Hitting the newswires is an article that purports to prove one thing but actually proves another.
“Sen. John F. Kerry’s grade average at Yale University was virtually identical to President Bush’s record there, despite repeated portrayals of Kerry as the more intellectual candidate during the 2004 presidential campaign.”
Basically, Kerry’s Yale cume average was 76 while Bush’s was 77.
The thing is, if you read the article, Kerry tanked his Freshman year, with several D’s and one failed course. But during his subsequent three years his grades steadily improved. He was never çûm laude or anything, but the point is…he learned from his mistakes.
Whereas Bush started off with an average of 77 and didn’t deviate from it for four years. Kerry improved exponentially. Bush didn’t.
But, hey, what else to expect from the supposedly liberal-leaning press than an article that essentially tries to say that Kerry is no smarter than Bush.
PAD
• 
I’d also be interested in seeing what sorts of courses the two of them took; which of them (if either) had the more demanding cirriculum?
I knew art majors in college who sailed into an ‘A’, while engineering students sweated for a ‘B-‘.
The GPA alone doesn’t tell it.
I’d also be interested in seeing what sorts of courses the two of them took; which of them (if either) had the more demanding cirriculum?
For what it’s worth, the Boston Globe article that appears to have originated this story includes the following details:
“The transcript shows that Kerry’s freshman-year average was 71. He scored a 61 in geology, a 63 and 68 in two history classes, and a 69 in political science. His top score was a 79, in another political science course. Another of his strongest efforts, a 77, came in French class.”
“Under Yale’s grading system in effect at the time, grades between 90 and 100 equaled an A, 80-89 a B, 70-79 a C, 60 to 69 a D, and anything below that was a failing grade. In addition to Kerry’s four D’s in his freshman year, he received one D in his sophomore year. He did not fail any courses.
“Bush went to Yale from 1964 to 1968; his highest grades were 88s in anthropology, history, and philosophy, according to The New Yorker article. He received one D in his four years, a 69 in astronomy.”
Not that that’s a complete picture, but there’s a bit more detail for you…
Ohhhhhhh Please for God’s sake, you cannot be serious!!!! Why are you making an issue out of this? Were their majors the same? Did they have the same professors? Anyone who has been to college knows that there is a world of difference in someone who majors in say communications versus someone who majored in business, and even if you are in the same major professor A may be a better teacher than professor B, and you can only fit professor B in your schedule. 770-79 is a C in most places, so they were both average. Big Deal!
“Ohhhhhhh Please for God’s sake, you cannot be serious!!!! Why are you making an issue out of this?”
Me? I didn’t report the story. It’s being reported in major US newspapers. It’s been made into an issue whether I comment on it or not. So I might as well comment on it.
PAD
Either way you lean, it is safe to say that neither of them excelled in academia.
The reason it is news is because Kerry did not want his transcripts released during the campaign because the trend at the time was to paint Bush as as being an idiot because of his mediocre grades while at Yale (some would argue he is an idiot in spite of his mediocre grades). It was a smart move not to release Kerry’s transcripts during the campaign because that would give his opponents ammunition to counter the “Bush is stupid” argument.
Using improvement of Kerry’s grades is a pretty weak argument of his being smarter than someone else. Sure it shows something, but I don’t think it proves intellectual superiority. What it really shows is that Kerry did nothing his first year in school and must have decided after that to do some real work. I don’t honestly believe that he really earned those D’s. The only way to get D’s and F’s is to not try at all. Kerry’s first year really shows just a lack of dedication and probably that he was chasing skirts his first year.
The fact is neither of them were geniuses and it goes to show that really smart people don’t get involved politics and our country suffers because of this.
Greg
Actually, basing someone’s current intelligence on how they performed in school 40 years ago is sort of like wondering whether an adult still sucks his thumb. It’s the intelligence they display now that should be the determining factor on how they are judged.
L.H. Hicks:
“Actually, basing someone’s current intelligence on how they performed in school 40 years ago is sort of like wondering whether an adult still sucks his thumb.”
Heck, I’d say that basing someone’s intelligence on how they performed in school five years ago — or even five days ago — is pretty much the same thing. In general, college is essentially the same as high school in that you’re served much better by a willingness to play the game than you are by your intelligence.
I’m not just saying that because my grades in the last two years of college were abysmal (a fact that was most likely connected to the fact that I went to approximately 30% of my classes each week), either.
Honestly, I read this story and rolled my eyes. I was (and am) a Bush supporter, but I honestly couldn’t give a crap what his grades were in college, or what his IQ is, or whether he mangles the word “nuclear.” I support him because his stance on the issues is aligned with mine more often than his opponent’s stances were. Why anyone feels the need to bring anything else into the picture is beyond me.
