Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 March 22

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 22

Fairies

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, creator of Sherlock Holmes, has written a serious treatise about existence of fairies. Other serious writers, Colin Wilson etc. have also written at length about them. I want to know that are there any proofs about existence of these mysterious creatures in West today ? I would like to know if any people reading my words have any firsthand experience ( or any of yours friends or relatives ). Jon Ascton  (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

We still have the same evidence that convinced Doyle. See Cottingley Fairies.

APL (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a question as to how one would detect he was in the presence of a fairy. Edison (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if you realize how this question begs for some smart-aleck answers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No, Bugs, the point is actually this - why there is so much fuss over something that does not exist ! I won't mind if it were something limited to kid-talk, but such great writers making such claims...

Explain how fairies and ghosts are things that "clearly" do not exist, while millions of true believers have no problem believing in angels or even a "God" and a "Devil?" Why is one "nonsense" while the other is highly respected "faith?" Edison (talk) 05:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That was over a century ago. A great scientist of that era thought he saw canals on Mars, too. (Maybe they were dug by those fairies.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The Martian canals were a combination of low-quality telescope optics and a tendency for the human vision system to see straight lines in low-quality images. --Carnildo (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

He was delusional. He had had a dinner of capybara, mistaking it for fish. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

We have an article on Faeries. And I highly recommend an excellent short story in the New Yorker a year or two back about a Faery King and Queen and the human boy they want to keep: A Tiny Feast, Chris Adrian, April 20, 2009. WikiDao ☯ 02:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, WikiDao. Read the story. "...vanished even before their eyes could register them..." Well, now I know why I don't see 'em !

It's not so much the fact that an eminent novelist believed in them that fascinates me. It's the belief across Europe, at least, of mythical small creatures visible only to certain people at certain times. Pixies, faeries, goblins, dwarves, leprechauns... what is the original myth for these? Why is it so widespread? --TammyMoet (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

And why we never hear about them in India ?

Maybe the polytheistic nature of Hinduism circumvents any cultural "need" for these little immortal creatures in a supposedly monotheistic culture? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In the late 19th and early 20th century, there were many very clever people who were spiritualists, Conan Doyle being one of them. For Conan Doyle, spiritualism held out an alternative to a harshly materialist world. Keep in mind that all of this is happening in the context of the late Victorian industrial revolution, of the debates about Darwinism, in the discussions of Marxism, and the professionalization of the scientific community.

In hindsight, Conan Doyle looks rather foolish. The Cottingley Fairies are obvious fakes, and looking at them today it's hard to see why anyone intelligent would have found them compelling. Consider though that photography was still a pretty new medium, and people were not as savvy about photographic fakery as they are in the age of Photoshop. And even today, there are people who are astonished to find out that people will baldly lie about things for publicity or just for fun. For Doyle in particular it is hard not to hard a large dollop of "I want to believe". And indeed, I think UFO conspiracy theories are probably our century's spiritualism — in 100 years, people will look back on all that blurry footage and say, "why did they find this compelling, exactly?" --Mr.98 (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

What would a shy, undressed woman cover first?

I'm curious as to what women instinctively cover when they find themselves undressed in front of strangers.

In certain pictures I've seen displayed in art galleries, the sitter covers her pubes with her hands. In certain others, she covers her breasts with one arm, and her pubes with the other.

But outside the art world, things seem different. In several pictures from the Holocaust (World War II) undressed prisoners are all shown covering their breasts with their hands—seemingly not concerned with others seeing their pubes. (This is alluded to, albeit fictionally, in a scene from the movie Schindler's list).

