Pizza joint vs professor

[naturegirl]

That is ...ugh.

You do understand that only applies to certain fields of education.

You would hire an engineer who hasn't been to school. You wouldn't hire a mathematician who hasn't been to school. You wouldn't hire a doctor who hasn't been to school.

Such wide, sweeping statements are an act of one who does not understand the system.

Or is simply so biased in his view that he refuses to see any other option.

huh?

What do you mean.

I wouldnt hire any professional that has not been to school.

However, likewise, I would hire an experienced,educated ANYTHING over someone who is educated and TEACHES but doesnt have practical experience.

I dont understand what your post was trying to say.

I said nothingt about "being in school"

I apologize, as a Physicist I may see from a biased view, but education is just as important as experience. Obama's education was up to par, but his experience was not. We need a balance of the two.

Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it after all.

Which leads to the statement, education is nothing with practical experience. Thank you Photonic, you didn't just show up in class everyday, earn a degree and hit the road running. School is the thread that binds us to what we love to do, it's more than a GPA.

 

[Photonic]

Actually, it appears that you never went to college...because that is EXACTLY what goes on there. Professors teach what they have learned...very few have actually practiced and THEN went to teaching.

The fact that you are not aware of this proves to me that you have not experienced higher education......confirming other sentiments I have about you.

That is ...ugh.

You do understand that only applies to certain fields of education.

You wouldn't hire an engineer who hasn't been to school. You wouldn't hire a mathematician who hasn't been to school. You wouldn't hire a doctor who hasn't been to school.

Such wide, sweeping statements are an act of one who does not understand the system.

Or is simply so biased in his view that he refuses to see any other option.

That's not what he said at all...

He said to get someone to do a job that ONLY has been to school, or even ONLY been a teacher can lead to something bad, like in the case of Obama... It's not that school is bad, it's that not having real world experience in where you can apply what you learned leading to a different kind of education known as "on the job" training.

More or less in the case of Obama, Obama in learning on the job, finding out what works and what does not work and because he never had the experience of that before he became President the country is suffering through it now.

I know, I apologized for the misunderstanding.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Director of KC Federal Reserve Bank. Book author, mathematician, Vice President of Pillsbury. Board of Directors for 4 major companies, CEO of the Nat. Restaurant Association.

Bit more than a Pizza place, and yes at least as qualified as a professor. Especially one so clearly out of his Depths on so many issues.

Harvard Law graduate, president Harvard Law Review, lawyer, Professor of Constitutional law, book author (like that matters), state senator, US senator. Oops, looks like he didn't make any pizzas. I guess the rest of his resume will have to be good enough.

Just another faculty lounge theoretician who's never actually done anything.

And BTW...

UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

In the interests of a fuller picture of the man...and fully recognizing that the note was by a left-leaning student, he was found to be an excellent teacher at the university....

"Professor Obama and Me

by Adam B

Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:48:20 AM PST

It was 1996, and there I was, in a seminar room with maybe fifteen students, not knowing that I was learning from the man who might be the next President of the United States.
...
Spring quarter of my second year, I took Voting Rights and Election Law as a seminar with Professor Obama. Now, let’s be clear: in a school with a lot of Somebodies – Richard Posner, Frank Easterbrook, Cass Sunstein and David Currie – he was a relative nobody, and even compared with other younger faculty, it was Larry Lessig and Elena Kagan who had more of the hype. But Obama was teaching a course in a subject I wanted to study – at a point when I realized that law school was too short to be spent in classes that felt obligatory – and that made it an easy decision.

... he taught Voting Rights in a different way than others do. He didn’t use a textbook, for starters, but rather had us each purchase an eight-inch high multilith of cases, law review articles and statutes that he had personally compiled. And they weren’t all the "big" cases either – no, our class started by reviewing some early-19th century cases about the denial of the franchise, so that as the course moved forward we saw "voting rights" not as some static thing to be analyzed, but a constantly- and still-evolving process to be affected. Over the course of a few months, we studied changes in the franchise, changes in the rights of political parties, campaign finance law and redistricting, among other topics. We learned the law, but we also learned it on the level of real-world impact: based on a whites-only party primary, how many people would be denied a voice? What kind of policies would result from such a legislature?

And the conversations extended outside the classroom. I spent plenty of time in Prof. Obama’s office, talking to him about the paper I was working on. Just the two of us, one on one, with him always provoking me to think deeper, work harder ..."
Barack Obama taught Constitutional Law At Chicago Law School. Dkos diary by one of his students - Democratic Underground


So, what is the take-away? He was good, if very liberal, perhaps biased...but not incompetent at this level.

One might see this as an example of the 'Peter Principle'..."in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence"...

 

[PoliticalChic]

This.

Part of the problem is that folks think running a business is preparation for running a nation. It isn't. Truth be told, there is no job you can have, other than being the President, to prepare you for being President. The job has too many aspects to it. The Foreign Policy in's and out's alone are boggling to the mind.

The single most important quality I look for in a candidate is the ability to pick good advisers and learn quickly on the job. That makes me lean towards the academic, rather than the business men.

For the record, the posts in this thread aren't that surprising. Big surprise that a lot of the folks who are anti-education are the folks well known for posting little more than swear words and name calling. Big surprise.

Vision.

It's the vision of the man, more than background.

That's why a former actor was so much better a President than a Harvard grad.

No, it's the advisers, and the ability to recognize and take good advice even when it clashes with your own personal beliefs.

Reagan was surrounded by some of the smartest guys in the room. His cabinet level folks read like a who's who of intelligent political operatives. So yeah, Reagan checked his beliefs at the door from time to time when his advisers, who he trusted, asked him too, but he also knew when to disregard their advice.

Obama's biggest problem is that he seems to lack the leadership ability to say no to bad advice or to recognize good advice. Plus his inner circle is starting to look more like the Apple Dumpling Gang and less like knowledgeable advisers. He's just a bad leader.

The ability to examine and consider a thought or idea that conflicts with your own personal belief is something I see more in academics, and hence why I lean towards choosing an academic for the office. I've yet to see a really compelling argument that running a business is preparation for being the leader of the Free World. The larger world doesn't run on business principles. It never has and never will. Assuming it does is pretty much the first step to failure.

You fail to give Reagan the credit he deserves....he ignored advisors when it conflicted with his vision of democracy and communism, and stepped away from the table when the Russians wouldn't bargin...and he refused to remove 'take down this wall' from the speech.

No, it's vision.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This.

Part of the problem is that folks think running a business is preparation for running a nation. It isn't. Truth be told, there is no job you can have, other than being the President, to prepare you for being President. The job has too many aspects to it. The Foreign Policy in's and out's alone are boggling to the mind.

The single most important quality I look for in a candidate is the ability to pick good advisers and learn quickly on the job. That makes me lean towards the academic, rather than the business men.

For the record, the posts in this thread aren't that surprising. Big surprise that a lot of the folks who are anti-education are the folks well known for posting little more than swear words and name calling. Big surprise.

Vision.

It's the vision of the man, more than background.

That's why a former actor was so much better a President than a Harvard grad.

Ahh you mean the guy who more than doubled the national debt during his presidency?
And we went from a creditor to a debtor nation under his rule?

I mean the guy who refused to cut the military, or bow to the forces of world-wide totalitarianism...and thereby saved the world.


And who advanced the economy of the United States in the following manner:
The benefits from Reaganomics:

a. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
b. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
c. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
d. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
e. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) Economic Report of the President: 2010 Report Spreadsheet Tables
f. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116

Feel smarter now, Citi?

 

[KissMy]

The Pizza Guy Delivers.

Obama Taketh Away.