My understanding is that Obama's elected position at HLR was president, not an editor. (Not that it really matters, because we all know he's a smart guy; just that the position itself wasn't evidence of scholarship talent.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"He did not even go on to clerk."

I envision the Harvard Law School version of George Costanza, face red with outrage, "He didnt even clerk, Jerry! He didnt even clerk!"

LOL. I'm more surprised by how tone deaf PP is about why Obama's trajectory might have been different than your average legacy admit with generations of wealth behind them.

A young Black man, son of a single teenage mother and raised by his grandparents, started out at a less prestigious university, then transferred to a more prestigious one. Upon finishing law school, he chose to go into the private sector rather than engaging in resume-burnishing but lower-wage opportunities.

I wonder what all of this means? Could it mean he's stupid? Could it mean he only got to HLS on affirmative action?

Or could it mean that the university and career choices made by a young man without familial wealth, and with student debt, are different than those made by folks that PP is doing post law school "the right way."

No, his rise is very simple. Punahou high school in Hawaii on racial scholarship. Occidental college on racial scholarship. Columbia on racial scholarship. Harvard on racial scholarhip. Made law review not by grades but per racial advantage. Was elected by other kids to editor in chief because it was cool to have the first black editor, but it is clear by all news accounts at the time that he was a failure at that and could not go on and clerk or get a good position in a top law firm. This is what affirmative action does.

Unlike those two great minds of the Western world, Donald J. Trump and George W. Bush, who earned their spot at their Ivies and ascended to the Presidency through pure merit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"He did not even go on to clerk."

I envision the Harvard Law School version of George Costanza, face red with outrage, "He didnt even clerk, Jerry! He didnt even clerk!"

LOL. I'm more surprised by how tone deaf PP is about why Obama's trajectory might have been different than your average legacy admit with generations of wealth behind them.

A young Black man, son of a single teenage mother and raised by his grandparents, started out at a less prestigious university, then transferred to a more prestigious one. Upon finishing law school, he chose to go into the private sector rather than engaging in resume-burnishing but lower-wage opportunities.

I wonder what all of this means? Could it mean he's stupid? Could it mean he only got to HLS on affirmative action?

Or could it mean that the university and career choices made by a young man without familial wealth, and with student debt, are different than those made by folks that PP is doing post law school "the right way."

No, his rise is very simple. Punahou high school in Hawaii on racial scholarship. Occidental college on racial scholarship. Columbia on racial scholarship. Harvard on racial scholarhip. Made law review not by grades but per racial advantage. Was elected by other kids to editor in chief because it was cool to have the first black editor, but it is clear by all news accounts at the time that he was a failure at that and could not go on and clerk or get a good position in a top law firm. This is what affirmative action does.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please why do you think these universities have such appeal? If people are so keen on merit, why is Caltech not the number one university in America? People want their children to run shoulders with the elite that’s why.

What on earth are you babbling on about? There is an almost perfect correlation between the most selective universities and the best universities. Not everybody wants to go to Caltech because not everybody is focused on tech, but obviously enough people do that it has an 8% acceptance rate.

Define “best.” The ivies have a cachet that goes beyond the quantitative. Not sure why you this makes you hysteric.

Wow, that's very insightful. My point is that it's idiotic to suggest that people send their children to Harvard to rub shoulders with the elite. The average HHI of Harvard students is $168k, hardly elite.

Elite does not equal just HHI. This is what the nouveau riche don't understand.

Anonymous wrote:"He did not even go on to clerk."

I envision the Harvard Law School version of George Costanza, face red with outrage, "He didnt even clerk, Jerry! He didnt even clerk!"

Those that can, do. Those that can clerk, do. But you have to be offered one first by a Judge.

Anonymous wrote:Please why do you think these universities have such appeal? If people are so keen on merit, why is Caltech not the number one university in America? People want their children to run shoulders with the elite that’s why.

+1. Caltech, MIT and Chicago would be head and shoulders above the Ivies. But they're not, at all.

Anonymous wrote:"He did not even go on to clerk."

I envision the Harvard Law School version of George Costanza, face red with outrage, "He didnt even clerk, Jerry! He didnt even clerk!"

LOL. I'm more surprised by how tone deaf PP is about why Obama's trajectory might have been different than your average legacy admit with generations of wealth behind them.