Has anybody ever conducted any kind of reliable survey of (non-exhibitionist) women? Would the typical shy woman just want to ensure that her breasts are securely covered, and not really care about who sees her pubes? Pine (talk) 00:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The posting of this question is discussed at the Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. Bus stop (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Read somewhere that an Arab woman, under such condition would rather cover her face ( and won't bother about breast or pubes... Jon Ascton  (talk)

I've also heard that. Never seen a survey on the subject, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I read this story as an anecdote about the woman in a sorority house who was leaving the shower with a towel too small to cover everything, and was surprised by a male walking through the hallway. Thinking quickly, she covered up her head in order to anonymize herself. This was several decades ago and I would have said I read this in Reader's Digest, but the average age of a Reader's Digest reader is about 300, and 300-year-olds' heads explode when reading about nudity, so it may have been somewhere else. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This illustration[1] doesn't answer the question definitively, but it relates. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Why would a sitting woman cover her pubes? Surely they are not visible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.187.76 (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Pubes (singular, two syllables) is the Latin name for the pubic area; you seem to be confusing it with the identically-spelt monosyllabic word which is the plural of the English word "pube", short for "pubic hair". Marnanel (talk) 12:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean pubis. And this question should IMHO have been deleted, see the discussion here. --Viennese Waltz 12:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. And yes. Two of us tried, but objections were raised, so here it sits. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Between here and the talk page, at least 4 editors (me included) agree that this section should be zapped. Or rather re-re-zapped. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I recall reading that centuries ago, some far eastern women would cover their knees. 92.15.6.157 (talk) 11:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If the question is sincere, the OP could start with Modesty and see where it leads. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Not a complete answer by any means, but we learn from National Geographic Magazine that not all cultures require women to cover their breasts. So if there's an instinctive urge to do so, it can't be too strong. APL (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The person posting the question has shown a previous instance of setting up a question that probes the area of the joining of the legs of the female human. It is just my opinion but I don't think such questions have to be addressed. Bus stop (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Then don't address it. Warofdreams talk 15:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Or remove it. Isn't removing it to be considered? Bus stop (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Good detective work. It confirms the trolling. And removing it would indeed "address" (or "undress") the situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

And here, and here. I didn't do much "detective work". I went to "Earliest contributions" for the account. These are obvious. I have to admit I learned something about the existence of that Greek holiday celebrating womanhood. That is interesting. I think English Wikipedia needs an article on Gynaikokratia. Bus stop (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with exploring subjects of a sexual nature. But I find problematic the scholarly tone when there is no hope of anything scholarly ejaculating from the topic of discussion. This question does seem acceptable to me. Bus stop (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the best you're going to do here is some sort of sociology text. Skimming through the The Evolution of Modesty ((I'll choose this older, and possibly obsolete, text because it's free on Project Gutenberg)) by Havelock Ellis (Check out his portrait. Guy looks intense.) it seems like the recurring theme is that ladies will instinctively cover whatever they think is getting unseemly attention. So the answer is that not only does it vary from culture to culture, but even from situation to situation. APL (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

According to cracked.com (yeah, I know: What a Reliable Source!) in the old days, a shy Chinese woman with bound feet would first cover up her scarred and gangrenous feet if a man she didn't know saw her naked. But American women today love to wear sandals so go figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.203.80.27 (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

As suggested on the talk page, the OP's basic premise, if sincere, is seriously flawed. The folks in those holocaust photos are not likely covering their chests from modesty - but from self-protectiveness, hostility, defiance, etc. or reaction to cold temperatures for that matter. Although not sourced in Body language, it's a well-known element of body language. Their folding their arms was not out of modesty, it was a reaction to their perilous situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information! I see now that the issue is more complicated than I first thought. (I'd also like to apologize if my WWII reference seemed cold or insensitive—that certainly was unintentional on my part.)

I'm definitely going to read the book Sex and Sex Worship (1922) as well as Ellis's The Evolution of Modesty, and see where the topic leads from there!

