Can you count to two (anchors)?

[Goober]

Yeahhh I'm gonna have to say that's actually Vandy :icon_tong

Yeah, I'm gonna have to ask you to shut cake hole. The analogy is drawn because they're the only univ w/ an actual physical connection to Harvard. If you're in it to draw any similarity to Harvard from an intellectual standpoint, you'll have to stand in line. Google "Harvard of the South" and you'll find a fairly long list of schools all laying claim to the title - Ole Miss, UF, UT, GT, etc., etc.

 

[phrogdriver]

Yeah, I'm gonna have to ask you to shut cake hole. The analogy is drawn because they're the only univ w/ an actual physical connection to Harvard. If you're in it to draw any similarity to Harvard from an intellectual standpoint, you'll have to stand in line. Google "Harvard of the South" and you'll find a fairly long list of schools all laying claim to the title - Ole Miss, UF, UT, GT, etc., etc.

There's a PHYSICAL connection between them? Like a dedicated road, tunnel, or maybe a cable of some kind running between Tennessee and Massachusetts?

It's kind of demeaning to say you're the "Harvard" of anything in regards to education, since you're starting from the premise you're already second best. Hence, Princeton doesn't say it's the "Harvard of New Jersey." In any case, I'd have to agree that Vanderbilt is referred to as Harvard of the South by people who didn't actually go to the school. The others would just like to be, and to be honest none of the other schools you mentioned, except maybe the engineering portion of GT have anywhere near the academic prestige of Vanderbilt.

 

[Goober]

Ugh...point missed by multiple people. Blinders, people - take the blinders off. Vandy can lay claim to anything they want. However [comma] they're not unique in stating this. It's called Google, folks. Slap that term in the search function and see how many schools try to make the same claim. Personally, I couldn't care less - I graduated from FSU. It was simply a response to A4s' comment regarding the original NROTC units; JU does have Harvard's ROTC program and has since 1972 and as such has the only such connection to the bastion of uppity Yankee liberalism that refers to itself as Harvard (which would consider our beloved Vandy as a cut-rate welding school). You wanna make that connection to your school - fine. Personally, I graduated from a state university and am just as employed as the next guy.

 

[Pitchlock]

I thought bonding at the acadamy was when chicks got chained to urinals

Did I ever say my reunion didn't involve chicks, chains and urinals? :icon_mi_1

 

[pourts]

Yeahhh I'm gonna have to say that's actually Vandy :icon_tong

I agree, Vanderbilt's football team is just about as shitty as Harvard's. :icon_smil

 

[scoober78]

The original six NROTC units:

1. University of California
2. Northwestern University
3. University of Washington
4. Harvard University
5. Yale University
6. Georgia Institute of Technology

Prestigious ??? I'd say they're pretty "prestigious" .... at least as much as the Boat School ... unless you are sitting at the bar and the drunk guys down at the end are knocking their rings on the polished wood ....

There are all sorts of interesting factoids such as this floating around. For example, to do a little alma mater plugging...

Cornell University produced more officers who fought in WWI than the USMA at West Point.

 

[Flash]

There are all sorts of interesting factoids such as this floating around. For example, to do a little alma mater plugging...

Cornell University produced more officers who fought in WWI than the USMA at West Point.

Maybe that was because West Point was more selective........

Actually, if you look at the class numbers back then for West Point and Annapolis they are pretty small, between 90-200 yearly at the start of the century and a bit beyond.

Cornell is not the only school civilian whose alumni distingushed themselves during WWI. Yale students formed the first reserve Naval Aviation unit and produced the first Naval Aviator to become and ace, LT David Ingalls among other notables.

http://www.yale.edu/aviation/history.html

 

[pourts]

There are all sorts of interesting factoids such as this floating around. For example, to do a little alma mater plugging...

Cornell University produced more officers who fought in WWI than the USMA at West Point.

And Dartmouth had the largest V-12 program in the nation.

 

[scoober78]

Nice guys...really wasn't making any bigger statement on Cornell's superiority...although clearly it is...

