"I went to an Ivy League school...I got very good marks"

[usmbguest5318]

Trump got into Wharton through a back door admission and paid someone to take his exams and write his papers

When I was in college, it only cost a couple hundred bucks to buy a term paper. Sure he could afford it and sure he did.

When I went to college....The biggest cheats were Business majors

They literally made a business out of it

I found a cute girl good at English and had he write my lit papers...

Well, I can see why you avail yourself of that opportunity. LOL

Dyslexic fingers...

LOL

 

[usmbguest5318]

Trump got into Wharton through a back door admission and paid someone to take his exams and write his papers

OT:
Perhaps that explains why he prefers a written medium that allows no more than 140 characters...

 

[Moonglow]

Trump claims to have been a Yali but speaks more like a Brown man...

 

[rightwinger]

Snake oil salesmen are very good at what they do
They size up their audience and tell them what they want to hear

Most can aspire to use that skill to become used car salesmen. Trump used it to gain the presidency

And hence by reminding people that he is an Ivy League graduate, he demonstrates that people like RW, who says shit like this are dishonest partisans who should be granted no credibility.

Like any good Snake Oil Salesman, Trump misrepresents his product

Ivy League in the 60s was not the Ivy League of today. You did not see many bright Asians running around Ivy League schools in the 60s

Ivy League was for the elite. Not elite intelligence but the social elite
Getting in to Ivy League schools meant you had connections. Connections like JFK, George Bush and yes, Donald Trump. Once in, you went for the "Gentleman's C". Just enough to get by

Got a link to support you claim that the Ivy League of the 60s was not academically elite?


Cause this is the first time I have ever heard this claim.

How Wealthy Families Manipulate the Admissions Process at Elite Universities

The tactics and practices noted in the article are undeniable; however, it's not always as simple or nefarious sounding as the author makes it seem. A good share of legacy kids, for example, are very high performers academically and extracurricularly. To wit, take a look at what the average SAT scores are at the schools well to do legacy kids attend, schools like "Grottlesex," Andover, Exeter, Choate, Miss Porters, St. Alban's, Deerfield, Hotchkiss, and so on. Most students at those schools, for instance, earn very high SAT average (not median) scores. So although legacy kids receive preference in admissions, one can't really say they aren't "up to snuff" as goes being qualified to attend the top universities and colleges. It's probably also worth noting that pretty much all schools, not just the top ones, have some sort of legacy preference.


Note:

• Readers who are not familiar with SAT scores and what they mean may want to take a quick glance at the following:
  • New SAT vs Old SAT: Changes You Must Know
  • SAT Percentiles and Score Rankings (Updated for New SAT)

Not only were they stocked with legacy students but I don’t think Ivy schools took women back then

 

[OldLady]

Why Trump last week reiterated that he went to an Ivy League school and did well is beyond comprehension. Who the hell that is a public figure who also is indeed smart and mastered the content taught at whatever school(s) they attended bothers, unbidden and for any reason other than to show a measure of understanding about something besides the actual content taught in that school, to attest to as much is anyone's guess.

Whether one was a good student and did a fine job of learning what was taught will be evident in myriad ways to which one need not attest and that others will attest to on one's behalf. That happens all the time. People have no reluctance about saying things like "so and so is really good at...," "he's really smart," "she's a brilliant mathematician," "she did an excellent job at ...," and so on. Even Trump's biggest detractors and opponents willingly accord that he's very good at some things. If one earns a given accolade, one will receive it, in abundance and from people who matter and people who don't.
...

Umm, no they don't. This site is full of people who moronically claim that Trump is stupid, and will hysterically attack you and your intelligence is you point out the obvious truth that he is brilliant.

Thus, we have in your opening paragraphs, the reason for him to say it, because only normal, there are plenty of dishonest people out there pushing the lie that he is stupid.

And Trump, unlike so many other republicans, is pushing back against the vile liars.

Good for him.

