesn't mean breakdown or deadlock of a parliamentary democracy. A forbidden party doesn't mean that either. I repeat that neither can I think of a party where the ban wasn't justified nor do I know one which was popular nation-wide before the ban.

Vlaams Blok was pretty popular.

And you shield yourself from both the positive effects of party bans and free speech limitation and the negative effects of free speech in the US.

I'm not really sure that free speech has many negative effects in the US. However, you are not seeing the point and you're trying to argue on some tangential argument. Perhaps you are feeling slightly defensive in regards to this subject and I can understand that. However, in relation to this discussion, you're pretty off track and seem to agree with me.

I was only so free to integrate minorities (inhabitants without citizenship and arrested people) in my concept of measuring liberty.

I don't understand. You changed from your original remarks in regards to the prison comments that were now unrelated to the topic at hand.

No you don't understand because you've reached a point where your argumentation also is based on speculation about the rights and laws in European countries and about the alertness of European civil rights watchdogs.

I don't see how you have departed from speculation yourself. In addition, I'm not really saying too much about Europeans and their countries - just that they seem more accepting to government involvement than Americans.

In the end, it boils down to the question: Who is the more dangerous enemy, the state or your neighbor? How much protection of each is in order or needed, respectively? In my opinion, you argument like there never was a fallen democracy and free speech is the silver bullet to a perfect society.

I think that you may be reading another post, but replying to mine. I'm not sure how you have come to such a ridiculous conclusion. I haven't said anything like what you have stated.
 

deepred98

Golden Member
Sep 3, 2005
1,246
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It probably has to do with the romanticized and idealized notions that some people have about Europe concerning culture and their social civilization. They believe Europe is more refined and civilized than those groady, coarse, undisciplined Americans and they want to be just like them. The funny thing is that a lot of those that feel that way have never actually been to Europe.

If you actually sent most of those people to live in Europe for a few years though, most would be itching to return to "civilization" in short order. Once the romance with history and idealized notions wear off, and reality sets in, people find out that Europe isn't all that and a bag of pomme frites.

i agree

europe is overated and people only like it because of its highly documented history which gives off an air of nobility, awe, and other wrongly based notions like that

i guess you could say the same about most countries, in my opinion different countries shouldn't follow each other or do like each other, they should all do whatever the fvck they want and any country trying to impose its ways on another should be destroyed

 

deepred98

Golden Member
Sep 3, 2005
1,246
0
0
Originally posted by: RBachman
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Originally posted by: Strk
I'm not really going to argue the others, but why does being concerned about the environment have to be a liberal issue?

Because conservatives perceive liberals of helping the environment only at the expense of business, jobs, etc. If liberals simply attacked the issue differently, viewing big business as a friend instead of a foe, we might actually get somewhere.

Wouldn't most liberal environmentalists prefer to see mankind return to the Stone Age, or better yet, eliminate mankind completely, so as to save the environment? I think many extreme liberals would love to see man disappear so whales and the ozone could thrive.

You realize if our planet dies, we're going with it? The point isn't to save the ozone layer, the whales, the amoebas or anything else, just to save ourselves from people like you - those so blinded by greed they'd kill themselves for money. The protozoan-loving, man-hating hippie liberal image is just a strawman you monsters construct to help yourselves sleep at night.

uh hippies are just that
they sit on their a** all day and complain about the goverment and society, if they had their way we would all eat grass and get stoned (seconded part isn't too bad)
 

imported_Tango

Golden Member
Mar 8, 2005
1,623
0
0
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: Tango
Well... academic institutions in US better than in Europe. Let's see... Based on what?

Rankings and reputation, of course.

My field is International Affairs, and I have travelled and studied in a lot of different schools in many different countries. Personally I think the best in the world (for this subject) to be Sciences Po' in Paris, London School of Economics and Columbia University in New York.
If you want my experience... the AVERAGE education you get at college (not graduate school) is better in europe, and the top schools in the US are on par with the top schools in Europe.

My opinion is that the average educational system in Europe at the undergraduate level is more inferior to the average US educational institution. In addition, the ceiling is much higher in the US.

Graduate studies requiring a lot of funding (technology) are better pursued in the US. I think the approach is often different, with european scholars more interested in pure theoretical thinking and americans more into the practical, case-study way of thinking.

I think that American institutions teach both methods better, as evidenced by the vastly superior amount of techological superiority. You can't have that with only 'case-study way of thinking' and an inferior 'theoretical thinking'. That makes no sense.

It also depend on the subject... I would advice Europe for anything involving art, literature, history, philosophy or social sciences... US for the sciences, IT... there isn't a big difference and both continent have great academic institutions...
One exception being technology intensive subjects, where I think the US lead the pack BY FAR.

I actually think that the US is better in almost all of these circumstances and much more varied, providing a better intellectual freedom.

