chapman@fornax.uucp (02/23/87)
I think Doug Thompson is on the right track with his comments about
Canadian culture. It seems to me that our "culture" is defined by
what we do and say as a country. You can't get a nice neat 25 words
or less description of the overall culture of 26 million people.
This is a problem with most discussions in newsgroups like this; an
attempt is made to deal with an incredibly complex phenomenon in a
few short paragraphs - inevitably something is lost or uncommunicated.
However I think it is instructive to enumerate some examples of
our country's behaviour and see how it compares to other countries,
and in particular in the context of free trade to see how it compares
to the US; if only to get a "flavour" of the culture.
Here are a few, perhaps everyone can add some examples of their own.
1. Canada is one of the few (perhaps only) countries which has had
the ability to become a major nuclear power and yet we have
resisted the temptation to stockpile or even manufacture nuclear
weapons.
2. Health care is of good quality and access is almost universal (you
still have to have some money). It is unlikely you would have
your dialisys (sp?) machine turned off because you are broke.
3. Canada has not (recently anyway) attempted to force it way of
life (or advance it's economic and political interests) on other
countries through military force - covert or otherwise.
Ditto for economic force.
Canada does not directly support violent dictatorships, notorious
for human rights violations, merely because they are economic or
military allies.
4. Canadians are not egotistical enough to think they know what is
"best" for the rest of the world.
5. Canada lets itself be pushed around a fair bit by other countries.
We seem to have a foreign policy of being "nice guys".
6. We apparently have a reasonably high regard for the worth of human
life in general as evidenced by our broad system of "safety nets"
in the social services area.
7. Canadians are quite self critical and self effacing as can be seen
in our media, and we are capable of admitting to the world when
we make mistakes.
8. Although our environment isn't exactly squeaky clean it seems in
good condition when compared to a lot of other industrialized
nations.
9. We have quite a low murder rate compared to some countries.
10. There seems to be a smaller distance, economically, between the
rich and poor than is the case of a lot of other countries.
11. Political and economic decisions seem less tied to military
interests in Canada.
12. Education through to post secondary is generally available to
all who desire it at relatively low cost (however this has been
changing -particularily in BC). You do not have to be upper
middle class or above to be able to attend university.
13. We seem fairly federally oriented - the balance of decision
making and enforcement powers between the federal and provincial
governments is in the federal government's favour.
14. We send quite a bit of money and other aid to third world
countries.
That's all off the top of my head. Anyone with more positive/negative
examples?
johngdvsmit@watrose.UUCP (02/23/87)
In article <192@fornax.uucp> chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) writes: >4. Canadians are not egotistical enough to think they know what is > "best" for the rest of the world. Except when it comes to South Africa of course :-] ---- I shouldn't have said that
pptanner@watcgl.UUCP (02/23/87)
While John Chapman writes about Canadian Characteristics, many of his items only illustrate differences with the US. We are very poorly informed about European day-to-day life in this country, and do not realize how similar they are to us. >1. Canada is one of the few (perhaps only) countries which has had > the ability to become a major nuclear power and yet we have > resisted the temptation to stockpile or even manufacture nuclear > weapons. Several EEC countries are in this group. >2. Health care is of good quality and access is almost universal (you > still have to have some money). It is unlikely you would have > your dialisys (sp?) machine turned off because you are broke. Again the same holds in the EEC >3. Canada has not (recently anyway) attempted to force it way of > life (or advance it's economic and political interests) on other > countries through military force - covert or otherwise. > Nor has Sweeden, Switzerland, etc. > > Canada does not directly support violent dictatorships, notorious > for human rights violations, merely because they are economic or > military allies. But we take little action to condemn such countries. Again there are some European countries that are ahead of us here. > >4. Canadians are not egotistical enough to think they know what is > "best" for the rest of the world. Typical for small countries. >5. Canada lets itself be pushed around a fair bit by other countries. > We seem to have a foreign policy of being "nice guys". Typical for small countries. >6. We apparently have a reasonably high regard for the worth of human > life in general as evidenced by our broad system of "safety nets" > in the social services area. Typical for EEC countries and other Western countries. >9. We have quite a low murder rate compared to some countries. Twice as high as Germany and France >10. There seems to be a smaller distance, economically, between the > rich and poor than is the case of a lot of other countries. Holland has a rule that no one should earn more than 5 times the minimum wage. >12. Education through to post secondary is generally available to > all who desire it at relatively low cost (however this has been > changing -particularily in BC). You do not have to be upper > middle class or above to be able to attend university. In most EEC countries, university education is cheaper than here. >13. We seem fairly federally oriented - the balance of decision > making and enforcement powers between the federal and provincial > governments is in the federal government's favour. Much less so than the heavily centralized European Governments such as France and the UK. >14. We send quite a bit of money and other aid to third world > countries. We are quite low on this list as well by a factor of two or three in terms of percentage of GNP) - the US is lower. My point here is that Canadians, when comparing themselves to other countries, always think only of the US. We think that our dollar is currently doing well when in acutal fact, if you look at currencies other than the US$, it is just going down more slowly than its American counterpart. We think we are doing well in all the items listed above, well in fact we are in the same league as many other countries. It is not just the abundance of American media in this country that contributes to this problem, but our own is woefully inadequate in its dealings with the rest of the world.
manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (02/23/87)
A number of sociologists (notably Edgar Friedenberg) have pointed out that Canadians are in general more willing to accept collective needs than Americans (Friedenberg is an American immigrant, and he doesn't like it too much). As an example, consider that many Canadian enterprises are owned by the Crown whereas their U.S. counterparts are privately owned (I doubt that any government would attempt to privatise the CBC or AECL, for example). Health care for profit is another example of something that would have real difficulty making serious inroads in Canada. As yet another example, consider the state of credit unions and cooperatives in Canada vs their state in the U.S. Therefore, the stereotypical Canadian prefers collective institutions, whereas the stereotypical American believes in unfettered individualism. But...in the U.S., the notion of diversity is positively frowned upon. They fought a Civil War where we waged a referendum campaign, for example. They find bilingualism frightening whereas we find it a fact of life (please, no flames on this subject: there are still of course extremists in each solitude). They have a melting pot whereas we have a Secretary of State for Multiculturalism. In fact, from that point of view, Americans prefer to be all alike, whereas Canadians are unfettered individualists (or at least believers in communities of communities). I'm not trying to make a point here; it's just a curious paradox.
chapman@fornax.UUCP (02/24/87)
> > While John Chapman writes about Canadian Characteristics, many of > his items only illustrate differences with the US. We are very > poorly informed about European day-to-day life in this country, > and do not realize how similar they are to us. > > >1. Canada is one of the few (perhaps only) countries which has had > > the ability to become a major nuclear power and yet we have > > resisted the temptation to stockpile or even manufacture nuclear > > weapons. > > Several EEC countries are in this group. I would like to know who Peter - just out of curiousity. . . <Peter provides some interesting info> . . > >6. We apparently have a reasonably high regard for the worth of human > > life in general as evidenced by our broad system of "safety nets" > > in the social services area. > > Typical for EEC countries and other Western countries. I think that must depend a lot on how you are defining "western" as I think there are a lot of "western" countries that have comparable systems. <... more stuff> > My point here is that Canadians, when comparing themselves to > other countries, always think only of the US. We think that our > dollar is currently doing well when in acutal fact, if you look > at currencies other than the US$, it is just going down more That is often the case - in fact for years people concentrated on our dollars decline against US funds yet we were doing quite well against every other major currency. > slowly than its American counterpart. We think we are doing well > in all the items listed above, well in fact we are in the same > league as many other countries. It is not just the abundance of > American media in this country that contributes to this problem, > but our own is woefully inadequate in its dealings with the rest > of the world. Peter you have provided some useful information here so thanks. I don't know if you intended your points as some sort of rebuttal to my original points or not (since they don't seem to contradict many of my statements). I had not intended my list as a "this is how we are superior" statement (although I can see how it would be interpreted this way when compared only to the US :-) but rather as "this is what we do and say - how is it the same/different compared to other countries?". john *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
brad@looking.UUCP (02/24/87)
I found it interesting to note that several of Mr. Chapman's examples of Canadian Culture are direct results of our close relationship with the US of A! In article <192@fornax.uucp> chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) writes: > >1. Canada is one of the few (perhaps only) countries which has had > the ability to become a major nuclear power and yet we have > resisted the temptation to stockpile or even manufacture nuclear > weapons. We have no need, because we have all the nukes we need nearby. > >2. Health care is of good quality and access is almost universal (you > still have to have some money). It is unlikely you would have > your dialisys (sp?) machine turned off because you are broke. Most of the innovative health care is imported from our near neighbour. (The techniques, not the actual practice) > >3. Canada has not (recently anyway) attempted to force it way of > life (or advance it's economic and political interests) on other > countries through military force - covert or otherwise. I guess Korea isn't that recent. > > Ditto for economic force. Like the calls for sanctions on South Africa, and our many tariffs. > >4. Canadians are not egotistical enough to think they know what is > "best" for the rest of the world. This I doubt. Some Canadians sure think they know (and should force) what is "best" for the rest of Canada. Given the authority they would surely do the same to the world. > >5. Canada lets itself be pushed around a fair bit by other countries. > We seem to have a foreign policy of being "nice guys". Give me a break. This is not a foreign policy. I don't think