Why should we care at this point? Kerry lost. Bush won. And we’re stuck with Mr. 77 until 2008…when his brother Jeb runs.
You know, it’s unfortunate, but the last poster is probably righton both counts… Sigh….
I agree, you can’t make this a one-on-one argument without putting it in the proper context. When I was in college, I had some friends who spent every waking moment in the library, sweating out a C in microbiology or pre-law, while other friends were getting an A in film appreciation and other no-brainer liberal arts classes, and spending their nights and weekends at keg parties. I remember one friend who didn’t take any classes before 11 a.m. because he would have been too hung over to show up.
Just to muddy the waters even more, I went to a Catholic high school here in New Jersey, where classes were divided into five ‘phases.’ Phase five would be the most advanced, allowing you to get advanced placement for college, while phase one students had to have their shoes marked left and right. My parents always insisted that I take the most advanced English and history classes for example, and it often got quite frustrating, struggling under massive amounts of homework to eke out maybe a C+ while my best friends were cruising through less challenging classes and getting an A. With hindsight, it was probably better for my future career as a journalist to have worked that much harder in English class, but at the time, it was a bitter pill to swallow, watching one of my friends get a car for a straight A report card, in much less challenging classes. So let’s see the full transcript before we compare records. I’m not a huge John Kerry fan, but I don’t think Bush missed too many keg parties during his college days.
Me? I didn’t report the story. It’s being reported in major US newspapers. It’s been made into an issue whether I comment on it or not. So I might as well comment on it.
PAD
BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Why comment on it then? This morning my co-worker told me he pooped last night, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to go around and tell everyone else about it. What a loser-style cop-out, “someone else reported it!” And here I thought the story itself was the funny low point-thanks for the laugh!
Dude, you just did.
> that would give his opponents ammunition to counter the “Bush is stupid” argument.
Special on Newsworld [one of Canada’s national news networks] this evening.
“STUPIDITY: a look at stupidity as a driving force of society, from Tom Green to George Bush.”
Could be fun. 😎
Grades in college are not a sure sign of stupidity. Now, not releasing one’s records during a presidential campaign, waiting until speculation is rampant that one is trying to hide something, and then, after having lost the election, releasing them only to have it revealed that there was nothing to be embarassed about…truly, Kerry may be the dumbest politician ever to be nominated by a major party. He may be the standard by which all future politicians will be judged. In some far flung future cyborg politicians will do something stupid and people will laugh and say “Boy, he’s a real Kerry!” and not even know what it means.
At least Hillary has some real smarts so there’s almost no chance that the next Democrat nominee will be more stupid than the last one…unless they nominate Kerry again and, whatever else you say about Democrats, they tend to be very unforgiving of loser nominees so that would seem unlikely.
“Whereas Bush started off with an average of 77 and didn’t deviate from it for four years. Kerry improved exponentially. Bush didn’t.”
Perspective is a funny thing.
I interpreted the story differently, and would have written the above line as follows:
“Whereas as Bush maintained his mediocre grades, Kerry had to stuggle to achieve even less stellar results.”
Later,
Chip
But back to this…maybe I’m just a stickler for grades but is it really “improving exponentially” to go from a 71 to a 76??? Usually “exponentially” is saved for more impressive gains like the population of rats on an island with an infinite food supply or Michael Moore’s waistline after that Golden Corral started their all you can eat lunch buffet.
Kerry is lucky they didn’t use the current grading curve we use at my high school–he would have a D average while Bush would have a C. Oh the humiliation!
Omigod. I take it back. Go to http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/07/yale_grades_portray_kerry_as_a_lackluster_student/
and take a look at the pictures of Bush and Kerry from college. I was wrong, Kerry had a GREAT reason to try to keep this under wraps. Jesus! My cat jumped off my lap when that picture came up. And even though Bush looks like he’s got a large caterpillar crossing over his forhead he stilllooks like Brad Freaking Pitt compared to John Forbes. Holy crap.
Blast from the past– Harold Raines in The Guardian “Does anyone in America doubt that Kerry has a higher IQ than Bush? I’m sure their SATs and college transcripts would put Kerry far ahead.”
But in fairness–and I always strive to be fair–Kerry did say that in his first year he spent a lot of time learning to fly, which no doubt came in very handy when he was flying that boat in ‘Nam.
Here’s the difference: Bush never pretended to be anything but a “C” student, although he was just a single point away from having a “B” cume.
Kerry, on the other hand, didn’t even release his grades until TODAY!