I watched his interview with Lou Dobbs (yes, I have intestinal fortitude) and Trump genuinely believes in and understands his economic philosophy. Getting it down to where the rubber hits the road is where he's a little shaky. The rest of what he makes pronouncements about are just stuff he has to say. I don't think he's even that big on the immigration issues. That was a dog whistle for the pied piper to use.

Is that interview on the Internet? I haven't seen it.

It's a little chopped up, but I think you'll find most of it here.
Full Lou Dobbs Interview: Trump Asks What Could Be More Fake Than CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN?

 

[usmbguest5318]

And hence by reminding people that he is an Ivy League graduate, he demonstrates that people like RW, who says shit like this are dishonest partisans who should be granted no credibility.

Like any good Snake Oil Salesman, Trump misrepresents his product

Ivy League in the 60s was not the Ivy League of today. You did not see many bright Asians running around Ivy League schools in the 60s

Ivy League was for the elite. Not elite intelligence but the social elite
Getting in to Ivy League schools meant you had connections. Connections like JFK, George Bush and yes, Donald Trump. Once in, you went for the "Gentleman's C". Just enough to get by

Got a link to support you claim that the Ivy League of the 60s was not academically elite?


Cause this is the first time I have ever heard this claim.

How Wealthy Families Manipulate the Admissions Process at Elite Universities

The tactics and practices noted in the article are undeniable; however, it's not always as simple or nefarious sounding as the author makes it seem. A good share of legacy kids, for example, are very high performers academically and extracurricularly. To wit, take a look at what the average SAT scores are at the schools well to do legacy kids attend, schools like "Grottlesex," Andover, Exeter, Choate, Miss Porters, St. Alban's, Deerfield, Hotchkiss, and so on. Most students at those schools, for instance, earn very high SAT average (not median) scores. So although legacy kids receive preference in admissions, one can't really say they aren't "up to snuff" as goes being qualified to attend the top universities and colleges. It's probably also worth noting that pretty much all schools, not just the top ones, have some sort of legacy preference.


Note:

• Readers who are not familiar with SAT scores and what they mean may want to take a quick glance at the following:
  • New SAT vs Old SAT: Changes You Must Know
  • SAT Percentiles and Score Rankings (Updated for New SAT)

Not only were they stocked with legacy students but I don’t think Ivy schools took women back then

Back when? LOL What are you intimating?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Why Trump last week reiterated that he went to an Ivy League school and did well is beyond comprehension. Who the hell that is a public figure who also is indeed smart and mastered the content taught at whatever school(s) they attended bothers, unbidden and for any reason other than to show a measure of understanding about something besides the actual content taught in that school, to attest to as much is anyone's guess.

Whether one was a good student and did a fine job of learning what was taught will be evident in myriad ways to which one need not attest and that others will attest to on one's behalf. That happens all the time. People have no reluctance about saying things like "so and so is really good at...," "he's really smart," "she's a brilliant mathematician," "she did an excellent job at ...," and so on. Even Trump's biggest detractors and opponents willingly accord that he's very good at some things. If one earns a given accolade, one will receive it, in abundance and from people who matter and people who don't.
...

Umm, no they don't. This site is full of people who moronically claim that Trump is stupid, and will hysterically attack you and your intelligence is you point out the obvious truth that he is brilliant.

Thus, we have in your opening paragraphs, the reason for him to say it, because only normal, there are plenty of dishonest people out there pushing the lie that he is stupid.

And Trump, unlike so many other republicans, is pushing back against the vile liars.

Good for him.

I watched his interview with Lou Dobbs (yes, I have intestinal fortitude) and Trump genuinely believes in and understands his economic philosophy. Getting it down to where the rubber hits the road is where he's a little shaky. The rest of what he makes pronouncements about are just stuff he has to say. I don't think he's even that big on the immigration issues. That was a dog whistle for the pied piper to use.

Is that interview on the Internet? I haven't seen it.

