the shootings helped obama.

#101
#101
IPorange said:
The reason why they're mentioning the "when" on the tests is that IQ tests are obviously not perfect, and fluctuate a lot when taken at young ages, generally skewing upwards. But I'm sure you knew that.
Click to expand...

The minimum accepted age (I looked it up this time around) is 2 for the Stanford-Binet. The best yield is generally around 5-7 years of age. Much older and it stops becoming about intellectually driven actions and more about thought driven actions.

I think I was around 6 when my parents dragged me in to take it.
 
#102
#102
droski said:
LSAT Results Undermine Undergraduate Achievement for Minority Law School Applicants | FairTest

Issue: Oct 1998
A new study of admissions at the University of California (UC) at Berkeley's law school, Boalt Hall, shows that minority applicants from competitive undergraduate institutions lag behind their white counterparts on LSAT scores, even when matched by undergraduate grade-point average (UGPA).


The study, carried out by Testing for the Public, a nonprofit education research group, looked at 1,366 minority students who had attended Harvard, Yale, Stanford, UC Berkeley and UC Los Angeles (UCLA) and who sought admission to Boalt Hall between 1996 and 1998. Each student from a minority group was matched with all white applicants from the same college whose four-year UGPAs differed by no more than one-tenth of a point, on a four-point scale.



The LSAT score gap between white and minority group applicants with similar grades was 9.3 points for African Americans, 6.87 for Chicanos and Latinos, 3.77 for Native Americans and 2.48 for Asian-Americans. The LSAT is scored on a scale of 120 to 180. As pointed out by William Kidder, the Boalt Hall student who did the score matching, "[C]ollege achievement built over four years is routinely destroyed in four hours on the LSAT." This holds true even for students from the most rigorous undergraduate institutions.
Click to expand...

1. Nice source
2. The study didn't even have anything to do with admitted students or the admission process.
 
#103
#103
Ed12111 said:
You disagree with some of his positions, so he is of lower intelligence. O.K, that's a different weird, but I understand it.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I can't help but revisit this again. I talk about politics with people a lot. Very intelligent people, many of whom disagree with me. They can agree with Obama on a fundamental level and agree with his values and still criticize the ultimate action he took or his methodology. It isn't based on simply "disagreeing with his positions."

An example of this is health care. Many very liberal people would tell what was passed was silly and not worth the political capital. Of course they wanted a health care bill, but what was done was a half-measure that had a net-cost, all things considered, that far exceeded the benefits.

You can suspend personal beliefs and politics and evaluate "plays" objectively.
 
#105
#105
I can't believe anyone is arguing that a guy who was president of the Harvard Law Review didn't deserve to be there or otherwise isn't that great a student or whatever.

Its like saying you don't like a particular Bentley because of the style of the radio knobs.
 
#106
#106
DC Vol said:
I think I was around 6 when my parents dragged me in to take it.
Click to expand...

My parents never took me, which annoys me, because I have know idea what my IQ is. Luckily, short of a zombie apocalypse, I will never be President.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#108
#108
IPorange said:
Sorry, I can't help but revisit this again. I talk about politics with people a lot. Very intelligent people, many of whom disagree with me. They can agree with Obama on a fundamental level and agree with his values and still criticize the ultimate action he took or his methodology. It isn't based on simply "disagreeing with his positions."

An example of this is health care. Many very liberal people would tell what was passed was silly and not worth the political capital. Of course they wanted a health care bill, but what was done was a half-measure that had a net-cost, all things considered, that far exceeded the benefits.

You can suspend personal beliefs and politics and evaluate "plays" objectively.
Click to expand...

So, you disagree with the way he uses his perceived political capital. This kind of undermines your portrayal of him as a political idealist, no?
 
#109
#109
Ed12111 said:
I'll concede a point when you make one.
Click to expand...

why make a point? you and your daddy, utgibbs, will just tell me that I'm not living in the real world and then you'll have your pet 800 lb. go-rilla take a dump on my keyboard.

of course, after that, go-rilla will feel right as rain
 
#110
#110
DC Vol said:
The minimum accepted age (I looked it up this time around) is 2 for the Stanford-Binet. The best yield is generally around 5-7 years of age. Much older and it stops becoming about intellectually driven actions and more about thought driven actions.

I think I was around 6 when my parents dragged me in to take it.
Click to expand...

I must have been mistaken. I'll have to read up on this stuff sometime this weekend. I must have had the "when" of when it was less reliable straight backwards, I guess.
 
#111
#111
MG1968 said:
why make a point? you and your daddy, utgibbs, will just tell me that I'm not living in the real world and then you'll have your pet 800 lb. go-rilla take a dump on my keyboard.

of course, after that, go-rilla will feel right as rain
Click to expand...

That's funny. You should keep milking that.
 
