A..........2
B..........20
C..........27
D..........9
F..........1
He did wind up with about a 2.5 average -- passing but certainly not outstanding. And there are a few things about the transcript that bothers me. A couple of the D's were in economics and math courses -- not inspiring for someone who wants to be in charge of the nation's economy (and may explain why he screwed up the Texas economy so badly).
Also, far too many of the C's and D's were in his last two years, when he should have been getting serious about grades and getting his degree (and have gotten the partying out of his system). And too many of the D's were in courses that were a part of his major field (Agriculture). Shouldn't those have been courses he was interested in and would do well in?
If he was elected it wouldn't be the first time a 2.5 grade-average person was in the White House. George Bush was a very uninspired student in college with about the same average. But after seeing how that presidency went, do we really want another George Bush in the White House? And that's exactly what Perry would be -- another George Bush (only a bigger religious nut than Bush and a little further to the teabagger right of the party).
After seeing those grades I begin to understand why Perry had no solutions for the drought or the bad economy except prayer. Do we really think he can pray away the serious problems facing America?
Thanks for this.
ReplyDeleteIt might be instructive if we could compare Perry's college grades to those of President Obama.
ReplyDeleteDo you know where I might be able to find copies of President Obama's transcripts?
I don't know where you can find transcripts. However, he was editor of the Harvard Law Review, and graduated from Harvard Law School magna cum laude. That sounds pretty impressive to me.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with comparing Rick Perry's undergraduate transcript with the end result of Barack Obama's law school studies is that it's asymmetrical.
ReplyDeleteTake economics for example. The press has picked up on the fact that Perry got a D in his undergraduate economics course. If Obama got an A in a comparable course, that would sharpen the differences between them. But we don't know how the President fared in economics, or even whether he took any economics courses at Occidental or Columbia, because he's never released his transcripts from either of those institutions.
A similar asymmetrical comparison is the budget. Paul Ryan's budget plan was detailed enough to be scored by the CBO, but it also left him wide open to criticism because of its more controversial features. President Obama's budget plan, on the other hand, was all sweetness and light, but it was so devoid of detail that the CBO couldn't even evaluate whether it was viable.
This is nothing new for Barack Obama. As a presidential candidate, his "Hope and Change" mantra was sufficiently vague so as to be a Rohrschach test - people read into it their own personal hopes. Remember Peggy Joseph?
"I won't have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage."
Like in poker, playing your cards close to your chest works in politics, too - at least over the short term.
magna cum laude
ReplyDeleteComparing what one person accomplished after he finally got his act together and stopped snorting cocaine to what another person failed to accomplish in his teens and early twenties is like comparing apples to oranges.
ReplyDeleteBut as long as we're on the topic of academic success as a predictor of political success, I'm reminded of two candidates who ran for the same office: one highly educated, the other not.
The educated candidate had an impressive resumé: undergraduate degree from the University of Michigan, law school graduate of Columbia University, successful prosecutor in a major city, and executive experience as governor of a populous Northeastern state.
The uneducated candidate only gradudated from high school and never attended college. He was from "fly over country" and his resumé wasn't nearly as impressive.
To add to the uneducated candidate's problems, he was so unimpressive that both extreme wings of his party ran third- and fourth-party candidates against him.
The educated candidate was so certain that he would win, he decided to play it safe and run a campaign not unlike our current President's - full of platitudes and short on specifics. In the end, the uneducated candidate won.
The year was 1948. The educated candidate was Thomas E. Dewey. The uneducated candidate was Harry S. Truman.
I'm in no way saying that Rick Perry is another Harry S. Truman, or that Barack Obama is another Thomas E. Dewey. All I'm saying is that educational accomplishments (or the lack thereof) is not a sure fire predictor of political success. If it were, Newt Gingrich, Ph.D. would be the next President of the United States.