It's a little chopped up, but I think you'll find most of it here.
Full Lou Dobbs Interview: Trump Asks What Could Be More Fake Than CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN?

TY

 

[rightwinger]

And hence by reminding people that he is an Ivy League graduate, he demonstrates that people like RW, who says shit like this are dishonest partisans who should be granted no credibility.

Like any good Snake Oil Salesman, Trump misrepresents his product

Ivy League in the 60s was not the Ivy League of today. You did not see many bright Asians running around Ivy League schools in the 60s

Ivy League was for the elite. Not elite intelligence but the social elite
Getting in to Ivy League schools meant you had connections. Connections like JFK, George Bush and yes, Donald Trump. Once in, you went for the "Gentleman's C". Just enough to get by

Got a link to support you claim that the Ivy League of the 60s was not academically elite?


Cause this is the first time I have ever heard this claim.

How Wealthy Families Manipulate the Admissions Process at Elite Universities

The tactics and practices noted in the article are undeniable; however, it's not always as simple or nefarious sounding as the author makes it seem. A good share of legacy kids, for example, are very high performers academically and extracurricularly. To wit, take a look at what the average SAT scores are at the schools well to do legacy kids attend, schools like "Grottlesex," Andover, Exeter, Choate, Miss Porters, St. Alban's, Deerfield, Hotchkiss, and so on. Most students at those schools, for instance, earn very high SAT average (not median) scores. So although legacy kids receive preference in admissions, one can't really say they aren't "up to snuff" as goes being qualified to attend the top universities and colleges. It's probably also worth noting that pretty much all schools, not just the top ones, have some sort of legacy preference.


Note:

• Readers who are not familiar with SAT scores and what they mean may want to take a quick glance at the following:
  • New SAT vs Old SAT: Changes You Must Know
  • SAT Percentiles and Score Rankings (Updated for New SAT)

Not only were they stocked with legacy students but I don’t think Ivy schools took women back then

Back when? LOL What are you intimating?

That Trump did not get admitted on his merits

 

[usmbguest5318]

Why Trump last week reiterated that he went to an Ivy League school and did well is beyond comprehension. Who the hell that is a public figure who also is indeed smart and mastered the content taught at whatever school(s) they attended bothers, unbidden and for any reason other than to show a measure of understanding about something besides the actual content taught in that school, to attest to as much is anyone's guess.

Whether one was a good student and did a fine job of learning what was taught will be evident in myriad ways to which one need not attest and that others will attest to on one's behalf. That happens all the time. People have no reluctance about saying things like "so and so is really good at...," "he's really smart," "she's a brilliant mathematician," "she did an excellent job at ...," and so on. Even Trump's biggest detractors and opponents willingly accord that he's very good at some things. If one earns a given accolade, one will receive it, in abundance and from people who matter and people who don't.
...

Umm, no they don't. This site is full of people who moronically claim that Trump is stupid, and will hysterically attack you and your intelligence is you point out the obvious truth that he is brilliant.

Thus, we have in your opening paragraphs, the reason for him to say it, because only normal, there are plenty of dishonest people out there pushing the lie that he is stupid.

And Trump, unlike so many other republicans, is pushing back against the vile liars.

Good for him.

I watched his interview with Lou Dobbs (yes, I have intestinal fortitude) and Trump genuinely believes in and understands his economic philosophy. Getting it down to where the rubber hits the road is where he's a little shaky. The rest of what he makes pronouncements about are just stuff he has to say. I don't think he's even that big on the immigration issues. That was a dog whistle for the pied piper to use.

Is that interview on the Internet? I haven't seen it.

It's a little chopped up, but I think you'll find most of it here.
Full Lou Dobbs Interview: Trump Asks What Could Be More Fake Than CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN?

Trump genuinely believes in and understands his economic philosophy. Getting it down to where the rubber hits the road is where he's a little shaky. The rest of what he makes pronouncements about are just stuff he has to say.

