Post by: roo_ster on May 23, 2008, 03:59:46 AM
About Those "Highly Educated" Voters
Have a few minutes to spare? Go to "Google," type in the phrase "highly educated voters," hit "Search News." Go ahead. We'll wait . . . OK, what do you get? All sorts of stories about Obama voters, and how he attracts the "highly educated." You will get the same from the pundits on network and cable news: lots of blather about how Obama appeals to "highly educated" Americans.
That, of course, is just more MSM "spin doctor" nonsense and we conservatives let them get away with it. We heard the same song when John "Xmas in Cambodia" Kerry ran for President, to wit, the "highly educated" went for Kerry the ignorant ones went for Bush. Every time you hear that phrase, "highly educated" substitute the phrase "attended a lame liberal college or university." That's what we are really talking about. Given the state of higher education in the world, including in our own beloved Republic, spending four years in a typical "liberal arts" institution generally qualifies you for . . . uh . . . well, not much, except, of course, to boast that you are "highly educated." And that just don't mean a whole hill of beans today. Let me explain.
A few years ago, more than I care to mention, I headed a large office at the State Department. I got tasked with hiring a couple of Presidential Management Interns (PMIs). These PMIs come from the elite of the elite student body at the elite of the elite universities. They get hired on a temporary basis and then, usually, get offered prestigious jobs in the government. I was told, in no uncertain terms, that whatever else I did, I had to hire women. So I began to pore over the resumes. My heart sank. I felt inadequate and so, so inferior to these kids. Their resumes, impeccably printed and organized, using dozens of words ending in "-ization," and listing prowess with a dazzling array of complex software programs, described accomplishments beyond my wildest dreams -- especially for when I was the applicants' age!
I thought I should resign and give up my job to one of the "brilliant" child wonders. Ah, naive me. I obviously had spent too much time overseas. I saw resumes as truthful documents actually written by the applicants, applicants, in this case, full of accomplishments and possessed of massive brains throbbing with energy and ideas. As I, however, kept reading, even slow-witted me began to notice oddities. They all began to look the same: the font, the format, the wording, the list of classes and even -- horrors! -- the "accomplishments." I noted this in passing to a cynical old friend (now, alas, departed) who worked in "human resources" (what a great phrase that). He laughed, "You dope! They get classes on how to write resumes! They have professors and computer programs that put these things together for them." (Remember, folks, computers were new things back then.) He said, "Just randomly pick a couple of women students, they're all the same, hire'em, and move on."
I could not do that. I stole a friend's idea and devised "The World War II Test." I invited the applicants for interviews. These PMI wannabes came off as slick and somewhat rude. I noted something among my subjects, a sense of entitlement,they all, to varying degrees, emitted a message along the lines of "Why are you bothering me with this silly interview? I am obviously brilliant. I have a degree from Columbia. I am not going to spend my whole life as you have in this stupid bureaucracy. I just need this to add to my resume. I am in a hurry." I hit them with the test, which consisted of about dozen questions about WWII and its aftermath. I recall a few:
Can you tell me how US troops got into Europe in the first place? When was WWII? (I would accept a variety of answers as long as the applicant could defend the dates as the true start and end of WWII.) What nations comprised the principal Allied and Axis powers? Who was Neville Chamberlain? What he did he do at Munich and with whom? Who was Mussolini? What did he do to Ethiopia? Who was Stalin? Who was Hirohito? What was D-Day? What President ordered the dropping of the atomic bombs and why? Can you name a result of the Conference at Yalta? What was the Berlin Airlift?
Of the 14 or 15 applicants I interviewed, only one got them all right -- the only male in the crowd, by the way. None, zero, zip of the rest got even ONE right. Not a single one. A very irritated applicant asked me, "Do we really need to know this old stuff?" I noted that we worked with NATO and Europe, hence, it was important to know the background that led to the creation of NATO and the then just-concluded Cold War. She stared at me and said, "What does World War II have to do with NATO, the Cold War and Europe?" I promptly offered the job to the male -- oh, the cries from "Human Resources" -- who turned it down for a more lucrative one in the private sector. In the best Foreign Service tradition, I stalled hiring anybody else, let my two-year assignment run out, and left my poor successor to get stuck with one of the clueless ones.
Back to our story. I wonder how many of the "highly educated voters" could pass that WWII test? Or the Vietnam War Test? Or the Cold War test? Or know much about American history? Or understand the economy? And worst of all, the odds are they can't fire a gun, either.
Moral of the story: do not accept the mantra that Obama voters are "highly educated." They just went to "institutions of higher learning," you know, like the one where the Weatherman terrorist, Bill Ayers, teaches.