anybody lets themselves get 'pushed around.' > >6. We apparently have a reasonably high regard for the worth of human > life in general as evidenced by our broad system of "safety nets" > in the social services area. Did you know that the U.S.A spends a greater percentage of its G.N.P. on social services than Canada does? Of course, they mismanage it to the same level we do. > >7. Canadians are quite self critical and self effacing as can be seen > in our media, and we are capable of admitting to the world when > we make mistakes. What a great definition of national identity. > >10. There seems to be a smaller distance, economically, between the > rich and poor than is the case of a lot of other countries. Not from what I have read in recent articles about the Conrad Blacks and the Bronfmans and Irvings and McCains etc. > >11. Political and economic decisions seem less tied to military > interests in Canada. Only because we are in the uniqe position of not needing a military because of our strong neighbour. > >12. Education through to post secondary is generally available to > all who desire it at relatively low cost (however this has been > changing -particularily in BC). You do not have to be upper > middle class or above to be able to attend university. State schools are available in the USA at a cost near to the cost of our schools. Of course, the most respected schools, like Stanford, MIT, Carnagie-Mellon, Harvard, Yale, Princeton etc. are all private and in the USA. Many of our best students go there. Even NSERC recognizes this by having multiple scholarship levels. Average scholars have to stay here. The best get to go to places like Stanford. > >13. We seem fairly federally oriented - the balance of decision > making and enforcement powers between the federal and provincial > governments is in the federal government's favour. This is really a comparison to the USA only, since most countries aren't large enough to have a serious federal/provincial distinction. The USSR is, and boy is that federally oriented! -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
chapman@fornax.uucp (02/24/87)
> In article <192@fornax.uucp> chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) writes: > >4. Canadians are not egotistical enough to think they know what is > > "best" for the rest of the world. > > Except when it comes to South Africa of course :-] > ---- > I shouldn't have said that Sure you should have :-). It's true we are interfering in a sense although I think any entity must have the right to say "you are morally repugnant to me/us and so I/we shall have nothing more to do with you" Paricularily when the overwhelming majority of it's citizens request such action (through thir representatives). However it is interference of a sort and so should certainlt not be done lightly. john *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (02/25/87)
In article <860@ubc-cs.UUCP> manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (Vincent Manis) writes: >Therefore, the stereotypical Canadian prefers collective institutions, >whereas the stereotypical American believes in unfettered individualism. [eternal flame on] Excellent point. Isn't it strange (well, not really I suppose) that the people on this newsgroup who are ridiculing Canadian culture are those who also seem to be against collective institutions and all for unfettered individualism? On a related topic, I think CBC AM is excellent; I listen to the Early Edition (local program), the World at 6, As It Happens, The Media File, The Medicine Show, Quirks and Quarks, and Sunday Morning almost every time I am home when they're on. I have no television and feel no need for one when I can listen to the CBC's coverage. Isn't it funny that those who think we should privatize the CBC or make it more competitive (or *force* it to be more competitive to meet the challenge of the Americans), happen to be the ones who think the CBC is crap? Similarly, I have taken two cross-Canada train trips by Via, and I think their service is excellent. I wouldn't choose to go any other way on my trips in the Toronto- Ottawa-Montreal area, since as well as being more enjoyable, they take just about the same amount of time. Isn't it odd that the guy who thought we shouldn't subsidize Via also thought that their service was lousy? Also, isn't it weird that three of the people who have been making cracks about Canadian culture are an expatriate Icelander, an expatriate American, and an expatriate South African? Oh well, enough personal attacks :-). --Jamie. ...!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews "Across the blue ocean the sun is declining"
majka@ubc-vision.UUCP (02/25/87)
In article <864@ubc-cs.UUCP> andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) writes: > Similarly, I have taken two cross-Canada train trips > by Via, and I think their service is excellent. [...] > Isn't it odd that the guy who thought we shouldn't > subsidize Via also thought that their service was lousy? I have taken 1 (one) train trip from Moncton to Montreal on a VIA train. It took 3 days (rather than the scheduled 14 hours), standing on the tracks in the middle of the Quebec wilderness for 24 of those hours with the temperature outside at -40 (I kid you not), with the steam heat in the train frozen solid, making the inside of the train not much warmer than the outside. I arrived in Montreal 2 days *after* my flight to Vancouver had departed, rather than 10 hours before. My airline ticket was worthless, and VIA pointed to the disclaimer on the back of my VIA ticket stub which stated that they they were hardly liable for delivering my *body* at the destination. Canada's wonderfull train system cost me $350 to buy a new ticket to Vancouver, endless frustration, and hypothermia. Now my question: Why do you think it odd that someone who thinks that VIA's service is lousy should also consider that they are not worth the money we spend on them? --- Marc Majka
