Auto news on Youtube Jan 30 2019

We have a housing crisis in the Twin Cities

and certainly in St. Paul right now.

We have low vacancy rates.

People have a hard time finding a place they can afford

to rent or own and live with dignity.

And our population is growing very fast.

So that's only going to get worse.

Across the state of Minnesota there are five hundred

and fifty thousand families that are cost

burdened by the amount that they're paying

every month for their mortgage or for their rent.

And when you think about that it is really a crisis.

And I think people understand it that way.

While Habitat doing 50 homes a year is incredible

work and it's so important for those families.

We've got to accelerate that pace.

And it's not just Habitat it's every organization

that's working on this issue.

Every local official,

everybody across the state of Minnesota needs

to understand this is a crisis.

The vitality of the state,

you know the Twin Cities and beyond really depends

on this ingredient that has always made the state

of Minnesota hugely competitive.

The ability to attract talent.

To retain talent.

Create a workforce.

You need,

you need Housing.

Unless you have that foundation,

that stable foundation of housing

from which people can rise.

It's very difficult to go out and find a job.

To run with a great idea.

To become an entrepreneur.

To live a healthy lifestyle.

It's no longer at the point where it's can we do this.

It's we have to.

So the goals have to be more aggressive.

The goals have to be pressing.

It can't be what can we do.

It's got to be more aspirational thinking

or else we're never going to overcome this problem.

So anything we can do to raise that bar and put

that challenge out to society.

I'm absolutely fully behind.

For more infomation >> Why Is Affordable Housing Important? - Duration: 1:46.

-------------------------------------------

How and Why Trailers Spoil Movies - Duration: 7:45.

Hi my name is Derek Lieu and this is: The Art of Making Trailers.

Why do trailers show so much of the movie?

Focus group testing!

Thanks for watching. Don't forget to like, comment–

Just kidding.

Not about the focus group testing; that part is true.

But because I'm a trailer editor I'm less interested in why trailers show so much,

and more interested in how to avoid making a trailer which FEELS like it's showing too much.

"I'm not machine,

I'm not man,

I'm more."

Like I said, focus group testing is a huge part of the big budget movie trailer industry.

Trailers for blockbuster movies go through rigorous testing to maximize their appeal.

The marketing department gets a bunch of people to watch trailers, and/or TV spots currently in production.

Then they ask a bunch of questions all the way down to how much people liked the individual shots.

The long and short of it is, these focus groups typically preferred trailers...

...which show more of the story over trailers which show less.

Therefore, we get a lot of trailers which show more.

And this is why it's not going to stop anytime soon.

Robert Zemeckis, the director of Cast Away

(which has a trailer notorious for showing the ending of the film) said this:

"We know from studying the marketing of movies, people really want to know...

exactly everything that they're going to see before they go see the movie; it's just one of those things.

To me, being a movie lover, and film student, and a film scholar, and a director I don't.

What I relate it to is McDonald's.

The reason McDonald's is a tremendous success is that you don't have any surprises.

You know exactly what it's going to taste like.

Everybody knows the menu."

I know several trailer editors, and none of them gleefully or maliciously put the best shots in their trailers,

But they know it's a delicate balance between showing cool looking shots, and not showing too much.

So what exactly constitutes showing too much?

Is it showing the most impressive shots?

Is it showing any shots from the last third of the film?

During my PAX West panel about making game trailers...

I asked one of my guests, Jake Rodkin from Campo Santo, for advice to fellow game developers.

He said:.

"In a shot that people are seeing when they don't know the entire story of your game...

...and they don't know the entire context.

An audience member is just going to look at it and say: 'That looks really awesome.

I want to do that in the game.'"

The most important word in that quote is "context."

Which led me to this conclusion:

People feel spoiled when the biggest questions posed by the trailer are then answered.

Now, trailers should leave you with a lot of unanswered questions.

So when you're done watching you need to seek out the movie or game for answers.

"Unfortunately, no one can be TOLD what The Matrix is..."

But there are some basic questions you do want answered in a trailer.

What is the premise?

Who are the characters?

What do they want?

These need to be answered.

Otherwise the audience won't be interested at all.

What I think crosses the line is when the trailer answers the how, why, and what then questions.

Let's look at some examples.

Cast Away is a film about Tom Hanks getting marooned on an island.

"HELLO!?"

This premise naturally leads to the question: "Will he get off the island?".

At 2 minutes into the trailer we find out:

Yes, he does make it off the island.