Really? I think you're just willing to be generous, or maybe you're not familiar with some of the things about which he spoke or to which he alluded, which, in fairness, regardless of whether you are, most people would not be....Several of the things he mentioned are faced only by rich individuals/entities, and one of them is something that without question rankled Trump more so than most individuals.

• Dobbs' remarks in the first two minutes or so were more akin to what Trump should have been saying, not what Dobbs should have been saying. Dobbs was more expositive about what Trump has ostensibly accomplished than was Trump.
• Within the first three minutes he misrepresented his proposed corporate tax cut as the biggest tax cut in history. I guess he missed the Reagan tax cuts which dropped the tax rate by just shy of 20% from 1981 to 1982, and over the tenure of his presidency dropped tax rates by 40%+.
• Around the 3 to 4 minute mark -- Trump spoke of the approvals required to repatriate money. In doing so he misrepresented the nature of the approvals and burdens. There are some approvals needed to "patriate" into the U.S. the proceeds of a foreign loan. (Transferring foreign loan proceeds from Russia into the U.S. is something Trump has had to deal with.) Merely transferring one's own money, rather than loan proceeds, from a foreign bank to an American one has no onerous approval and documentary burdens; however, the hassles are imposed by countries other than the U.S. No facet of U.S. tax code changes will alter those burdens.

I don't want to turn this into a huge post, but if you want my explicit remarks about the whole of the interview, give me some time and I'll provide them. I suppose the short of it is that it's Trump who was talking, and that means, for me at least, that every stinking detail he utters has to be "fact checked," and the instant one does so, the vast majority of it ended up being either blather, non sequitur, or palteringly misrepresentational (or a flat out lie that cannot be attributed to some personal reason for his having uttered it).

I found much of what Trump said ostensibly seems "on point;" however, upon looking into (or already knowing) the underlying details of what he said or alluded to, it becomes readily apparent that (1) his ideas (as presented in the interview) are driven by his own set of experiences, not by those of the average American, and the proposals he's making are aimed specifically at ameliorating the challenges he faced, not those faced by most people, (2) he's presenting things that don't apply to most people and companies as though they do, and (3) he sounds like he knows what he's talking about in the larger context of U.S. macroeconomic policy because a some of what he refers to are abstruse "high finance" concepts, regulations, laws, practices, etc. that, discursively, he conflates with macroeconomic policy and uses that inapt commingling as a proxy for genuine macroeconomic savvy.

You see, when one's rhetoric presents oneself as superior to one's predecessors and peers in every way, being clear, direct, and insightful in an interview is one instance in which I expect to see evidence of that, most especially when those traits are what the American people deserve yet they are not the qualities most often observed when politicians respond to interviewers questions. When someone says they're going to change things, the implication is not that they're going to be merely lame in a different way, which, frankly, is all I've seen from Trump.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Like any good Snake Oil Salesman, Trump misrepresents his product

Ivy League in the 60s was not the Ivy League of today. You did not see many bright Asians running around Ivy League schools in the 60s

Ivy League was for the elite. Not elite intelligence but the social elite
Getting in to Ivy League schools meant you had connections. Connections like JFK, George Bush and yes, Donald Trump. Once in, you went for the "Gentleman's C". Just enough to get by

Got a link to support you claim that the Ivy League of the 60s was not academically elite?


Cause this is the first time I have ever heard this claim.

How Wealthy Families Manipulate the Admissions Process at Elite Universities

The tactics and practices noted in the article are undeniable; however, it's not always as simple or nefarious sounding as the author makes it seem. A good share of legacy kids, for example, are very high performers academically and extracurricularly. To wit, take a look at what the average SAT scores are at the schools well to do legacy kids attend, schools like "Grottlesex," Andover, Exeter, Choate, Miss Porters, St. Alban's, Deerfield, Hotchkiss, and so on. Most students at those schools, for instance, earn very high SAT average (not median) scores. So although legacy kids receive preference in admissions, one can't really say they aren't "up to snuff" as goes being qualified to attend the top universities and colleges. It's probably also worth noting that pretty much all schools, not just the top ones, have some sort of legacy preference.