Have a few minutes to spare? Go to "Google," type in the phrase "highly educated voters," hit "Search News." Go ahead. We'll wait . . . OK, what do you get? All sorts of stories about Obama voters, and how he attracts the "highly educated." You will get the same from the pundits on network and cable news: lots of blather about how Obama appeals to "highly educated" Americans.
That, of course, is just more MSM "spin doctor" nonsense and we conservatives let them get away with it. We heard the same song when John "Xmas in Cambodia" Kerry ran for President, to wit, the "highly educated" went for Kerry the ignorant ones went for Bush. Every time you hear that phrase, "highly educated" substitute the phrase "attended a lame liberal college or university." That's what we are really talking about. Given the state of higher education in the world, including in our own beloved Republic, spending four years in a typical "liberal arts" institution generally qualifies you for . . . uh . . . well, not much, except, of course, to boast that you are "highly educated." And that just don't mean a whole hill of beans today. Let me explain.
A few years ago, more than I care to mention, I headed a large office at the State Department. I got tasked with hiring a couple of Presidential Management Interns (PMIs). These PMIs come from the elite of the elite student body at the elite of the elite universities. They get hired on a temporary basis and then, usually, get offered prestigious jobs in the government. I was told, in no uncertain terms, that whatever else I did, I had to hire women. So I began to pore over the resumes. My heart sank. I felt inadequate and so, so inferior to these kids. Their resumes, impeccably printed and organized, using dozens of words ending in "-ization," and listing prowess with a dazzling array of complex software programs, described accomplishments beyond my wildest dreams -- especially for when I was the applicants' age!
I thought I should resign and give up my job to one of the "brilliant" child wonders. Ah, naive me. I obviously had spent too much time overseas. I saw resumes as truthful documents actually written by the applicants, applicants, in this case, full of accomplishments and possessed of massive brains throbbing with energy and ideas. As I, however, kept reading, even slow-witted me began to notice oddities. They all began to look the same: the font, the format, the wording, the list of classes and even -- horrors! -- the "accomplishments." I noted this in passing to a cynical old friend (now, alas, departed) who worked in "human resources" (what a great phrase that). He laughed, "You dope! They get classes on how to write resumes! They have professors and computer programs that put these things together for them." (Remember, folks, computers were new things back then.) He said, "Just randomly pick a couple of women students, they're all the same, hire'em, and move on."
I could not do that. I stole a friend's idea and devised "The World War II Test." I invited the applicants for interviews. These PMI wannabes came off as slick and somewhat rude. I noted something among my subjects, a sense of entitlement,they all, to varying degrees, emitted a message along the lines of "Why are you bothering me with this silly interview? I am obviously brilliant. I have a degree from Columbia. I am not going to spend my whole life as you have in this stupid bureaucracy. I just need this to add to my resume. I am in a hurry." I hit them with the test, which consisted of about dozen questions about WWII and its aftermath. I recall a few:
Can you tell me how US troops got into Europe in the first place? When was WWII? (I would accept a variety of answers as long as the applicant could defend the dates as the true start and end of WWII.) What nations comprised the principal Allied and Axis powers? Who was Neville Chamberlain? What he did he do at Munich and with whom? Who was Mussolini? What did he do to Ethiopia? Who was Stalin? Who was Hirohito? What was D-Day? What President ordered the dropping of the atomic bombs and why? Can you name a result of the Conference at Yalta? What was the Berlin Airlift?
Of the 14 or 15 applicants I interviewed, only one got them all right -- the only male in the crowd, by the way. None, zero, zip of the rest got even ONE right. Not a single one. A very irritated applicant asked me, "Do we really need to know this old stuff?" I noted that we worked with NATO and Europe, hence, it was important to know the background that led to the creation of NATO and the then just-concluded Cold War. She stared at me and said, "What does World War II have to do with NATO, the Cold War and Europe?" I promptly offered the job to the male -- oh, the cries from "Human Resources" -- who turned it down for a more lucrative one in the private sector. In the best Foreign Service tradition, I stalled hiring anybody else, let my two-year assignment run out, and left my poor successor to get stuck with one of the clueless ones.
Back to our story. I wonder how many of the "highly educated voters" could pass that WWII test? Or the Vietnam War Test? Or the Cold War test? Or know much about American history? Or understand the economy? And worst of all, the odds are they can't fire a gun, either.
Moral of the story: do not accept the mantra that Obama voters are "highly educated." They just went to "institutions of higher learning," you know, like the one where the Weatherman terrorist, Bill Ayers, teaches.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 23, 2008, 04:03:31 AM
"What specific change?"