The articles says: Bush got a “cumulative score of 77 for his first three years at Yale and a roughly similar average under a non-numerical rating system during his senior year.”
Kerry’s freshman-year average was 71. He got a cumulative 76 for his four years.
Mr. David claims falsely that Kerry’s rising from a 71 to a 76 is an “exponential” rise, that therefore Kerry “learned” and “improved,” and comes to his usual conclusion: BUSH SUCKS.
Not surprising. It’s the only political sentiment Mr. David is capable of.
Oh, for Pete sakes, PAD, that’s a lame argument based on some pretty weak assumptions. My high school grade fluctuation mirrored Kerry’s, but my eventual turnaround had less to do with “learning by my mistakes” than it did “uh, oh, if I keep screwing up, I’ll never get a diploma.”
Neither Kerry or Bush did that well, and frankly, one has wonder why the top-ranked Yalies are never on a ballot.
And the only reason this whole issue is news at all is because Kerry refused to release his Yale grades until just last week.
Th original post is a perfect example of how liberal bias works.
If we didn’t have access to the whole article, all we’d have are Mr. David’s false claims and distortions. We’d go away thinking, wow, Bush sucks and Kerry got SO much better during his college years.
Since we DO have access to the whole article, David’s claims are easily disproven, and David is revealed as someone who distorts the facts to advance his own viewpoint.
Another way to put it: Peter David is a liar.
X-Ray:
Of course, Peter is a liar. It is what he does for a living. Writing fiction and comics is lying for a living. On the other hand, in a lie lies the truth. And to quote you, “Bush Sucks”.
What utter nonsense! Simply being a “writer,” if that is what Mr. David actually is, is NOT a license to lie.
It’s amusing how you liberals cannot come up with specifics, so you lie and distort, like David did in his post. Now, you’re doing it too — trying to say telling lies is OK if one is a writer.
Oh well, anything to prove BUSH SUCKS, even if you have to make it up!
Dear X-Ray:
Where do you get off calling anyone a liar?
Peter read something and analyzed it. These were the conclusions he drew from the articles he referenced. He didn’t put URL’s down, but these stories are easy enough to find. It’s a headline article at bostonglobe.com.
A “lie” is summed up as: intentional misleading towards a false conclusion.
Peter did not do that. He presented his interpretation (supported by the article), and then opened it up for debate. His assertion, incidentally, is sound: one who learns from his mistakes is preferable to one who does not. It seems very much to sum up the past four years of political policy, and points to the problem of perception in, and a flaw in the logic of, the media and the populace in the last election. This is not a disctintion without a difference.
For example, at what point does Pres. Bush open the floor to debate in his “Town Meetings” (or a press conference, for that matter (or did you forget about Mr. Gannon already?)). Or are you conveniently igorning the facts in order to support your opinion and mislead us in your argument? Context matters.
While writers invent, they do not often lie. And there is a difference you ought to recognize. If you do not, I suggest returning to college and taking an English course or two. Studying and actaully doing the assignments is often useful in later life. Having actually read Peter’s books/comics (and being academically invested in Arthurian Literature, some of his parody was quite snarky), I can assure you that he is not a professional liar. Inventor? Adapter? Transformer? Theif? Yes, all of these things (and in a good way, for the most part). But not a liar.
Inflamatory comments show only that you are rude and insecure in your own position. Be a decent fellow, and think about what you say before you post.
Actually, I thought this story PROVES the bias of the media. This story didn’t come out until eight months after the election, long after any negative effects it might have had on Kerry were long behind him.
I also appreciate how this is NOT a story now that it doesn’t help Kerry at all. Eight months or more ago, it would have been the lead story on the news.
Figures one of Kerry’s higher grades was for French.
1PErsonally, I just think PAD wanted to write something, saw this and figured it would get some folks britches in a bundle and put it out there. And as much as I like to discuss politics and religion (and all the other big ‘no-no’s of conversation), it often comes out like two blind guys arguing about the color of something. Neither one can prove their point and even if a third party comes along, neither can actually fully trust what the person says. In the end, I don’t like Bush. I didn’t mind his pop and was worried Jeb would run so imagine my surprise when the tard of the family comes forward to win it. But I didn’t like his competition either. Politicians are what’s wrong with politics. Maybe that’s why I enjoy arguing/discussing politics… I don’t really care who wins the debate. It’s a lose/lose situation.
Though I have to admit, I would’ve preferred just about anyone else win except W. But only so I wouldn’t have to listen to his dámņ speeches.
To Aaron Drucker-
I “get off” calling David a liar because that is what he IS.