Marxism is just not taught in the IR programs in the US. It is not taught at Columbia, nor NYU, nor Harvard. I don't have direct experience of other programs, but I quite trust Stieglitz about anything that comes from his voice.
It IS taught in the anthropology or sociology department as a philosophy course, but not in the professional programs. I don't really care about Marx, but avoiding the study of the researches that came from his critical thinking, many written in the past 10 years and being the most brilliant thinking about globalization and sustainable developement, is just plain incredible. For someone coming from another country is unbeliaveble. It would be like.... for a student of physics to skip Einstein because you don't like some other german guy that wrote before him.

Please provide proof of these claims, especially since a simple google search of international relations marxism course yields several results of US schools where their introductory international relations courses' syllabus involves reading from Marx.

Your statements are bizarre and the fact that you seem to have so easily believed such an outlandish statement essentially proves one of my points in my other post.


Well, academic life is something I have directly experienced both as a student an faculty in both Europe and the US. I told you what I think. Rankings just cannot be applied to academics. This is why you have such a HUGE difference in rankings around the world. Just try comparing FT, WSJ and BW rankings of business schools. Huge differences. Then you have the problem coming from the fact that usually rankings are only avaiable for Business and Law schools. These are the ones people care about, and the surveys in other kind of schools lack consistency. Then you have the criterias. In many american rankings some of the variables are things like Dimensions of the Dormitories, Money spent per student, Sports results for the resident teams. Hum...
I usually care more about the writings coming out of the research departments of each university. And according to this I gave you my personal ranking: Oxford, Cambridge, London School of Economics, Sorbonne Paris, Harvard, Yale, in no particular order. Now Baudrillard is teaching a semester every year at the New School in New York, and I find this exciting. He is the best mind around for semilogy, social impact of the media and globalization related studies.

Now, I still consider the average education (undergraduate) in europe to be better. Just look at the results. Europeans coming for one year at an american university usually do incredibly well, despite the fact they don't work in their mother tongue. They usually have a broader culture, expecially humanities, speak more foreign languages and are used to harder workloads. You don't get credits for playing football in europe.
In the same way I never found differences in the cultural preparation of people coming from elite schools in Europe or the US. Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge, INSEAD, LSE all are on the same level. On the other hand I think there are MORE elite schools in the US, and more people attend them, while in Europe is a very exclusive thing, basically because not a lot of people is willing to pay for private education when you can get for free almost the same thing. More people go to elite schools later, for their graduate studies.

For the subject thing... I really cannot see how could you ignore the differences... There isn't any tradition in the US in many fields, and some fields just require tradition. You just cannot build a philosophy school in 100 years. That's why there sin't any great american living philosopher. Philosophy is mainly a Franco-German thing, period. You cannot fake 2000 years of history. Same if you want to study arts. That's why so many americans go to Florence, Madrid or Paris to study art. Same with music: Germany and Russia are THE places. Paris for Ballet or performing arts. Italy for Opera.

On the other hand, there are field where money is the key. You need money for practical experiments and research. Medicine, Information Technology, Computer Sciences, Chemistry, Biology, Physics, and every other technology intensive subject. Here the US just RULE. European academic institutions usually are more focused on theoretical-only studies and are not integrated with private research groups or companies, so they just can't compete with american university with the possible exception of Swiss. But Swiss is not in the EU, and it's a completely different academic environment.

It's very easy to understand this. Where tradition is a big part of the thing, you just need it. Nobody out of Italy will ever find a key interpretation of Reainassance, just like nobody in Australia will ever write an history-making critic of Heiddeger philosophical corpus. Every country in the world (expecially France) has been trying to enter a competition with the russian school of ballet, still the Bolshoi is just unpaired and the Etoile at Paris Opera still comes from Moscow conservatory. Same with eastern european piano players, or english shakespeare theater. Each country has its own legacy.

The marxism thing, as I told you, comes from a Stieglitz speech. But I assure you that neither Columbia, nor Princeton, nor Harvard, nor Georgetown international affairs school cover that branch of the International Political Economy tree. At Columbia you can find some marxism in the anthropology department, but again his point was that it is not taught in professional schools, like Columbia's SIPA or Harvard's Kennedy.

And, just to make it clear, I'm not biased on european traditions. I don't consider myself to be citizen of any country, due to my personal life that required me to move every 6-12 months since I was very young.
If I am biased on some institution, then this is Columbia. I spent there most of my graduate studies year, and those have been terrific years, and I part-time work for that insitution and just love it. So I am being very objective when dealing with EU vs. US education.

I also would say that in this whole conversation we never talked about asian universities. I don't personally know them, and never worked for one, but some of my indian and japanese collegues are just among the brightest people I ever met, some with an almost neverending knowledge and the distinctive capacity to manage incredibly heavy workloads, smiling.




 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Originally posted by: Tango
Well, academic life is something I have directly experienced both as a student an faculty in both Europe and the US. I told you what I think.

And I have told you what I think in regards to this subject.

