Because everyone from Harvard, is obviously a GOD

College Confidential Community
1

<p>Originally posted by Digg and then idolized by Siglio:</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Please, oh please, stop being so petty. We could print Obama's and Bush's resume and they will compare. Obama was president of the Law Review? Well Bush established his first firm at 33 and became CEO of Herken Energy seven years later. </p>

<p>Obama became a senator at age 44? Mr. Bush became Governor of Texas after a brilliant, and very-profitable business career. </p>

<p>I am not trying to say that Obama will be another Bush. But before, please, before you IDOLIZE someone because of their educational credentials "Omg, he went to Harvard! Oh my! Let me suck his *****", you need to look around and realize that sometimes, it is a person's ability that distinguishes his/her from their peers. And that, more often than not (as surprisingly as this may sound), the educational institution you attended, doesn't necessarily make you the best candidate. </p>

<p>If you like Obama because of his stand on policies, wonderful. That's the way it should be. But please, don't like him because "Oh my, he went to Harvard."</p>

2

<p>I don't really get the point of this post but you seem to forget that with Bush, his father/family name was already quite powerful and is the reason for a lot of his success. Obama didn't have that major benefit.</p>

3

<p>i wasn't idolizing anything or anybody...i was simply giving a (biased) comparison of educational credentials</p>

4

<p>I had a whole reply typed out to this post, but it really isn't worth it for me to refute this. Next time you're trying to criticize someone for citing educational leadership credentials, you might want to try using someone who hasn't glided through life with his dad's money and influence.</p>

5

<p>yeah. Bush went to Harvard MBA and look how unsuccessful he was as president. screwed up a lot of things. the name gets you only so far. its whats on the INSIDE THAT COUNTS.</p>

6

<p>You cannot compare Obama and Bush, because Bush was a clear-cut legacy case. They both may have gone to Ivy League schools, but Obama distinguished himself while Bush became known for drinking and cheerleading. And being CEO of an oil company (that failed miserably, by the way) isn't that impressive when your father was a former president with extensive ties to Saudi oil families. Lastly, being Texas governor isn't that great, as the Texan governor is one the LEAST powerful governors in America.</p>

7

<p>You guys are TOTALLY missing the point. </p>

<p>As baller4lyfe put it:</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Exactly. If you want to support Obama because you like his positions, then go ahead. But don't support him because "he went to Harvard" because again, the name only gets you so far. Who knows, maybe he can be a great editor, but maybe not such a great President.</p>

8

<p>Yeah, yeah, we all know Harvard stinks :3</p>

9

<p>I think you're the one missing the point. We all support Obama because of his positions (well, some people are just voting against McCain/Palin, something for which I don't really blame them), but his editorship at the Harvard Law Review is a distinguished credential, and is a good enough show of intelligence and talent to counteract any "bla bla bla, he's so inexperienced" arguments that come from the right.</p>

<p>Some people might think he's smarter just because he went to Harvard, but I would wager the vast majority do not.</p>

<p>Although frankly, I think that Sarah Palin has about as much intelligence behind those Tina Fey glasses as a balloon, and I think there's enough evidence to show that I'm not (completely) wrong.</p>

10

<p>If Bush posted up his SAT scores (1200/1600) on CC and asked members what were his chances of getting into Yale people would laugh.</p>

11

<p>That is actually a very impressive score if you consider the time period when Bush took it.</p>

12

<p>MetdethGNR: As other posters have already pointed out, you don't get it. Bush's father, grandfather and great-grandfather all attended Yale. He was a 4th generation legacy whose father was the president. No matter his credentials he was bound to get in. Daddy's money and connections is what also got him that spot at Harvard Business School and is what carried him through life in general.
Obama on the other hand actually had to work to get his spot as a transfer to Columbia (and this is before AA). And it was his hard work that got him into HLS as well. </p>

