Well, that's no different than evangelical men questioning whether their wives should be able to talk in the car or not. They solved the probllem by just pushing them out and blaming it on the will of Jeebus.
I def took a chance on this, but it made me laugh. The site is called βJust Donβt Send Flowersβ. Wasnβt cheap, but my friend said everything in it was good. He wouldnβt lie to me either. I donβt think. :D
I attended Cornell in the mid-late '70s on an ROTC scholarship. I was what passed for middle-class in a remote small Southern city. I met a remarkable number of students from lower middle-class backgrounds from diverse locations that made up for the number of spoiled Jersey/Long Island kids.
Oh, absolutety. I imagine hat's true of most schools with ROTC. I remember that some of the Ivies cancelled ROTC during the Viet Nam War, but iooks like they all have it now.
I'm from Australia, where "legacy admission" to universities is unknown. I'm sure there are legacy students who would have earned their place anyway, and are a credit to their institutions. But that wasn't my point.
University graduates go onto jobs that hold people's lives in their hands. Of course, so do technical and blue collar workers, but their individual potential to cause carnage is much more limited. An incompetent aircraft mechanic may cause one plane to crash. An incompetent aircraft designer can do a lot worse.
Society needs the best quality people available filling those positions. That's why businesses with diverse teams have higher profits. Why the hell is ANY university accepting applicants on ANY quality but merit? Why are they deliberately limiting their pool to "more of the same"? It sounds like absolute madness to me, and I can't imagine why anyone ever thought it was a good id-
(Looks at some famous legacy admissions, who would probably not have gotten near ANY university if not for favouritism. Notes how they tend to skew white, male, and wealthy).
I was astonished to learn about "legacy" admissions. You're ushered to the head of the queue for prestigious institutions because YOUR PARENT WENT THERE??? So the Ivy Leagues have established a hereditary aristocracy, who have access to opportunities based on their birth rather than their ability. What the hell.
Quite apart from the philosophical perversion, it's bad business practice. Positioning your brand as The Best of the Best is only sustainable if your products live up to the advertising. We're hearing about a lot of Harvard Law graduates who are not only utter dumbasses, but bad at lawyering. Who, like like this fool, are presenting courts with weak, cherry-picked arguments that get drop-kicked in a hot second. That's not the way to make your Alma Mater look good.
Harvard Law's whole schtick is that it produces the best and smartest lawyers, who've spent their education mixing with the rich and famous and have the best networking opportunities. And yes, those connections and network make Harvard grads very appealing to big firms. But are they still worth it if they're a total dumbass? If they're frat buddies with the son of Fortune 500 CEOs, but can't write a motion that won't get them jailed for contempt of court? Maybe their connections can bring in enough cash to make up for their useless lawyering. Maybe not.
If it keeps churning out dumbasses who are bad at lawyering, how long before Harvard Law loses its reputation? For employers and students? Bad business practice. Get rid of legacy positions and only take the best and brightest, is my advice.
https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
Pillow Guy tried with his oleandrin, Trump with bleach. They sat there with their sadistic smirks, and everyone made excuses for them.
DeSantis is in the news. But most other governors in the south are doing the same things. What's the pay off? They're not all running for president.
That's the only explanation that's made any sense so far.
I donβt understand how this whiny twat thinks heβs getting anywhere near the White House.
Well, that's no different than evangelical men questioning whether their wives should be able to talk in the car or not. They solved the probllem by just pushing them out and blaming it on the will of Jeebus.
I def took a chance on this, but it made me laugh. The site is called βJust Donβt Send Flowersβ. Wasnβt cheap, but my friend said everything in it was good. He wouldnβt lie to me either. I donβt think. :D
I attended Cornell in the mid-late '70s on an ROTC scholarship. I was what passed for middle-class in a remote small Southern city. I met a remarkable number of students from lower middle-class backgrounds from diverse locations that made up for the number of spoiled Jersey/Long Island kids.
Oh, absolutety. I imagine hat's true of most schools with ROTC. I remember that some of the Ivies cancelled ROTC during the Viet Nam War, but iooks like they all have it now.
I'm from Australia, where "legacy admission" to universities is unknown. I'm sure there are legacy students who would have earned their place anyway, and are a credit to their institutions. But that wasn't my point.
University graduates go onto jobs that hold people's lives in their hands. Of course, so do technical and blue collar workers, but their individual potential to cause carnage is much more limited. An incompetent aircraft mechanic may cause one plane to crash. An incompetent aircraft designer can do a lot worse.
Society needs the best quality people available filling those positions. That's why businesses with diverse teams have higher profits. Why the hell is ANY university accepting applicants on ANY quality but merit? Why are they deliberately limiting their pool to "more of the same"? It sounds like absolute madness to me, and I can't imagine why anyone ever thought it was a good id-
(Looks at some famous legacy admissions, who would probably not have gotten near ANY university if not for favouritism. Notes how they tend to skew white, male, and wealthy).
Oh. OK.
Trump won?
Funny. Above I mentioned the Ivy law schools and totally fogort about Princeton. There's probably a reason for that.
I was astonished to learn about "legacy" admissions. You're ushered to the head of the queue for prestigious institutions because YOUR PARENT WENT THERE??? So the Ivy Leagues have established a hereditary aristocracy, who have access to opportunities based on their birth rather than their ability. What the hell.
Quite apart from the philosophical perversion, it's bad business practice. Positioning your brand as The Best of the Best is only sustainable if your products live up to the advertising. We're hearing about a lot of Harvard Law graduates who are not only utter dumbasses, but bad at lawyering. Who, like like this fool, are presenting courts with weak, cherry-picked arguments that get drop-kicked in a hot second. That's not the way to make your Alma Mater look good.
Harvard Law's whole schtick is that it produces the best and smartest lawyers, who've spent their education mixing with the rich and famous and have the best networking opportunities. And yes, those connections and network make Harvard grads very appealing to big firms. But are they still worth it if they're a total dumbass? If they're frat buddies with the son of Fortune 500 CEOs, but can't write a motion that won't get them jailed for contempt of court? Maybe their connections can bring in enough cash to make up for their useless lawyering. Maybe not.
If it keeps churning out dumbasses who are bad at lawyering, how long before Harvard Law loses its reputation? For employers and students? Bad business practice. Get rid of legacy positions and only take the best and brightest, is my advice.
Notice how the Don't Fauci My Florida merchandise looks like a medical illustration cross-section of a patient intubation?
Ta, Liz. He really deserves the moniker Gov. DeathSentence.
Evidently you can get a stand-in for all the required ethics classes.