Rankings just cannot be applied to academics. This is why you have such a HUGE difference in rankings around the world. Just try comparing FT, WSJ and BW rankings of business schools. Huge differences. Then you have the problem coming from the fact that usually rankings are only avaiable for Business and Law schools. These are the ones people care about, and the surveys in other kind of schools lack consistency.

Sure they can. I see no reason why they cannot. However, even if you do not use them, I feel that US schools would still be far superior to European institutions on average.

In addition, there are more rankings than just rankings for business and law.

Then you have the criterias. In many american rankings some of the variables are things like Dimensions of the Dormitories, Money spent per student, Sports results for the resident teams. Hum...

No respected ranking of US academic institutions factors in dorm sizes or sports results. However, money spent for student is likely to be an important factor.

I usually care more about the writings coming out of the research departments of each university. And according to this I gave you my personal ranking: Oxford, Cambridge, London School of Economics, Sorbonne Paris, Harvard, Yale, in no particular order. Now Baudrillard is teaching a semester every year at the New School in New York, and I find this exciting. He is the best mind around for semilogy, social impact of the media and globalization related studies.

I feel that there are other US institutions that can easily belong in these ranks. In addition, your rankings tell me that you are not much of a scientific person.

Now, I still consider the average education (undergraduate) in europe to be better. Just look at the results. Europeans coming for one year at an american university usually do incredibly well, despite the fact they don't work in their mother tongue. They usually have a broader culture, expecially humanities, speak more foreign languages and are used to harder workloads.

I still consider the average education (undergraduate) in Europe to be far inferior to the average undergraduate education in the United States.

I'd like to see some actual proof of your statements. In addition, they aren't really much proof at all that European institutions are 'better'.

You don't get credits for playing football in europe.

You have some very strange assumptions.

In the same way I never found differences in the cultural preparation of people coming from elite schools in Europe or the US. Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge, INSEAD, LSE all are on the same level. On the other hand I think there are MORE elite schools in the US, and more people attend them, while in Europe is a very exclusive thing, basically because not a lot of people is willing to pay for private education when you can get for free almost the same thing. More people go to elite schools later, for their graduate studies.

Not only are there more elite schools, but the average school is simply better.

For the subject thing... I really cannot see how could you ignore the differences... There isn't any tradition in the US in many fields, and some fields just require tradition. You just cannot build a philosophy school in 100 years. That's why there sin't any great american living philosopher. Philosophy is mainly a Franco-German thing, period. You cannot fake 2000 years of history. Same if you want to study arts. That's why so many americans go to Florence, Madrid or Paris to study art. Same with music: Germany and Russia are THE places. Paris for Ballet or performing arts. Italy for Opera.

I am sure that there are some programs that are generally better in Europe. However, in an overall sense, educational institutions are far better than those in Europe.

On the other hand, there are field where money is the key. You need money for practical experiments and research. Medicine, Information Technology, Computer Sciences, Chemistry, Biology, Physics, and every other technology intensive subject. Here the US just RULE. European academic institutions usually are more focused on theoretical-only studies and are not integrated with private research groups or companies, so they just can't compete with american university with the possible exception of Swiss. But Swiss is not in the EU, and it's a completely different academic environment.

The US is focused on 'practical' and theoretical. Your statements make no sense with your 'research' and 'theoretical' being separated.

The marxism thing, as I told you, comes from a Stieglitz speech. But I assure you that neither Columbia, nor Princeton, nor Harvard, nor Georgetown international affairs school cover that branch of the International Political Economy tree. At Columbia you can find some marxism in the anthropology department, but again his point was that it is not taught in professional schools, like Columbia's SIPA or Harvard's Kennedy.

Please provide some proof of your statements as I have already disproved your general statements. Judging from some of your other comments, you have some truly bizarre notions about education in the United States that seem to have no basis whatsoever.

And, just to make it clear, I'm not biased on european traditions. I don't consider myself to be citizen of any country, due to my personal life that required me to move every 6-12 months since I was very young.
If I am biased on some institution, then this is Columbia. I spent there most of my graduate studies year, and those have been terrific years, and I part-time work for that insitution and just love it. So I am being very objective when dealing with EU vs. US education.

Personally, I don't feel that you are objective at all.
 

imported_Tango

Golden Member
Mar 8, 2005
1,623
0
0
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: Tango
Well, academic life is something I have directly experienced both as a student an faculty in both Europe and the US. I told you what I think.

And I have told you what I think in regards to this subject.

Rankings just cannot be applied to academics. This is why you have such a HUGE difference in rankings around the world. Just try comparing FT, WSJ and BW rankings of business schools. Huge differences. Then you have the problem coming from the fact that usually rankings are only avaiable for Business and Law schools. These are the ones people care about, and the surveys in other kind of schools lack consistency.

Sure they can. I see no reason why they cannot. However, even if you do not use them, I feel that US schools would still be far superior to European institutions on average.

In addition, there are more rankings than just rankings for business and law.

Then you have the criterias. In many american rankings some of the variables are things like Dimensions of the Dormitories, Money spent per student, Sports results for the resident teams. Hum...

