OT: About America in this NG

And please share with us those "presidential qualifications".

Is being WASP one of them ??

one

And where did you get your info? From reading newsgroups?

Dan

son

As

how

up

qualifications.

Hmmph.

@BS I really really doubt that any part of that was Obama; that was his handlers.

?-/

rides (one

Direct personal experience with students of all classes throughout all of my school experience. It ain't a professional paper but it is first hand for me.

YMMV

?-)

Actually that is a bunch of crap. The remaining two thirds were just as bright as those on scholarships. The difference was that their parents could afford to pay. Harvard has no incentive to accept students that are not the brightest and most motivated.

as

In other words the demand is less than the supply. Employers are subject to the law of supply and demand.

In Europe the trade unions have done better, which is one of the

The reason the Gini index is high in the U.S. and Russia is not because the middle class has low salaries. It is because of those that make a lot more money than the average person. Such as Gates, Bezos, Zuckerman, Bloomberg, Buffet, Smith, and a host of other billionaires.

Well enough of a topic that has no connection to electronics.

Dan

Don't be silly. The bunch of kids who got in on scholarships were selected for their capacity to pass exams, which has a relatively weak correlation with their capacity to use the education on offer at a university, where you've got to go out and find the information rather than getting it served up on a plate. The remaining two thirds were even more diverse. The intellectual pecking order that emerges is reflects the actual abilities of the students to cope with the university environment, which doesn't show are particularly strong correlation with their exam-passing skills.

The University of Melbourne - when I was there - accepted about 200 medical students a year from (IIRR) about 600 applicants a year who'd surpassed the mimimum requirements on the university entrance exams. Of the top 100, some 95% graduated - the remaining 5% had had psychiatric problems or died in car accidents - while of the next 100 only about 60 made it through to graduation.

The next hundred students in the queue would probably have done almost as well.

no incentive to accept

So why did they accept Dubbya? He wasn't dumb. but he wasn't anybody's idea of the brightest or the most motivated.

Employers need maybe a couple of graduates a year, but they've got maybe a hundred of them in service at any one time. They aren't desperate to hire a new graduate right now.

The new graduate wants a job right now. The of supply and demand doesn't work in their favour.

The very top end of the distribution won't make that much difference. But the incomes of the top 1% have gone up 275% since the 1979 while the incomes of the middle 60% have gone up 40%.

Since more of us are in the 60% rather than the 1%, quite a few of us are interested.

It's a sad commentary on your electoral system, which wasn't too bad in 1768, but is long past its sell-by date.

You are igrnorant.

Dan

He was selected as an editor of the Harvard Law Review at the end of his first year, and as president of the journal in his second year. That sounds like more than affirmative action and schmoozing could deliver.

on

As

ow

up

I'm sure you do. Right wing nitwits think like that. I would have imagined that Hillary Clinton would have had access to better handlers than Obama - female probably trumps black if they were simply looking for a challenging job - and nobody else seems to have thought of getting lots of little donations via the internet.

s (one

nd

Are we to beli

s (one

nd

Are we to believe that josephkk was ever in the same class with the really bright students?

I post a more sophisticated argument than yours, and you don't respond with counter-evidence, but with a miss-spelled claim that there is extra information available that I don't know about. This isn't the most convincing claim that I've ever seen.

But such a knee-jerk response is typical of those who have already formed irrevocable conclusions and what passes as absolute knowledge of "facts"

processed by their right-wing propaganda priests. It seems to be a contagious brain disease that is common among such people, and they seem to get so excited in their self-righteousness that they lose control of their emotions.

This happens every time I discuss politics with a certain friend who seems to have fully accepted the "conservative" views of various radio personalities, which he urges me to listen to as a source of "the truth". At some point, he becomes nearly irrational and I swear I have heard him drop the phone or clip it with his teeth when he goes into a rant. Although he is a brilliant machinist and highly intelligent, he believes all sorts of twaddle such as the "Birther" nonsense, Obama's Muslim (or even Arab) connections, and various over-unity devices such as a car that runs on water.

Paul

On the other hand his contributions to that Law Review are pretty hard to find. Could you point me to some of his writings there?

Prof Google found this.

If your looking.....

"...as the president of the Law Review, Obama didn't write articles, he edited and reviewed them."

Before he became president, in 2nd year, he wrote an unsigned article, which can be found beginning page 823 of Volume 103 of the Harvard Law Review.

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

The article says that Obama "left a scant paper trail. His name doesn't appear on any legal scholarship." So why do you expect me to find it if the Politico had such a difficulty with it?

In any case, it's curious to me that someone could become editor of the HLR on the strength of one such unsigned opinion piece as that. I take Obama's word that he wrote it but I also wonder how many other former students could later claim authorship for such unsigned pieces. How can the real author be proven in such case?

Because, once Politico had found it, Google could have found him - and it - for you. That you didn't find it -and other people did - tells us all we need to know.

He was an editor in his first year, and president of the Law Review in his second year.

If you want to post comments, you need to go to the trouble of reading what whatever it is that you want to comment on. As it is, you've just confirmed your status as right wing nitwit venting his political prejudices.

It's not all that difficult to deduce who wrote an unsigned piece by comparing it with other - signed - pieces of work by the same author.

It can be more difficult if the author is deliberately trying to conceal authorship, but this seems unlikely to be the case here.