This is a pretty cut and dry example of showing too much.

There is literally ONE big question posed by the trailer.

It's kind of mind boggling that showing the end was even a consideration.

Then again Cast Away made over 400 million dollars at the box office.

So I guess people didn't care that much.

Another thing to consider is: maybe people just didn't want to see a movie...

...where they know Tom Hanks might die at the end.

This goes back to what Robert Zemeckis said about the audience wanting to know what they're getting.

Another type of trailer which feels like it shows too much.

Is the kind which keeps on saying:.

And then...

A good example is the trailer for Angelina Jolie's film: Unbroken.

The trailer opens with an American military plane firing its machine guns at an enemy.

And then...

We flashback to the soldier as a child where he gets in trouble, and is beat by his father.

And then...

We see the boy trained to be a runner, and winning a race as a man.

And then...

We see the man get to the Olympics.

And then...

We see the man win the Olympics.

And then...

The man joins the army.

And then...

The man get shot down.

And then...

The man is adrift at sea.

And then...

The man is picked up by the Japanese.

And then...

The man is in a prison camp.

And then...

This trailer posed these questions:

"Will the boy become a great runner?"

"Will the man survive the war?"

"Will they survive being adrift at sea?"

"Will the man survive the prison camp?"

Three out of four of these questions get answered.

The important lesson here is:.

The audience for a trailer is trying to understand what the story is about.

The more time spent on any one plotline, the more likely...

...the audience will expect the entire movie to be about that one plotline.

This is why these trailers feel like this show so much.

By the end the audience has seen three or four stories when they came in looking for one.

Another one of my favorite examples of a trailer showing too much is for Wes Craven's thriller Red Eye.

The trailer starts with a fake out setup where it pretends to be a meet-cute romantic comedy...

...between Cillian Murphy and Rachel McAdams,

But it turns out it's a thriller where he's quietly holding her hostage on a plane.

"As fate would have it, my business is all about you."

The question here is: "Will she get away?"

105 seconds in, the trailer is tense and, intriguing but in the following 15 seconds...

She escapes the plane,

runs through the airport,

drives a car down the freeway,

fights killing Murphy in an apartment,

and then there's a rocket launcher for some reason?

I laugh every time I see it because that 15 seconds is basically saying:.

AND THEN AND THEN AND THEN AND THEN AND THEN AND THEN AND THEN AND THEN...

To this day I'm amazed how quickly the trailer squanders all its built up suspense in such a short period of time.

And then...

So, aside from not answering the big questions...

How does a trailer avoid looking like it's showing the entire story?

Well, how about not asking the big questions in the first place?

Take a look at the trailer for The Matrix.

All of these shots are from the very end of the film.

Neo has learned kung fu.

He knows there is no spoon and all that,

and he is going to use his newfound skills to save Morpheus and the crew.

Why don't these shots feel like spoilers?

Because here are the questions the trailer asks.

What is The Matrix?

Who are these apparently not human villains?

What is the real world, and what is the fake world?

Notice, none of these questions are: "Will Neo learn to become The One?"

Virtually no time is spent showing Neo as the ignorant, bumbling John Anderson.

Therefore, we don't know that him becoming Neo is a pivotal moment in the film.

We also don't know Morpheus gets captured, and needs to be saved.

Therefore him jumping out the window, and dangling from a helicopter,

doesn't feel like something is being spoiled.

For all we know this is from the middle of the film.

My guiding philosophy for trailer editing is:

"It's more important to avoid the appearance of showing too much...

...rather than avoiding what might be considered spoilers."

I think of what questions I'm posing to the audience,

and to what degree I'm answering them (if at all).

How much context the trailer gives or withholds affects the audience's experience.

Balancing the line between telling too much or not enough is extremely tricky.

But dancing on that line is what makes for the most engaging trailers.

Thanks for watching.

Let me know in the comments below your favorite trailers...

...which tread the line of exciting without making you feel like you saw too much.

I hope you enjoyed this look at the art of making trailers.

If you want more videos like this please like, and subscribe.

And, have fun!

For more infomation >> How and Why Trailers Spoil Movies - Duration: 7:45.

-------------------------------------------

Why Do We Have Middle Names? - Duration: 6:36.

Most of us can understand the utility of having a first name: since it prevents us from calling

everyone we meet "hey you!"

And in many naming customs, surnames are a way to tie us to our family members and express

our direct lineage.

But why do we have middle names? Do they have any function? And when did we start doling them out?

The practice of assigning middle names likely traces back to the 13th century.

