Okay...you are really intelligent and motivated, and you're hoping to get the very best education in the world. Where do you go? Oxford, of course. So you apply...you ace their tests...and you actually get interviewed.

According to the London Times the following is one of the unusual questions asked at an Oxford entrance interview, as revealed by a survey of applicants:

If there were three beautiful naked women standing in front of you, which one would you pick?

Okay, scholars, which would it be?

The one to whom I had been introduced, obviously.

What's a naked woman?

No one of them

The closest.

Is this a "pick" vs. "choose" trick?

Saranita, that was the extent (my post above) of the blurb in the London Times. I'd love to see some of the real answers!

See this blog: Stumbling and Mumbling.

Similar questions listed by The Times article.

This news article was mocked in tonight's Have I Got News For You (a British satirical news quiz).

I particularly liked Paul Merton's answer to the question

What percentage of the world's water is contained in a cow?

His answer?

Milked or unmilked ?

Which might well have got him in.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BobHale,

A spokesman quoted in the article said

quote:

Tutors go to great lengths to make people feel relaxed. It’s a common misperception that they get hit by this kind of question as soon as they walk through the door

On that same quiz show, tonight's host (Alistair McGowan, a comedian and impressionist well know for his language pedantry) also remarked

The spokesman is evidently under the misconception that misperception is a word.

quote:

Which might well have got him in.

I should hope not. The answer, of course, begins "Consider a spherical cow..."

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Okay...you are really intelligent and motivated, and you're hoping to get the very best education in the world. Where do you go? Oxford, of course. So you apply...you ace their tests...and you actually get interviewed.

According to the London Times the following is one of the unusual questions asked at an Oxford entrance interview, as revealed by a survey of applicants:

If there were three beautiful naked women standing in front of you, which one would you pick?

Okay, scholars, which would it be?

Well, being female myself, I would pick the most beautiful with the most perfect figure and kill her!!!

Joking aside, I googled for that question and found this which has a lot more. Read all 12 comments at the bottom of the page too !

In that Times link of arnie's, this was one of the questions:

"Q Why do so few Americans believe in evolution? (human sciences, Oxford) "

Why do the English have such an altered perception of Americans? That just is not true.

quote:

"Q Why do so few Americans believe in evolution? (human sciences, Oxford) "

I blame the Scots.

quote:

Why do the English have such an altered perception of Americans? That just is not true.

But, as has been widely reported, there are vociferous supporters of creation (or "intelligent design" as they are now calling it) and there is much pressure to insist that it's taught in schools alongside evolution. Indeed, in many US schools it is.

In British schools creation is simply a part of religious education (where that is still taught - it's not mandatory any more) and it is considered simply as the fairy story that it is.

So, what is the percentage of Americans who believe in the creation myth and refute evolution? The only verifiable statistic I could find that is at all relevant is that .034% of the USA's population are Jehovah's Witnesses (who don't believe in evolution). However, there's a site that suggests that "...In the September 2005 Gallup poll, 53% endorsed the creationist position, 31% believed in theistic evolution, and only 12% selected the atheistic evolution option...." but I've not checked that out on the Gallop site. The site that quotes it is a pro-creation one and it's well worth reading - -if only for the last few paragraphs that seem to imply that the theory of evolution is some kind of scientific and government conspiracy! http://scienceagainstevolution.org/v10i2f.htm

And it certainly leads me to believe that many, if not most, Americans don't believe in Darwin's theories. I think they are wrong.

That there is little or no evidence for a theory (as in the case of the creation hyprothesis) doesn't necessarily make it wrong, but if there is substantial evidence for a contrary theory (as there is for evolution) then I reckon the contrary theory is the most likely to be correct.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Richard English,

I wouldn't pick any of them. I'm a woman. It is a sexist question. Unless of course I were in the medical profession in which case I would give them each a gown to wear until the x-ray or other test was complete.

I'd pick (or choose, if you will) the one most closely related to the dean, IF, that is, their nakedness were an accurate indication of their preparedness for assisting me in gaining carnal knowledge as a part of my exemplary education.

BTW, why do we assume that they weren't there under de-dress duress?

Richard, think what you may about Americans, but it just is not true that lots of people don't believe in Darwin's theory. There are small isolated areas where that's the case, but it surely isn't a significant number of people. The trouble is, there is a very noisy minority here, on the Web and every place else. That 53% is just preposterous.

missann, I agree with you about it being a sexist question. I am surprised to hear it was even asked, though some of those links reassured me that those strange kinds of questions weren't all that common.

quote:

That 53% is just preposterous.

