Miscellaneous desk
< August 15	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 17 >

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.

August 16

College tuition

I was looking at http://sfs.columbia.edu/tuition-rates-and-fees ; it seems there is no such thing as in-state versus out-of-state tuition. Is this because Columbia University is a private institution?--98.88.154.241 (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia University, in New York City, is a private institution rather than a state university. It is typically the state colleges and universities which offer lower tuition to in-state students. Edison (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--98.88.154.241 (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the practice of throwing down the gauntlet?

I've researched the origin of the phrase, and it comes from the practice of throwing one's gauntlet down to challenge another to a duel. I understand very well the origin of the phrase, but I don't understand WHY they would do that. Why would you take armor off before a fight? Even if the duel were to happen another day, between armored opponents, it would seem like symbolically weakening oneself/making oneself vulnerable. WHY did knights throw down the gauntlet in the first place? Thanks. 71.41.39.2 (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why exactly they did that, except that a medieval duel was extremely stylized. They wouldn't just stop everything and fight right away, there were all sorts of rules and traditions (it could take up to 40 days for the duel to actually take place), so throwing down a gauntlet didn't put you at an immediate disadvantage. Why wasn't it considered a symbol of weakness? Well, just tradition. It was probably the opposite, "I am powerful enough that I can waste this glove on you." Adam Bishop (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the stereotypical "I challenge you to a duel" image, a gentleman would take off a glove and smack the other guy in the face with it. I wonder if this practice (if genuine) derives from the gesture of throwing down your gauntlet? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EO says the gauntlet or glove is or was "a token of one's personality or person." [1]. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all who have answered so far. 71.41.39.2 (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.etymonline.com/. The answer still seems vague. If the glove represents the self, how does throwing one's self at one's enemy's feet amount to a challenge? I am reminded of the Black Sabbath song, Fairies Wear Boots. μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not all fairies, just the neo-Nazi ones. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps those wearing armour merely found that hitting the other person in the face with a metal gauntlet tended to both start and and the duel rather early... And then the general practice followed from the martial practice (smalled, since even I'm not sure if I'm kidding or not here) 91.208.124.126 (talk) 08:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a current of thought that aggressive body language often involves symbolically weakening oneself. For example, getting close to someone, standing on the balls of your feet, and thrusting your chest out, all put you in a weaker position if he decides to punch you, and supposedly that's kind of the point. Don't know where to find refs though. --Trovatore (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A lead on that idea, from peafowl, with a reference: "Amotz Zahavi used the excessive tail plumes of male peafowls as evidence for his “Handicap Principle”.[8] Considering that these trains are obviously deleterious to the survival of an individual (due to the more brilliant plumes being highly visible to predators and the longer plumes making escape from danger more difficult), Zahavi argued that only the most fit males could survive the handicap of a large tail. Thus, the brilliant tail of the peacock serves as an indicator for females that highly ornamented males are good at surviving for other reasons, and are, therefore, more preferable mates." -- Also, I've heard it suggested (i.e.WP:OR) that this "Handicap Principle" idea might explain certain human behavior, e.g. tough guys that sport falling-off pants and untied shoes. Though that would be much harder to study, compared to peafowl :) SemanticMantis (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scarpetta novels by Patricia Cornwell

Was there a novel about the Capetown South Africa incidents talked about in the Port Mortuary novel?Wildgrape7 (talk) 23:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]