In his book on the history of names, The Means of Naming: A Social History, author Stephen

Wilson notes that at first, having more than one name was popular largely among the Italian

elites in places like Florence, Perugia, Venice and Rome.

And in Gascony, a region in southwest France, having two first names came into play among

the elite as early as the 11th and 12th centuries.

By the 1400s in Italy we start to see middle names pick up in popularity in Europe, and

among the well-to-do the preferred names came from those of saints in the Catholic Church.

The logic was that naming a child after a saint would offer additional protection. So

middle names were kinda like the baby proofing of the 1400s.

By the 18th century, Europeans from all social classes began giving middle names to children on a

more common basis And in the 19th century, second names were an accepted practice across

Europe and in the US.

So, what happened? Well, in the years between 1400 and the 18th century, middle names in

certain parts of Europe became less associated with the elite, and more to do with the specific

naming trends in particular countries.

For instance, in languages like French, English, and Italian, middle names were ornamental

or were just a way to tell people apart as the population swelled.

So if there were 6 guys named "John Doe" in your village, then it was helpful to have

"John Marcus Doe" "John James Doe" etc, just for clarity.

In others, people went by different names at different points in their lives. And for

others still, middle names served as a way to pass on a popular family name, without

having everyone go by the same moniker. So you get to honor your

great grandma Eunice in a more discrete way.

But in other countries, and languages, middle names serve a similar purpose to surnames,

namely to connect people to their paternal lineage. So it's less of a middle name,

and more an extension of the family name.

These kinds of names are patronymic, meaning they're derived from a father. Although

in some instances patronymics can be drawn from another male ancestor.

The language that uses patronymic middle names that you're probably most familiar with

is Russian.

In Russian, it's common for people to have a first name followed by a patronymic and

a surname. The modern Russian patronymic takes a distinct form that's broken down into

two parts:

Male patronymic names typically end in -ovich or -evich

While

Female patronymic names end in -ovna or -evna.

So a man with the patronymic name Alexander "Ivanovich" would be Alexander, son of

Ivan. But patronymics also stretch back hundreds

of years and across continents.

For example, Wilson notes evidence of patronymic middle names in the North African regions

that were part of the expanded Roman empire.

Romans of higher rank sometimes had a 3 part names consisting of a praenomen (or personal/first

name), a family name (or nomen) and a cognomen which served as a sort of nickname.

After the Roman defeat of Carthage (located in modern day Tunisia) in 146 BCE, patronymic

names were adopted that blended Roman naming customs and the Punic names favored by Carthaginians

to create a new tradition.

This system is pretty similar to the Hebrew naming practices I discussed in "What was

Jesus' real name?" so if you're interested in hearing about that be sure to check out

that video after this!

And to add just one more layer to the mix, the title "middle name" may not even be

useful in other languages where family names and surnames come first and second names are

an extension of your personal name (and not a "middle name" at all).

So if you have a Korean or Chinese name, your family's name would come first, followed

by your personal names. Which means that in this order it would be surname, personal name,

second personal name. So the moniker and concept of a middle name truly only works for certain

languages.

And in other languages (and regions) the middle name is also not a personal name but another

form of family address. So if you have a Spanish name, depending on your country of origin,

your middle name can be drawn from your maternal side or from a series of names meant to show

the extent of your family tree. For example Spanish painter Pablo Picasso's full name

was a whopping twenty words which you can read right here

Aaaaaand, great! You're all caught up.

But while he tested out a few combinations of names in his early career, he ultimately

settled on the moniker that we all know him by today which was two words.

But while today in the US it's not all that common to see people with more than one personal

name (since even people with multiple names usually stick to one or the other) the middle

initial also saw some increased popularity in the 20th century. At least according to

a 2014 article in the NY Times by Bruce Feiler. Feiler notes that middle initials for writers,

which used to be a staple of many book covers, slowly dropped in popularity from the end

of the 20th century and into the early 2000s. 7 US presidents used middle initials from

Franklin D. Roosevelt up to Gerald R. Ford. Although President George W. Bush did bring

the middle initial back to the oval office to avoid confusion with his presidential father.

Social scientists Wijnand A. P. Van Tilburg and Eric R. Igou also note in their article

that people who used middle initials in fields like medicine, academia, and law were evaluated

more favorably on things like writing, status, and intellectual performance.

So while middle initials may be on the decline for John Q. Public (myself included) they

still serve a function in certain fields.