They're not my figures - argue with Gallop if you disagree.

Sexist "Discriminatory on the basis of sex (usually said of men's attitude toward women)" Wordweb.

The question is not sexist by that definition, although it might be considered sexual.

I wonder whether a similar question was asked of female applicants but with the genders reversed? Sadly the article doesn't say.

quote:

That 53% is just preposterous.

Based on my experience I believe this is a perfectly plausible number.

Keep in mind that evolution is still just a theory, whereas creation is a very long established myth. People like neat, tidy answers, and myths provide that. Theories aren't often neat and tidy, so aren't as easy for the public to grasp.

quote:

Keep in mind that evolution is still just a theory

I wonder when a theroy becomes a fact?

Many scientific principles that are now accepted by most people would have started as hypotheses, become theories and eventually end up as laws.

But even now I believe there are a few people around who believe in the Phlogiston theory and the Flat Earth Society have over 4,000 members registered on their website.

I reckon there's more than enough evidence around now to suggest that the theory of evolution is due for promotion to a law - notwithstanding that inconsequential 290,000,000 Americans who don;t believe in it!

quote:

I wonder when a theroy becomes a fact?
[...] Many scientific principles that are now accepted by most people would have started as hypotheses, become theories and eventually end up as laws.

I was trained in the Pragmatist philosophy of science, which regards all theories as models of reality and dispenses with the notion of "laws", except as they refer to some mathematical model of the world, i.e. Newton's laws are not laws because they are true, but because they are equations.

The problem with the word law is that many such laws are not generally true at all. For example, Ohm's law (that current is proportional to voltage) is not generally true for most materials or over wide ranges of voltage. It's a law in the sense that it is an equation that is used to model reality, and electrical components are engineered such that they fit this equation within certain operating ranges.

To a Pragmatist, there are only two things in the scientific world, models (or theories) and measurements. Models aren't true or false, they are useful or useless because they predict reality well or poorly. To answer your question, Richard, theories don't become fact, they become better theories. Those that predict reality exceptionally well, like quantum mechanics, may be treated as true for convenience.

In this light, the problem with creationism isn't that it is wrong, it's that it has become useless, barren. Hundreds of years ago it was a useful theory, and motivated lots of research, but more useful theories have been developed. It tells us nothing about what is likely to happen tomorrow, and it closes questions rather than answers them. Evolution by natural selection, on the other hand, is loaded with testable predictions.

Interestingly, the concept of a "law of nature" is rooted in religion. European natural philosophers were christians (and creationists) and believed that just as God had given man laws to live by he must have given nature laws to live by as well. It was the job of the natural philosopher to discover those laws.

quote:

Keep in mind that evolution is still just a theory,

Just like gravity. For too long people have said "evolution is just a theory", thinking that this somehow invalidates it, or prevents them from having to accept the scientific validity of it. There is an enormous body of scientific evidence supporting evolution, and the use of the term "theory" here is in the scientific sense. From answers.com, we have

quote:

theory: 1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

This is what the "Theory of evolution" means. When people say "evolution is just a theory", they say it to make light of the fact, as in

quote:

6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."

Among laymen, this is what "theory" is typically used to mean. I am constantly infuriated by creationists, or whatever they choose to call themselves("intelligent designists"), using the word "theory" to invalidate 200 years of science.

IIRC, Darwin was himself a christian, but he didn't permit the religious weltanschauung of his time to interfere with scientific reason.

I referred to creation as myth. As Joseph Campbell revealed, myth is important to the human psyche. It is only when myth stifles clear observation that it becomes dangerous.

quote:

They're not my figures - argue with Gallop if you disagree.

First, it's "Gallup" and not "Gallop." However, I am not going to waste my time checking it out because I know it's wrong. I hope that neveu was just being sarcastic. I surely know that there are pockets of creationist believers (I agree, Sean, they infuriate me, too), and maybe even whole states full of them (Kansas), but they are not significant in numbers. The schools are still teaching evolution.

quote:

The question is not sexist by that definition, although it might be considered sexual.

I always chuckle when you make dogmatic statements like that. By your definition maybe, though it is sexist by mine and missann's. The article did not mention separate questions for men and women.

quote:

First, it's "Gallup" and not "Gallop."

Apologies for my galloping error!

quote:

I am not going to waste my time checking it out because I know it's wrong

I will take the time to check it when I'm back from Sheffield. "Knowing" without checking facts is rather like the creationist themselves; they "know" that God created Heaven and Earth and the last thing they want is to let facts get between them and their beliefs.

quote:

By your definition maybe, though it is sexist by mine and missann's

Out of interest, then, what is your definition of sexist?

