Nowadays children showing exceptional qualities are quite common. Here are six child prodigies who are doing Ph.D before they turned 15.
Intelligence in whatever form and whichever field is praised all over the world. When such intelligence is shown by children, it is amazing and beyond words to be praised. In these days children showing exceptional qualities are quite common.
Here are 6 child prodigies who completed their graduation/post graduation at the age of 15 years and are doing Ph.D.
Alia Sabur
Alia Sabur, an American child prodigy is born on 22nd February, 1989. She left the school while she was studying 4th standard. She directly got admission into State University of New York, Stony Brook at the age of 10 years and she graduated “summa cum laude” at the age of 14 years. Now she is doing her Ph.D. in materials science and engineering at Drexel University.
Arie Tan
Arie Tan, an American child prodigy entered the University at 12 years. He scored a full 800 marks in math, 630 in verbal and 4.5 in analytical writing in Graduate Record Examination (GRE). Now he is 15, and a graduate in molecular genetics with a 3.82 grade point average from Ohio University.
Divya Tej
Divya Tej, an Indian child prodigy is born on 8th June, 1990. He completed 10th standard directly after 4th standard at the age of 8 years. He completed post graduation (Master of Sciences in Zoology) skipping Intermediate and graduation at the age of 11 years from Sri Venkateswara University, India. At present, he is doing his Ph.D. on Epigenetics at Center for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics, Hyderabad, India as a Senior Research Fellow.
Gregory Robert Smith
Gregory Robert Smith is an American child prodigy who graduated “cum laude” from high school at 9 by completing 10 grades of school in just 3 years by skipping some of them and completing some within a matter of months. He received his Bachelor degree in mathematics at the age of 13 years from Randolph-Macon College, USA. Now he is 16 and going for his Ph.D. in Mathematics at the University of Virgina.
Sho Timothy Yano
Sho Timothy Yano, an American child prodigy is born on 22nd October, 1990. He scored 1500 out of 1600 in SAT at the age of 8 and entered Loyola University, Chicago at the age of 9. He graduated “summa cum laude” at the age of 12 and now attends Pritzker School of Medicine at the University of Chicago to earn an MD and Ph.D.
Tathagat Avatar Tulsi
Tathagat Avatar Tulsi, an Indian child prodigy is born on 9th September, 1987. He completed his high school at the age of 9 years, graduation (Bachelor of Sciences) at the age of 10 and post graduation (M.S. in Physics) at the age of 12 from Patna University, India. At present, he is doing his Ph.D. on quantum computing at Indian Institute of Sciences, Bangalore, India as a Senior Research Scientist.
There are many more child prodigies in various other fields, but this article was written on ones who are doing their Ph.D’s before they turned 15. These are the prodigies whom I could find over the net but there could be more. What more can be done than marveling at these young whizzes, and giving them a few words of encouragement?
Read more: http://socyberty.com/education/six-child-prodigies-doing-phd-at-15/#ixzz0tv593WbK
PYRAMID3
GREAT EGYPTIAN PYRAMID3
Friday, July 16, 2010
Friday, April 2, 2010
Pre-marital sex is not an offence
Several people asked me and even newspapers have quoted that the Supreme court judges acted in a haste. I personally feel it is not the fault of supreme court and nor the bench which has passed the judgement, as it doesn't reflect the individual or consensus opinion of the learned judges. The Judges are professionals, who go by rule book and no where in the penal code or the constitution there was any such reference that premarital sex is an offence. They have gone by Rule book which quite obviously they are supposed to do so. If the society feels it is immoral, it is the duty of the legislation to make a proper legislation or amendment to the act.
The newspapers have shown the supreme court and the learned judges in a poor light making the public believe that Supreme court judges are at fault.
Reproducing below the sensational judgement given by the Supreme court, which came as a rude shock to the society.
Published on Deccan Chronicle (http://www.deccanchronicle.com)
Premarital sex is not an offence: SC
By DC Correspondent
Mar 24 2010
New Delhi, Mar 22: In an observation that would mightily cheer liberals, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday that live-in relationships and pre-marital sex could not be considered offences.
"When two adult people want to live together what is the offence?” asked a three judge bench comprising of Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, and Justices Deepak Verma and B.S. Chauhan. “Living together is not an offence. It cannot be an offence."
The court pointed out that even Lord Krishna and Radha had lived together according to mythology.
The judges made the observations while reserving judgment on a special leave petiton filed by Tamil actress Khushboo seeking to quash 22 criminal cases filed against her in Tamil Nadu for allegedly endorsing pre-maritial sex in interviews to various magazines in 2005.