*blank look*
Post by: doc2rn on May 23, 2008, 05:01:13 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on May 23, 2008, 05:03:25 AM
I could thank you. I have 7 yrs of service in the Navy and I am a Senior in college now. Anyone willing to change the course of Gov. currently will get my vote. McCain keeps spewing Bush's failed policy, Hillary supported the death of American industry with NAFTA, since Ron Paul hasnt gotten the Rep. nomination I am left with one possible candidate.
Um...what?
You mean the one who wants to ban all guns and socialize things Marx-style?
Post by: Glock Glockler on May 23, 2008, 05:14:58 AM
I don't like what the current administration has done and I wold like to see a big change in the Federal Govt., but Obama style change would be going from the frying pan into the fire.
Post by: MechAg94 on May 23, 2008, 05:51:15 AM
The few details of "change" that I have heard that Obama supports are scary and not the sort of change I want. "Change" in and of itself is not something to support blindly without knowing what you are getting into. A dictator would bring "change" also.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 23, 2008, 06:12:11 AM
And I'm going to be competing with THESE people when I apply?
Post by: wmenorr67 on May 23, 2008, 06:17:22 AM
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 23, 2008, 06:19:16 AM
I remember studying about WWII in year 9.
Admittedly I deftly dodged studying it during the BA. But that's because I took other courses.
Post by: ilbob on May 23, 2008, 06:30:28 AM
I could thank you. I have 7 yrs of service in the Navy and I am a Senior in college now. Anyone willing to change the course of Gov. currently will get my vote. McCain keeps spewing Bush's failed policy, Hillary supported the death of American industry with NAFTA, since Ron Paul hasnt gotten the Rep. nomination I am left with one possible candidate.
So instead of voting for the merely mediocre you plan to vote for the truly awful?
Post by: Standing Wolf on May 23, 2008, 06:55:45 AM
Quote
"Do we really need to know this old stuff?"
Only if you don't want to go back and do it over again.
My old pal Jim, gone now these thirteen years, used to put it this way: "Lessons are repeated until mastered."
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on May 23, 2008, 08:02:43 AM
Is it possible this is fake?
I remember studying about WWII in year 9.
Admittedly I deftly dodged studying it during the BA. But that's because I took other courses.
Fake? Perhaps. But the sentiment it presents is accurate. Startlingly few Americans, even "educated" Americans, know much of anything about the world or their own country.I remember studying about WWII in year 9.
Admittedly I deftly dodged studying it during the BA. But that's because I took other courses.
Most Americans do, however, know all about American Idol.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 23, 2008, 08:37:56 AM
I have not known one to be that uneducated.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 23, 2008, 09:12:48 AM
*walks off into sarcasm land*
Post by: roo_ster on May 23, 2008, 09:16:21 AM
So wait, the average US college undergrad is like THAT?
And I'm going to be competing with THESE people when I apply?
And I'm going to be competing with THESE people when I apply?
Both questions rate a "depends."
#1 The avg US undergrad i likely more able to answer those questions because of #2...
#2 The sample he had to choose from came from "elite" universities: the Ivy League, & some others. Some of the "elite" universities allow the student to craft their own degree and graduate without ever having had to learn anything of use. How else could Brooke Shields graduate from Princeton?
#3 Also, they were likely concentrated in a few areas of study:
poli sci
law/pre-law
other liberal arts
journalism
government
...
My point is that there are a lot of sharp folks on campus who would no more apply for a gooberment job in the St Dept than they would set their hair on fire & beat it out with a golf shoe. For instance, the interviewer likely saw not one person with a hard science, engineering, or mathematics degree.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 23, 2008, 10:05:30 AM
History IS one of the liberal arts, you know.
Post by: BrokenPaw on May 23, 2008, 10:29:27 AM
An "educator" can "educate" a room with two people in it: A highly-motivated person of average intelligence who pays attention and takes notes, and a lazy bum with an IQ of 180 who shows up every day and sits passively. At the end of the course, I'd rather hire the average-but-motivated kid.
Not because he was "educated", because they were both educated equally, but because he learned.
Learning takes effort on the part of the student. Education takes none at all; it just takes money.
Learning is a process. Education is merely an opportunity to learn, not a guarantee.
I'd bet a dollar that the people who refer to the "educated Obama supporters" are fully aware of this distinction, and are counting on the fact that most people are not cognizant of it and its implications.
-BP
Post by: Scout26 on May 23, 2008, 10:54:22 AM
"You're not smart unless you vote for Obama."