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh: The article did not mention separate questions for men and women.

That's because Oxford and Cambridge have a collegiate structure and the majority of the colleges were all male until around the 1970s, although there have been a few all-female colleges since the middle of the 19th century - Girton College in Cambridge being the most famous.

In fact, according to this article, there is still one all-male college in Oxford.

quote:

I hope that neveu was just being sarcastic.

Sarcastic? Moi?
The percentage of creationists isn't 50% in the rarefied academic circles you and I inhabit, Kalleh, but in that vast region we fly over to get to Boston, L.A. or Austin 50% is not at all unreasonable, and probably too low.

I've done a bit of googling. Nothing scientific, just randomly checking various sites hit by Googling for "Gallup Creationism".

On sites that have Christian/Religious leaning the figure claimed for the number of Americans believing that God created the world and everything - in it in pretty much the shape it is today - sometime in the last 10000 years is anywhere between 50 and 85%.

On sites with a scientific rather than religious bias the figure is quoted as anywhere between 45 and 55%.

Here's an anti-creationist one and here's a pro-creationist one

When both sides are claiming the same thing (that around half of Americans believe in creationism) there is probably some truth in it (in the claim, not in the creationism.)

However, before any of us on this side of the pond start getting on our soap boxes about daft American beliefs here's a BBC site showing that we aren't really that far behind with 39% of Brits believing that creationism/intellegent design should be taught in schools.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BobHale,

First, I must apologize for my crabbiness in my post above. It was petty of me to point out Richard's typo, and I suppose it is anti-intellectual to just assume I am right and to not check the facts. I, too, will do some searching. I think, though, that the figure is much less than 50%. I suspect it's a problem with how the questions are asked. I am talking about people who don't believe in evolution at all, and instead believe in creationism. Surely you can believe in God and also in evolution.

I, too, will do some checking, though not only with Gallup. While they are popular, they aren't always that reliable. They really messed up a survey they did for us, and we spent big bucks on it. From experience, I can tell you that Gallup isn't all it's cracked up to be.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Richard, think what you may about Americans, but it just is not true that lots of people don't believe in Darwin's theory. There are small isolated areas where that's the case, but it surely isn't a significant number of people. The trouble is, there is a very noisy minority here, on the Web and every place else. That 53% is just preposterous.

missann, I agree with you about it being a sexist question. I am surprised to hear it was even asked, though some of those links reassured me that those strange kinds of questions weren't all that common.

]

I am coming into this discussion late and jumping into the middle of it without reading to the end (gasp!) but I have to agree with Kalleh and missann. My first reaction in reading the question about the three nude women was to wonder, what do they ask female admission candidates?

Richard, it is preposterous to believe that 53% of Americans don't believe in evolution. That 53% of that particular survey sample did not believe in evolution I can believe. I can believe that 53% of the sample had neither heard of Darwin or paid attention in biology class--but, although the numbers of fundamentalist Christians in this country who believe in "intelligent design" (now there's a euphemism!) are growing, I don't believe they've achieved majority status--yet!

Wordmatic

quote:

Originally posted by Dianthus:
That's because Oxford and Cambridge have a collegiate structure and the majority of the colleges were all male until around the 1970s...

Whew! Crusty, tradition-impacted and, sorry to be insulting, but there is so much in this entire discussion that is aggravating-- backward!

One parting comment:

...And on the eighth day, God created Wordcraft...

Nevertheless, as I posted above, my own unscientific survey of web sites does seem to support the figure of around a half believing in creationism or the modern newly-painted-but-basically-the-same intelligent design.

This, as I also posted above, is no kind of anti-American stance, as MORI polls over here put the Brits at almost 40%. (Well 40% in favour of giving those beliefs the same status in schools as scientific teaching, anyway.)

I think that worldwide there is a growing, and very disturbing, trend towards fundamentalist belief systems, regardless of which country or which religion is involved.

If the numbers are anywhere near accurate they are alarming. You are right about the rise of fundamentalism in the world, Bob, but, fortunately it tends to come and go in waves; therefore, we can all be comforted in the knowledge that in another 20 or 30 years, this wave will be gone.

But I also agree with Kalleh when she says it would be important to see the questions that were asked. I can imagine that 20 percent of the general public that believes the theory of evolution is logical and correct might have no objection to having creationism taught alongside evolution in the public schools--if the question were asked is a certain way. I can imagine many of them would answer "yes" with a sort of "yeah--whatever" attitude. That would not make them creationist fundamentalists per se.