———"The folks in those holocaust photos are not likely covering their chests from modesty - but from self-protectiveness, hostility, defiance, etc. or reaction to cold temperatures for that matter. Although not sourced in Body language, it's a well-known element of body language. Their folding their arms was not out of modesty, it was a reaction to their perilous situation."———

Thanks for clearing that up for me, Bugs. Now honestly, was that so difficult? Pine (talk) 00:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

Pine—is this the sort of photo you had in mind? If so, does it look to you as though they are "…covering their breasts with their hands—seemingly not concerned with others seeing their pubes." Bus stop (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

No, not now that Baseball Bugs has cleared it up for me. (In case you missed my saying as much, it's just two posts above. BTW, this thread is now resolved, in case you missed that as well :) ). Pine (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Pine—you say up above, to Baseball Bugs, "…was that so difficult?" I think the problem was not so much in the difficulty of the question but rather the impropriety of it.

Let me just say that there is this related discussion on the Wikipedia talk:Reference desk if you wish to weigh in with your thoughts there. Bus stop (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Does the first world live in luxury by keeping the third world down?

After travelling overseas last year I have been troubled by the massive amount of poverty in the third world. I understand that most of the third world's problems were brought about by Western imperialist meddling in the past, but is there more to it than that? Is the fact that only about 10 or 20% of the people in the world live in really wealthy, healthy countries a coincidence, or do we keep ourselves up there by keeping others down? For example, the computer I am writing this on was probably manufactured in China by a guy working in a sweatshop for a dollar an hour. Would it be theoretically possible, economically speaking, for everybody in the world to have a first-world standard of living? 123.243.54.85 (talk) 05:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You may be interested in World Systems Theory, as well as Fair trade. Also, consider the ecological footprint if everyone in the world started to drive as many miles as Americans currently do. Nevertheless, many people believe that it is possible to Make poverty history. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Here in Europe it is well known that the US consumes far more of its per capita share of natural resources than the rest of the world. So it would be impossible to have everyone in the world consuming the same per capita amount of resources as the US - you'd need several earths to supply it. But with more efficient technology it may be possible to raise the safety-net (or at least provide one in the first place) below which nobody should fall. 92.15.6.157 (talk) 11:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

7 billion humans already consume more than one planet's worth of resources. Even if the population stopped growing and we lived within our means, a more equitable sharing of the Earth's resources would result in a massive drop in living standards in the first world. Rather than making poverty history it would mean lowering everyone into poverty. So no, it would not be possible for everybody in the world to have a first-world standard of living, unless there were dramatically fewer of us. Astronaut (talk) 12:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That's all right, in the rest of the world it is well known that Europe consumes far more than its per capita share of natural resources as well. I don't see any EU countries to the left of the vertical line in File:Human welfare and ecological footprint.jpg, do you? You should also be very careful in looking at tables like List of countries by energy consumption per capita. To take one example, Iceland's in second place on the list not because it is tremendously wasteful (though it is dark and cold and thinly populated, and this does have energy costs) but because of extensive natural resource extraction projects. Mining and smelting aluminum is particularly energy intensive and contributes heavily to Iceland's energy budget, even though the embodied energy in the finished product is shipped overseas. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason the USA and Europe consume "more than their share" of resources is because they can. As large populations such as India and China become more prosperous, their ability to consume more resources will increase, and pressure on the world's resources will become much more significant. At that point, trouble may arise. Of course, by then the Americans and Europeans who decided to build up those countries' economies will be long gone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Poor countries are not poor because there are rich countries. If the rich countries stopped all trade and other interaction with the poor countries then almost everybody on both sides would become poorer. Many of the resources in the poor countries would not go to the poor instead of the rich. They would no longer be exploited because they wouldn't be worth exploiting without rich buyers and technology from rich countries. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the poverty-stricken countries around the world, I expect you'll find that most of them are dictatorships or cults of personality. The more prosperous countries appear to have a system of government rather than one-man rule. The question is, Which factor drives the other? Or is it a bit of both? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

A few thoughts:

1) China is getting rich off that $1 a day an hour the workers there get paid to assemble your computer. It may not sound like much to you, but that's a dramatic improvement for many there. As time passes, wages will rise, until they no longer have a competitive advantage due to lower wages.

