Bill made reference to stuttering from an earlier post: "Because if it goes farther than that... If we want to say that folks who stutter and stammer are stupid,"
My former boss and the consensus top business leader (as selected by his peers) of the 20th century is Jack Welch. Mr. Welch took over a bureaucratic and lethargic company in 1980 and turned it into the world’s most valuable company (as well as the world’s most admired company 5 years running) before he retired in 2001. He used innovative and far reaching new ideas to set the industry on its ear. He also recognized world class initiatives created by others , such as Six Sigma, and adopted them and also improved them.
Jack, by the way, was short, balding, and had a stutter and stammer. When excited he got down right squeaky and jittery. None the less, he had no peers. Also, even in his 60s he is a scratch golfer.
If stuttering is a bad thing, no one told Jack!
Rich
Farenheit 9/11
-
RACastanet
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA
Mmmmm
Do you reckon Siskel and Ebert ever reviewed a movie without seeing it? "Well I give this movie 2-thumbs down -- cuz." "Cuz what?" "Cuz Edwards is a lawyer." I dunno, I seem to detect a slight farting noise...
But did I ever tell you about my Uncle Dewey who was in the Marines and he wanted to play lacrosse???
But did I ever tell you about my Uncle Dewey who was in the Marines and he wanted to play lacrosse???
-
RACastanet
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
-
RACastanet
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
-
Stryke
Urm , your a scientist are you not Bill , with this kind of logic we`d all still think the world was flat ... that`s what all the recognised sources beleived yes ?I love reading various political points of view. I highly recommend it. However I check their sources and their deeds. As I mentioned before, I don't need to read Mein Kampf or the Unibomber Manifesto to make a reasonable judgement as to their relative worth. Would you disagree?
nothing to do with this argument or thread , just a flawed argument from how it looks in the cheap seats
-
Guest
What the does what school you attended have to do with your ability to govern. I judge folks on their performance/their deeds not on how much cash they had to invest on their education. Hey some folks just like staying close to home. The Ivy league does not make one superior...but some who have walked these halls do take on a superior air. As some one else said....did you hear that fart? It certainly does smell and there is little I see as superior in the odour.
***profanity edited****
***profanity edited****
Last edited by Guest on Thu Jul 22, 2004 10:46 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Polly
Let me ask you this.
Were was Moore and his "take no prisioners" band of brave and selfless crew when Clinton was saying--UNDER OATH, on national TV.
"I did not have sex with that women Ms. Lewinsky."
Odd, can't seem to find any film or commentary by Moore on THAT whopper.
Seeing as how your so concerned with the intellegence of the president--and Moores films.
Perhaps you could explain to me:
President Bill Clinton--and Rhodes Scholer (sp) ON TAPE repeatdly asking for the DEFINATIONS of such hard word as:
"Is" and "The"
How come that little genius momment escaped the laser keen focus of Moores attention??
Or does Moore (and you) only care about the intellegence and honesty of folks they DON'T like??
Do you and Moore think its OK to give a "pass" in either honesty and intellengence to ONLY those you like??
Which is it????
Let me ask you this.
Were was Moore and his "take no prisioners" band of brave and selfless crew when Clinton was saying--UNDER OATH, on national TV.
"I did not have sex with that women Ms. Lewinsky."
Odd, can't seem to find any film or commentary by Moore on THAT whopper.
Seeing as how your so concerned with the intellegence of the president--and Moores films.
Perhaps you could explain to me:
President Bill Clinton--and Rhodes Scholer (sp) ON TAPE repeatdly asking for the DEFINATIONS of such hard word as:
"Is" and "The"
How come that little genius momment escaped the laser keen focus of Moores attention??
Or does Moore (and you) only care about the intellegence and honesty of folks they DON'T like??
Do you and Moore think its OK to give a "pass" in either honesty and intellengence to ONLY those you like??
Which is it????
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Heck if I know... You have me stumped on that one!What the Fuk does what school you attended have to do with your ability to govern.
The issue was whether or not Bush was an "idiot." A certain party seems to think it amusing to press the point. I merely suggested that it would take more than an idiot to graduate from the number 3 undergrad program and number 1 MBA program in the country. It's an understatement, no?