Well it seems like the middle name is essentially the 6th toe of the naming world: it's not

always useful or functional, sometimes we inherit it from our ancestors, and it's

always pretty fun to look at.

So what do you think? Anything to add on this little history

with lots of offshoots? Think you can turn your dad's name into a Russian patronymic?

Be sure to get into the comments and leave me all of your questions and feedback. Also

if you want more Origin of Everything be sure to subscribe on Youtube and Follow us on Facebook.

Special thanks again Tedley Meralus on Youtube for this episode suggestion and I'll see

you guys back here next week!

For more infomation >> Why Do We Have Middle Names? - Duration: 6:36.

-------------------------------------------

How well do fluoride treatments work at preventing tooth decay? - Duration: 6:54.

Currently, about two-thirds of US households have fluoridated water, and the CDC has made

nationwide fluoridation of drinking water a top priority for the prevention of cavities.

The use of fluoride, however, is something of a hot button issue.

For example, a recent study showed that consumer-generated videos versus industry-generated videos on

YouTube were much more likely to have an anti-fluoride sentiment.

This is not new.

In 1945, Grand Rapids, Michigan became the first US city to implement community fluoridation

of the water supply.

And in the decades that followed, several conspiracy theories developed around the practice,

including speculation of a plot to impose a communist regime in the United States.

Of course, fluoride is not just found in tap water.

It's also found naturally and fortified in certain foods, can be found in varnish

or gels at the dentist's office, and is a common ingredient in mouth rinses and toothpastes.

So, how does fluoride prevent cavities, and what does the research say about the benefits

of its use?

Now, in general, there's bacteria on your teeth, which can form microcolonies, and when

these microcolonies coalesce, it creates a layer of dental plaque.

Bacteria have a hard time getting into the tooth due to the outer layer of enamel which

is composed of a hard substance called hydroxyapatite, a type of calcium phosphate crystal with the

chemical formula Ca10(PO4)6(OH)2.

Now, if the bacteria on the tooth surface start to overgrow, they can metabolize sugary

foods and drinks and generate acid, which can cause the hydroxyapatite to break down.

Without hydroxyapatite, the enamel surface of the tooth can weaken and allow bacteria

to enter, causing permanent damage - this is called a cavity.

If it goes on long enough, the bacteria can infect the root of the tooth, and this can

be really painful.

So this is where fluoride comes in.

Fluoride can replace the OH group in hydroxyapatite to create fluorapatite with the chemical formula

Ca10(PO4)6(F)2.

In general, fluorapatite, is more dense and less soluble than hydroxyapatite, so it's

less likely to demineralize.

Fluoride also accumulates in your teeth over time, so while fluoride treatments are useful

throughout your life, treatments are generally more important during childhood and adolescence.

Alright, so how well do fluoride treatments work?

One meta-analysis that looked at 20 studies exploring the effect of fluoridation of drinking

water on cavities in children, found that fluoride in the water leads to a 35% reduction

of tooth decay of baby teeth and a 26% reduction in tooth decay of permanent teeth.

Another meta-analysis looked at 22 studies exploring the effect of applying a fluoride

varnish to children's teeth every 3 to 6 months at the dentist's office, and found

a 37% reduction in baby teeth and a 43% reduction in tooth decay in permanent teeth.

A third meta-analysis looked at 25 studies focusing on fluoride gel treatments given

at least one time a year at the dentist's office, generally to children older than 6

years old, which showed a reduction of 28% in tooth decay.

A fourth meta-analysis looked at 35 studies that the effect of fluoridated mouth rinses

given daily to every other week, and found a 27% reduction in tooth decay.

Now, if we look at meta-analyses of studies that focus on fluoridated toothpaste, one

found that it decreases tooth decay and that the effect is stronger with higher fluoride

concentrations in the toothpaste, higher frequency of tooth brushing, and supervised brushing.

This was further supported by another meta-analysis that looked carefully at the amount of fluoride

in the toothpaste.

This study showed that brushing with fluoridated toothpaste with at least 0.1% concentration

of fluoride significantly prevents tooth decay in children and adolescents aged 16 years

or less.

There was a 23% reduction in tooth decay at concentrations of 0.1% to 0.125% fluoride

and up to a 36% reduction in concentrations ranging from 0.24% to 0.28% fluoride.

Now, while fluoride can be toxic at doses well above those used for dental hygiene,

the main concern with using fluoride has generally been fluorosis.

Fluorosis, is not a disease, but rather a cosmetic condition caused by overexposure

to fluoride.