Post by: MechAg94 on May 23, 2008, 11:15:38 AM
I figure most college grads could answer some of those questions, but not everyone could answer them all. I am not sure I absolutely knew them all, but I could make educated guesses that were more or less correct. I could guess the conference at Yalta was where the allies all met to discuss post war control of Germany and such, but if you asked me where that conference was, I wouldn't know.
Post by: MechAg94 on May 23, 2008, 11:21:36 AM
Post by: Tallpine on May 23, 2008, 01:59:12 PM
Can you tell me how US troops got into Europe in the first place?
By troop ship, mostly
Then there was that little affair at Pearl Harbor. When was WWII? (I would accept a variety of answers as long as the applicant could defend the dates as the true start and end of WWII.)
1939-1945
What nations comprised the principal Allied and Axis powers?
Axis: Germany, Italy, & Japan
Allied: USA, USSR, and England, along with Canada, Australia, NZ
Who was Neville Chamberlain?
Prime Minister of England in the 1930s
What he did he do at Munich and with whom?
Made an agreement with Hitler not to interfere with German expansion into um ... Chechoslovakia or Austria(?)
Who was Mussolini?
Fascist dicatator of Italy
What did he do to Ethiopia?
Invaded and machine-gunned defenders with spears
Who was Stalin?
Leader of Russia (USSR)
Who was Hirohito?
Emporer of Japan
What was D-Day?
June 1944 invasion of France at Normandy
What President ordered the dropping of the atomic bombs and why?
Truman, ostensibly to avoid an invasion of Japan by getting them to agree to unconditional surrender
Can you name a result of the Conference at Yalta?
Division of Berlin and Germany after Allied victory
What was the Berlin Airlift?
US and British effort to supply West Berlin with food and fuel after Soviets closed land access.
Anyway, I'm still not voting for Obama ...
Post by: RevDisk on May 23, 2008, 06:22:54 PM
Is it possible this is fake?
I remember studying about WWII in year 9.
Admittedly I deftly dodged studying it during the BA. But that's because I took other courses.
I remember studying about WWII in year 9.
Admittedly I deftly dodged studying it during the BA. But that's because I took other courses.
Whether the interviews are real or not, no clue. But I assume you haven't interviewed anyone for a job lately.
I've been included in two interviewing processes in the last year. Mind you, the resumes handed to us are already picked over by HR. Roughly half the people applying had no meaningful technical education. Which would be fine if they were motivated and self taught. Which they weren't. They tossed in all the buzz words they could into their resume and hoped they'd be hired sight unseen. So you call for scheduling interviews. Roughly half will either show up late or just not show up. Of the remaining 25%, the bulk did actually had the right certifications and schooling. And that's it. No ability to adjust or work independently. They can do exactly what you tell them to do, provided you hand them step by step instructions and do most of the research for them.
Maybe 5% of the total had basic handling of critical thinking, some grasp on logic, and could be trusted to figure out a problem without crippling the entire company. Not always, but usually, looked totally unqualified on a resume (if you compare to a professionally scrubbed papermill resume).
Post by: Ned Hamford on May 23, 2008, 08:46:22 PM
If the particular weave of my dress socks is an actual factor in my hiring process, I don't want the job.
Post by: gunsmith on May 24, 2008, 01:25:49 AM
I never got to discuss ww2 with him because he didn't know what side won the Civil War...but he was sure "eeeevil Republicans" were on the slavery side...
Post by: Manedwolf on May 24, 2008, 05:16:37 AM
A young friend of mine was getting a degree in International Affairs, very liberal, anti gun.
I never got to discuss ww2 with him because he didn't know what side won the Civil War...but he was sure "eeeevil Republicans" were on the slavery side...
I never got to discuss ww2 with him because he didn't know what side won the Civil War...but he was sure "eeeevil Republicans" were on the slavery side...
Hopefully that degree in international affairs will serve them well when they're called to clean up a spill in the aisle containing ethnic and international foods.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 24, 2008, 09:56:48 AM
Quote
By troop ship, mostly laugh Then there was that little affair at Pearl Harbor.
In all technicality, the question was too broad. U.S. troops also deployed in Europe in WWII, and John Paul Jones served and trained with the Russian Navy, and before that, sailed the Ranger to France. He counts, right?
Post by: MechAg94 on May 24, 2008, 11:48:21 AM
Post by: ConfuseUs on June 03, 2008, 11:24:28 AM
http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/report/tables.html#table21
It's easy to beat the average Harvard senior at this though!