Governing's another story. However I did offer the comparison of GW's first political job as being governor of Texas vs. Kerry's first as being lieutenant governor of Massachusettes.
Just follow the logic. No reason to read more into it than I meant.
I don't know how it works in Canada. Here in the states, you get into top schools like the ones mentioned on performance, intelligence (as measured by standardized tests) and deeds. Money doesn't count unless all other things are equal. And if you get in and don't have the money, scholarships and loans are available. (Been there, done that, paid off all my debts.)I judge folks on their performance/their deeds not on how much cash they had to invest on their education.
The rest of the message deserves no response.
No problem with this one, Stryke, and your view is appreciated.Urm , your a scientist are you not Bill , with this kind of logic we`d all still think the world was flat ... that`s what all the recognised sources beleived yes ?
A scientist starts and finishes his day with his reputation. If you misrepresent the facts in your published work, then you have lost credibility. Nobody will publish you any more. No research academic institution will hire you. Nothing else you publish will be believed any more. Actually I made that point earlier in this long thread.
Page 3 of thread...
I quoted the following article...
"MOORE'S THE PITY - FAHRENHEIT'S FICTIONS
JONATHAN FOREMAN New York Post.
New York, N.Y.: Jun 23, 2004. pg. 027"
...which was a point-by-point assessments of Moore's work.
Page 4 of thread...
Rich Castanet provided "Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11 by Dave Kopel." There's enough there to make the point that Moore repeatedly misrepresented the facts. If you read further on in the thread, a number of people who saw the film will acknowledge at least a half dozen of the points.
Page 5 of thread...
Rich Castanet provided "MOORE'S MYTHS By JOHN R. LOTT, JR. & BRIAN BLASE"
So as a scientist, I would find the work in its entirety to be questionable - to say the least. Still, I'll see it for entertainment purposes when it's made available, but only for free. I know enough now not to trust the messages. Instead, I'll be looking at how he so convinces the faithful. And that, IMO, is the real story.
- Bill
I disagree. Money and influence can get you into college. And at so many schools grade inflation is so ridiculous you don't really have to do anything to get by. You cannot fail if you even pretend to try.Bill Glasheen wrote: But we can take acceptance to and graduation from various academic programs as a proxy for minimum intellectual horsepower, no?
This was definitely my experience, and my understanding (from friends and news articles) is that the better the school's reputation the worse at is.
Frankly, I don't think there is any metric that is a good measure of intelligence. IQ is absolutely ridiculous. Has anyone read "The Mismeasure of Man" by Stephen J Gould?
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Justin
You bring up some very good points.
GRADE INFLATION
Grade inflation is a big problem in some schools. It's particularly bad at Ivy League undergrad programs.
Grade inflation though tends not to be such a problem in other programs. I know for a fact that engineering schools are ruthlessly honest with their assessments of students' performances. It's a big reason why the ratio of transfers inbetween the engineering school and college at U.Va. was so heavily away from the e-school. (When I transferred into undergrad engineering from the college, I was one of two who did that year. There were dozens transferring out).
MBA programs are notorious for their ruthless treatment of students. Understand that they are training students to survive in the cutthroat upper echelons of Coorporate America. So in most classes, you are expected to be prepared AND to participate. Expect abuse from the professor if you come unprepared, or can't hold your end of a discussion.
Furthermore (as in engineering), assignments are given that cannot possibly be solved by a single student. You are expected to work in teams to get things done outside of class. This is also training the individual for real life in Coorporate America.
Bruce Hirabayashi is just now finishing up his program at Emory. I'll let him fill in some of the details.
Bottom line - I think GW got an "honest" MBA from Harvard.
BUYING ADMISSION
Influence does come into play in admissions. However that can only go so far. Already schools are brought to court whenever a "qualified" candidate doesn't get in and thinks (s)he was discriminated against through some systematic policy. Schools are allowed to seek diversity (in race, socioeconomic status, state/country of origin, etc.), but they may not use quotas. Ignoring the objective process to give a pass to an "influential" alumnus is a slippery slope that can get them into court.
