4um: Obama's Years at Columbia Are a Mystery - He Graduated Without Honors

Senator Obama's life story, from his humble roots, to his rise to Harvard Law School, to his passion as a community organizer in Chicago, has been at the center of his presidential campaign. But one chapter of the tale remains a blank — his education at Columbia College, a place he rarely speaks about and where few people seem to remember him.

Contributing to the mystery is the fact that nobody knows just how well Mr. Obama, unlike Senator McCain and most other major candidates for the past two elections, performed as a student.

The Obama campaign has refused to release his college transcript, despite an academic career that led him to Harvard Law School and, later, to a lecturing position at the University of Chicago. The shroud surrounding his experience at Columbia contrasts with that of other major party nominees since 2000, all whom have eventually released information about their college performance or seen it leaked to the public.

For better or worse, voters have taken an interest in candidates' grades since 1999, when the New Yorker published President Bush's transcript at Yale and disclosed that he was a C student. Mr. Bush had never portrayed himself as a brain, but many were surprised to learn the next year that his opponent, Vice President Gore, did not do much better at Harvard despite his intellectual image. When Senator Kerry's transcript surfaced, reporters found that he actually had a slightly lower average at Yale than Mr. Bush did.

Some political observers cite such disclosures as proof that candidates' intelligence cannot be judged solely by their political careers or the schools they attended. Grades provide a rare measure of intellect that is immune to political spin, proponents say.

"We like to pretend IQ doesn't matter, but it really does with a lot of jobs, including the presidency," a professor at Smith College who studies the effects of human intelligence on the economy, James Miller, said. "We can't trust the information that candidates give us, so it's important to look for objective data that they can't falsify or distort."

Mr. Miller acknowledged that Mr. Obama displayed academic achievement at Harvard, where he graduated magna cum laude and led the Harvard Law Review. Still, Mr. Miller said, he would like to see information about how Mr. Obama performed in various subjects at Columbia.

That view is not shared by other election observers, including some who have themselves indulged the public's interest in candidates' academic records. One of them is Geoffrey Kabaservice, a political historian who in 2000 published Senator Bradley's relatively low score of 485 on the verbal SAT. Mr. Bradley, a Rhodes Scholar who was a star basketball player at Princeton, was running for the Democratic presidential nomination.

"It's awfully hard to correlate anything, really, about a person on the basis of their grades," Mr. Kabaservice said, explaining that he published Mr. Bradley's score to highlight limitations in intelligence testing. He said he doubted that candidates' grades have affected the outcome of any recent presidential elections.

"For people who didn't like George W. Bush, for example, the grade aspect only confirmed what they thought about him," Mr. Kabaservice said. "And for everybody else, it made him more of a regular guy."

The Obama campaign declined to comment for this article and did not offer an explanation for why his transcript has not been released. But observers speculated that one reason might be the racially charged nature of the election. Mr. Obama has acknowledged benefiting from affirmative action in the past, and details about his academic performance might open him up to critics eager to accuse him, probably unfairly, of receiving a free ride, Mr. Kabaservice said.

"Anyone who is a minority and who's come up partially through the meritocracy — getting into good colleges, and subsequently good law schools — is going to come under suspicion that there was some kind of affirmative action boost," he said. "I suspect this is an area of discomfort for Obama."

In contrast with the rest of Mr. Obama's life story, little is known about his college experience. He attended Occidental College in Los Angeles for two years before transferring to Columbia in 1981. The move receives only a mention in Mr. Obama's 1995 memoir, "Dreams from My Father," which instead devotes that chapter to his impressions of race and class struggles in New York.

An article in a Columbia University publication, Columbia College Today, reported that Mr. Obama has portrayed Columbia as a period of buckling down following a troubled adolescence. He did not socialize much, he has said, instead spending a lot of time in the library, "like a monk." He has also stated that he was involved to some extent with the Black Students Organization.

Federal law limits the information that Columbia can release about Mr. Obama's time there. A spokesman for the university, Brian Connolly, confirmed that Mr. Obama spent two years at Columbia College and graduated in 1983 with a major in political science. He did not receive honors, Mr. Connolly said, though specific information on his grades is sealed. A program from the 1983 graduation ceremony lists him as a graduate.

More is known about Mr. McCain's experience at the United States Naval Academy, where he was a self-described troublemaker and graduated in the bottom 1% of his class. The McCain campaign has declined to release his transcript, saying that his performance at the academy can only be viewed in the context of his larger military career.