The article stated that “Kerry’s freshman-year average was 71. He got a cumulative 76 for his four years.” So, Kerry got a rise from 71 to 76, a rise that DID NOT affect the letter grade.
David calls this an “exponential” rise, for the purpose of supporting his theme that BUSH SUCKS. But it is clearly NOT an exponential rise.
That’s why David didn’t give exact numbers, only his distortion of those numbers! That, my friend, is a lie, plain and simple. No matter what spin you want to put on it.
If you can’t see that, go back to your dictionary and look up exponential, and explain how a meaningless rise of 5 points is exponential.
Hmmmm.. how to get out of THIS one?
No doubt you’ll try to redefine the word exponential. Should be fun.
for the purpose of supporting his theme that BUSH SUCKS
And yet you’re the one who introduced those words into this thread. This was a discussion about the relative value of grades, but it seems the you couldn’t wait to say “bush sucks”.
Freudian slip?
Repressed or rechanneled angerperhaps?
Bush sucks.
No lie.
“And yet you’re the one who introduced those words into this thread. This was a discussion about the relative value of grades, but it seems the you couldn’t wait to say “bush sucks”. Freudian slip? Repressed or rechanneled angerperhaps?”
Actually, here’s the truly hilarious thing. Any debater with two gray cells to rub together (which obviously this guy doesn’t have) will tell you that the one thing you DON’T want to do is keep repeating the views of your opponents. Why? Because the specifics of various arguments tend to fade with time, but the reiterations remain in the minds of everyone within the sound of your voice…including those who are on the fence about it.
So this guys keeps saying “Bush Sucks,” and even though he doesn’t actually believe it, he’s helping to reinforce the fundamental message. He’s helping his opponents even while he delusionally believes he’s hurting them.
Classic. And funny.
PAD
A reporter asked John Kerry what his SAT numbers were. Kerry said he hadn’t checked his mileage lately. (Ba-bump, crash!)
Exponential is perspective thing… Speaking from experiance i was told my grades rose exponentially by a math teacher in high school when i rose my grade up from a 68 to a 77. It all depends on the perspective at the time. Its a descriptor word, which despite its exact definition can be used that way. Especially to emphasize something or to make it more dramatic, which may have been done here. But thats not lying its only a matter of perspective on the point. PAD didn’t lie.
Anyway raising a 4 year cumelative that much is pretty hard. Especially in the final years of school. At least it is for me. Keep in mind one has to average their years worth of classes to a higer point to raise it up each year. And the classes at least at my school get harder and harder with the more upperdivision classes i take. Its much easier to keep an average around the same point for years than to raise it.
Dude, X-Ray, Bush campaigned on measuring strength by dominance — dominance in the middle east, dominance over women, dominance in systematically flushing the election totals of black counties in Florida — and now it burns you that his popularity is sinking like a rock. You’re saying to yourself Where is that delicious dominance I was promised for voting for Bush?
Look at yourself. Relentlessly attacking a weblogger you disagree with anonymously. There’s no defense against a hidden agenda — what you get off from is dominance.
The problem with measuring strength by dominance is your dependence on someone to dominate. Needy is not strong. JFK measured strength by generosity — not by neediness.
Seriously, for your own sake, release the hostages you keep in your basement and get help. There’s no justification for protecting your taste for human blood.
“Anyway raising a 4 year cumelative that much is pretty hard.”
Actually, if Kerry got a 71 his first year and only managed to raise it to a 77 in the next 3 years he would end up with a cumulative total of 75.5 which we will kindly round out to a 76…so Kerry’s exponential growth may never have exceeded Bush. Kinda sad for those who put much stock in the whole “my guy is smarter” argument but live by the bad argument die by the bad argument…
Speaking of which, if X-Ray isn’t deliberately pretending to be dense he’s doing a fine job of looking like it. Chill, fool. Argue with logic or not at all, or, if you must behave emotionally, don’t accuse others of the same.
PAD’s argument
“Whereas Bush started off with an average of 77 and didn’t deviate from it for four years. Kerry improved exponentially. Bush didn’t.”
simply proves that PAD’s reading comprehension “sucks.”
The end of the article clearly states…
[i]Like Kerry, Bush reportedly suffered through a difficult freshman year and then pulled his grades up.[/i]
Bush just pulled his grades up higher than Kerry, thus making the point made irrelevant.
“Omigod. I take it back. Go to http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/07/yale_grades_portray_kerry_as_a_lackluster_student/“
Dear God, he looks like Richard Kiel.