Fluorosis is very common, with up to 41% of children and adolescents having some form

of it.

Usually it takes the form of subtle white patches on the teeth that are barely noticeable.

In moderate to severe cases, w hich occur in less than 4% of the population, there can

be significant mottling of the teeth with brown staining.

While fluorosis is not generally a health concern, it can lead to social stigma.

A meta-analysis of 25 studies looked at whether brushing teeth with fluoridated toothpaste

is linked to fluorosis, and found that brushing the teeth of an infant under 1 year old may

increase the risk of fluorosis, but that relationship was weak.

There was a stronger relationship for children between the ages of 12 months and 6 years

of age.

If these children brushed with a toothpaste that was higher than 0.1% fluoride or more,

they had a 30% chance of developing fluorosis.

This means that the risks of tooth decay, which are decreased over fluoride concentrations

of 0.1% fluoride or more must be balanced with the risk of fluorosis which increases

at fluoride concentrations over 0.1% fluoride.

All right, as a quick recap … Tooth decay and dental cavities are one of the leading

health concerns around the world.

In general, fluoridation of the water supply, and applying fluoride to the teeth via varnishes,

gels, mouth rinses, and toothpaste has helped decrease tooth decay.

While fluoride is generally considered safe at the concentrations used in fluoridated

products, overexposure can lead to fluorosis.

In some cases, risking fluorosis may be preferable to risking tooth decay in children at high-risk

for tooth decay.

Therefore, it may be beneficial to discuss all treatment options with your dentist.

In addition, the American Dental Association recommends preventing overexposure by brushing

children's teeth with only a grain-of-rice sized smear of fluoridated toothpaste between

when the teeth begin to erupt to 3 years of age, and up to a pea-sized bead of toothpaste

for children over 3 years old.

For children that are old enough to brush their own teeth, it's also a good idea to

monitor their brushing to decrease the likelihood that they swallow the toothpaste, which can

also lead to overexposure and fluorosis.

For more infomation >> How well do fluoride treatments work at preventing tooth decay? - Duration: 6:54.

-------------------------------------------

Why do I need a Pour Over Will? - Duration: 3:04.

- Today, we're going to discuss pour-over wills.

Welcome to 2 Minute Tuesday,

where I attempt to discuss an estate planning topic

in two minutes or less.

Now, before we get started,

if you're enjoying these videos every Tuesday,

can you please do me a huge favor

and hit the Subscribe button

in the right hand corner below.

I would really appreciate it.

The other day, I got a call from somebody

asking why their relatives had a pour-over will

and not a last will and testament.

Well, without knowing anything about their relatives,

I attempted to answer their question.

And at the same time, I thought this would be a great topic

for 2 Minute Tuesday.

So why do some people have a last will and testament,

and some people have a pour-over will?

Somebody usually has a pour-over will

when they have a revocable living trust.

The pour-over will acts as a kind of a catch-all,

so if you have a revocable living trust,

one of the main reasons is probably to avoid probate.

No one wants to put their families

through the long and sometimes emotional process of probate

and having to go down to the courthouse.

However, in order for a revocable living trust

to work properly, and avoid probate,

all of your assets must be titled in the name of the trust.

So, a pour-over will acts as kind of a catch-all

in the event you forget to place an asset

in the name of the trust.

An example that I always give

is let's say you go out and you buy a brand new car.

The dealer tells you he'll tag it for you.

And you think, well, that's a great idea.

And you make sure to tell the dealer

to tag it in the name of your trust.

Well, the dealer sends somebody out there to title the car,

and it gets titled in your name

and not in the name of the revocable living trust.

Then you pass away before you discover

the car is titled incorrectly.

Well, in that scenario,

we would use the pour-over will

to pour the asset, or the car in this case,

back into the trust,

for distribution according to the terms of the trust.

The car will still need to be probated

but at least you have the peace of mind

knowing it'll be distributed

according to the terms of your trust.

And it does not have to be just a car,

we've had some people sell the home

that we put into trust for them

and then they go out and buy a brand new house,

and they forget to title the new house

in the name of their revocable living trust.

In that case, we have to probate the house.

So our goal is for all of our trust clients

never to need probate.

But just in case,

we have the pour-over will as a safety net.

Well, that's all for today.

Not sure if I made it under the two minutes.

But if you enjoyed this video,

then please, like it below,

and please, hit the subscribe button below

so you'll get our new videos every Tuesday.

We appreciate you watching,

and I'll see you next time, thanks again.