"His record stands on its own," a McCain spokesman, Peter Feldman, said. "His time spent in college was part of the transformative years that made him who he was."

Okay, let's compare 'Obama graduated without honors' with 'McCain graduated at the very bottom of his class'.

But the headline is 'Obama did not graduate at the top of his class?' How stupid is that?

Fine. Let's see what 'we' know about Ms. Palin's collegiate activities. I believe that 'we' know that it took her 6 years to get that advanced degree in sports journalism and, apparently, she transfered to 5 or 6 colleges while at it.

Oh, and do 'we' know why McCain, after he finished at the absolute bottom of his class, he was sent straight to flight school? And do 'we' know how many planes he crashed while in training? And why was he allowed to serially crash them?

Obama displayed academic achievement at Harvard, where he graduated magna cum laude and led the Harvard Law Review. That puts him in the top 10% of his law class at one of the top 2 law schools in the U.S.

My UGPA was 3.83 (Computer Science/minors in math, economics polysci -yes it took me 5 years to get thru all the hours) and I scored at the 90% percentile on the LSAT. I applied to Harvard as my "dream school" and I wasn't even considered. I did get accepted to the Univ of Mich, AZ State U, Texas but was denied by Harvard, Stanford and Berkeley.

Since I was already married and had 2 children at that time and you were not allowed to work while attending L.S. I opted to go the Masters route.

What does that have to do with it? He went to one of the two top schools and graduated with honors and in the top 10% GPA. If you don't like his politics then say so and discuss issues and his positions you disagree with. Stop falling into the "distract the voter" trap of the commie neocons. And being black doesn't guarantee you admission. A black associate at my undergrad university (we were on the Student Supreme Court together there) had a 3.78 and scored in the 88th%tile and he didn't get accepted to Mich, Stanford or Yale which were his dream schools.

Actually, FWIW, McCain was shooting missiles at communist migs while all Obomber shoot was staples into radical fliers attached to telephone poles. So putting aside the right or wrong of Vietnam, McCain had courage.

McCain should have been court-martialed and given a D.H. His childish stupidity while stationed aboard the Forrestal cost the lives of 132 sailors.

Black goes a long way (sounds to me you got fucked, but suck it up) and his politics were belched from Marx.

Agree. Send an email to both your Senator and representative and get the ball rolling!

I can't believe I'm having to defend somebody I will not vote for. Give examples - specific examples to substantiate the ignorant comment above.

He was as competent at shooting missiles AND staying up in the air as he was at doing his homework in school.

By the way, I doubt he was shooting much at anything that could shoot back. Wasn't he in the business of dropping napalm on defenseless people?

And don't forget, he idolizes his father who should have been tried for treason and sentenced to life in prison.

I suppose most did what they were ordered to do, much like Saul Alinsky acolytes.

He believes in a large central government and a redistribution of wealth for starts.

“A fighter pilot is a military aviator trained to engage other aircraft and typically pilots a fighter aircraft. Fighter pilots undergo specialized training in aerial warfare and dogfighting (close range aerial combat).” From - Wikipedia.

John McCain flew A-4 Skyhawks almost exclusively for his entire military career. The A-4 is a light bomber known as the “Tinkertoy Bomber”. This is what he was in when he caused the accident on the Forrestal and plane he was flying when he was shot down and subsequently captured.

There was only one confirmed air to air kill involving the A-4 during the entire Vietnam War, and that was on May 1, 1967 by by LCDR Theodore R. Swartz with an unguided air-to-air missle.

Talking about 'wealth redistribution', what would you call taking a trillion dollars and using it to blowing up things and dismembering/crushing/burning people alive in foreign countries? Wealth destruction? Criminal waste?

Can you name a politican besides Paul and one or two others who don't? And bush was responsible for the largest redistribution of wealth upward from the working class to the upper 2%. The only other president that came close to accomplishing that type fascist crap was Reagan and because of his administration's supply-side economics the deficit went through the roof and Americans ended up with the largest peacetime tax increase in the 20th century.

All taxation, without exception, is wealth redistribution. So is irresponsible borrowing.

You asked me about Obama, so lets stay on topic. Were the examples I gave you tenants of Marx or not?

What is academic achievement at Harvard law? My understanding is that the law school is not rigorous, the feeling being that once you have been admitted, you have demonstrated your academic abilities. Indeed, I recall a Harvard law grad telling me as much over lunch.