Its kinda tough to base their comparative smarts in either case….and Ill use myself as an example. I went into college with a 90 average from a rough Catholic high school. My first 3 years of college…I had a cumulative 2.4 GPA (basically a C+). Why? Not because I’m an idiot…but basically because I didnt give a crap about studying. I wanted to hang out, party and skip class. When I finally decided on a major and waanted to go to grad school, I buckled down and made the Deans list twice, and graduated in 5 years with a 3.1. Basically slightly over a B. And I consider myself much much smarter than a B…and much much lazier also. Anyway, my point is, both of them could be idiots, one of them could be, or both of them maybe just didnt give a crap and didnt realize the ramifications.
Mike
When discussing this story (as opposed to throwing hissy fits at those who don’t share your politcal beliefs) it helps to keep in mind the now defunct tradition of the “Gentleman’s C” that many colleges and all the Ivy Leagure schools adhered to. There was a tacit agreement between faculty and students that, if the student made bare-bones attempt in the course, they could expect a C, or in other words, a nice respectable grade. It was, for the times, a form of grade inflation. So were those C averages legitimate? Maybe. Then again, maybe not.
Mark
Re: Gentlemen’s C. Also keep in mind that Kerry and Bush just predate the big jump in general college grade inflation (one suggested reason for its start was professors being unwilling to open students up to the Vietnam draft). Today, those scores would be a minimum of 10 points higher.
[Amused a couple of years back by an article, curiously enough also in the Globe, which revealed that 92% of the most recent Harvard undergrad class graduated with honors. The comments from Yale and Princeton reps were nicely subtly snarky. Harvard’s since reduced the number, although I think it’s still at least 50%, which was around what I recall reported for Yale and Princeton]
Frankly, neither Kerry nor Bush strike me as sharp intellectually. Gore actually is, btw, and I base this on having had lunch with him a year or so back with a fairly small group of people, none of whom were flacks or entourage types (i.e. no softballs).
A reporter asked John Kerry what his SATs were and Kerry said that he didn’t own any SATs. His family owned SATs. (ba-bump, crash!)
I called Peter David a liar, because he lied. Tellingly, he had no objection to this characterization at all, Not a single word. Rather than defend himself, he calls what I said, “Classic. And funny.”
I think that tells the tale. David knows he lied, knows he cannot defend himself, so he tries to mock and redirect the discussion.
Since I’m so “funny,” this out to give David a great laugh:
Peter David is a liar. Peter David is a liar. Peter David is a liar. Peter David is a liar. Peter David is a liar. Peter David is a liar. Peter David is a liar. Peter David is a liar. Peter David is a liar. Peter David is a liar. Peter David is a liar. Peter David is a liar. Peter David is a liar. Peter David is a liar. Peter David is a liar. Peter David is a liar. Peter David is a liar. Peter David is a liar. Peter David is a liar. Peter David is a liar.
Well, it was so FUNNY when David wrote BUSH SUCKS over and over, so I’m sure it’s funy now too. Right, liar?
Nope x-ray,
You’re just a pathetic fûçkìņg child
And ultimately, as comforting and self indulgent as it is to accuse world leaders of being much much less intelligent than we are, the sad truth is that they were smart enough to become world leaders while the rest of us, conversely, are not. I think I once saw richard Beltzer at a comedy club deal with a heckler with one of the best lines ever–something like “Hey, I’m up on stage holding a microphone and you’re down there holding a beer. God has a plan and you’re not in it.”
X-Ray. It wasn’t funny then. Ain’t funny now. Won’t be funny later. What’s the point?
Bill…he isn’t interested in making any sort of point. He’s interested in being noticed, like a six year old making armpit noises. I mean, he probably even thinks that I was surprised that he responded the way he did. No. I expected it. I thought, “What’s the more juvenile thing he can do?” and figured correctly.
Fortunately, I didn’t care.
That’s why I haven’t bothered talking to him. Not sure why anyone else is. He’s the board’s latest troll, the grown-ups will ignore him, and eventually he’ll go away.
PAD
The POINT, of course, is that Peter David is a liar.
And I AM funny.. David said so himself!
By the way… I am NEVER going away. From now on, I am this site’s political watchdog.
Everything Peter David ever says politically is meant to prove BUSH SUCKS, and I intend to refute this, as well as EVERY post that supports this false claim, FROM NOW ON.
Get used to it!
Here’s a post by Kevin Drum today on how the republicans have to take every opportunity to produce hit pieces on Bill Clinton so American can forget how good things were under his presidency: . Like X-Ray, they have to drown out the truth.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_06/006448.php
Nope, I won’t, X-Ray. You are just the newest fool and idiot to show up here. Been there, done that.