No respected ranking of US academic institutions factors in dorm sizes or sports results. However, money spent for student is likely to be an important factor.

I usually care more about the writings coming out of the research departments of each university. And according to this I gave you my personal ranking: Oxford, Cambridge, London School of Economics, Sorbonne Paris, Harvard, Yale, in no particular order. Now Baudrillard is teaching a semester every year at the New School in New York, and I find this exciting. He is the best mind around for semilogy, social impact of the media and globalization related studies.

I feel that there are other US institutions that can easily belong in these ranks. In addition, your rankings tell me that you are not much of a scientific person.

Now, I still consider the average education (undergraduate) in europe to be better. Just look at the results. Europeans coming for one year at an american university usually do incredibly well, despite the fact they don't work in their mother tongue. They usually have a broader culture, expecially humanities, speak more foreign languages and are used to harder workloads.

I still consider the average education (undergraduate) in Europe to be far inferior to the average undergraduate education in the United States.

I'd like to see some actual proof of your statements. In addition, they aren't really much proof at all that European institutions are 'better'.

You don't get credits for playing football in europe.

You have some very strange assumptions.

In the same way I never found differences in the cultural preparation of people coming from elite schools in Europe or the US. Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge, INSEAD, LSE all are on the same level. On the other hand I think there are MORE elite schools in the US, and more people attend them, while in Europe is a very exclusive thing, basically because not a lot of people is willing to pay for private education when you can get for free almost the same thing. More people go to elite schools later, for their graduate studies.

Not only are there more elite schools, but the average school is simply better.

For the subject thing... I really cannot see how could you ignore the differences... There isn't any tradition in the US in many fields, and some fields just require tradition. You just cannot build a philosophy school in 100 years. That's why there sin't any great american living philosopher. Philosophy is mainly a Franco-German thing, period. You cannot fake 2000 years of history. Same if you want to study arts. That's why so many americans go to Florence, Madrid or Paris to study art. Same with music: Germany and Russia are THE places. Paris for Ballet or performing arts. Italy for Opera.

I am sure that there are some programs that are generally better in Europe. However, in an overall sense, educational institutions are far better than those in Europe.

On the other hand, there are field where money is the key. You need money for practical experiments and research. Medicine, Information Technology, Computer Sciences, Chemistry, Biology, Physics, and every other technology intensive subject. Here the US just RULE. European academic institutions usually are more focused on theoretical-only studies and are not integrated with private research groups or companies, so they just can't compete with american university with the possible exception of Swiss. But Swiss is not in the EU, and it's a completely different academic environment.

The US is focused on 'practical' and theoretical. Your statements make no sense with your 'research' and 'theoretical' being separated.

The marxism thing, as I told you, comes from a Stieglitz speech. But I assure you that neither Columbia, nor Princeton, nor Harvard, nor Georgetown international affairs school cover that branch of the International Political Economy tree. At Columbia you can find some marxism in the anthropology department, but again his point was that it is not taught in professional schools, like Columbia's SIPA or Harvard's Kennedy.

Please provide some proof of your statements as I have already disproved your general statements. Judging from some of your other comments, you have some truly bizarre notions about education in the United States that seem to have no basis whatsoever.

And, just to make it clear, I'm not biased on european traditions. I don't consider myself to be citizen of any country, due to my personal life that required me to move every 6-12 months since I was very young.
If I am biased on some institution, then this is Columbia. I spent there most of my graduate studies year, and those have been terrific years, and I part-time work for that insitution and just love it. So I am being very objective when dealing with EU vs. US education.

Personally, I don't feel that you are objective at all.


Wow.. with all this one point-at-a-time discussion the thread has become huge... I'll try to be brief as you have been.
Reputable US rankings use space per student as a criterium for rankings. Just speak with any dean at Columbia and he/she will badly complain about this, Columbia being an urban university and thus having big problems getting more space. Nothing wrong with that, but in our discussion we were talking about academics alone.
I know there are more rankings around than just Law/Business, but the money spent for the surveys required by these two is bigger than any other ranking, mainly because these are the schools where applicants are caring more about rankings. In fact by far the most important criterium for business schools is Salary-after-3-years... something debateble, considering the differences in the country where the alumni are getting their first job. UK university do pretty good basically because of the high pound exchange rate over euros or dollars.

No, I am not a scientific person. That's why I told you I rank US universities better in these subjects without really going in depth. I simply don't have any direct knowledge of this field. I am an International Relations researcher with a background in media jobs and later in the United Nations Developement Program.

If I gave you the idea that I actually think that "all european university is better than US ones" then I didn't make myself understood. I was just comparing the very average public institution of one continent to the other. Say: University of Florida with german University of Mannheim.

Being involved in a sport is actually a requirement for Columbia college and gives you 3 credits. Same at Harvard. I don't have direct knowledge of other undergraduate american programs.