There is likely some advantage "points" given for certain key features of a candidate. And clearly some schools do recruit stars for their athletic pograms. But I think you'll find that there is a threshold composite score that all must be above before even being considered in the first place. There are just way too many good candidates applying for these top tier programs. And stats are made PUBLIC on the average SAT score, as well as the statistical distribution. These stats affect the institution's reputation and "ranking" in various polls.
The GMAT is pretty much an accepted standard instrument for consideration to entrance in an MBA program. I've taken quite a few practice tests for that. There isn't much left to the imagination. You either have math and verbal skills, or you don't.
MEASURING INTELLIGENCE
Clearly I used a very gross proxy to assess GW's intellectual capabilities in the previous exercise. However the bar I had to jump over wasn't very high. All I needed to do was to prove GW wasn't an "idiot." I think that's pretty much a given to any reasonable person given the available data.
Nevertheless, your point is well taken. Experts in the field of intelligence now suggest that there are as many as eight dimensions of intelligence. Current IQ tests measure just two, and are working on a third dimension. Note BTW how SAT tests now have incorporated a writing section. Back when I took the GRE to enter graduate school, it was the first time they conducted an "analytic reasoning" section. Good thing - it was my strongest score.
I probably would have gotten in anyhow, but that new section measured a type of thinking (used in scientific research) that had not been systematically measured until just that year.
The book Emotional Intelligence by Daniel Goleman is a wonderful work that explains why some people with relatively average IQs "overachieve" in life whereas some people with high IQs "underachieve." It is an independent dimension of mental horsepower. The neat thing about that dimension is that - unlike IQ - there is evidence that you can significantly change your "EQ." However there are some "emotional idiots" out there whose brains just aren't wired right. These people can have glaring blind spots in life. A high proportion of the prison population has this "EQ idiot" affliction, manifested by a total lack of empathy.
And there are other dimensions. Some folks are musical geniuses. Others can't carry a tune in a bucket (a phrase used by my father-in-law). Some folks have an amazing athletic intelligence. Others can't walk and chew gum at the same time. (Boy have I seen these extremes in my MA teaching days...).
To the extent these things can be measured, then they are. Certainly on the athletic dimension, people pretty much know you will be a contribution to an NCAA sport program - or not - when you apply to a university. But to a large extent, these things can't be assessed very well with objective, standardized instruments. So that's why you have things like recommendations and records of extracurricular activities.
- Bill
You bring up some very good points.
GRADE INFLATION
Grade inflation is a big problem in some schools. It's particularly bad at Ivy League undergrad programs.
Grade inflation though tends not to be such a problem in other programs. I know for a fact that engineering schools are ruthlessly honest with their assessments of students' performances. It's a big reason why the ratio of transfers inbetween the engineering school and college at U.Va. was so heavily away from the e-school. (When I transferred into undergrad engineering from the college, I was one of two who did that year. There were dozens transferring out).
MBA programs are notorious for their ruthless treatment of students. Understand that they are training students to survive in the cutthroat upper echelons of Coorporate America. So in most classes, you are expected to be prepared AND to participate. Expect abuse from the professor if you come unprepared, or can't hold your end of a discussion.
Furthermore (as in engineering), assignments are given that cannot possibly be solved by a single student. You are expected to work in teams to get things done outside of class. This is also training the individual for real life in Coorporate America.
Bruce Hirabayashi is just now finishing up his program at Emory. I'll let him fill in some of the details.
Bottom line - I think GW got an "honest" MBA from Harvard.
BUYING ADMISSION
Influence does come into play in admissions. However that can only go so far. Already schools are brought to court whenever a "qualified" candidate doesn't get in and thinks (s)he was discriminated against through some systematic policy. Schools are allowed to seek diversity (in race, socioeconomic status, state/country of origin, etc.), but they may not use quotas. Ignoring the objective process to give a pass to an "influential" alumnus is a slippery slope that can get them into court.