Average factory wages are closer to US$15 a day, plus room and board. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

2) I won't say that democracy is necessary for prosperity, but some form of stable government is, as is capitalism. China didn't qualify as capitalist under Mao, but does now.

3) For the most part, poor nations were always poor. It's not like their wealth has been stolen by Western nations, unless you consider this to include "unrealized wealth", which existed as minerals, petroleum, etc. Unfortunately, the power structure in most of those nations means that any money paid for extracting those resources goes to the ruling class and doesn't filter down to the general population. Western companies could do more, though, to ensure that at least some of the money does make it all the way down. For example, they could build and staff schools for the locals. This could be a good PR move and hopefully also prevent them from being targets of rebels dissatisfied with their treatment by these companies.

4) Well-meaning but misguided charities seem to have contributed to the economic problems of the Third World. For example, in Haiti, following their massive earthquake, charities provided food, which they brought in, for free. This has the effect of destroying the local food production and distribution channels, as nobody will pay for Haiti-grown food when they can get it for free from the charities. A better approach would have been to give vouchers to Haitians, which they could then use to "buy" food from local merchants, who would then be reimbursed in cash. StuRat (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Compassion sometimes overrides practical sense. The history of Haiti is a horror story. They were robbed both by empirialists and by their own "leaders", the Duvalier father-and-son team. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It could be argued that the developed world's relative affluence is directly related to the relative poverty of the less developed world. Historically, that affluence is partly a consequence of poverty elsewhere. The affluence of Europe and the United States was originally built partly on the expropriation and enslavement of other parts of the world. The United States benefited enormously from the land and resources formerly occupied by the native American peoples, who were violently expelled and in some cases killed off. It also benefited greatly during its first century from the unpaid labor of enslaved Africans and their descendants. Europeans likewise benefited from the land, expropriated resources, and forced labor of conquered peoples in Africa and Asia. (Later Japan, for several decades, pursued a similar strategy in parts of Asia as well.) These processes contributed to the vast stock of capital that European nations and the United States accumulated. This stock of capital allowed Europe and the United States (and to a lesser extent Japan) to become the creditors of Latin America during the 19th century and of the rest of the less developed world when it gained independence in the 20th century. Right up until the last decade or so, the developed countries have enjoyed a steady stream of income from their investments in the less developed world, investments partly made possible by earlier expropriation and exploitation, and investments that generate a yield by siphoning off income from poorer countries. Meanwhile, colonial development policies and a shortage of capital in the less developed world forced many of those countries into relying on exports of resources and agricultural produce. Because five sixths of the world's population were competing to sell natural resources and crops to one sixth, this intense competition kept prices down and allowed the rich world to enjoy cheap food and industrial inputs. At the same time, those low prices kept incomes low in the poor world and made it difficult for the poor world to build up its own stock of capital, since any net income often had to be devoted to debt service. This cycle of debt dependency up until the past few years enriched the rich world at the direct cost of the poor world.

However, the world is changing. The growth of China and to a lesser extent India, along with other Asian and Latin American countries, is directly linked to a process of globalization in which firms based in the rich world have increasingly shifted capital to the developing world, in many cases reversing the trade balance, and enriching developing countries. In many of these countries, the bulk of the new money flows to a small elite, and globalization continues to rely on depressed labor costs for the much larger working classes of these countries. (These labor costs can be kept low by political repression such as in China, where the state prevents the formation of independent labor unions and violently opposes worker demands.) However, competition with the developing world is driving down relative incomes for working people in the rich world as well. As others have said, the Earth has a finite supply of resources, which is one reason why energy and commodity prices have been soaring in recent years. I think that a strong case can be made that the old world, in which exploitation had a substantial geographic dimension, is giving way to a new world in which exploitation is global and much more based on class than geography. In this new world, the lifestyle that we in the rich world have come to take for granted will likely increasingly be affordable only to those in a multinational global elite, while people who are not part of that elite will see their living standards fall to levels similar to those of Chinese workers. Marco polo (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Another way to visualize this problem, is what would happen to Third World nations if they existed alone ? In a world where Haiti was alone on a giant planet-wide ocean, would it then become rich ? I'm rather skeptical. StuRat (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Haiti is an interesting case. Before the arrival of Europeans, Haiti and the rest of Hispaniola were one of the most densely populated parts of the Americas. According to most Spanish accounts, its people were healthy, and although their technology was more or less neolithic, reasonably well off, in the sense that they did not seem to suffer want or famine. No doubt, life expectancies were low by our standards. There is no reason to think that this picture would have changed much if Hispaniola (or western Hispaniola) were cut off from the rest of the world. It probably would not have become rich, by our standards, but nor would its people be likely to face the kind of desperation Haitians face today. I would argue that their desperation today has everything to do with the processes I have described above. Of course, if you took present-day Haiti and isolated it from the rest of the world, you could expect dire results, but that's not an argument that its present state is unconnected to the enrichment of Europe and North America. Marco polo (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the title of this Q is "Does the first world live in luxury by keeping the third world down?". That seems to ask about current economic harm done to Third World nations, not harm done in the past. StuRat (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. I guess the answer is, at this very moment, not so much. My point was, however, that you can't understand the relative wealth disparity without understanding the history. Marco polo (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, with neolithic technology, wouldn't overpopulation still be a problem, leading to war, disease, starvation, deforestation, etc., since birth control would be unknown ? StuRat (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Oddly enough, this seems not to have been such a problem. Neolithic populations seem to have been fairly stable. One reason was that women nursed children up until age 4 in many societies, and fertility is much suppressed in nursing women, lowering the birth rate. Another unfortunate reason for the stability of populations was infant mortality. Finally, sadly, the evidence suggests that infanticide was quite common in premodern societies. If a person felt they would have trouble feeding the baby, they might have quickly dispatched it. Intermittent warfare also kept the population down. Marco polo (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It still doesn't sound like a much better life than they have now. StuRat (talk) 03:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Excluding the recent revolt, power vacuum, earthquake, flooding, and cholera epidemic, what desperation are you referring to? (Those things must all be excluded since they could have equally well happened hundreds of years ago, and can't be blamed on past contact with Europeans, except the cholera, but it could have been some other disease.) 213.122.28.108 (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Im quite sure this is not the answer u wanted, but i just wanted to share how this could happen on a smaller scale. I am from a state in Malaysian Borneo. My state is relatively poorer in terms of per capita GDP as well as having a higher poverty rate compared to the rest of Malaysia. The main and largest port in Malaysia is Port Klang, located just about 30km out of Kuala Lumpur, the capital and, by far, the largest city in Malaysia. Undoubtedly, KL is a primate city with its inhabitants enjoying higher wages and better standard of living due to economic development in the capital. For about 27 years we have a policy called the cabotage policy which permits international ships carrying imported goods to enter the country via Port Klang only. The reason for this policy is to protect the interest of local shipping businesses and also to promote Port Klang into a premier southeast asian shipping hub. (i might be wrong about the 2nd part though). Due to this policy, international ships are either not allowed to dock at any east Malaysian ports or are subject to very expensive tax (duties, levies or whatever its called). As a result, the poorer people of east Malaysia have to pay more than their more affluent counterparts in KL or other parts of west Malaysia for imported goods. IMO, this problem can be remedied by abolishing this cabotage policy, perhaps at the expense of local shipping merchants. So it all boils down to political movements by interested parties. ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 03:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If you think that pre-colonial Africa/Asia/America was some kind of bucolic paradise, may I suggest some movies and books to clear up that misconception. Last of the Mohicans (the 1992 film), Apocalypto, and in the way of books, White Slaves of Maquinna and Things Fall Apart. To summarize in two words: tribal warfare. Barbarism. Human sacrifice. Cannibalism (disputed). Headhunting. Rape. Massacres. Not quite the Arcadian ideal you may envision. Vranak (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The author of The Undercover Economist says that poor countries stay poor due to corruption. Corruption, suggests the author, has two bad effects. 1) it means donated money ends up with the rich, not into development as intended. 2) Time and money is wasted accomodating corruption, for example corrupt traffic police obtaining bribes means people prefer to travel when the roads are most crowded, etc etc.

My original research theory, based on my personal observation, is that bad organisations suppress or forbid feedback, in particular bad news. So the malfunctioning or non-working things never get put right. The worst operate within the realm of lip-service only, manipulating and rewarding people for maintaining the fiction or bubble of what those in power want to be said, including rewarding and promoting dishonest but syncophantic people (or sometimes just the deluded, misled, or complacent who believe in loyalty and kinship) to positions of power, and conversely punishing or discrediting the honest. The solution is to encourage loyalty to ethical and other standards, rather than to a person, and to have objective independent reports and MBWA to see things at first hand. As with bad organisationms, so with bad countries. 92.28.242.170 (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

"Does the first world live in luxury by keeping the third world down?" If you believe the world economy is a zero-sum game, then your answer is "Yes." If you don't, then the answer can be "No." DOR (HK) (talk) 04:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Another reason may be that the smart able people gravitate to countries with the best living conditions, and stear clear of the worst countries with all their problems. 92.15.14.4 (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

American Chemical Society Accreditation

Is Carnegie Mellon accredited, with respect to undergraduate degrees? It's not listed on the American Chemical Society website, so I'm wondering, but it is a prestigious school (so I would think it would be accredited), and such accreditation is (I think) mentioned on the Carnegie Mellon website. 202.45.54.95 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC).

Carnegie Mellon is a very well respected institution. [2] [3] should be quite sufficient. Collect (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Carnegie Mellon is perfectly accredited (by other agencies, but perhaps not ACS).See Council_for_Higher_Education_Accreditation, and List_of_recognized_accreditation_associations_of_higher_learning#United_States. Basically, accreditation from a field-specific academic society such as ACS is not always a feature of a well-respected institution. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

ACS acredited undergraduate degrees, IIRC (and it has been a few years) requires the institution to, among other things, teach a certain curriculum and students must pass ACS created standardized tests. I have a chemistry degree from an ACS-certified department (the University of Delaware) but there are, as noted, several well-respected departments which are not necessarily ACS accredited. This page has the requirments for a chemistry program to become ACS Approved program, as well as a list of them. I would say that, while ACS acreditation is a sign of quality, the lack of accreditation is not automatically a sign of a lack of quality. As noted, CMU is regularly cited as one of the best univeristies in the country, especially with regards to science and technology, so I can't see where a chemistry degree from CMU would be devalued merely for lacking ACS accreditation. --Jayron32 01:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant "Is the chemistry program accredited?". Sorry for the confusion. 202.45.54.233 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC).

I don't know if it's still the case, but when I was in school some of my classmates in organic chemistry chose to take ACS standardized exams at the end of the year. This was wholly apart from our regular curriculum, an independent effort on their part. I presume (?) that doing so successfully, for some minimum collection of required exams, would give one individual certification by the ACS when one graduated from a four-year program. Our chemistry department was not, itself, ACS accredited, as far as I know.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

According to this page, one can either choose to graduate with an accredited B.S. or an unaccredited B.A. NW (Talk) 17:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, at my school they made all of the final exams the ACS-standardized tests, for wherever they were availible, so all chemistry department degrees were ACS-accredited BS degrees. --Jayron32 18:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is a requirement per se that the ACS standardized examinations must be used. For example, MIT's chemistry degree, which is ACS-accredited, requires the student to take 5.111, Principles of Chemical Science, what I believe is analogous to general chemistry elsewhere. As taught in Fall 2008, it used entirely instructor written exams[4]. NW (Talk) 19:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

MIT has a number of required courses for a Chemistry degree - it is one of the most rigorous schools for any science, and the courses exceed ACS requirements by quite a bit. Collect (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)