chapman@fornax.uucp (02/25/87)
. . > I have taken 1 (one) train trip from Moncton to Montreal on a VIA > train. It took 3 days (rather than the scheduled 14 hours), standing > on the tracks in the middle of the Quebec wilderness for 24 of those I have made the same trip and we had to stop for quite a while but it was because (I am told) the route actually gos through the US and there are required inspections entering and leaving. 24 hrs seems too long for that though. I had been going from Toronto to New Brunswick and my favourite part was in Montreal where I had to haul ass carrying all my luggage on foot to go between the od CN station where the Toronto train stopped adn the old CP station where the outgoing train left - the travel agent forgot to mention this part of the trip. > hours with the temperature outside at -40 (I kid you not), with the > steam heat in the train frozen solid, making the inside of the train > not much warmer than the outside. I arrived in Montreal 2 days > *after* my flight to Vancouver had departed, rather than 10 hours > before. My airline ticket was worthless, and VIA pointed to the > disclaimer on the back of my VIA ticket stub which stated that they > they were hardly liable for delivering my *body* at the destination. > > Canada's wonderfull train system cost me $350 to buy a new ticket > to Vancouver, endless frustration, and hypothermia. > > Now my question: Why do you think it odd that someone who thinks > that VIA's service is lousy should also consider that they are > not worth the money we spend on them? > > --- > Marc Majka I don't know what VIA's problem is but I've been making cross country trips by train for about 20 years and it's always been pretty bad (particularily if you make the mistake of riding coach) although it is definitely better than the bus (>$$ too). As far as I can coud tell CN and CP just didn't want to run a passenger service - but they had to under the terms of their original agreements which got them the massive amounts of land in Canada they own. john *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
glee@cognos.UUCP (Godfrey Lee) (02/25/87)
In article <192@fornax.uucp> chapman@fornax.uucp writes: ...... >However I think it is instructive to enumerate some examples of >our country's behaviour and see how it compares to other countries, >and in particular in the context of free trade to see how it compares >to the US; if only to get a "flavour" of the culture. ..... >That's all off the top of my head. Anyone with more positive/negative >examples? > >john . Being a first generation Canadian of Chinese decent, I would praise the Canadian multicultural policy. It makes me feel equaly comfortable behaving in western or oriental manners as my mood suits me, neither of which is viewed as abnormal. . An obvious difference between U.S. and Canada was demonstrated recently by the border refugee problems between U.S. and Canada. If the U.S. has as liberal and non-political refugee policy as Canada, these people would not be flooding from U.S. into Canada! . Another difference can be viewed in the treatment of rights by our respective constitutions. U.S. tend to treat rights as absolute and literal, e.g. right to bear arms, whereas our charter of rights is worded in terms of reasonable, relative infringment etc. This gives the courts more power, but I think it creates less instances where everyone agrees that something is wrong, but the constitution says it is right. disclaimer: I chose to be here, so I am biased. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Godfrey Lee, Cognos Incorporated, 3755 Riverside Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA K1G 3N3 (613) 738-1440 decvax!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!glee -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
chapman@fornax.uucp (02/26/87)
> > > >12. Education through to post secondary is generally available to > > all who desire it at relatively low cost (however this has been > > changing -particularily in BC). You do not have to be upper > > middle class or above to be able to attend university. > State schools are available in the USA at a cost near to the cost of > our schools. Of course, the most respected schools, like Stanford, MIT, > Carnagie-Mellon, Harvard, Yale, Princeton etc. are all private and in > the USA. Many of our best students go there. Even NSERC recognizes this > by having multiple scholarship levels. Average scholars have to stay here. > The best get to go to places like Stanford. This is pretty insulting to Canadian schools. So you figure your alma- mater is a second rate institution Brad? As for multiple scholarship levels from NSERC this just aint so. It is possiible to take your NSERC scholarship outside the country if: 1. You state the name of the institution you wish to hold it at and 2. You can demonstrate that that institution has some facility or program of studies not available in Canada. This is what the NSERC guide and our (ex) graduate secretary says. Where did you get your information from?