Note:

• Readers who are not familiar with SAT scores and what they mean may want to take a quick glance at the following:
  • New SAT vs Old SAT: Changes You Must Know
  • SAT Percentiles and Score Rankings (Updated for New SAT)

Not only were they stocked with legacy students but I don’t think Ivy schools took women back then

Back when? LOL What are you intimating?

That Trump did not get admitted on his merits

I can speak to whether he did or didn't earn high marks. I cannot attest to why or how he gained admittance to U. Penn. I know what may have been the circumstances by which he did so, but I don't know that they were the means by which he did so. Sorry, but unlike Trump, I'm not keen to attest to things I cannot show are so or that I don't know to be so.

 

[rightwinger]

Got a link to support you claim that the Ivy League of the 60s was not academically elite?


Cause this is the first time I have ever heard this claim.

How Wealthy Families Manipulate the Admissions Process at Elite Universities

The tactics and practices noted in the article are undeniable; however, it's not always as simple or nefarious sounding as the author makes it seem. A good share of legacy kids, for example, are very high performers academically and extracurricularly. To wit, take a look at what the average SAT scores are at the schools well to do legacy kids attend, schools like "Grottlesex," Andover, Exeter, Choate, Miss Porters, St. Alban's, Deerfield, Hotchkiss, and so on. Most students at those schools, for instance, earn very high SAT average (not median) scores. So although legacy kids receive preference in admissions, one can't really say they aren't "up to snuff" as goes being qualified to attend the top universities and colleges. It's probably also worth noting that pretty much all schools, not just the top ones, have some sort of legacy preference.


Note:

• Readers who are not familiar with SAT scores and what they mean may want to take a quick glance at the following:
  • New SAT vs Old SAT: Changes You Must Know
  • SAT Percentiles and Score Rankings (Updated for New SAT)

Not only were they stocked with legacy students but I don’t think Ivy schools took women back then

Back when? LOL What are you intimating?

That Trump did not get admitted on his merits

I can speak to whether he did or didn't earn high marks. I cannot attest to why or how he gained admittance to U. Penn. I know what may have been the circumstances by which he did so, but I don't know that they were the means by which he did so. Sorry, but unlike Trump, I'm not keen to attest to things I cannot show are so or that I don't know to be so.

Trump was admitted as a transfer student in his junior year

His brother Fred was close friends with the admitting official and he gave one of the available slots to Trump

 

[usmbguest5318]

How Wealthy Families Manipulate the Admissions Process at Elite Universities

The tactics and practices noted in the article are undeniable; however, it's not always as simple or nefarious sounding as the author makes it seem. A good share of legacy kids, for example, are very high performers academically and extracurricularly. To wit, take a look at what the average SAT scores are at the schools well to do legacy kids attend, schools like "Grottlesex," Andover, Exeter, Choate, Miss Porters, St. Alban's, Deerfield, Hotchkiss, and so on. Most students at those schools, for instance, earn very high SAT average (not median) scores. So although legacy kids receive preference in admissions, one can't really say they aren't "up to snuff" as goes being qualified to attend the top universities and colleges. It's probably also worth noting that pretty much all schools, not just the top ones, have some sort of legacy preference.


Note:

• Readers who are not familiar with SAT scores and what they mean may want to take a quick glance at the following:
  • New SAT vs Old SAT: Changes You Must Know
  • SAT Percentiles and Score Rankings (Updated for New SAT)

Not only were they stocked with legacy students but I don’t think Ivy schools took women back then

Back when? LOL What are you intimating?

That Trump did not get admitted on his merits

I can speak to whether he did or didn't earn high marks. I cannot attest to why or how he gained admittance to U. Penn. I know what may have been the circumstances by which he did so, but I don't know that they were the means by which he did so. Sorry, but unlike Trump, I'm not keen to attest to things I cannot show are so or that I don't know to be so.

