or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Trump is #2 in GOP Field - Page 194

post #2896 of 8748
Race and/or gender are tiny weighting factors used to decide between highly qualified candidates at these elite schools. Nobody who is otherwise unqualified is getting a faculty position at Harvard, much less tenure, simply because they have a vagina or (claim to) have minority heritage.


It's reasonable to ask wtf Warren was thinking when she claimed Native American heritage. It's not reasonable to dismiss her subsequent accomplishments as fake or meaningless because of that.
post #2897 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

Race and/or gender are tiny weighting factors used to decide between highly qualified candidates at these elite schools. Nobody who is otherwise unqualified is getting a faculty position at Harvard, much less tenure, simply because they have a vagina or (claim to) have minority heritage.

Oh, come on. Everyone knows there are unofficial quotas for both students and faculty. Whether someone is "qualified" is rarely the same as whether they're the best or most deserving person for the job, or whether they would have gotten it without race and sex discrimination in their favor.
post #2898 of 8748
I know, from speaking with other academics in her field that, at the time she moved to Harvard (from Penn), Warren was regarded by her peers as a lightweight, sub-par academic who was a well-liked teacher. It was also widely discussed that when she was hired at Harvard she was touting her Indian-ness as a qualification. Idle gossip or not, people said, then, that that is why she was hired. I remember this from that time, which is why I and everyone familiar with her,thought she was lying when, more recently, she claimed she did not tell anyone at Harvard that she was Indian or make a big deal of her "heritage" when she moved there. Obviously, I have no idea how important her identity credentials were to Harvard. Maybe they hired her for her teaching (I know one former student, who works for her CFPB agency that loved her at Harvard) or her politics. In any case, whether she was an affirmative action hire or not, she was a smart pickup by Harvard: she was a popular teacher; she wasn't there that long; she is a famous senator and power broker; and everyone associates her with Harvard, which reflects well on the institution (and no one remembers or cares that most of her career was at Penn. So hiring her turned out to be a good decision, regardless of what identity politics advantages she may also have had.
post #2899 of 8748
I doubt anyone here questions her academic prowess, it's about her character. Resorting to that sort of tricks, wheter they helped her or not is disgusting. Especially when someone is a 'progressive champion', then also another question follows, how full of shit she really is? One way or another it doesn't look good when you attack somebody from place of moral highground and have skeletons like this in your closet.
post #2900 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by dopey View Post

I know, from speaking with other academics in her field that, at the time she moved to Harvard (from Penn), Warren was regarded by her peers as a lightweight, sub-par academic who was a well-liked teacher. It was also widely discussed that when she was hired at Harvard she was touting her Indian-ness as a qualification. Idle gossip or not, people said, then, that that is why she was hired. I remember this from that time, which is why I and everyone familiar with her,thought she was lying when, more recently, she claimed she did not tell anyone at Harvard that she was Indian or make a big deal of her "heritage" when she moved there. Obviously, I have no idea how important her identity credentials were to Harvard. Maybe they hired her for her teaching (I know one former student, who works for her CFPB agency that loved her at Harvard) or her politics. In any case, whether she was an affirmative action hire or not, she was a smart pickup by Harvard: she was a popular teacher; she wasn't there that long; she is a famous senator and power broker; and everyone associates her with Harvard, which reflects well on the institution (and no one remembers or cares that most of her career was at Penn. So hiring her turned out to be a good decision, regardless of what identity politics advantages she may also have had.

Word.

I got savage blood, and have no problem her using my "heritage" to go to school. The government gave me a full ride, and I didn't do dog shit with it.
post #2901 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Oh, come on. Everyone knows there are unofficial quotas for both students and faculty. Whether someone is "qualified" is rarely the same as whether they're the best or most deserving person for the job, or whether they would have gotten it without race and sex discrimination in their favor.

People bringing up the affirmative action card are not using it to note that someone else might have been more qualified, they're doing it to discredit the person in question. The same line was used against Obama. You don't get to Harvard or Penn or Chicago without being extremely well qualified. There may be even better people out there, but that's not the same question.


Warren's situation is a little different because of the dishonesty element. Attacking her on the character question makes sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post

I doubt anyone here questions her academic prowess, it's about her character.

Trump was pretty much directly dismissing her actual record because of the Indian thing.
post #2902 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

[
Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post

I doubt anyone here questions her academic prowess, it's about her character.

Trump was pretty much directly dismissing her actual record because of the Indian thing.

'duh, it's politics any reason to dissmiss opponent is a good one

anywya I thought his rant was hilarious, it's like watching reality tv but in politics, our own politics are so damn boring in comparison
post #2903 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post

'duh, it's politics any reason to dissmiss opponent is a good one

anywya I thought his rant was hilarious, it's like watching reality tv but in politics, our own politics are so damn boring in comparison

Trump really has a gift for mockery. Not what I'd look for in a president, but you have to admit he can land some devastating slams seemingly off the cuff.
post #2904 of 8748

For Nick, I see one of the top news stories on Google News today is about Gary Johnson - CNN, Fox, etc are all talking at least a little about the Libertarian convention.  538 also has an article about Gary Johnson and how well he is polling.

post #2905 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by dopey View Post

Maybe they hired her for her teaching

I don't know anything about Warren's academic career but I'm pretty sure Harvard hasn't hired anyone for excellent teaching since the nineteenth century.
post #2906 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

I don't know anything about Warren's academic career but I'm pretty sure Harvard hasn't hired anyone for excellent teaching since the nineteenth century.

Isn't that what adjuncts are for?
post #2907 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

For Nick, I see one of the top news stories on Google News today is about Gary Johnson - CNN, Fox, etc are all talking at least a little about the Libertarian convention.  538 also has an article about Gary Johnson and how well he is polling.

The 538 article is the sane person take on Johnson's status. It's interesting that he's polling well, and it's absolutely a response to people not liking Trump and Clinton. But it's not some presage of a sweep to electoral victory.
post #2908 of 8748
That reminds me... gotta finish listening to that Rogan podcast.
post #2909 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

Isn't that what adjuncts are for?

Harvard is classy--they rely more on assistant professors who will never get tenure
post #2910 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

Harvard is classy--they rely more on assistant professors who will never get tenure

Yeah, I've heard that. Sort of a five year turbo-postdoc. At least everybody knows it, so getting rejected for tenure doesn't kill your career.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field