So maybe the numbers aren't as disturbing as the surveys.

quote:

Originally posted by wordmatic:
we can all be comforted in the knowledge that in another 20 or 30 years, this wave will be gone.
.

If it doesn't drown us first.

quote:

But I also agree with Kalleh when she says it would be important to see the questions that were asked. I can imagine that 20 percent of the general public that believes the theory of evolution is logical and correct might have no objection to having creationism taught alongside evolution in the public schools--if the question were asked is a certain way. I can imagine many of them would answer "yes" with a sort of "yeah--whatever" attitude. That would not make them creationist fundamentalists per se.

My guess is that about 30-40% believe in straight-up creationism. Another 20-40% believe in evolution but in the special creation of humans by God. The rest believe in evolution.

So, it's chauvinists vs. religious nuts!

quote:

Originally posted by neveu:
...Another 20-40% believe in evolution but in the special creation of humans by God...

or in evolution set in motion by God.

God? I've long been puzzled by the way Christians capitalize the generic name for a deity and declare that to be the diety's name. All those other gods had real names! There are a few exceptions, of course, as Bob Marley let us know. Or are Rastafarians christians?

quote:

Nevertheless, as I posted above, my own unscientific survey of web sites does seem to support the figure of around a half believing in creationism or the modern newly-painted-but-basically-the-same intelligent design.

As wordmatic posted, it also depends on your sample. You are correct, Bob, that your survey was "unscientific" because the Web, particularly, tends to have extremist posting. You can't, for example, survey all professors at a university or everyone at church. I remember Shu taking a survey when he was a little boy. He had heard that Jews were in a minority, and he didn't believe a word of it. After all, many of his friends were Jewish. So the next time he was in class, he took a survey. Sure enough, he concluded, Jews are in the majority. Where did he take this survey? At Sunday school!

Asa, Jews write G_d, though I notice I hadn't done that above.

quote:

Richard, it is preposterous to believe that 53% of Americans don't believe in evolution.

We all have beliefs of various kinds and our beliefs are often based on little more than faith. If we do any research at all it's amongst a small sample of our own friends and aquaintances.

For example:

The are very few Jews in England = I don't know many.
Most people in England don't go the church = my friends don't go to church.
Most people in England have a passport = all my friends have passports.

Don't trust your beliefs; do the research. Gallup, for all its possible faults, is far more likely to be accurate with its multi-thousand person scientific survey than, is any single person. That they might get things less than 100% right is not proof that everything they do is suspect. Of course, any survey will be affected by the way in which the questions are asked - and by many other factors. But proper survey organisations know this and try to ensure that any bias is allowed for before the results are published.

I am inclined to believe the Gallup statistic but will be happy to look at alternative survey results.

quote:

or in evolution set in motion by God.

Creationists tend to object to evolution because it is at odds with the verbal inerrancy of the Bible, but that wasn't always the primary objection.

When Origin of Species came out in the 19th century the main problem that contemporary theologians had with it wasn't that it contradicted the creation story of the Bible. Most naturalists and philosophers accepted that species evolved and that the Biblical creation story was metaphorical. What Darwin provided was the mechanism, natural selection, and that is what theologians found repellent. They had believed that God created a perfectly balanced clockwork universe; to them, natural selection meant it was all death and randomness and capriciousness. To know the Creator you study the creation, they had thought, and they didn't like what natural selection said about God.

Also, they didn't like being descended from apes.

quote:

You can't, for example, survey all professors at a university or everyone at church.

In fact, it's surprising how accurately surveys can be targetted - these days more than ever before.

It would be extremely simple to target both professors and churchgoers with almost 100% accuracy. It would be more difficult to survey, say people in their 50s or those on an income of between £50,000 and £100,00 per annum - but even this targetting is probably accurate to about 85% these days.

Because we might not know how to do it, that doesn't mean it can't be done.

Hmmmmm.... I think it was Alexander Pope who wrote, "Know then thyself/presume not god to scan/the proper study of mankind is man."

I'm not what this says about the study of apes as our progenitors!

quote:

God? I've long been puzzled by the way Christians capitalize the generic name for a deity and declare that to be the diety's name.

Doesn't Allah mean "the god"?

I suspect neveu's numbers are closer to the truth than the 53%.

Nevue's guess (his words) is no more likely to be accurate than any other person's guess. That you happen to believe it makes on one iota of difference.

Many people believe in religions; that doesn't make it any single one of them true, it just makes them frequently believed.

Facts and figures and other data are what matters when assessing accuracy, not beliefs.