brewster@watdcsu.UUCP (02/26/87)
>From: chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) >This is pretty insulting to Canadian schools. So you figure your alma- >mater is a second rate institution Brad? As for multiple scholarship >levels from NSERC this just aint so. It is possiible to take your >NSERC scholarship outside the country if: > 1. You state the name of the institution you wish to hold it at and > 2. You can demonstrate that that institution has some facility or > program of studies not available in Canada. >This is what the NSERC guide and our (ex) graduate secretary says. In terms of prestige there is no question the American schools far outrank Canadian schools. Of course prestige is not necessarily highly correlated with quality, but in most cases at least some correlation exists. How many NSERC scholarships go outside Canada ? I would be interested in numbers but as a guess I would say far less than one percent. And what is NSERC going to say if you say you want to go study at the "best" institution available ? i.e. Canada has facilities in area x but the best research is done in the States at institution y. I would doubt very much that NSERC would be sympathetic to this view, even if institution y was acknowledged as far superior by an independent panel. Try not to become a man UUCP : {decvax|ihnp4}!watmath!watdcsu!brewster of success but rather try Else : Dave Brewer, (519) 886-6657 to become a man of value. Albert Einstein
jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (02/26/87)
In article <864@ubc-cs.UUCP> andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) writes: > Also, isn't it weird that three of the people who have >been making cracks about Canadian culture are an expatriate >Icelander, an expatriate American, and an expatriate South >African? (I think my ears are burning :-) If I didn't know Jamie better I'd have thought that he may have been insinuating that the opinions of native born Canadians are more valued than those of non-native born Canadians. However, since I do know him I can only conclude that the "expatriate American" to whom he is referring is someone other than me :-). Also, perhaps Jamie should consider the possibility that those of a non-North American background can be far more objective in this debate than a Canadian could ever be. J.B. Robinson PS Know how much the average subsidy for a VIA ticket is? $85.00 Perhaps I should get into the swing of things and start trying to ram *my* heritage down other people's throats. Hope you like calypso and over-proof rum :-).
