Obsidian Potency 3.0
The positive side to evangelical schools...sort of.
posted Friday, 25 May 2007
Well, at least the flip-image, if you could call it that. Today, the Post published an editorial that puts a positive spin on the growing numbers of graduates from the newest, religiously-affiliated schools. This proves that, in spite of yesterday's post, at least we are balanced on OP.
Here's the thing: the editorial says nothing of substance. It basically says, 'Look at the culture of these young men and women. They are motivated, smart and successful.' Trust me - I'd be the last person to assert that you have to go to a top-ranked school in order to prove how smart and capable you are. [As an aside, Goodling went to Messiah College before attending Regent for law school.]
But let's get real: the bottom line is that most of these shcools are not 'hidden gems'. Georgetown is a religious school, and so is Notre Dame. Both have above-decent (ND) to outstanding (GU) reputations for academic excellence. Regent College of Law does not. I'd never assume that someone who went to a second-tier law school was much less capable than someone who went to a first-tier law school. But I will assume there's a different between the top two tiers and the lowest tier.
Even within my alma mater's athletic conference, the schools are not academically equal. You can't tell me that Ohio State presents just as challenging an academic environment as Northwestern. You just can't. Yes, rankings are political and subjective. But not so much so that you can't tell the difference between the average aptitude of the students at an middle-of-the-road academic university and the students at a top school.
Smart people go to both schools. But ultimately, admission relied upon higher benchmarks for the Northwestern students compared with the Ohio State grads. It's not that either student body is a total joke -- it just that it's a lot harder to get into Northwestern, period. And not just because it's a smaller school.
Bringing this back to Goodling, here's an interesting quote from the article: "The image of Goodling that emerged in the hearing did not match the "hayseed" of Maher's imagination. A colleague said that it was not unusual to find Goodling BlackBerrying at 2 a.m. or preparing briefs late into the night. Goodling described one bit of office politics as a clash between two "Type A" women in which she played the Eve Harrington character in "All About Eve" and won. "Televangelist" did not seem to be on her list of career goals."
Pardon me for pointing this out, but I fail to see how any of that -- or the other examples cited in this piece -- have anything to do with having the intelligence and wisdom needed to do the job. I'm glad she can use a Blackberry; that doesn't mean her education at Messiah and Regent left her as prepared to deal with her position as a schooling track of, say, Michigan-Stanford. Obviously, she either had subpar ethics classes or she chose not to pay attention during them.
This world is filled with idiots who think they are smarter than they actually are. Keep in mind that I'm not even calling Goodling an idiot. Going to an evangelical school doesn't make you an idiot. But going to a bad school? That might indicate mediocrity. In any case, I refuse to lionize her as a "smart young Christian" as she testifies to making some incredibly stupid, basic ethical mistakes at her very important job.
Which leads me again to the same conclusion that Bill Maher had: this presidential administration has consistently used irrelevant criteria to fill extremely important government positions. If Messiah and Regent were top-ranked schools, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. But they aren't -- which makes me think someone placed way too high an emphasis on Goodling's religious affiliation when she was selected. Given how many of Bush's other political appointments have ben exposed as underqualified frauds, it's an easy intellectual leap to make. I find it hard to believe that the only qualified candidates for her position attended evangelical schools at both the undergraduate and graduate levels.
Or maybe she just interviewed really well.
Here's the thing: the editorial says nothing of substance. It basically says, 'Look at the culture of these young men and women. They are motivated, smart and successful.' Trust me - I'd be the last person to assert that you have to go to a top-ranked school in order to prove how smart and capable you are. [As an aside, Goodling went to Messiah College before attending Regent for law school.]
But let's get real: the bottom line is that most of these shcools are not 'hidden gems'. Georgetown is a religious school, and so is Notre Dame. Both have above-decent (ND) to outstanding (GU) reputations for academic excellence. Regent College of Law does not. I'd never assume that someone who went to a second-tier law school was much less capable than someone who went to a first-tier law school. But I will assume there's a different between the top two tiers and the lowest tier.
Even within my alma mater's athletic conference, the schools are not academically equal. You can't tell me that Ohio State presents just as challenging an academic environment as Northwestern. You just can't. Yes, rankings are political and subjective. But not so much so that you can't tell the difference between the average aptitude of the students at an middle-of-the-road academic university and the students at a top school.
Smart people go to both schools. But ultimately, admission relied upon higher benchmarks for the Northwestern students compared with the Ohio State grads. It's not that either student body is a total joke -- it just that it's a lot harder to get into Northwestern, period. And not just because it's a smaller school.
Bringing this back to Goodling, here's an interesting quote from the article: "The image of Goodling that emerged in the hearing did not match the "hayseed" of Maher's imagination. A colleague said that it was not unusual to find Goodling BlackBerrying at 2 a.m. or preparing briefs late into the night. Goodling described one bit of office politics as a clash between two "Type A" women in which she played the Eve Harrington character in "All About Eve" and won. "Televangelist" did not seem to be on her list of career goals."
Pardon me for pointing this out, but I fail to see how any of that -- or the other examples cited in this piece -- have anything to do with having the intelligence and wisdom needed to do the job. I'm glad she can use a Blackberry; that doesn't mean her education at Messiah and Regent left her as prepared to deal with her position as a schooling track of, say, Michigan-Stanford. Obviously, she either had subpar ethics classes or she chose not to pay attention during them.
This world is filled with idiots who think they are smarter than they actually are. Keep in mind that I'm not even calling Goodling an idiot. Going to an evangelical school doesn't make you an idiot. But going to a bad school? That might indicate mediocrity. In any case, I refuse to lionize her as a "smart young Christian" as she testifies to making some incredibly stupid, basic ethical mistakes at her very important job.
Which leads me again to the same conclusion that Bill Maher had: this presidential administration has consistently used irrelevant criteria to fill extremely important government positions. If Messiah and Regent were top-ranked schools, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. But they aren't -- which makes me think someone placed way too high an emphasis on Goodling's religious affiliation when she was selected. Given how many of Bush's other political appointments have ben exposed as underqualified frauds, it's an easy intellectual leap to make. I find it hard to believe that the only qualified candidates for her position attended evangelical schools at both the undergraduate and graduate levels.
Or maybe she just interviewed really well.
Want to read comments, or have something to say? Bring it.
Obsidian Hit Counter
Total: 297,543
since: 18 Oct 2004
since: 18 Oct 2004