CNN actually researched how much it would cost to go to Hogwarts
How exactly did they “research” this? Looks like they just pulled a bunch of random figures out of their butts.
It’s stated in the books that tuition to Hogwarts is “free for all children in Britain”. I don’t know why they thought it wouldn’t be - it’s a British high school, not a college. So there, you just saved yourself $42,024.
In Chamber of Secrets, Mrs. Weasley emptied her entire bank account which contained only two galleons [£10 / US$20] and she managed to buy all five children’s entire set of books and potion ingredients with this, as well as Ginny’s robes, hat, clock, cauldron, and wand!!! And we know she bought all of these as she mentioned having to buy them. The fact that she bought all of these with only £10 pretty much proves how absolutely ridiculous CNNs estimation is.
If you want more proof, the actual cost of Harry’s wand is far over estimated here, and the exact price in both pounds as US dollars can easily be found right within the books! Harry’s wand is bought for seven galleons, a galleon being worth about five pounds [mentioned by JK Rowling in an interview and in FBAWTFT/QTTA] means that his wand was £35, or US$53. So there’s some straight-out-of-the-books-and-word-of-god proof that the figures CNN have given are way off the mark. Not to mention the fact that even if you don’t go to Hogwarts, as a magical human you’re gonna have to buy a wand anyway if you want to do magic.
As for the school books, I’ve done an approximation based on various prices given through-out the books and on Pottermore. While these prices involve a substantial amount of guess-work, I think you’ll agree that my calculation is far more accurate than CNNs:
The Standard book of Spells costs one sickle [29p / US59c]. On the back of my comic relief copy of Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them it says it costs fourteen sickles [£4.60 / US$8.26]. One Pottermore, all text books are one galleon [£4.97 / US$10.17] - however Pottermore currency only uses galleons so it’s likely they have rounded off. Lockhart’s books, the most expensive in the series, are five galleons on Pottermore meaning that the exchange rate in the books puts them around two galleons and fourteen sickles [£14.60 / US$20.80]. If we put a high average on this and assume that all textbooks are approximately a galleon [they are likely much less], and that each year has around seven required reading books, the entire price for seven years worth of books would be forty-nine galleons, which equals approximately £243, or US$367 - and remember, this is the maximum estimated price for the textbooks.
For the minimum, we need to consider that the Weasleys get a lot of things second hand, with Ginny’s copy of A Begginers Guide To Transfiguration being described as “a very old, very battered copy” - likely no more than five sickles. If they got all their books around that price, it would cost them no more than £14 / US$21 for the entire seven years worth! So school books, far from being US$516, fall somewhere between US$14 and US$367 for the entire seven years at Hogwarts.
Next we have robe, glove, cloak, and hat prices - these are never mentioned in the books or on Pottermore, so I can’t account for that. However I seriously doubt it’s as a high as they’ve got here. Considering books in the wizarding world are generally much cheaper than in the muggle world, I think it’s fairly safe to assume that clothing is as well. Likely a maximum of a galleon for a single set of robes.
They’ve also forgotten a huge number of things - cauldrons, potion ingredients, scales, and star charts, among others.
So yeah, I really don’t know where they came up with these figures. It looks like some guy just wanted to make a story about how expensive Hogwarts would be and put a bunch of American college figures together and thought “yeah, this looks good.”
Do not fuck with a fandom.
This is the greatest.
Ever since pterosaurs were discovered, theories of all shapes have been formed to speculate on how, if, or when pterosaurs could fly. Recent theories speculate that juveniles almost right after hatching may have been able to fly, but by far the most debated theory has been the shape of the wings. Here is Sordes pilosus, a pterosaur that has been at the center of the debate due to the well-preserved holotype, which suggests a tissue that stretched from each of the hindlegs to the wing tips, illustrated here as Sharov’s View. This old-school interpretation was prevalent for decades before Sharov, however, as even Harry G. Seeley discussed this on pterosaurs from Solnhofen, Germany, and the Liassic beds of Dorset, England, where only a broad-chord wings were capable of allowing the animal to fly at all.
(Chord is the measure of the distance from the front margin of the wing to the rear margin, compared to the span of the wing. A broad-chord wing has a more even ratio [closer to 1] than narrow-chord wings [further from 1].)
Newer debate however has argued that the hindlegs are not, in fact, so intimately related to the wings, but that the membrane from the legs stretched between the legs and contacted the tail, but not the wing membrane. This was argued by Kevin Padian from Berkeley, and is termed here the new-school version. The wing membranes extend from the sides of the body to the tips, not from the legs, and the design is narrower in the chord. What is surprising is that Sordes is ambiguous in the shape of the wing membrane, as the margin from the wingtip to the leg (or wingtip to the body wall) is actually not present on the fossils known. But the margin of the membranes around the feet are well-preserved, and show that the fifth-toe is the base of both versions. The argument is wether this toe extends the membrane to the wings, or between the feet themselves, and this may depend on a positional argument of the feet themselves: Does the foot show the ability to extend the toe sideways, dorsally, ventrally, or even towards the tail to allow the membrane to connect to the tail? Fortunately, I don’t have the answer that here :)
Anyone who says centipedes aren’t adorable is a goddamn liar
She’s cleaning her babys an keeping them safe
She’ll keep doing this a long time after they hatch, too. She’ll hold all her babies in her legs all at once until they get big and leave
OVER 9000 HUGS INN THIS PICTURE ALONE