Yale has one hell of a military record...There once was an ensign named G.H.W. Bush as well....

 

[Steve Wilkins]

what exactly are you girls arguing about?

 

[A4sForever]

Eh.......

The Bull is/was a dick ...

But then ... so are many of you.

 

[Flash]

The Bull is/was a dick ...

But then ... so are many of you.

The Bull?

And it wasn't a questioning comment, more of a........grunt........

 

[FlyinSpy]

Apparently, ADM Fallon is a "career naval aviator" now...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/world/middleeast/08fallon.html

Not once does it mention that he's an NFO.:icon_rage

Case study in the power of the internet:

Exhibit 1: Washington Post, Sunday 14 Jan: "When Adm. William J. Fallon -- the nominee to command U.S. forces in the Middle East -- was tasked with resuscitating military ties with China, he took on the challenge with characteristic gusto. The veteran fighter pilot from New Jersey pushed beyond the standard banquets with Chinese generals to meet younger officers and tour military bases, eventually talking his way into the cockpit of an advanced Chinese FB-7 warplane."

Exhibit 2: Email to author of story:

"ADM Fallon was never a "fighter pilot" - he was a Naval Flight Officer
(NFO), and originated in the attack community. He may have "flown in
fighters" during DS1, but he certainly never "flew fighters". It may
seem like a minor point, but illustrates a significant lack of
understanding on your part of a fundamental fact concerning ADM
Fallon's background and experience. Such a misunderstanding only adds
to an informed audience's concern that other aspects of your story may
not be factually correct. You or your fact checkers should show more
diligence, rather than relaying on other's incorrect summations."

Exhibit 3: Response from author:

"Thank you for your note. I was told by several people close to Fallon
that he flew the jets and had even maintained his flying qualifications
very recently. But given your note I will definitely look into this
further and issue a correction if necessary."

Exhibit 4: In today's Post's "Corrections" section:

"A Jan. 14 profile of Adm. William J. Fallon incorrectly described him as a pilot. He is a naval flight officer, which means that he is aboard aircraft carrying out navigation and targeting, and firing weapons, but not piloting." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/13/AR2007011301019.html

The takeaway point is that while handwringing and garment-rendering here on AW has a certain intrinsic moral value, there's nothing like setting the record straight....

 

[wink]

Exhibit 2: Email to author of story:

"ADM Fallon was never a "fighter pilot" - he was a Naval Flight Officer
(NFO), and originated in the attack community. He may have "flown in
fighters" during DS1, but he certainly never "flew fighters". It may
seem like a minor point, but illustrates a significant lack of
understanding on your part of a fundamental fact concerning ADM
Fallon's background and experience. Such a misunderstanding only adds
to an informed audience's concern that other aspects of your story may
not be factually correct. You or your fact checkers should show more
diligence, rather than relaying on other's incorrect summations."

Exhibit 3: Response from author:

"Thank you for your note. I was told by several people close to Fallon
that he flew the jets and had even maintained his flying qualifications
very recently. But given your note I will definitely look into this
further and issue a correction if necessary."

Exhibit 4: In today's Post's "Corrections" section:

"A Jan. 14 profile of Adm. William J. Fallon incorrectly described him as a pilot. He is a naval flight officer, which means that he is aboard aircraft carrying out navigation and targeting, and firing weapons, but not piloting." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/13/AR2007011301019.html

Although your email did lead to a correction (thanks for that), I find that when this sort of misunderstanding occurs using the word "pilot" works best. The word pilot does not appear in the email. Even in the Navy we frequently refer to NFOs as aviators (small "a"), a reference to career path and warfare specialty which is virtually the same for NFOs and naval aviators. I always say that "a NFO is the non pilot officer crew member that is responsible for insert mission specifics for platform here. They generally have superior intelligence, more courage and better looking girlfriends then their pilot shipmates."

 

[East]

The cool sentence...

....They generally have superior intelligence, more courage and better looking girlfriends then their shipmates."

That sentence is oftenly heard among Flight Engineers...