Which then raises the question how Obama got into Harvard law. Which is the question obliquely posed by this article.

But then, my view of Harvard law may be colored by the fact that I was invited, unsolicited, to apply there after I took my LSATs. I think they liked my professional experience as a JBT. Columbia as well (they even waived the admission fee). However, having no interest in taking my wife (no children) to live in an overpriced sewer like Cambridge or Manhattan without sufficient financial means, I chose not to respond.

Me too. After I graduated from high school, I was offered a job as Admiral of the Siamese fleet.

Of course, I turned it down. I wasn't a good swimmer and I was really into interplanetary exploration at the time.

He didn't shoot missiles at other migs. That is what you said. Most A-4s didn't even carry slingers. Most of the bamtom bombers had 2 20mm cannons and carried 2 zuni and/or AIMs. The newer ones had two more hardpoints but these rockets were mostly for self-defense while they were running strikes.

Well, I went one year at ASU until my family budget was so damaged that I chose not to return and instead went back to work and pursued my Masters degree part time. And I easily averaged 50+ hours a week studying exclusive of in class time and it was tough.

And the only ones I heard of that were invited as you say "unsolicited" were those who had LSATs in the 750+ range so if you scored that high on the LSAT you were easily in the top 1% and should be commended. I had a headache for two days after the stupid LSAT.

Wikipedia will tell you how successful she was - she got runner-up and won Miss Congeniality.

"A leader, for a change." - Jimmy Carter, 1976 campaign slogan. Sound familiar? Here it comes again!

The different schools at Berkeley do their own admissions thing. So, you apply to the Native American Studies program or some other such nonsense and then change your major once you get in.

"A leader, for a change." - Jimmy Carter, 1976 campaign slogan. Sound familiar? Here it comes again!

You suggested my comment vis a vis Obama and Marxist tenants was an ignorant comment. Above are the ten planks of the communist manifesto. I'd suggest Mr. Obama is hitting an A average.

Magna Cum Laude at Harvard means a 3.3 to 3.5 GPA if you take the thesis option. If you take the non-thesis option, you don't get honors no matter what.

"A leader, for a change." - Jimmy Carter, 1976 campaign slogan. Sound familiar? Here it comes again!

Today the top 1% of households receives more pretax income than the bottom 40%. And the distribution of wealth is even more lopsided. The top 1% of households owns nearly 40% of total household wealth -- more than the bottom 90% of households combined -- and earns half of all capital income. Income and wealth are more unevenly distributed among Americans than at any time since the Jazz Age of the 1920s. On measures of income and wealth inequality, the U.S. tops the charts among the advanced industrial nations.

RATHER THAN fashion economic policy to ameliorate the trends of growing income and wealth inequality, President Bush has championed policies that have exacerbated them. And if he is elected to a second term, he has put voters on notice that they should expect more of the same. A recent study by the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office confirms that the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts have disproportionately benefited the wealthiest households. The tax cuts have boosted the aftertax incomes of the top 1% of households, with average incomes in excess of $1,000,000, by 10% -- compared with a 2.3% increase for middle-income families with average incomes of $57,000 and a 1.6% increase for the bottom 20% of families, with average incomes of less than $17,000. The tax cuts for millionaires alone have reduced government revenues by $90 billion a year, more than the lost revenues from tax cuts for the 80% of families making less than $100,000. Ninety billion dollars a year is more than enough to pay for the comprehensive health-care plan proposed by John Kerry and for the promises President Bush himself made but has not funded in his No Child Left Behind education bill.

As an intended consequence of the Bush tax cuts, the share of federal taxes paid by the bottom 80% of taxpayers has increased, while the share paid by the top 1% has dropped. And that's before the elimination of the estate tax scheduled to take effect at the end of the decade, which will further reduce taxes on the wealthiest households. President Bush has repeatedly announced that the main economic priority of his second term will be making his tax cuts permanent. If he realizes this goal, he will have succeeded in passing the most regressive tax program in U.S. history. He will also have chosen tax relief for the rich over strengthening the Social Security system on which low-income workers, disabled workers, widows, and surviving children depend to avoid poverty. The tax code already favors those at the top. High-income households can afford to buy or build larger homes to take advantage of the tax deduction for mortgage interest payments. The top 20% of earners receives more than two-thirds of the benefits from tax deductions for private retirement savings. Most Americans are deeply in debt, and 95% can't afford to take advantage of such deductions. Yet President Bush wants to make them even more generous.