There is likely some advantage "points" given for certain key features of a candidate. And clearly some schools do recruit stars for their athletic pograms. But I think you'll find that there is a threshold composite score that all must be above before even being considered in the first place. There are just way too many good candidates applying for these top tier programs. And stats are made PUBLIC on the average SAT score, as well as the statistical distribution. These stats affect the institution's reputation and "ranking" in various polls.
The GMAT is pretty much an accepted standard instrument for consideration to entrance in an MBA program. I've taken quite a few practice tests for that. There isn't much left to the imagination. You either have math and verbal skills, or you don't.
MEASURING INTELLIGENCE
Clearly I used a very gross proxy to assess GW's intellectual capabilities in the previous exercise. However the bar I had to jump over wasn't very high. All I needed to do was to prove GW wasn't an "idiot." I think that's pretty much a given to any reasonable person given the available data.
Nevertheless, your point is well taken. Experts in the field of intelligence now suggest that there are as many as eight dimensions of intelligence. Current IQ tests measure just two, and are working on a third dimension. Note BTW how SAT tests now have incorporated a writing section. Back when I took the GRE to enter graduate school, it was the first time they conducted an "analytic reasoning" section. Good thing - it was my strongest score.
I probably would have gotten in anyhow, but that new section measured a type of thinking (used in scientific research) that had not been systematically measured until just that year.The book Emotional Intelligence by Daniel Goleman is a wonderful work that explains why some people with relatively average IQs "overachieve" in life whereas some people with high IQs "underachieve." It is an independent dimension of mental horsepower. The neat thing about that dimension is that - unlike IQ - there is evidence that you can significantly change your "EQ." However there are some "emotional idiots" out there whose brains just aren't wired right. These people can have glaring blind spots in life. A high proportion of the prison population has this "EQ idiot" affliction, manifested by a total lack of empathy.
And there are other dimensions. Some folks are musical geniuses. Others can't carry a tune in a bucket (a phrase used by my father-in-law). Some folks have an amazing athletic intelligence. Others can't walk and chew gum at the same time. (Boy have I seen these extremes in my MA teaching days...).
To the extent these things can be measured, then they are. Certainly on the athletic dimension, people pretty much know you will be a contribution to an NCAA sport program - or not - when you apply to a university. But to a large extent, these things can't be assessed very well with objective, standardized instruments. So that's why you have things like recommendations and records of extracurricular activities.
- Bill
-
Gene DeMambro
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Weymouth, MA US of A
Gene
Yes, lets compare PUBLIC statements.
Lets start with Clintons:
"I did not have sex with that women Miss Lewinsky."
Does that go in the outright, upfront, under oath lie catagory?
Or the "I have no idea what the word "sex" means--remember he later PUBLICALLY--ON THE RECORD professed to be confused if "sex" meant "intercourse."
Would that be a bald face lie? Or was he really that stupid??
Wait theres more.
He also PUBLICALLY, ON THE RECORD, repeatedly asked for the definations of the words.
"The" AND "IS"
Hmmm, don't you think the President of the United States should know what a 5th grade student does?
Should not a Rhoads Scholor (sp) know the meanin go fthe word "the"
Or am I asking to much?
By the way does it speak to Kerrys brainpower (and Clintons) that he had as an advisor a guy that does not seem to understand the "Top Secret" doecument are NOT to taken fro nthe archives--esp not hidden your socks and pants??
Yes, lets compare PUBLIC statements.
Lets start with Clintons:
"I did not have sex with that women Miss Lewinsky."
Does that go in the outright, upfront, under oath lie catagory?
Or the "I have no idea what the word "sex" means--remember he later PUBLICALLY--ON THE RECORD professed to be confused if "sex" meant "intercourse."
Would that be a bald face lie? Or was he really that stupid??
Wait theres more.
He also PUBLICALLY, ON THE RECORD, repeatedly asked for the definations of the words.
"The" AND "IS"
Hmmm, don't you think the President of the United States should know what a 5th grade student does?
Should not a Rhoads Scholor (sp) know the meanin go fthe word "the"
Or am I asking to much?
By the way does it speak to Kerrys brainpower (and Clintons) that he had as an advisor a guy that does not seem to understand the "Top Secret" doecument are NOT to taken fro nthe archives--esp not hidden your socks and pants??