Khushboo was present during the entire hearing and was seated in the first row, dressed immaculately in an orange salwar with a green dupatta wrapped casually and her goggles fixed on her forehead.
The judges asked a battery of lawyers appearing for the complainants what was the offence the actress committed while expressing such views.
The lawyers argued that her comments would mislead young people and lead to decay in moral values. They said that if prominent people make such statements, it would create chaos in society.
“People of Tamil Nadu were worshipping her as Goddess but this is what they got out of her worship," said a lawyer, but the court was not impressed.
"Please tell us what is the offence and under which section,” said the court. “Living together is a right to life.”
The judges also pointed out that views expressed by Khushboo were personal and did not concern others. In a democratic country, people had the right to express views, they said.
"How does it concern you?” they asked. “We are not bothered. At the most it is a personal view. How is it an offence? Under which provision of the law?"
“You have to establish a cognizable offence,” said the judges. “That this may have affected the public morality that is your view but we are only concerned with the law.”
The apex court further asked the complainants to produce evidence to show if any young girls had eloped after the actress gave the interview.
"How many homes have been affected?” the judges asked, and enquired whether the complainants had daughters. When the lawyers replied in the negative, they shot back, "Then how are you adversely affected?"
Meanwhile, Khushboo’s lawyer, Ms Pinkey Anand, alleged that her client had been targeted for political reasons. Even her clarification on the issue was not published in proper perspective by the media, said the counsel.
" She had not made any reference about Tamil Nadu women but this part was not published," Ms Anand said.
The lawyer added that there was nothing wrong in Khushboo’s statement. "Indian society should be liberated from the thinking that a women should be a virgin (at the time of marriage)," she argued.
Khusboo had approached the apex court after the Madras High Court in 2008 dismissed her plea for quashing the criminal cases.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The newspapers have shown the supreme court and the learned judges in a poor light making the public believe that Supreme court judges are at fault.
Reproducing below the sensational judgement given by the Supreme court, which came as a rude shock to the society.
Published on Deccan Chronicle (http://www.deccanchronicle.com)
Premarital sex is not an offence: SC
By DC Correspondent
Mar 24 2010
New Delhi, Mar 22: In an observation that would mightily cheer liberals, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday that live-in relationships and pre-marital sex could not be considered offences.
"When two adult people want to live together what is the offence?” asked a three judge bench comprising of Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, and Justices Deepak Verma and B.S. Chauhan. “Living together is not an offence. It cannot be an offence."
The court pointed out that even Lord Krishna and Radha had lived together according to mythology.
The judges made the observations while reserving judgment on a special leave petiton filed by Tamil actress Khushboo seeking to quash 22 criminal cases filed against her in Tamil Nadu for allegedly endorsing pre-maritial sex in interviews to various magazines in 2005.
Khushboo was present during the entire hearing and was seated in the first row, dressed immaculately in an orange salwar with a green dupatta wrapped casually and her goggles fixed on her forehead.
The judges asked a battery of lawyers appearing for the complainants what was the offence the actress committed while expressing such views.
The lawyers argued that her comments would mislead young people and lead to decay in moral values. They said that if prominent people make such statements, it would create chaos in society.
“People of Tamil Nadu were worshipping her as Goddess but this is what they got out of her worship," said a lawyer, but the court was not impressed.
"Please tell us what is the offence and under which section,” said the court. “Living together is a right to life.”
The judges also pointed out that views expressed by Khushboo were personal and did not concern others. In a democratic country, people had the right to express views, they said.
"How does it concern you?” they asked. “We are not bothered. At the most it is a personal view. How is it an offence? Under which provision of the law?"
“You have to establish a cognizable offence,” said the judges. “That this may have affected the public morality that is your view but we are only concerned with the law.”
The apex court further asked the complainants to produce evidence to show if any young girls had eloped after the actress gave the interview.
"How many homes have been affected?” the judges asked, and enquired whether the complainants had daughters. When the lawyers replied in the negative, they shot back, "Then how are you adversely affected?"
Meanwhile, Khushboo’s lawyer, Ms Pinkey Anand, alleged that her client had been targeted for political reasons. Even her clarification on the issue was not published in proper perspective by the media, said the counsel.
" She had not made any reference about Tamil Nadu women but this part was not published," Ms Anand said.
The lawyer added that there was nothing wrong in Khushboo’s statement. "Indian society should be liberated from the thinking that a women should be a virgin (at the time of marriage)," she argued.
Khusboo had approached the apex court after the Madras High Court in 2008 dismissed her plea for quashing the criminal cases.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)