Employer-provided health-insurance plans also receive generous tax breaks, but less than half of low-wage workers enjoy such coverage, compared with 90% of high-wage workers. President Bush proposes a refundable tax credit for low-income individuals and families to help them buy health insurance. But according to the Kaiser Foundation, the credit is too small to enable most Americans to purchase coverage on their own. President Bush also proposes tax breaks for people who buy high-deductible health-insurance plans and who establish private health savings accounts to cover the bulk of their health-care costs. Under his plan, all contributions, earnings, and withdrawals from heath-savings accounts would be tax-free. This would be extremely attractive to high-income individuals but would raise the cost of traditional health-insurance coverage for lower-income and higher-risk populations. The inevitable result would be an increase in the number of uninsured and even greater inequality in access to health care.

If Bush is reelected, America will continue down the path of increasing inequality in income, wealth, and health, with dangerous implications for U.S. democracy.

Thank you. But, as I noted above, they may have found my work experience appealing -- I had graduated 11 years earlier and spent the last 5 with a quasi-governmental organization.

I do remember receiving the notice that my law school application was received and a notice I had been accepted on the same day.

Harvard Law School recognizes the achievement of attaining and maintaining high grades through graduation honors. 10% of class graduates magna cum laude with a GPA slightly above an A-minus (roughly the equivalent of a 3.72) or higher; the next 30% graduates cum laude with a GPA between a B+ and an A-minus (roughly the equivalent of a 3.55 or higher)

Again, don't generalize and expect to score points. Provide specifics where Obama has voted for or introduced legislation for the above.

Obama's economic strategy includes spending $150 billion on a green-energy plan. He wants to establish an infrastructure investment bank to the tune of $60 billion. He wants to expand health insurance by roughly $65 billion. He intends to regulate the profits for drug companies, health insurers and energy firms. He wants to establish a mortgage-interest tax credit. He wants to double the number of workers receiving the earned-income tax credit and triple the benefit for minimum wage workers. He has mentioned a mandatory form of national service for millions of youths and he has expressed a guarantee of a college education, I assume for legals and illegals.

I note that the first piece, which you cite, is an opinion piece without citations written by Clinton's chair of the Council of Economic Advisers and an adviser to Democratic Presidential nominee John Kerry published immediately before the 2004 presidential election. It appears to jump between pretax and posttax analyses, and does not offer any hard numbers. On the other hand, it does make the case that the Bush administration is directly responsible for the phenomena cited.

The second piece is more helpful, offering jump cites for the statements which it makes. It also makes the point that working class wages have stagnated, although it doesn't succeed in showing how the Bush administration was responsible for this dynamic. Then we have the prediction that, if the tax cuts are kept in place, "By 2015, the top 1 percent of taxpayers will pay a lower share of total taxes than they did in 2001." Which suggests they were paying a higher share than in 2001 at the time of the article. Then we have the citation to: "the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute recently released Pulling Apart: A State-by-State Analysis of Income Trends, a study highlighting the growing gap between rich and poor." But the date of this analysis is January 2000. It presumably would indict Clinton, not Bush.

The fourth cite is a thumbnail which asserts that "Another reason for the rising debt: Its main cause is tax cuts for the rich. The super-rich families that fund the think tanks behind this effort get richer while killing Social Security." I think Laura Tyson said the tax cuts benefitted the rich approximately $90 billion a year. It is hard to see where this $90 billion is the main cause of the deficit, in light of defense spending increases, benefits spending increases, or even earmarks.

Given what bush and the neocons have done and spent, I'll take what he offers over anything they offer. I agree with helping the poor and underprivileged as opposed to spending a trillion+ on immoral wars murdering Americans and citizens of other countries. I support increasing the earned income tax credit. Most of what you post I support as opposed to what bush and the neocons have done because it benefits Americans. I support regulating drug companies or else allowing citizens to purchase American drugs from other countries at a reduced price. What is the problem with trying to help Americans improve their education instead of spending the money on wars and giving it to traitors like Israel? And given that the U.S. ranks 36th in the world in healthcare, I think we need to do something instead of using supply-side economics and war profits to benefit the already rich.

But then again, I am a Christian who understands the difference between the fake right wing radical Christians and what Jesus taught.