For more infomation >> Why do I need a Pour Over Will? - Duration: 3:04.

-------------------------------------------

Why Ethical Sales? Part 1: It's hard to be unethical and happy - Duration: 3:31.

Hi, it's Ben Lai from Sales Ethos. Today's topic is "Why Ethical Sales?"

You may have noticed that my company name "Sales Ethos" actually

translates to "the way that we do things."

The word ethos actually has very strong ties to the word ethics.

One of my visions is that the sales culture of our generation

will change to one where ethical practices are the norm.

As a result, people are going to trust salespeople.

Can you imagine that? Everybody will be better off as a result.

But it has to start with people doing the right thing in the first place.

Now, the reason that I'm creating this topic or the audience that I'm addressing today

is not so much for the people who already are trying to do the right thing on a day to day basis.

I'm actually trying to speak to those of you who feel like you have no other choice.

You feel like you have to do these dodgy tactics in order to be successful.

There's a saying out there that it's a "dog eat dog world,"

that if you don't do these things, then you're going to get left behind.

Or as the other thing goes, "Nice guys come last."

So what I want to do is to provide you an alternative

as well as the rationale so that you can do the right thing

and you can be successful at the same time.

This is a large topic, so I'm splitting it up into three segments.

This is part one. Number one reason for ethical sales

is that it's hard to be unethical and happy at the same time.

You know, if you really think about the big picture about what you want in life,

and then I ask you a follow up question, "Why do you want that?"

So let's just say you want to go to traveling as one of your life goals.

Why do you want to travel? If you really boil it down,

no matter what your goal is, usually it comes down to one thing.

And that is that you want to be happy.

So happiness is a major goal for a lot of us, if not everybody.

Now imagine trying to be happy on a day to day basis

while not feeling good about yourself on the inside.

If you're practicing unethical tactics in sales, every day,

it's going to conflict big time with your moral compass on the inside.

This is going to create a situation that psychologists call cognitive dissonance,

where there is a conflict with the actions and your core values and your beliefs.

If this is going on on an ongoing basis, the studies have found that it causes large amounts of stress.

So therefore, doing unethical sales will cause a great deal of stress and decrease your happiness.

If you want to sleep well at night then do things the right way.

So that's part one of "Why Ethical Sales?" I look forward to seeing you in part two.

Don't forget to like and subscribe, leave a comment below and I'll see you in the next section.

For more infomation >> Why Ethical Sales? Part 1: It's hard to be unethical and happy - Duration: 3:31.

-------------------------------------------

Meghan Fashion - Princess Charlotte school: Why is Princess Charlotte going to the same school as G - Duration: 3:43.

 Princess Charlotte, three, has attended Willcocks Nursery School in Kensington since last January when she was two

The morning school, where fees will cost £3,150 per term from Autumn 2018, can accommodate children up until the age of five years

But the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have decided to send their daughter to Thomas's Battersea in southwest London from September, according to reports

Charlotte, who turns four in May, will join big brother George, six, an attendee at the prestigious school for the last two years But what is the reason why? William and Kate want Charlotte to follow in her sibling's footsteps for security purposes and to make the school run easier, according to the Mail on Sunday

 Thomas's Battersea is a "busy, thriving, purposeful school" with a "rich and broad curriculum" including ballet lessons

 Other extracurricular activities include gardening, philosophy and fencing. Several choirs and orchestras also exist with the school saying the "non-auditioned" roles are "greatly encouraged" by the music department

 Kate and William are already said to favour less "traditional" schools and may considering snubbing Eton as a future choice for Prince George

 The future king could end up attending Marlborough College, where the Duchess attended, according to a friend speaking to the Daily Mail

 The friend said: "William and Catherine surprised many with their choice of Thomas's Battersea for George over more traditional royal schools, but picked it because they felt it was the right fit for him

 "They are very keen to allow George to spread his wings as a child and won't ever do what people expect them to do when it comes to their children

 "Eton hasn't been ruled out but they have talked at length about Marlborough as an option and the smart money is on George going there instead

" Marlborough College costs £12,605 a term in comparison with £13,556 a term for Eton

 Kate is said to have loved her time there and excelled on the sports field playing hockey and running cross-country

 She left Marlborough College in July 2000, going onto St Andrews where she met Prince William

 Kate earned a honours degree in art history while Prince William studied geography

 He graduated with a 2:1 master of arts. Interestingly, William had originally intended to study art history but switched his major to geography in his second year