The practical Vs. theoretical difference is pretty important in my field. Professional schools are supposed to forme people ready to go in the business. In my case people ready to enter the international organizations (UN, WTO, IMF), the biggest NGOs, the government (Dip. of State etc), media organization, diplomacy and be policy-makers in their own chosen field. If you are studying for a PhD in Anthropology you are just pursuing an academic career, and most of your studies are not required to be translated into policy-making strategies. Even more so if the department is Philosophy. That was the great dilemma of mr. Stieglitz, that the very university where he is teaching doesn't consider post-marxism authors to be a required study for the future professionals in the political economy, diplomacy or IR field, and relegated to be part of pure history of philosophy courses.

The other part of the digression was about the different approach in the same field you can notice between europe and the US. Very complex subject, and not very likely to be discussed on an internet forum. But just think of this: take a research paper coming from a sociology department in the US and one from an european one. You will for sure find a lot of quantitative data in the american one, stats and charts of data collected on the field. You won't find any in the european one. Instead you will probably find alot of qualitative analisys and a lot of links to past philosophers. Baudrillard is arguably the greatest living sociologist and has never written a number in his whole life, while supporting your statements with actual data proofs is rule number one in sociology taught in the US.
Research on the field and data analisys are highly disregarded by elite european writers in the humanities field, who tend to consider themselves philosophers, while mericans are usually not scared at all by numbers and ready to derive theories from observation and quantitative misuration of the world. Many people in the anthropology, sociology or social sciences department here in the US call themsevels "scientists" and consider some good excel working part of their job.
I probably didn't express myself clearly on this point in my previous posts, and I apologize if this made confusion in the discussion.
Regards



 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Originally posted by: Tango
Wow.. with all this one point-at-a-time discussion the thread has become huge... I'll try to be brief as you have been.
Reputable US rankings use space per student as a criterium for rankings. Just speak with any dean at Columbia and he/she will badly complain about this, Columbia being an urban university and thus having big problems getting more space. Nothing wrong with that, but in our discussion we were talking about academics alone.

Proof please. I really doubt that any respectable ranking factors this in.

I know there are more rankings around than just Law/Business, but the money spent for the surveys required by these two is bigger than any other ranking, mainly because these are the schools where applicants are caring more about rankings. In fact by far the most important criterium for business schools is Salary-after-3-years... something debateble, considering the differences in the country where the alumni are getting their first job. UK university do pretty good basically because of the high pound exchange rate over euros or dollars.

I'm not exactly sure how international rankings would actually work and if they would go by this measure. I doubt that they would.

If I gave you the idea that I actually think that "all european university is better than US ones" then I didn't make myself understood. I was just comparing the very average public institution of one continent to the other. Say: University of Florida with german University of Mannheim.

I'd say that the University of Florida would be placed among the better institutions in Europe.

Being involved in a sport is actually a requirement for Columbia college and gives you 3 credits. Same at Harvard. I don't have direct knowledge of other undergraduate american programs.

Where are you getting this stuff from? I have never heard of anything like this - please provide some proof of these outlandish claims.

I think that you need to actually read up on American institutions instead of doing whatever you're doing right now. I think it's pretty obvious that whoever is telling you all of these things has no idea what he or she is talking about.

Honestly, after your previous claims and these new statements, I don't think that I can accept any of your following statements as factual until you provide actual evidence of some kind.
 

Forsythe

Platinum Member
May 2, 2004
2,825
0
0
RabidMongoose:
Why should american schools be much better than european ones? I'd expect them to be somewhat the same.
 

Future Shock

Senior member
Aug 28, 2005
968
0
0
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: chcarnage
With some Americans, Europe just can't win. Either it's "look, they limit free speech! Party forbidden!" -or "Look at them! Extremist party X gets 6% in the national parliament of (insert European nation)!".

I realize this is shocking, but it would be pretty nice if some extremist party didn't garner a significant vote and did not actually require to be banned. And it's pretty shocking when it's the most popular parties.

Some Europeans just don't get it.

No RabidMongoose - it's obvious that you've never lived abroad, so YOU don't get it. Voters in Europe, or indeed any place that does not have just two dominant parties, will vote for extreme parties usually just to make a point. There is usually some piece of their message that resonates with the general electorate, and in some people's mind it's worth spending their vote just to underscore their endorsement of that point of view to the major parties. It's like flirting when your gf isn't giving you enough of her time...you really don't want to go OUT with that other person, but it's good to let the gf/bf know that there are other options, if they don't change their ways. The Greens are usually terrible elected representatives - but every vote for them let's governments know that environmental issues need to be addressed.

This also happens in the US - does anyone REALLY think that Ralph Nader would make a good president??? At all??? And yet several percent of the US population voted for him in the last two presidental elections: enough in both cases to help elect Bush. But his message that politics has become dirtier, and too influenced by corporate money, resonates with a large number of Americans.