Supply-side tax economics failed during the Reagan years and it will always fail when the economy is in a recession. Record deficits and massive tax increases because of the supply-side economics tax cut in the early 80s. Worst job recovery after a recession since the great depression. Supply-side economics works only when the economy is already strong but is a disaster when the economy is weak. The bush and neocon economic legislation along with their wars has virtually destroyed America.

you think that's going to end with the democrats? please. they are for the warfare state too. furthermore, are you willing to pay yourself to fund all of those things you say you support? where do you think the money comes from to fund paying for these socialist programs and welfare? it comes out of my pocket! it's not the benevolent government. surely you know that much?

All I said is I would prefer my tax dollars to be used for those type things as opposed to being spent on immoral and unnecessary wars. That is all I said. And when it comes to helping others, we have no problem. We have been blessed beyond anything most can imagine. Doctors repeatedly have told us that given my brain damage I should be like Terri Schiavo was and many have said I shouldn't be alive. Because of this, we no longer view $ as the most important thing in our lives. Are we rich? Not hardly. According to the bogus stats the govt puts out we are in the top 10% but anybody that says that is rich is full of crap.

But we earn enough to have bought a house for my parents and make the monthly payments for my mom (my dad passed away 3 years ago from cancer), the monthly house payment, utility bills and cable bills for my daughter and her 4 children (her bum of an ex doesn't pay any child support and she maybe makes $35,000 a year)and still give $200.00 a week to our church and some to charity. All of these excluding the charity come to about $28,000 a year and if we were to be asked do we regret doing this, the answer would be a definite NO!

Like I said, we understand that $ is a necessary part of life but realize it is not the most important part.

Versus the NEOCON false flag excuse for war, siphoning of trillions for the benefit of the corporate execs and globalists and the wanton destruction of sovereign countries in the attempt to confiscate their natural resources and government.

Don't forget Clinton was a part of it as well with NAFTA and other complicities.

The case for *neither branch of the National Party* has been made on this forum since it's inception. That's the camp I'm in. Exactly how you interpret what I say is between you and your gray matter.

surely you're not saying that's exclusive to the neocons (meaning republicans), are you? both parties are equally responsible for the warfare state.

you made the choice to help and take care of your own. you weren't forced by government. that's the way it should be and that's the point i was trying to make.

No, he wasn't. When someone makes a case against boneheaded stuff that your hero is planning it automatically makes them in favor of equally boneheaded $#it that someone else has done or is doing? Why can't they be against both?

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton

I think the republican party was hijacked by the neocons and is now defacto, neo con. The democrat party was also hijacked by the neocons initially to a lesser extent and the neocon corruption has now infiltrated and spread far and wide so that the dem party is now controlled by the neocons for the most part, ie, Nancty Pelosi and her faction which is the ruling faction.

The unwitting good dems signed onto war before the 911 false flag was exposed and so did some good pubs. For the most part, this plan/coup was hatched and carried out for years under guise. Some are now catching on, (us and others) but is it too late? I don't know. That's where the Obama people are coming from...that their guy is the only hope to halt or slow this madness.

"A leader, for a change." - Jimmy Carter, 1976 campaign slogan. Sound familiar? Here it comes again!

Sorry....I know the place too well. Four generations of Harvard grads and professors here.

"A leader, for a change." - Jimmy Carter, 1976 campaign slogan. Sound familiar? Here it comes again!

I'm just saying. Your critique of absolutely every suggestion or idea is quick and pointed. But where's a solution? How do you propose we move forward as a nation and a people.

I'd like to have these great minds here come up with some solutions. The ragging about the gpa is beneath your smarts.

What I posted came directly from the Harvard Law School. Now do I believe what they post on their law school site or you? I think you know who I believe.

Not politically my friend. To turn to the very class of people who have us nearly in chains is insanity. I suggest the answer to your question lies in the study of history, specifically revolutions. Whether you care for the eventual result of a particular revolution isn't important; learn what caused them, who fought them, who led them. Start with ours.

Matthew 6:1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

Matthew 6:2 Therefore when thou doest [thine] alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

Matthew 6:3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:

Matthew 6:4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton

Exactly right. Jesus was a great proponent of the ten commandments, one of which was and is, thou shalt not steal. And if your neighbor has no right to rob you then why do people you don't even know have a right to rob you to give a part of it--after they take their cut--to your neighbor?

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton

OK, a revolution. Even revolutions were planned and organized. I don't see a plan, JT.