Trump was admitted as a transfer student in his junior year

His brother Fred was close friends with the admitting official and he gave one of the available slots to Trump

Trump was admitted as a transfer student in his junior year

So, yes, I'm aware that he transferred into Penn. I'm also aware that on the one hand, a fair number of transfer students did not then and do not now, as high schoolers, demonstrate the academic prowess to merit admission to the colleges from which they graduate. I'm also aware that as transfer students, the academic acuity they demonstrate at whatever college they attend prior to transferring supplants whatever demerits may have existed regarding their high school performance.

His brother Fred was close friends with the admitting official and he gave one of the available slots to Trump

Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending Trump by asking the following question. By what reckoning do you maintain his brother could not have done the same thing two years prior and thus did not?

I'm not intimating that his brother didn't do as you say. I'm saying that there is plenty to deride Trump for, so much that there's absolutely no good reason to "pile on" speculative claims that may or may not be fully accurate, be it factually or contextually. Quite simply, one need not remotely consider grasping at straws to have thoroughly legitimate reasons to despise and impugn Donald Trump. Donald Trump is, quite literally, a "hater's" dream come true, yet one need not even be that to find that man multidimensionally opprobrious.

 

[rightwinger]

The tactics and practices noted in the article are undeniable; however, it's not always as simple or nefarious sounding as the author makes it seem. A good share of legacy kids, for example, are very high performers academically and extracurricularly. To wit, take a look at what the average SAT scores are at the schools well to do legacy kids attend, schools like "Grottlesex," Andover, Exeter, Choate, Miss Porters, St. Alban's, Deerfield, Hotchkiss, and so on. Most students at those schools, for instance, earn very high SAT average (not median) scores. So although legacy kids receive preference in admissions, one can't really say they aren't "up to snuff" as goes being qualified to attend the top universities and colleges. It's probably also worth noting that pretty much all schools, not just the top ones, have some sort of legacy preference.


Note:

• Readers who are not familiar with SAT scores and what they mean may want to take a quick glance at the following:
  • New SAT vs Old SAT: Changes You Must Know
  • SAT Percentiles and Score Rankings (Updated for New SAT)

Not only were they stocked with legacy students but I don’t think Ivy schools took women back then

Back when? LOL What are you intimating?

That Trump did not get admitted on his merits

I can speak to whether he did or didn't earn high marks. I cannot attest to why or how he gained admittance to U. Penn. I know what may have been the circumstances by which he did so, but I don't know that they were the means by which he did so. Sorry, but unlike Trump, I'm not keen to attest to things I cannot show are so or that I don't know to be so.

Trump was admitted as a transfer student in his junior year

His brother Fred was close friends with the admitting official and he gave one of the available slots to Trump

Trump was admitted as a transfer student in his junior year

So, yes, I'm aware that he transferred into Penn. I'm also aware that on the one hand, a fair number of transfer students did not then and do not now, as high schoolers, demonstrate the academic prowess to merit admission to the colleges from which they graduate. I'm also aware that as transfer students, the academic acuity they demonstrate at whatever college they attend prior to transferring supplants whatever demerits may have existed regarding their high school performance.

His brother Fred was close friends with the admitting official and he gave one of the available slots to Trump

Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending Trump by asking the following question. By what reckoning do you maintain his brother could not have done the same thing two years prior and thus did not?

I'm not intimating that his brother didn't do as you say. I'm saying that there is plenty to deride Trump for, so much that there's absolutely no good reason to "pile on" speculative claims that may or may not be fully accurate, be it factually or contextually. Quite simply, one need not remotely consider grasping at straws to have thoroughly legitimate reasons to despise and impugn Donald Trump. Donald Trump is, quite literally, a "hater's" dream come true, yet one need not even be that to find that man multidimensionally opprobrious.