Post by: longeyes on June 03, 2008, 02:45:44 PM
Post by: FTA84 on June 05, 2008, 05:48:42 AM
I did my undergraduate at a small state university (my family was very poor) but did my doctoral work (on fellowships and grants) at an 'elite' university and I have taught at other 'elite' universities as well. Many of my fellow graduate students had done their undergraduate work in the Ivy league (Princeton, Harvard, Dartmouth, Cornell to be exact) or their equivalent (Cambridge, MIT).
I have noted three main differences between undergraduate experience at an 'elite' school and a bad state university: (These conclusions are based on interactions with students and colleagues)
1) 98% of them pay to get into elite universities. That is, they have private high school and middle school educations. Coming from a 'known' high school is a big part of getting admissions into these 'elite' schools. These high schools often omit basic courses (perhaps on WWII?) in order to fluff up transcripts with 'multivariable calculus' and 'advanced organic chemistry'. Then the schools themselves cost $60 - $80k a year to attend (with housing). At the time, this was astonishing to me as my parents struggled to pay off a 30 year loan on a house that cost $15k!
2) Their futures are assured because people who went to X think everyone who ever went to X must also be above the rest. Therefore, straight out of X, they will get jobs with perks and benefits they do not deserve and will make salaries they do not earn. The elite universities keep records of companies run by former graduates. From my understanding, all you need to do is contact one of these companies and tell them you graduated from this university and you will get a job (at the very least, an interview). It is the most effective way to get people to pay that kind of money for an education! Combine this with point 1, and you see that these 'elite' universities are modern day form of the old feudal systems. Mom/Pops has money, power, and connections then passes it onto the child.
3) There are some very gifted people at these universities, they make up about 1% of the class. The rest of the class pays to be there (and/or has influence because their family has gone for generations) and then points to the 1% as people they equal. In fact, little do they know they only equal the top 25% of people at state universities. Those gifted people, rarely, if ever, take courses with regular students in their areas of enlightenment.
I am not surprised at all that they did not know basic facts about WWII. It seems that their education is based largely on 'talking' about X instead of doing X. They have overly burdensome vocabularies which they use incorrectly (because they don't know the meaning of the words they use) simply as a method to try and confuse you into thinking they have a correct argument. This is because, at these schools, you could never admit to not knowing how/why such large words are being used.
In any event, back on topic, the "highly educated" Obama voter sounds like a scam made up by the MSM to try to remove the image of "blue collar" from the democratic party.
Post by: Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas on June 05, 2008, 06:40:01 AM
That's it. Had to cover The Great Depression, Reconstruction, Civil War, etc.
I know the answers to all those questions - because I've studied the topic in my spare time (in the halcyon(sp) days before Wikipedia). I'm in Engineering.
Post by: Manedwolf on June 05, 2008, 06:40:48 AM
They don't know their history.
Post by: Tallpine on June 05, 2008, 07:25:59 AM
Quote
They have overly burdensome vocabularies which they use incorrectly (because they don't know the meaning of the words they use)
"You learned some pretty big words at school - I wish to God they had taught you some meanings!" GW McLintock
Post by: agricola on June 05, 2008, 08:01:04 AM
Post by: El Tejon on June 05, 2008, 08:16:42 AM
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 06, 2008, 01:30:42 AM
Funny, someone posted a link to a civics awareness test in the comments to that blog. The results in this table are disturbing:
http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/report/tables.html#table21
It's easy to beat the average Harvard senior at this though!
http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/report/tables.html#table21
It's easy to beat the average Harvard senior at this though!
You answered 57 out of 60 correctly 95.00 %
Had I not gotten Johnson and JAckson mixed up...
Post by: RoadKingLarry on June 06, 2008, 07:12:13 AM
I only got 80%
Guess I'm just an uneducated hick that will have to vote for Mcain.
Post by: Scout26 on June 06, 2008, 07:58:00 AM
Post by: 41magsnub on June 06, 2008, 08:01:58 AM
I got 98.33%, but since I still bitterly cling to my guns, I'll never vote for Obama.
You must be autistic or something since you did so well but still do not support the Messiah's message.
Post by: Scout26 on June 06, 2008, 08:07:37 AM
I got 98.33%, but since I still bitterly cling to my guns, I'll never vote for Obama.
You must be autistic or something since you did so well but still do not support the Messiah's message.
Not austistic, but in addition to reading Plato, Locke, Paine, de Tocqueville, Adam Smith, Milton Freeman, etc. I also read the Torah. Something in there about some commandments and numero uno as being "Thou shall have no other G-ds before me."
Post by: Tallpine on June 06, 2008, 08:34:59 AM
misread Johnson and Jackson as well