rgatkinson@watmum.UUCP (03/02/87)
In article <396@cognos.UUCP> glee@cognos.UUCP (Godfrey Lee) writes: >. An obvious difference between U.S. and Canada was demonstrated recently > by the border refugee problems between U.S. and Canada. If the U.S. has as > liberal and non-political refugee policy as Canada, these people would not > be flooding from U.S. into Canada! Perhaps you have a point, by my understanding of the situation is somewhat different. I remember hearing that sometime in the last six months or so that the US Immigration and Naturalization Service began requiring that new employees be able to PROVE their elligablility (sp?) to work in the US. I do not remember the enforcement mechanism, but it was structured in such a way as the employers were given strong incentive not to be caught employing illegal aliens. Does anyone else remember more details? Now, what would you do if you were an illegal alien from two or more borders south of here and your employer will no longer hire you for fear of the INS? You obviously left the far south for a good reason, so you probably won't go back. Why not try one more country north? After all, if you claim refugee status at the border then you get to stay in the country **at their expense** (read: on welfare) until an immigration hearing. And these usually take on the order of months or a few years. What have you got to lose? At best you get to stay. At worst you get to live free for a while before going back south again. No, I think the word just got around. -bob atkinson
brkirby@watdragon.UUCP (03/03/87)
In article <836@watmum.UUCP> rgatkinson@watmum.UUCP (Robert Atkinson) writes: >In article <396@cognos.UUCP> glee@cognos.UUCP (Godfrey Lee) writes: >>. An obvious difference between U.S. and Canada was demonstrated recently >> by the border refugee problems between U.S. and Canada. If the U.S. has as >> liberal and non-political refugee policy as Canada, these people would not >> be flooding from U.S. into Canada! > >Perhaps you have a point, by my understanding of the situation is somewhat >different. ... > After all, if you claim >refugee status at the border then you get to stay in the country **at their >expense** (read: on welfare) until an immigration hearing. And these usually >take on the order of months or a few years. What have you got to lose? >At best you get to stay. At worst you get to live free for a while >before going back south again. The reason for the flood of immigrants claiming refugee status is primarily the result of a new american law which makes employers responsible for ensuring that their employees are legal workers. Besides resulting in discrimination against Latin Americans, this has threatened the jobs of many illegal aliens in the U.S. The refugees have been arriving in Canada because of a difference in refugee policies. In the U.S., there is discrimination based on the refugees country of origin. While those from "Soviet Bloc" countries are virtually assured of acceptance, it is virtually impossible for those from Guatamala, and a number of other "American Bloc" latin american countries, to legally enter the U.S. In Canada, anyone from a "refugee producing" country can enter and is supported until they receive a hearing. Rather than merely coming to live off welfare, many are truly fearful of their lives in their home country, and come to Canada to live and work. They are able to get jobs, (as opposed to being on welfare) and many do get jobs, while waiting for their hearing. Bruce Kirby ----------------------- "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." --John F. Kennedy ----------------------- CSNET: brkirby@waterloo.csnet UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra}!watmath!watdragon!brkirby
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (03/10/87)
> In terms of prestige there is no question the American schools far > outrank Canadian schools. Of course prestige is not necessarily > highly correlated with quality, but in most cases at least some > correlation exists. Trivial personal experience: The fellow who (easily) headed my 1956 Uof Toronto Engineering Physics class went for graduate work to MIT (more prestige, right?). When he came back with a Master's he reported that UofT education was MUCH better. He was greatly disappointed with MIT education. I don't know whether it still holds, but remember how much has been done in the US by people educated in Canada, and how much could have been done in Canada by Canadians, given the political will and effective public relations and public self-confidence. What we lack is the belief that our country is as good as anyone else's, if it allows itself to be. We don't lack talent or training, just confidence and support. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt mmt@zorac.arpa
brewster@watdcsu.UUCP (03/13/87)
>From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) >Trivial personal experience: The fellow who (easily) headed my 1956 Uof Toronto >Engineering Physics class went for graduate work to MIT (more prestige,right?). >When he came back with a Master's he reported that UofT education was MUCH >better. He was greatly disappointed with MIT education. This is the same "when I was a little boy" reasoning that Ronald Reagan usually resorts to. I am not disputing that the quality of education at UofT at the time you mention, in the specific program you mention was good or even superior to MIT at the same time. I have worked for people who came from this very program, and am continually impressed by their abilities, but I don't think this is relevant to the quality of education in Ontario/Canada today. In late 50's/early 60's, Ontario postsecondary institutions got almost whatever they asked for. Today, they don't get the same treatment, and this results in outdated equipment, lack of professor motivation, lower academic standards of graduates, etc, etc, etc. I'll bet that if you go look at some of the equipment in the UofT labs its the same stuff you used back in 56; and don't dismiss this as wild exaggeration since I am relatively sure that a lot of the electronic equipment used in chemical engineering labs at UofW (for automatic analysis, etc), hails from the same era as 1956, and Waterloo is generally thought to keep their labs more uptodate than Toronto does. Try not to become a man UUCP : {decvax|ihnp4}!watmath!watdcsu!brewster of success but rather try Else : Dave Brewer, (519) 886-6657 to become a man of value. Albert Einstein