#112
#112
Ed12111 said:
So, you disagree with the way he uses his perceived political capital. This kind of undermines your portrayal of him as a political idealist, no?
Click to expand...

No. He forced something through just to say he addressed the issue, advanced, the ball, etc. instead of strategically playing the hand he was dealt and actually doing something meaningful.
 
#113
#113
lawgator1 said:
I can't believe anyone is arguing that a guy who was president of the Harvard Law Review didn't deserve to be there or otherwise isn't that great a student or whatever.

Its like saying you don't like a particular Bentley because of the style of the radio knobs.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. I think most of us aren't arguing that he's stupid, just that he isn't the genius or "smartest President ever" that he is frequently labeled as.
 
#114
#114
DC Vol said:
The minimum accepted age (I looked it up this time around) is 2 for the Stanford-Binet. The best yield is generally around 5-7 years of age. Much older and it stops becoming about intellectually driven actions and more about thought driven actions.

I think I was around 6 when my parents dragged me in to take it.
Click to expand...

think I was in kindergarten. Still have the results in the attic somewhere (mom kept every scrap of paper while growing up and sent them all to me)
 
#115
#115
lawgator1 said:
I can't believe anyone is arguing that a guy who was president of the Harvard Law Review didn't deserve to be there or otherwise isn't that great a student or whatever.

Its like saying you don't like a particular Bentley because of the style of the radio knobs.
Click to expand...

since ed wont answer the question. you want to explain why he wasn't on the honor roll at columbia or occidental if his grades were harvard law worthy?
 
#117
#117
IPorange said:
No. He forced something through just to say he addressed the issue, advanced, the ball, etc. instead of strategically playing the hand he was dealt and actually doing something meaningful.
Click to expand...

Then yes you do disagree with the way he uses his perceived political capital. Now you're going even further away from your portrayal of him as a political idealist. Now he sounds rather Machiavellian.
 
#118
#118
Ed12111 said:
Then yes you do disagree with the way he uses his perceived political capital. Now you're going even further away from your portrayal of him as a political idealist. Now he sounds rather Machiavellian.
Click to expand...

you really are coming around. good for you.
 
#119
#119
fl0at said:
My parents never took me, which annoys me, because I have know idea what my IQ is. Luckily, short of a zombie apocalypse, I will never be President.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I think it's an ultimately pointless exam. Kind of like assuming every guy with a GT score of 130+ is topmast.
 
#120
#120
Ed12111 said:
Then yes you do disagree with the way he uses his perceived political capital. Now you're going even further away from your portrayal of him as a political idealist. Now he sounds rather Machiavellian.
Click to expand...

My "no" was in reference to it undermining my idealist comment. I'm saying he's such an idealist, he's seemingly more concerned with "scoring points" than good policy (not to be mistaken with "policy I agree with," but rather policy that causes the desired effect and sticks). His intent may be Machiavellian in strategy (I think Emmanuel certainly fits that sort of mold), but it falls short when it comes to results.
 
#121
#121
IPorange said:
My "no" was in reference to it undermining my idealist comment. I'm saying he's such an idealist, he's seemingly more concerned with "scoring points" than good policy (not to be mistaken with "policy I agree with," but rather policy that causes the desired effect and sticks). His intent may be Machiavellian in strategy (I think Emmanuel certainly fits that sort of mold), but it falls short when it comes to results.
Click to expand...

Except he has repeatedly stated that although the healthcare bill is not perfect(or what he would have preferred), it's better than before. If you disagree with that then you are making a distinction of "policy I disagree with".
 
#122
#122
droski said:
since ed wont answer the question. you want to explain why he wasn't on the honor roll at columbia or occidental if his grades were harvard law worthy?
Click to expand...


I have no idea why he got what grades he got or why he got into whatever school he got into.

Also, not saying he's the smartest ever. Frankly, seems like a pointless debate since there is no basis to compare. I mean, Reagan might not have been the sharpest tool in the shed in terms of academics but the guy was a master politician. Bush was, in my opinion, a bit of a dolt, but he knew how to delegate. Clinton was pretty bright, but had the judgment on occasion of a horny teenager.
 
#123
#123
lawgator1 said:
I have no idea why he got what grades he got or why he got into whatever school he got into.

Also, not saying he's the smartest ever. Frankly, seems like a pointless debate since there is no basis to compare. I mean, Reagan might not have been the sharpest tool in the shed in terms of academics but the guy was a master politician. Bush was, in my opinion, a bit of a dolt, but he knew how to delegate. Clinton was pretty bright, but had the judgment on occasion of a horny teenager.
Click to expand...

To be fair, no one was arguing he was the smartest ever.
 
#124
#124
If a politician isn't Machiavellian... they're doing it wrong. It's about putting up a facade and staying abreast with the ebb and flow (or perceived) of the body politic.

I highly doubt many politicans are acting (and campaigning) as a result of their own political ideals.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top