The reason Fred Trump did not pull strings when Trump was a freshman is because there are different admittance standards for incoming freshmen than for transfers.
Freshmen must meet SAT, GPA and write application essays
Standards Trump could not meet

Transfers just need a C average from their existing school

 

[usmbguest5318]

Back when? LOL What are you intimating?

That Trump did not get admitted on his merits

I can speak to whether he did or didn't earn high marks. I cannot attest to why or how he gained admittance to U. Penn. I know what may have been the circumstances by which he did so, but I don't know that they were the means by which he did so. Sorry, but unlike Trump, I'm not keen to attest to things I cannot show are so or that I don't know to be so.

Trump was admitted as a transfer student in his junior year

His brother Fred was close friends with the admitting official and he gave one of the available slots to Trump

Trump was admitted as a transfer student in his junior year

So, yes, I'm aware that he transferred into Penn. I'm also aware that on the one hand, a fair number of transfer students did not then and do not now, as high schoolers, demonstrate the academic prowess to merit admission to the colleges from which they graduate. I'm also aware that as transfer students, the academic acuity they demonstrate at whatever college they attend prior to transferring supplants whatever demerits may have existed regarding their high school performance.

His brother Fred was close friends with the admitting official and he gave one of the available slots to Trump

Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending Trump by asking the following question. By what reckoning do you maintain his brother could not have done the same thing two years prior and thus did not?

I'm not intimating that his brother didn't do as you say. I'm saying that there is plenty to deride Trump for, so much that there's absolutely no good reason to "pile on" speculative claims that may or may not be fully accurate, be it factually or contextually. Quite simply, one need not remotely consider grasping at straws to have thoroughly legitimate reasons to despise and impugn Donald Trump. Donald Trump is, quite literally, a "hater's" dream come true, yet one need not even be that to find that man multidimensionally opprobrious.

The reason Fred Trump did not pull strings when Trump was a freshman is because there are different admittance standards for incoming freshmen than for transfers.
Freshmen must meet SAT, GPA and write application essays
Standards Trump could not meet

Transfers just need a C average from their existing school

Freshmen must meet SAT, GPA and write application essays Standards Trump could not meet

I don't doubt that is likely the case. Trump was, after all, a degenerate who attended "reform school" for kids of rich people and while there developed a reputation for getting into fights, not exactly something top academic performers do.

Transfers just need a C average from their existing school

I don't know what were Penn's requirements for transfer students in Trump's day, and you've not offered any documentation to that effect. Moreover, insofar as I was a freshman enrollee at the school I attended as an undergrad, I don't know what were the transfer requirements when I was there; the same is so re: where I did my graduate studies. Did you go to Penn when Trump did and transfer in as he did?

I can see Penn's current minimum requirements for transfer students into the Wharton School, and nothing there indicates that having but a C average is sufficient for admittance. That said, I'm well aware that the minimum grade for earning credit in a college course is a C; however, the transferred-to college admissions office will nonetheless review one's transcript from the school one hopes to transfer from. (Some or all of one's credit hours will transfer, assuming the school admits one as a transfer student, but one's GPA will not.)

As I alluded to before, I'm not of a mind to defend Trump, or even to assert that you are incorrect; however, I'm also not going to agree that you are correct or substantially so on the basis of the weak case you've presented regarding your assertion that Trump's admittance to Penn was not based on merit, presumably scholastic merit. From where I sit, not being incorrect and being correct (or preponderantly so) are two very different things. One need not have a strong argument for the former to be so, but one must a strong argument the latter to be so. I just don't "buy" arguments that are at best "not incorrect;" my "bar" is higher than that. That is what it is, but, for better or worse, it nonetheless is.

