Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2014 October 19

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.

October 19

Name of the game

I remember a game where was three main characters. Young woman named Maya, her weapon was gun. Bald man with glasses, his weapon was spear and knife and he had ability to use green card or purple card that damaged enemy or healed the character. And a dog, who was able to shoot an energy beam in his mouth, either blue, green or red. If I remember correctly, Maya first had to train herself before she was able to recruit that man and dog with her. The game was released to Playstation 2 but I dont remember name of the game. Does someone know which game this was? 62.72.229.12 (talk) 06:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Legaia 2: Duel Saga, perhaps? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

No it wasn't that. I also remember that she was first fighting with some sort of hyena creatures whitch was able to call other hyenas by howling and after killing it you sometimes get you skin and you was able to sell it somewhere. There was green hyenas at some point. There was charching bar where was three different strike forces and after the bar was full the strike was the strongest against the enemy. They were able to talk with others and get clues that helped them to solve puzzles. You were also able to buy new weapons and food and try steal and if you get caught then the prices were higher. There were different levels, several fights and boss fights at the end. It was fantasy game and it was actually released in PC not in Playstation if I remember correctly. It was released between 1998-2004. 62.72.229.12 (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Any luck yet? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Morality of taking classes in things you already know

Is it intellectually dishonest to take credit-bearing classes in things you already know well from non-credit-bearing activities, or just because you grew up surrounded by them? I know someone who was raised bilingual from birth, and did a school-leaver exam (an A-Level) in her other language. It was her highest grade and helped her into a good undergraduate degree (in a non-language subject), but as far as I can see, it doesn't represent any active effort. Am I being unfair in seeing this as a kind of cheating? 213.205.251.206 (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

the purpose of a levels i think is to demonstrate knowledge to universities, regardless of how such knowledge is required..this site gives a number of general purpose statements, one being to demonstrate qualification in a particular subject matter. if she's qualified due to her upbringing then good for her, i personally see it a bit like a child from a family of doctors likely doing naturally better in science subjects than a more artsy family so to speak idk ~Helicopter Llama~ 19:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's reverse the question. Suppose someone who was bilingual in English and Spanish to the point of being able to read The Canterbury Tales and Cantar de Mio Cid as easily as this sentence, such that they can also get the gist of most Germanic and Romance languages. But they didn't take any classes to gain this fluency. Would it intellectually honest for schools treat such as person only as just functionally fluent in the language they applied in, and refuse to acknowledge any skill beyond that? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

If you're fluent in English, you're skilled enough to pass a class that demands fluency. Same with anything. The school's not there to teach you, it's there to accredit you. If it has to help, it will. No different than a "natural" in sports. If you can win the games without the coach struggling with you, you're a welcome addition. People who smartened up early are likewise welcome alumni. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I met my (now ex-)wife when we were both studying Russian at university. I had no Russian family background, although I had taught myself the alphabet some years earlier. She was born here to Russian-speaking parents, her first language was Russian till she went to school, and she became bilingual. That is to say, she could carry on Russian conversation completely fluently, could read the language, and could translate and interpret for her parents etc. But her knowledge of Russian grammar was rudimentary, because she had never studied it academically. So, when she had the opportunity, she went to uni to learn it. They certainly did not make it any easier on her just because she started ahead of the 8-ball, and there was no intellectual dishonesty involved. Funnily enough, she scored mainly Credits while I, the newbie, got Distinctions and a few High Distinctions. (Fat lot of good that does me now, though.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

No matter how much you think you know about something, you can always learn more or get a refresher. And if you're willing, you could even help the teacher by helping other kids in the class, and then it's a win for everybody. So, no, there's nothing wrong with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

A friend of mine was bi-lingual in English and Italian, so when he did a Modern Languages degree at Oxford (which is actually very much focused on literature as well as just competency in the languages themselves), he did it in French and Spanish. I can't remember whether this was mandated by the university languages department, or just a suggestion that it would be a bit silly to take what was essentially a foreign language degree in a language that wasn't foreign to him. There are presumably benefits to studying literature in languages that you are not fluent in, because it changes the way you think about and relate to the material. Of course, other types of qualification are about language competency in the narrow sense, and one imagines that if he did a version of the General Studies A-level that had a foreign languages section in it, it would have been wise and proper for him to do the Italian option.

Similar to what someone else said above, if your father is a carpenter, then you end up knowing a fair bit about carpentry, and there's nothing morally wrong or misleading about taking a course that confirms that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• No. I agree with almost everthing said above. Some classes you can "test out of" which I did as an undergrad, being allowed to skip the lower level ones. I knew the Greek alphabet from basic study on my own before taking it as 101. In other cases you simply have to take the class. As a bio major I had to take bio 101-102 when it was far less advanced than what I'd taken as a 15 year-old. Although I learned how to use the card catalog in first grade, I was still required to learn that over again in "English" as a freshman in college. Was that my fault?

Likewise, I took the swimming and boating badges three times over at summer camp. I simply enjoyed being in the water. The first Spanish class I ever took was a 400 (4th year university) one and I got an A. I don't find any of that dishonest--I got the grades I deserved for the work I completed. Of course I didn't apply as a foreign student to get preferred admission, even though I was born in Hawaii of two American citizen parents, nor have my records sealed. That might have been criminal, or immoral. Define crime and immorality and I will respond. μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a bit of a waste of time in many cases, but not because you aren't learning anything. If you are so knowledgeable or experienced, you can challenge many courses in lots of universities and save yourself the time of having to actually sit and do the full project workload. Not all courses are challengeable, mind, but it's common enough. Mingmingla (talk) 00:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The main purpose of university/college courses is to get you an accreditation. Many companies require you to prove you have experience/qualification in the subject by asking you to provide a certificate from a university/college, etc., regardless of how good at the subject you say you are. They don't want you to tell them. They want somebody else to tell them. If you are already good at the subject before you take a course on it, then who should complain? You might not learn anything new, but at least you have a piece of paper to show a prospective employer. I don't think there is anything morally or ethically wrong with this. In the UK, you are paying for it with your ridiculously large student loan, anyway. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 09:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The prospective employer is looking for a "reliable source". Novel idea! I'm reminded of a TV ad from the 1960s showing Abraham Lincoln looking for a job, telling the employment counselor he has no college degree, but has learned a lot from reading on his own. The guy tells him, "I know you're a smart guy... but you're not going anywhere without that sheepskin!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

And by the way, there is a huge gulf between "intellectual dishonesty" and "immorality". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Can be. But murdering your professor to get out of a test is a bit of both. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Some colleges require certain courses that have nothing to do with one's chosen field. I once had to fulfill a science requirement that was outside my major. Because I did not want to devote much time to that course, I opted for an astronomy class on the nature of the Solar System. Because my grandfather had been an aerospace engineer, much of what was covered in the course I knew by the age of 8. I went to class on the first day and picked up the syllabus, then attended for only the mid-term and final exams. I pulled an A, and was able to focus my time on my major courses.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 17:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as an undergrad I had to take 6 "distribution" courses, but luckfully my majors and study of German covered five of the required categories. I ended up taking Continental history from 1789-1848. I really enjoyed that class immensely. I found out after I graduated that they had added 6 more categories, for 12 total, that included all the identity studies classes. What a shame there was no requirement actually to study formal logic, to read Smith or De Tocqueville, or learn a foreign language, or to calculate the paths of celestial bodies, or read Suetonius and watch I, Claudius. μηδείς (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)