Future Shock

 

imported_Tango

Golden Member
Mar 8, 2005
1,623
0
0
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: Tango
Wow.. with all this one point-at-a-time discussion the thread has become huge... I'll try to be brief as you have been.
Reputable US rankings use space per student as a criterium for rankings. Just speak with any dean at Columbia and he/she will badly complain about this, Columbia being an urban university and thus having big problems getting more space. Nothing wrong with that, but in our discussion we were talking about academics alone.

Proof please. I really doubt that any respectable ranking factors this in.

I know there are more rankings around than just Law/Business, but the money spent for the surveys required by these two is bigger than any other ranking, mainly because these are the schools where applicants are caring more about rankings. In fact by far the most important criterium for business schools is Salary-after-3-years... something debateble, considering the differences in the country where the alumni are getting their first job. UK university do pretty good basically because of the high pound exchange rate over euros or dollars.

I'm not exactly sure how international rankings would actually work and if they would go by this measure. I doubt that they would.

If I gave you the idea that I actually think that "all european university is better than US ones" then I didn't make myself understood. I was just comparing the very average public institution of one continent to the other. Say: University of Florida with german University of Mannheim.

I'd say that the University of Florida would be placed among the better institutions in Europe.

Being involved in a sport is actually a requirement for Columbia college and gives you 3 credits. Same at Harvard. I don't have direct knowledge of other undergraduate american programs.

Where are you getting this stuff from? I have never heard of anything like this - please provide some proof of these outlandish claims.

I think that you need to actually read up on American institutions instead of doing whatever you're doing right now. I think it's pretty obvious that whoever is telling you all of these things has no idea what he or she is talking about.

Honestly, after your previous claims and these new statements, I don't think that I can accept any of your following statements as factual until you provide actual evidence of some kind.

Phisical education requirement for Columbia College:
http://www.college.columbia.edu/bulletin/core/pe.php
You can actually take up to 4 credits, even if I heard people normally take three. You also need to pass a swimming test. Hum... I would probably have failed. I'm not exactly king of the sea.

Every ranking of business school has Salary after 3 years and salary percentage increade as number one criterium. Just check FT or Business week.
http://rankings.ft.com/rankings/mba/rankings.html
http://mba.eiu.com/index.asp?layout=2002rankings

From Financial Times website:
The FT (Financial Times) annually carries out a survey of MBA schools based on their full time MBA courses. While The following rankings are taken from the Financial Times (FT) research into MBA courses published in the FT in January 2001 and covers all 100 schools featured in the research. The research is based on full time courses and while percentage increase in salary for graduates is the biggest single determinant of ranking it also takes into account internationality, research ratings, etc.

The Economist rankings places spanish IESE top of the world, for the first time assigning the prize to an european institution. This year I read Harvard failed to give its data, and has traditionally been number one. So... I'm taking this IESE number one with a grain of salt...

The most used Us only business schools ranking in the country is probably Business Week one:
http://www.careerdynamo.com/mba/mba_ranking/us_mba_rankings_bw2000.html
The magazine also compile world rankings:
http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/04/index.html

All of these ranking include (actually in some cases is the most important criterium) salary after school, and salary after 3 years, together with percentage increase, return on investment and many other salary based stats. It's pretty understandable: when you shell out 100.000$ you want your money to come back home fast.
The salaries are all converted in US dollars, as you can see on the FT and business week page. If you have a subscription to WSJ you can browse theirs results also.


The Princeton review created a very popular annual US college rankings based on 62 criteria including every possible variable from academics to demographics to diversity in the students' corpus to food quality, dormitories dimensions, gay community, people going to the stadium to support the local teams, political activity etc etc...
http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/rankings/rankings.asp

As I told you, I have no bias at all, if not an academic love for Columbia University. And I wouldn't have posted those things unless I had a direct experience with these academic institutes. When I had not this experience I clearly said it. So I do not understand why you keep accusing me with one line sentences instead of trying to have a meaningful conversation. Expecially if you ask me proofs that are easily avaiable online.
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Originally posted by: Tango
Phisical education requirement for Columbia College:
http://www.college.columbia.edu/bulletin/core/pe.php
You can actually take up to 4 credits, even if I heard people normally take three. You also need to pass a swimming test. Hum... I would probably have failed. I'm not exactly king of the sea.

Did you even bother to read your link? Those are the requirements for a physical education major, not for the whole univeristy!

Again, you really really really have some strange notions and ideas about American educational institutions. Someone must be feeding you some crazy information.

Every ranking of business school has Salary after 3 years and salary percentage increade as number one criterium. Just check FT or Business week.
http://rankings.ft.com/rankings/mba/rankings.html
http://mba.eiu.com/index.asp?layout=2002rankings

From Financial Times website:
The FT (Financial Times) annually carries out a survey of MBA schools based on their full time MBA courses. While The following rankings are taken from the Financial Times (FT) research into MBA courses published in the FT in January 2001 and covers all 100 schools featured in the research. The research is based on full time courses and while percentage increase in salary for graduates is the biggest single determinant of ranking it also takes into account internationality, research ratings, etc.

Seems like US schools dominate these rankings, too. However, it does not really specify if the salary is taken in respect to the country itself which was what I was specifically talking about.