A young Black man, son of a single teenage mother and raised by his grandparents, started out at a less prestigious university, then transferred to a more prestigious one. Upon finishing law school, he chose to go into the private sector rather than engaging in resume-burnishing but lower-wage opportunities.

I wonder what all of this means? Could it mean he's stupid? Could it mean he only got to HLS on affirmative action?

Or could it mean that the university and career choices made by a young man without familial wealth, and with student debt, are different than those made by folks that PP is doing post law school "the right way."

That'll never happen. What's the point of those big donors donating if not to secure spots for their offspring? They'll take their money elsewhere, which the colleges/universities will not allow.

I had my work-study in the Alumni Contributions department one semester and it's all organized by levels. The elite donors, those giving 7 figures or more, can only be contacted by certain people and when those donors call in or need something, boom, it was done ASAP (learned that my second semester work-study). The lower tier donors are parsed out between those who never give, those who give the same amount each year, those whose giving went up, and those whose giving went down. The first list you had to hit up aggressively were those who gave less than year than in past. There was a script to ask why without being blunt and all "why did you only give $500 this year instead of $1000?" Then you moved on to those who give the same amount, then those who gave more, and lastly those who never donate.

Plus, big donors use it as leverage in other aspects of life. One big donor at my former university had no kids of his own. He did, however, have business associates whose kids wanted to go there. So, he'd make a call, put in a good word, the kids would get in and then he'd close a big business deal.

"He did not even go on to clerk."

I envision the Harvard Law School version of George Costanza, face red with outrage, "He didnt even clerk, Jerry! He didnt even clerk!"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like to see accidents of birth removed from admissions consideration.

Like natural intelligence?

No like the Jared Kushners of the world

Or the Barack Obamas, who got into Harvard Law with a below 3.3 average from Columbia (having oddly transferred there from Occidental). Or George W Bushes, for that matter.

Citation, please. Or what you typed is bullshit.

He graduated Magna Cum Laude and edited the Law review, and went on to have a coupla pretty important jobs, so clearly the admissions committee was correct in admitting him, right?

Nevertheless, he entered HLS from Columbia with only a 3.3. I had to have a 4.0 at a time when a 4.0 meant valedictorian or salutatorian. I was the former. He made the Law Review not on grades but by write-on with AA points added on as well. He was voted in as Editor NOT by grades, which is how it was done when I attended. And he was viewed as a very weak Editor. He did not even go on to clerk. Judges know who is write-on HLS law review and who is not. He made magna because Harvard had shifted from blind grading to open grading so he got brownie points in class for being AA. It once meant something to be on HLS law review by grades and to make editor that way. It now means very little. https://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/06/us/first-black-elected-to-head-harvard-s-law-review.html

Where in that article is is cited that he had a 3.3 GPA?

Obama graduated from Columbia in 1983 with a degree in political science. At Columbia in 1983, you needed a GPA of 3.3 or higher to with honors. He did not graduate with honors, which means his GPA was between a 2.0 and a 3.3.

More astonishing is that you did not know this, but then again you live no doubt in a progressive bubble free from the interference of fair and balanced reporting.

That said, I have no doubt that he his very intelligent, plus he has the charisma etc required of a leader. That's not the point of this discussion. The point here is that without the preferences being discussed above, he never would have gotten into the schools he graduated from.

He went to pretty ho-hum Occidental first. Nobody can jump right into grinder school like Columbia as a 3rd year transfer and set the world on fire. Further, the break in-between undergrad and law school teases out a student who lacked the "resume" (grades and LSAT) to get into a top law school. That was also true for everyone I know who went to law school in the early 90s.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please why do you think these universities have such appeal? If people are so keen on merit, why is Caltech not the number one university in America? People want their children to run shoulders with the elite that’s why.

What on earth are you babbling on about? There is an almost perfect correlation between the most selective universities and the best universities. Not everybody wants to go to Caltech because not everybody is focused on tech, but obviously enough people do that it has an 8% acceptance rate.

Define “best.” The ivies have a cachet that goes beyond the quantitative. Not sure why you this makes you hysteric.

Wow, that's very insightful. My point is that it's idiotic to suggest that people send their children to Harvard to rub shoulders with the elite. The average HHI of Harvard students is $168k, hardly elite.

Elite is not defined solely by HHI. Sorry you can’t get past any kind of analysis that is not numerical and feel the need to hurl insults. Not very elite of you.