1) In the 1980s and up until the late 1990s, many schools at Harvard didn't even give grades.
2) Harvard changed their honors system within the last three years.
3) When did you get your data and when did Obama graduate so which system did he graduate under? Do you even know?

"A leader, for a change." - Jimmy Carter, 1976 campaign slogan. Sound familiar? Here it comes again!

Don't waste my time. It is obvious you know very little about Harvard or you applied there and was rejected.

Considering the fact that you don't know what you are talking about a good part of the time I don't find it too surprising when other people don't know what you are talking about.

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton

Shouldn't you be over at LP or Freepers? Again, you have no idea what I am talking about. If you knew you might understand.

With your support for the clown with the jug ears shouldn't you be posting on the Daily KOS? And again, it appears to me that you don't know what you are talking about a big part of the time so why would you expect other people to?

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton

Tell what you mean by support? Is it wrong to want to know the truth and facts? Your logic is "let's see, I don't like somebody so the worst thing I hear or read about them has to be the truth, even if it isn't" That type of thinking is what has helped the neocons virtually destroy our country, our economy and our constitutional protections/rights. And your comment about Obama's ears? You a racist?

Oh, the fact that I can recognize jug ears when I see them makes me a "racist"? wtf have you been smoking? I have seen white people with jug ears too--you ever see the Britcom, Are You Being Served? One of the characters on that show, a "Mr. Rumbold" had the same kind of ears (he was white) and members of the staff called him jug ears. You are going to have to do better than that.

And there is nothing wrong with my logic. What have I said about your hero that isn't true?

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton

Its obvious you don't know much about anything but claim an outdated internet reference is how Harvard has always done things.

So much for what you THINK you know. Eight of ten graduate with honors? Golly gee, so much for "top ranked" and that's just the undergrads!

"A leader, for a change." - Jimmy Carter, 1976 campaign slogan. Sound familiar? Here it comes again!

I wonder, could it be those that attend Harvard earn those higher grades? Oh, that's right... if you go to Harvard you automatically earn an A in all classes.

Those are just a couple of articles I pulled up googling "harvard grade inflation" but the grade inflation, by 2000, had infected Harvard up and down.

Wow, two thirds? Kinda blows up the thought that honors at Harvard Law are special.....

"A leader, for a change." - Jimmy Carter, 1976 campaign slogan. Sound familiar? Here it comes again!

My hero? If I decide to vote this year I will be voting either for Ron Paul or Chuck Baldwin. Again, you are not interested in facts and truth... you are controlled by your personal political agenda and belief. In other words, facts mean nothing to you. And your attempt at covering up for your ignorant remark about ears is pretty pitiful. Just because I like or don't like a person's politics doesn't mean I am going to insist they did A when in fact they did B. You seem to have a problem with that. It's called TRUTH AND FACTS.

That's right.. it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that those with the highest GPAs and SAT scores go to schools like Harvard, Yale etc. If they are getting better grades it can't be because they earn them. The school knows how smart they really are so they just give them the grades to keep them happy. Go back to FR where you are more at home.

He can't let it go. You made your point. His incessant posting on the topic reveals his weakness.

You ignore legacy admission to Harvard. You don't have to have top-flight grades to get in there. In fact, under their diversity program, if you can show that you have OK grades and come from an impoverished background, you can get in to Harvard. They have a program for that too. Then there is Affirmative Action or Daddy can just endow a chair and you get in anyhow.

Keep trying. Some day you'll come up with an argument can't be refuted and dismissed in short order.

"A leader, for a change." - Jimmy Carter, 1976 campaign slogan. Sound familiar? Here it comes again!

Harvard, Yale and to a far lesser degree Columbia and Princeton all graduate their students with a first rate left wing indoctrination in social policy, a constellation of insider connections and a high degree of hubris. I'm not as impressed with Obama's education as you are.

As I told you, you will have to do better than you have so far to prove your statement that I am a racist. What I said was not an "ignorant remark," it was the truth, a fact you can verify for yourself if you can get that show I mentioned--it is on public TV where I live. I have no problem with the truth (and you don't have to say "TRUTH AND FACTS"--if it is true it is a fact).

As for being "controlled" by my personal political agenda and beliefs I am "controlled" no more or less by that than anyone else is. And show me where I have lied about Obama. I can wait (and wait, and wait).

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton

You're right. I have a feeling that if he went to college he perhaps applied to an IVY league school and was rejected.