The Princeton review created a very popular annual US college rankings based on 62 criteria including every possible variable from academics to demographics to diversity in the students' corpus to food quality, dormitories dimensions, gay community, people going to the stadium to support the local teams, political activity etc etc...
http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/rankings/rankings.asp

You didn't read your link again. They created 62 separate rankings lists of 62 different aspects and arranged them into 8 categories. You can find rankings for 'best party school' or 'best beer school' or 'best hard liquor school' - do you actually think that these are taken into account in a respectable ranking of overall academics? Of course not.

As I told you, I have no bias at all, if not an academic love for Columbia University. And I wouldn't have posted those things unless I had a direct experience with these academic institutes. When I had not this experience I clearly said it. So I do not understand why you keep accusing me with one line sentences instead of trying to have a meaningful conversation. Expecially if you ask me proofs that are easily avaiable online.

I actually feel that you have a strong bias and that you already had some sort of opinion about US educational institutions and for some reason readily accept whatever bizarre and crazy idea you hear, such as Marxism is not taught in the US (proven wrong), sports is required for everyone (which is wrong), and so on.

I think that this has been an interesting conversation, but almost none of your links proved anything that you said. In fact, they really disproved your own comments.

 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Originally posted by: Future Shock
No RabidMongoose - it's obvious that you've never lived abroad, so YOU don't get it.

Ah, the good old 'you must live here to crticize here!!!11!' argument. Interesting, I wonder if you hold yourself to your own criteria. I imagine you don't.

Voters in Europe, or indeed any place that does not have just two dominant parties, will vote for extreme parties usually just to make a point. There is usually some piece of their message that resonates with the general electorate, and in some people's mind it's worth spending their vote just to underscore their endorsement of that point of view to the major parties. It's like flirting when your gf isn't giving you enough of her time...you really don't want to go OUT with that other person, but it's good to let the gf/bf know that there are other options, if they don't change their ways. The Greens are usually terrible elected representatives - but every vote for them let's governments know that environmental issues need to be addressed.

You don't vote for racists 'just to make a point' and being silly.

This also happens in the US - does anyone REALLY think that Ralph Nader would make a good president??? At all??? And yet several percent of the US population voted for him in the last two presidental elections: enough in both cases to help elect Bush. But his message that politics has become dirtier, and too influenced by corporate money, resonates with a large number of Americans.

Future Shock

I'm sure that some of the people that voted for Nader believed that he would be a good president.

 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Originally posted by: Forsythe
RabidMongoose:
Why should american schools be much better than european ones? I'd expect them to be somewhat the same.

I believe that on average they contribute more and attract better faculty and students than European institutions. In addition, the sciences/engineering are lightyears beyond European institutions and I believe that these are the single most important 'areas' of educational concern.
 

imported_Tango

Golden Member
Mar 8, 2005
1,623
0
0
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: Tango
Phisical education requirement for Columbia College:
http://www.college.columbia.edu/bulletin/core/pe.php
You can actually take up to 4 credits, even if I heard people normally take three. You also need to pass a swimming test. Hum... I would probably have failed. I'm not exactly king of the sea.

Did you even bother to read your link? Those are the requirements for a physical education major, not for the whole univeristy!

Again, you really really really have some strange notions and ideas about American educational institutions. Someone must be feeding you some crazy information.

Every ranking of business school has Salary after 3 years and salary percentage increade as number one criterium. Just check FT or Business week.
http://rankings.ft.com/rankings/mba/rankings.html
http://mba.eiu.com/index.asp?layout=2002rankings

From Financial Times website:
The FT (Financial Times) annually carries out a survey of MBA schools based on their full time MBA courses. While The following rankings are taken from the Financial Times (FT) research into MBA courses published in the FT in January 2001 and covers all 100 schools featured in the research. The research is based on full time courses and while percentage increase in salary for graduates is the biggest single determinant of ranking it also takes into account internationality, research ratings, etc.

Seems like US schools dominate these rankings, too. However, it does not really specify if the salary is taken in respect to the country itself which was what I was specifically talking about.

The Princeton review created a very popular annual US college rankings based on 62 criteria including every possible variable from academics to demographics to diversity in the students' corpus to food quality, dormitories dimensions, gay community, people going to the stadium to support the local teams, political activity etc etc...
http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/rankings/rankings.asp

You didn't read your link again. They created 62 separate rankings lists of 62 different aspects and arranged them into 8 categories. You can find rankings for 'best party school' or 'best beer school' or 'best hard liquor school' - do you actually think that these are taken into account in a respectable ranking of overall academics? Of course not.

As I told you, I have no bias at all, if not an academic love for Columbia University. And I wouldn't have posted those things unless I had a direct experience with these academic institutes. When I had not this experience I clearly said it. So I do not understand why you keep accusing me with one line sentences instead of trying to have a meaningful conversation. Expecially if you ask me proofs that are easily avaiable online.

