<p>I absolutely love how you guys are like “He’s only half black,” because to be honest it doesn’t matter. Whenever somebody who’s at least part black accomplishes something impressive, they are always hailed as the first (i.e. Halle Berry winning an Academy Award for Best Actress) even though they aren’t really 100% black.
I’m sure that if Barack Obama is elected president, he will recognized as the first “black” president, even though he isn’t 100% black.</p>
<p>No one has ever said “He’s only half black.” I just said he’s half-white, for example, so people know because I never knew that before.</p>
<p>So how exactly was he in the top tier of his class at HLaw? And President of the Harvard Law Review? </p>
<p>AA too?</p>
<p>And btw, that transfer program is a 3-3 program. I believe he transferred after two years.</p>
<p>“How did he do it? He’s pretty book smart. I’m sure he scored in the mid 170s on his LSAT.”</p>
<p>I read that he got a 163. It’s just an internet rumor, though, as I’m sure he’s never published it. Apparently the LSAT scores were lower back then, so a 163 was a decent score even for Harvard Law. </p>
<p>I think people tend to exaggerate politicians’ IQ’s one way or the other. Bush is supposed to be borderline ■■■■■■■■, and Gore and Kerry are supposed to be geniuses. In fact, they were all pretty mediocre in terms of ivy league standards. I think Obama is definitely smarter than those three, but I really doubt he got 175 on the LSAT (180 is the max right?) Does every person that seems “plenty booksmart” to you get 1550/1600 on the SAT or above?</p>
<p>I look forward to the day when being the “first black” to do something in the United States is as unremarkable as being the “first Irish” to do something.</p>
<p>Lmao tokenadult… I remember hearing that line somewhere…I could be wrong.</p>
<p>Because he’s extremely intelligent.</p>
<p>Now that I think of it, I think I’ve heard that on CNN as I randomly flipped onto that channel from a speech from Hilary Clinton, but…who knows.</p>
<p>what was his gpa? ECs?</p>
<p>Obama is quite obviously brilliant on many levels: that is one of the many reasons he was attractive to two Ivies. The remarkable fact is that legions of Obamacans (like me) are not concerned a whit with his skin color. It will be wonderful when none of us notice someone’s skin color. </p>
<p>One does not attain Harvard Law Review’s Editor in Chief position except on merit. In fact, I have read that at least two of Obama’s colleagues at the law review were and remain quite conservative AND have given testimony to Obama’s sense of decency and bipartisanship then and now. . .</p>
<p>^ there is no doubt that hes smart but i think what people are trying to say is that AA played a role in helping him get to where he is.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I don’t think he needed affirmative action- he graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law and taught at Chicago Law. Anyone who can do that can get into Columbia on his own merit.</p></li>
<li><p>There is not such thing as “half white” when it comes to affirmative action. It doesn’t matter at all. Practically all blacks in America have white ancestry.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
This is true. Politicians don’t need to be geniuses. On the side, I’d like to point out that Bush got higher grades than Kerry at Yale.</p>
<p>whether or not he needed it or not, he did get AA. stop arguing that hes brilliant or not because we all know that he is.</p>
<p>People have been transferring into Columbia for decades. Obama’s probably in the top 1% of those transfers in terms of talents, drive, and self-presentation. You’d be better served by finding a more “average” American who transferred into Columbia and asking how they did it.</p>
<p>If he got into Columbia because of AA, then it is no different that George Bush getting into Yale and Harvard MBA. Didn’t he have subgrades when in high school and definitely at Yale. He even brags about being a ‘C’ student…</p>
<p>The difference here, however, is Obama is not an idiot or at least sound like one! </p>
<p>Legacy=AA, same thing!</p>
<p>One of the problematic things about affirmative action is that it leaves open the question of whether a particular high-achieving minority person got there on the merits or because of AA. With Obama, though, we don’t really need to ask that question, because there is simply no doubt that you don’t become the head of the Harvard Law Review without being brilliant.</p>
<p>no one doubts obamas brilliance but one would be stupid and naive to say that obama didnt receive AA.</p>
<p>But see, that’s what’s unfair–while it’s certainly possible that Obama received a benefit from AA, it’s far from certain, because he may well have had grades and scores that qualified him for the schools he attended without any kind of AA. That’s why he’s fortunate in having something like being the head of the Harvard Law Review to demonstrate that he could achieve a tough academic goal without that extra help.</p>
<p>I don’t think anyone would honestly argue he got in because of AA. I think it has been proven that his intelligence and achievement is far superior to the average Columbia transfer admit (Harvard Law Review Editor, Magna Cum Laude, Professor at UChi, all these things that signify an unusual amount of intelligence even for Columbia students), so regardless of his race he would have been admitted. Denying that would be patently incorrect, and probably evident of thinly hidden racism.</p>
<p>listen you idiots. NO ONE DOUBTS OBAMA’S BRILLIANCE; however, the fact that he is black made columbia want him even more. it did help him. like i said previously, its not whether he needed it or not. it’s whether he got it or not.</p>