 

[turtledude]

Someone compared Trump to Michelle Obama as Ivy League graduates

One only has to listen to Michelle Obama speak, see how she handles herself in public, listen to her vocabulary and speaking style and you can recognize she is an educated person

Trump never demonstrates a working vocabulary....the best, great, very, very good, he is stupid, I'm smart

your fluffing of Obama is hilarious but she's not all that smart. Her senior thesis at princeton is a joke and demonstrates if she had been white, she never would have been admitted into that school

 

[turtledude]

You've met her? You really think she was an affirmative action acceptance? You have three Ivy League degrees and you say "Moochelle?"

yeah she's an affirmative action poster child. back then the Ivies were going overboard to let in blacks with much lower numbers than whites and Asians. read the thesis she wrote at Princeton and get back to me. Obama didn't even graduate with honors or distinction from Columbia. White males applying to HLS from Yale and Columbia who didn't have at least MAGNA cum laude degrees were routinely rejected.

 

[turtledude]

[
Trump was admitted as a transfer student in his junior year

His brother Fred was close friends with the admitting official and he gave one of the available slots to Trump

I guess any proof of this won't be coming.

 

[Lewdog]

You've met her? You really think she was an affirmative action acceptance? You have three Ivy League degrees and you say "Moochelle?"

yeah she's an affirmative action poster child. back then the Ivies were going overboard to let in blacks with much lower numbers than whites and Asians. read the thesis she wrote at Princeton and get back to me. Obama didn't even graduate with honors or distinction from Columbia. White males applying to HLS from Yale and Columbia who didn't have at least MAGNA cum laude degrees were routinely rejected.

Do you know what her scores were? I'm sorry but I'm not going to judge her just from her thesis. Colleges these days don't place ALL of their acceptance for students on just their academic accomplishments. That's especially true for Ivy League schools. They want well-rounded students that do things in the community and are in other programs as well.

You are making a piss poor argument against them.

 

[turtledude]

Do you know what her scores were? I'm sorry but I'm not going to judge her just from her thesis. Colleges these days don't place ALL of their acceptance for students on just their academic accomplishments. That's especially true for Ivy League schools. They want well-rounded students that do things in the community and are in other programs as well.

You are making a piss poor argument against them.

opinion noted and rejected as idiotic. she got in because she was black. same with Harvard Law. When I was applying to law schools HLS added 130 to the LSAT scores (it was on the 800 point scale then)and .5 points to the GPA of blacks. So a white man with an LSAT in the 780 range and a 3.7 GPA would be less likely to get into HLS than a black from the same undergraduate school who had a 650 LSAT and a 3.3 GPA

and all you had to do is to look at the graphs those schools put out--unless you were in the top box-over 3.8 and over 775, you had a less than one out of 7 chance of admission. but you'd see a whole cluster of students who were in that 3.4/650 range who got in. those were the black affirmative action cases

 

[Lewdog]

Do you know what her scores were? I'm sorry but I'm not going to judge her just from her thesis. Colleges these days don't place ALL of their acceptance for students on just their academic accomplishments. That's especially true for Ivy League schools. They want well-rounded students that do things in the community and are in other programs as well.

You are making a piss poor argument against them.

opinion noted and rejected as idiotic. she got in because she was black. same with Harvard Law. When I was applying to law schools HLS added 130 to the LSAT scores (it was on the 800 point scale then)and .5 points to the GPA of blacks. So a white man with an LSAT in the 780 range and a 3.7 GPA would be less likely to get into HLS than a black from the same undergraduate school who had a 650 LSAT and a 3.3 GPA

and all you had to do is to look at the graphs those schools put out--unless you were in the top box-over 3.8 and over 775, you had a less than one out of 7 chance of admission. but you'd see a whole cluster of students who were in that 3.4/650 range who got in. those were the black affirmative action cases

Your opinion is noted, and is beyond stupid... because you haven't shown what HER SCORE IS. I don't give a flying fuck how many numbers and graphs you give, if you don't show what her score is and where it lands on those graphs, all you are doing is spewing bullshit to support your confirmation bias.

How can someone propose to be so smart, saying you have THREE Ivy League degrees, and yet be a racist dumbass? You might as well take those degrees and roll you a blunt with them and smoke it up, because with your attitude they are worthless.