I actually feel that you have a strong bias and that you already had some sort of opinion about US educational institutions and for some reason readily accept whatever bizarre and crazy idea you hear, such as Marxism is not taught in the US (proven wrong), sports is required for everyone (which is wrong), and so on.

I think that this has been an interesting conversation, but almost none of your links proved anything that you said. In fact, they really disproved your own comments.


Sorry, you are wrong. It's required for all students and part of the Core Curriculum:
http://www.college.columbia.edu/bulletin/core/

The FT uses salaries converted in US dollars, no matter where the salary is earned. Hey, it's not their fault: what else could they do? Give different weight to each country where alumni get a job based on currency value? It would be a mess. I'm not saying it's wrong, just that it's a quite volatile variable. And yes, US universities lead. They basically invented the MBA format, and have the longest tradition in the field.


The Princeton Review is a common way for students to choose a school, and thus every academic institution is running against one another on each and every of those criteria. Some of them are gross, but you would be surprised about how much universities care about for examle Greek Life. I never said all criteria are used to evaluate ACADEMICS. Just that academics are not the only criterium used to publish rankings, and so the not only one on wich universities keep an eye on. Every university likes a lot of perspective students to ask for admission.

About the marxism thing: again, give me links to Harvard or Columbia courses in the IR professional schools having marxism or post-marxist theories in the sillabi. You won't find them.
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Originally posted by: Tango
Sorry, you are wrong. It's required for all students and part of the Core Curriculum:
http://www.college.columbia.edu/bulletin/core/

Thanks for the correction, but this is most likely a very rare 'requirement' in terms of overall institutions in the US. But then again, I'm not sure why this is so horrible. It shows that US schools teach and practice a better well rounded education as well.

The Princeton Review is a common way for students to choose a school, and thus every academic institution is running against one another on each and every of those criteria. Some of them are gross, but you would be surprised about how much universities care about for examle Greek Life. I never said all criteria are used to evaluate ACADEMICS. Just that academics are not the only criterium used to publish rankings, and so the not only one on wich universities keep an eye on. Every university likes a lot of perspective students to ask for admission.

These other rankings may very well be important for some students, but overall rankings of academic merit do not factor in 'best party school'.

About the marxism thing: again, give me links to Harvard or Columbia courses in the IR professional schools having marxism or post-marxist theories in the sillabi. You won't find them.

Again, you said that no school in the US teaches Marxism in International Relations. That was a very bizarre statement that is obviously incorrect.
 

imported_Tango

Golden Member
Mar 8, 2005
1,623
0
0
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: Tango
Sorry, you are wrong. It's required for all students and part of the Core Curriculum:
http://www.college.columbia.edu/bulletin/core/

Thanks for the correction, but this is most likely a very rare 'requirement' in terms of overall institutions in the US. But then again, I'm not sure why this is so horrible. It shows that US schools teach and practice a better well rounded education as well.

The Princeton Review is a common way for students to choose a school, and thus every academic institution is running against one another on each and every of those criteria. Some of them are gross, but you would be surprised about how much universities care about for examle Greek Life. I never said all criteria are used to evaluate ACADEMICS. Just that academics are not the only criterium used to publish rankings, and so the not only one on wich universities keep an eye on. Every university likes a lot of perspective students to ask for admission.

These other rankings may very well be important for some students, but overall rankings of academic merit do not factor in 'best party school'.

About the marxism thing: again, give me links to Harvard or Columbia courses in the IR professional schools having marxism or post-marxist theories in the sillabi. You won't find them.

Again, you said that no school in the US teaches Marxism in International Relations. That was a very bizarre statement that is obviously incorrect.


No, I'm sorry, I didn't. I clearly wrote that was a Stieglitz speech referring to US international affairs professional schools, and that I only have personal knowledge of two US universities. He might be wrong, I assume he did his research, considering who he is. But as I said I DO NOT have direct experience of ALL american IR programs.

Just a little research:
Harvard Kennedy School:
http://search.harvard.edu:8765/custom/q...2Fksg%2F&rq=0&qt=marxism&I1.x=0&I1.y=0
Georgetown Walsh school of foreign service:
http://www.georgetown.edu/sfs/courses.html
Princeton Wilson school of international affairs
http://www.wws.princeton.edu/courses/syllabi_f03/wws593h.pdf
(here we can find a course including Althusser's writings)
SAIS at John Hopkins
http://www.google.com/custom?q=marxism&...s=sais-jhu.edu&sitesearch=sais-jhu.edu
SIPA at Columbia
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/bulletin/uwb/
(we find a course in the History department about post-marxism and the iron curtain)

I don't know... it seems to me that Stieglitz was pretty right... but probably there is somewhere an IR professional school in the US offering extensive coverage of post-marxist researches. Probably some institute specialized on developing countries or Latin America/African area studies.
His point wasn't this anyway. He was just saying that the whole school of thinking coming from marxism is almost completely ignored in the US. Finding a couple of courses around the whole country wouldn't change his idea.

 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |