Miscellaneous desk
< May 22	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 24 >

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.

May 23

Is it alright to finish your online, second undergraduate degree while taking up law?

Let's leave the issue of practicality aside. I was just wondering if this is possible and if anyone has done this before.49.144.249.71 (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to check with the institutions concerned whether they allow it. DuncanHill (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You won't be able to do so in the U.S. You'll have a full load of lockstep courses the first year and will not be allowed to take additional hours at any institution beyond that. GregJackP Boomer! 05:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there much value in a second undergraduate degree, especially when you intend to pursue law? —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 04:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the world is this notion that one can't take online courses from one college without permission from another college even coming from? The load might be self-limiting, but it's not like admissions officers all report to a central agency, or gossip about their students. I find the premise hugely confusing. μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interracial relationships

Is there any general explanation towards the trend of white women marrying / having relationships with black males. Influence of popular culture? Is it seen is unacceptable for a white male to have a relationship with a black female, but not visa versa? With all things being equal, and the previous statement being false, I would expect a similar number of white males to be with black women, but this just doe not seem to be happening.

Further troubling questions raise out of this. Are men naturally more racist then women?

This is an area that should be ripe for study, are any papers available yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.140.226 (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This QUESTION looks racial because of the colours of skins, but could it rather be a social QUESTION..? Akseli9 (talk) 11:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation bias.--TammyMoet (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since your IP address geolocates to London, I assume that you are asking about the situation in the UK. Do you have any references (such as newspaper stories or magazine articles) which support the premise of your question -- that a disproportionate fraction of heterosexual black / white mixed race relationships involve a black man and a white woman -- or is this based on your personal observation? The United Kingdom Census 2011 collected sufficient data to test you premise, but articles I have seen, such as the Independent's One in 10 relationships now cross racial boundaries, do not address any gender imbalance. -- ToE 15:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is some evidence from the US which may support your premise. The Pew Research Center's 2012 report The Rise of Intermarriage says:

Gender patterns in intermarriage vary widely. About 24% of all black male newlyweds in 2010 married outside their race, compared with just 9% of black female newlyweds. Among Asians, the gender pattern runs the other way. About 36% of Asian female newlyweds married outside their race in 2010, compared with just 17% of Asian male newlyweds. Intermarriage rates among white and Hispanic newlyweds do not vary by gender.

I've run across a few blog posts and opinion pieces which propose reasons for this, but haven't located anything which rises to our WP:Reliable Source standards. -- ToE 15:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for pop culture influences (movies in particular), black women with white men is generally acceptable, but white women with black men seems to mainly be a thing in movies about interracialism. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From what I could see when I was still living in Europe (France, Spain then Germany), many girls find Black guys attractive cause they are more "masculine" and Asian guys less attractive cause they look less manly. In the same way, I never met any guy who was into Black girls (White men usually see Black girls like manly, loud and not very sexy). Most of men are in the other hand attracted by Asian women. BTW, I'm writing here about Black people who live in Europe (mainly 1st and 2nd generation of Africans who moved or were borm from parents who moved from Africa). Then the culture difference makes it different than in the US where Black and White people are all from the same country and culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.111.224.64 (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to call bullshit on the "no sexy black European woman" thing, but a Google Image search for "sexy black European woman" only shows two black women at all in the first five pages. They're quite sexy, but definitely seem rare. For some reason, I can't turn SafeSearch off, either, so maybe my Internet's just broken. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Why are the coasts more liberal in the US ?

I knew that coastal states tended to be more liberal, but here's a map also showing that the most liberal towns in each state tend to be on the coasts (the only exception to the pattern I see is in the highly conservative "Deep South", although FL, LA, and TX still have their most liberal towns on the coasts):

[1]

So, why is this ? I can think of a few theories:

1) Those living in coastal communities would naturally be more concerned with global warming and rising sea levels, as it will directly affect them.

2) Immigrants tend to settle down in coastal areas, or at least influence those areas before they move on. So, immigrants themselves might tend to be more liberal (certainly regarding immigration policy and benefits for immigrants). Less certain would be the effect on natives living near those immigrants. They might tend to sympathize with all the immigrants they know, but, if they lose their job or have lower wages due to all the immigrants, they might resent that.

3) Do liberals tend to move to coastal areas ?

So, has anyone studied why this pattern exists ? StuRat (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NAC:Opinion and political commentary. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

While waiting for the opinion-based discussion here, you might wish to do some browsing here (mostly opinion-based as well, most likely). ―Mandruss ☎ 21:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait no longer! In my non-expert opinion, liberals generally want personal freedom, so they try to flee the heartland (AKA flyover country), but are stopped by the enormous moats on either side. The more crossable north and south borders are guarded by ice and fire, respectively. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the choice, most jump in the fire. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how oceans make folks calmer and more creative, at least according to "the liberal media", as some uptight and destructive folks call it. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) What does being "calm and creative" have to do with liberal/conservative? 2)IMHO the HuffPo and its readers are the destructive ones and are so uptight as to presume to know how to spend my money better than I do. But then again, this isn't the place for veiled insinuations, opinions or attacks...if you strike yours, I'll strike mine.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 23:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Creativity is about making new things, like they do in liberal arts. Conservatism is about keeping things the same. Liberals want the world to chill out with the oil spills and war and whatnot, and fiscal conservatives want steadily increasing profit. Content people don't replace or desire things, so conservativism is about destroying things and agitating desires. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please avoid any discussion of the validity of liberalism and confine your answers to why people living on the coasts appear to be more liberal. StuRat (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appear to who, Stu? You're a long term regular. You know you've posted a request for what can only (appear) be opinion. You take liberal as if it has a well-defined uncontroversial meaning. Beyond that you certainly know that 99% of the world's population lives within 100 miles of the coast. Hence those areas will tend to be more urban. And the ability to live on state subsidized housing, transportation, and so forth is much easier where there are trains and bus routes and tenements. I am sure you are aware Amtrak desperately wants to cut service to rural areas.

Hence the political patronage of such constituencies. Whereas rural areas can't afford to support a welfare state, and people who live there need to have cars and homes and small businesses to support them. Look at the most recent election map of Great Britain. England voted labour in London, Liverpool, Manchester, York, and the Detroitified areas of Wales. The rest of the country wen Liberal/Conservative/UKIP, and Scotland went Scotlish. The cities voted what we in the US would call liberal. All of this is common knowledge and the subject of a huge web inkspillage. But to summarize, Coast=Urban=Socialist. μηδείς (talk) 01:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

City size is one possibility, but many of the most liberal cities in each state aren't the largest, yet are on the coast, so apparently that's not the only factor. (Also note that many rural areas do rely on government handouts, in the form of farm and gas/oil subsidies and interstate highway funds.) StuRat (talk) 02:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coastal areas are more likely to have outside influence, they may be sea ports or international airports. This would predict not only immigrants are there, but also people that travel and get exposure to different ideas. It would also suggest that x-ports may have different kinds of people to other more isolated coastal communities, say in Alaska. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand that last sentence. What are "x-ports" ? Exports ? "Have" seems to be the wrong word for that part of the sentence, too, or some words are missing. Please clarify. And in Alaska the interior is isolated, while the coastal areas are connected to the outside world (with the possible exception of the north coast, which is still iced-in for most of the year). StuRat (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think GB meant ex-ports, meaning places that were ports (and either aren't any more or maybe are but where it's not particularly significant any more). Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I meant airports and seaports together. I should have just said "ports".Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is for the US only and that's quite right. In the rest of the world, coastal does not especially mean liberal/labour/socialist. Quite very often indeed, coastal at the contrary means conservative or far-right reserved areas, made very expensive and unaffordable for the average people (middle class), except for the new lumpen who lives there in ghettos (on the windy and dry hills far from the beach/coast), who don't vote anymore thus will never make it turn liberal. Akseli9 (talk) 06:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the effect is limited to the US, then that implies something different in US history happened. Perhaps the suburbanization of the US, primarily as a result of the GI Bill, is responsible, as it left cities, including coastal ones, populated by mainly poor people, who tend to be liberal. However, there are some very wealthy beachfront suburban communities, too, such as Pebble Beach.

Perhaps the initial white flight out of cities in the US was mainly conservatives, who didn't want to live in a multicultural city, while the current gentrification of cities is by liberals, who do want to live there. StuRat (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the notion of import/export of goods, ideas and people, you might enjoy reading about cosmopolitanism. E.g. NYC and SF are commonly known as cosmopolitan cities, and liberal, and coastal. There are many counter examples to the claim that the most liberal cities within a state are on the coast, e.g. Austin, TX is generally held to be the most liberal city in TX, and is not on the coast. Maps like this might be helpful in establishing your perspective [2]. Finally, consider that liberals tend to be more intelligent and better educated than conservatives: [3] [4]- those are both from known firebrand Satoshi Kanazawa, but see also here [5], and refs scientific refs therein. So you might want to also look at maps like these [6], [7], and make your own conclusions about educational achievement, educational spending, and liberal ideology.SemanticMantis (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarita, Texas, on the Gulf, is listed as the most liberal city in Texas, on the map, and in our Wikipedia article. And with a population of only 238, that counters Medeis' theory that cities on the coasts are liberal just because they are large. StuRat (talk) 04:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The notion above that somehow the US differs from the UK ignores the fact that the UK is entirely coastal (all within 50 miles of the sea), hence the notion that their geography is different is quite irrelevant. All the major cities in Britain are on tidal waterways. μηδείς (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that may be news to the citizens of Birmingham. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vat just proves my point, innit? One whole effink city in Inklint vat ain't on an estiary. (Ayn Rand.) μηδείς (talk) 02:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terms like coastal and nearby can be viewed differently in different countries. Earle Hitchner said: "The difference between America and England is that Americans think 100 years is a long time, while the English think 100 miles is a long way." See also [8]. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat, there are historical explanations for this. Going back 100 years or more, the political divisions of the United States were three regions: 1) The South, where the enfranchised white population was profoundly conservative to reactionary. At this point, South Florida was a beach-fringed swamp with very few inhabitants. 2) The North (i.e. Northeast and Midwest), which was divided between Democratic (economically left) industrial cities and moderate Republican small towns and rural areas, with Republicans winning most elections. The industrial cities were mostly coastal or located on the Great Lakes. 3) The West, consisting mainly of progressive Republicans.

Each region underwent its own transformation. In the South, urbanization occurred without much unionization and with more of a race-based than class-based consciousness, with the result that its conservatism persisted in the dominant white population. An exception is the populous east coast of South Florida, settled mainly by migrants from the industrial North, which consequently became relatively leftwing. In the Northeast, urban areas remained economically left, while urban areas in the west maintained their progressive tradition. In the Midwest, urban areas grew largely through migration from their moderate Republican hinterlands, with the result that, say metropolitan Pittsburgh, Cleveland, or Chicago drifted moderately to the right during the 20th century. During the 1960s and 1970s, meanwhile, students at elite universities in the Northeast and on the West Coast were at the center of a counterculture that included a left-leaning political perspective. This was actually a global phenomenon, but it had a regional dimension in the United States for two reasons: 1) Industrial fortunes during the 19th century left certain universities in the Northeast with large endowments that attracted the best scholars and students from around the country and around the world, enhancing the cosmopolitanism of a region that had always attracted many immigrants. 2) California's economic prosperity and progressive politics had a similar effect with the growth of well-funded universities in the early 20th century. The top universities in the Midwest took part in this cultural development, but to a varying extent. There were echoes in the South as well, but the left-leaning counterculture in the United States was really centered in the Northeast and the West Coast.

As a result, the upper middle classes of the Northeast and West Coast share a left-leaning perspective with their urban working classes. By contrast, the upper middle classes of the South and much of the Midwest (with the partial exception of the Upper Midwest) tend to be more conservative, while racialized politics have confined economic leftism in these regions largely to the black minority. The coastal location of these left-leaning groups is mostly accidental, except insofar as that coastal location promoted an openness to immigration and the commercial success that underwrote elite cosmopolitan universities. In response to one of your questions, I believe that studies have shown that people tend to migrate to politically compatible places, so this pattern has been self-reinforcing since the 1960s, with politically left (or in U.S. terms, "liberal") people gravitating to the West Coast or coastal Northeast, and politically conservative people gravitating toward the Sunbelt east of California. Marco polo (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]