<p>It may not matter where Obama went to school per se, but the fact that he got into these schools and thrived at them shows that he has the dedication, intelligence and passion to make it out in the real world and as POTUS. All Bush has shown us is that money is all you need to succeed. </p>

<p>Oh, and the irony of the whole situation is that people voted for Bush because he reminded them of themselves and was someone they'd see themselves enjoying a beer with, despite the fact that he's an old-money aristocratic daddy's boy. Obama on the other hand is the epitome of the phrase "living the American dream", going from rags to riches, and is criticized by republicans as an elitist for going to fancy schools and for carrying himself with grace and charisma, rather than the speech impediment that characterizes Bush.
America has become a mediocracy. Americans would rather cling onto the myth that anyone can be president by electing someone whose personality reminds them of themselves rather than electing someone who is better than them and qualified to do the job, simply because subconsciously they are afraid of intellectuals.</p>

13

<p>Well considering that Obama not only got into Harvard without extensive name recognition or a politically prominent father, but also excelled there, indicates that he is one of the genuinely brightest individuals America has to offer. That's why people like to "idolize" his credentials, because they really do mean something in light of his childhood opportunities. That said, Palin isn't necessarily a failure since she didn't attend any such prestigious insitutions, but it definitely allows for a comparison between the two since we are suppose to entrust our country to one of them.</p>

14

<p>
[quote]
That is actually a very impressive score if you consider the time period when Bush took it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>How dumb do you think people were 30 years ago? 1200 on the SAT was not Yale-worthy at any time period in history.</p>

<p>MetDethGNR,</p>

<p>You're pursuing a strawman argument because you want to pretend that we're promoting an elitist view that only Harvard grads should be able to become president. Nobody is saying that, okay? Plenty of dumbasses went to Harvard, including Alan Keyes and Jerome Corsi. Just having that Harvard degree means nothing to me, and to most people (except for maybe Asian parents, haha).</p>

<p>What most people admire about Obama was how much he excelled at Harvard, such as becoming the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review. Just how difficult it is to garner the support of your ultra-competitive Harvard Law students, I can't imagine. But Obama did it, and that is worthy of great respect, and certainly much more than attending 5 universities in 6 years and barely graduating like Sarah Palin, or being the spoiled class dunce like John McCain.</p>

15

<p>Mm, my bad.</p>

<p>The average SAT score for Yale in 1978 was, indeed, 1,360.</p>

<p>Bryn Mawr, 1370, interestingly enough.</p>

16

<p>What were Obama's SAT scores? What were Bill Clinton's?</p>

17

<p>1399/1600 for obama and clinton's was somewhere around 1200 for lack of an exact score</p>

18

<p>Our nation's financial collapse has shown that intelligence is not necessarily an indicator of common sense or leadership. Besides Bush and Obama, Harvard has screwed our nation with Baranke (Fed Reserve Chairman), Paulson (Sec of Treasury), Cox (SEC Chairman), Raines (Fannie Mae), Barney Frank(Chairman House Finance), and lots of other losers on Wall Street and Washington. Unlike many, I really don't care about their SAT scores. There's a lot more to having a successful life.</p>

19

<p>
[quote]
Our nation's financial collapse has shown that intelligence is not necessarily an indicator of common sense or leadership.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Are you kidding me? America's in the toilet because in 2000 and 2004, the idiocrats and mediocrats decided to stage a revolution and break America's general tendency to select the more intelligent and more qualified candidate to be president. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Baranke (Fed Reserve Chairman)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Who the hell is "Baranke"? Somebody should tell Ben Bernanke because apparently, somebody's usurped his position.</p>

20

<p>imagine what would have happened to the american economy if the it was run by party-starters from state schools like Utexas- the dollar would have been used a tissue paper a long time ago</p>

<p>The US economy is the largest and most versatile in the world and it is very hard to "oil the machinery" of finance- these people did it to the best of their ability. They where selected because they were the best of the best and incidentally came from harvard. I doubt if someone from a random state university could have done a better job</p>