David Kanter | Putting too much stock in paper

· December 3, 2008, 5:00 am

Share This

Jan. 20, 2009, will be a historic day. George W. Bush (Yale, Harvard MBA) will no longer be the president of this nation, ending a reign that I will generously term disgraceful. After eight years of incompetent decision-making and leadership, Obama and Co. will have to begin cleaning up the mess left behind by Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney (Yale attendee), former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (Princeton) and former Attorneys General John Ashcroft (Yale, Chicago Law) and Alberto Gonzales (Rice, Harvard Law).

Rest assured, however, David Brooks (Chicago) of The New York Times tells us in a column he penned recently, for Obama (Columbia, Harvard Law) has a whole squad of Ivy League-educated disciples ready to turn things around. Brooks excitedly writes that Obama's executive team "will be a valedictocracy - rule by those who graduate first in their high school classes."

Now, we all know that Bush-43 was never at the top of his class during his formative years - snorting coke does have its drawbacks. But the thing is, he and his inner circle - some of whom did graduate at the top of their Ivy classes - can rightly claim the same elite pedigree as Obama and his new team.

So despite the fact that Brooks finds himself "tremendously impressed by the Obama transition," we shouldn't be as impressed as Brooks is with the academic credentials of these new appointees. If the past eight years teach us anything, it's that a couple of fancy diplomas from a couple of stuffy schools don't really say all that much about someone's ability to make good decisions at the highest levels of government.

Now, do I know what makes a great cabinet member or presidential advisor? Certainly not. I'd imagine, however, that it involves some degree of expertise in your given field, mixed with a good deal of pragmatic know-how. Judging from all accounts that I've seen in the media, all of Obama's appointees seem to fit this bill.

But beyond all that, I keep hearing about the academic prowess that Obama's team is bringing to the table with Brooks' piece being the most blatant example. For instance, I've heard on about five occasions that Obama's appointee for Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, is a Dartmouth man. To me, this take-away should be of little consequence. For all I care, Geithner could've gone to UMass-Dartmouth instead of that preppy little school in the backwoods of New Hampshire. The fact that he did go to the more selective of the two Dartmouths and performed well tells me that he has probably attained some level of academic and intellectual competence, but whether he can help resurrect a tanking economy remains to be seen.

Bear in mind that our current Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, also happens to be a Dartmouth man and has a Harvard MBA.

Now, I'm not saying that academic success isn't a good indicator of smarts and ability. In fact, it's probably a pretty good indicator and likely one of the reasons why the power elite in this country graduate disproportionately from Ivy League schools and their peers.

But for those of you that get all worked up every time someone mixes up dear old Penn with that school out there in State College, I've got news for you: The school you went to says very little about your ability to get things done in the real world, especially, it seems, when it comes to government.

The fact of the matter is that for every FDR (Harvard), there seems to be a HST (no college degree) to finish out the war; for every JFK (Harvard), there seems to an LBJ (Southwest Texas State Teachers' College) to pass the Civil Rights Act. And Abraham Lincoln - one of the few presidents I'm confident in saying is unequivocally admired and respected - had a mere 18 months of schooling. If Tom Daschle (South Dakota State) or Joe Biden (the University of Delaware, Syracuse Law) has the solutions, then we should defer to them.

As we move closer to Inauguration Day, we need to bear in mind that as impressive as the resumes of Obama and his appointees might be, all of this excitement won't amount to much if they don't get results. And as the current administration has shown us, it's possible to come in with the credentials and go out with a crisis.

David Kanter is a College sophomore from East Falmouth, Mass. His e-mail is kanter@dailypennsylvanian.com. David vs. Goliath appears on Wednesdays.

Comments (11)

Sophomore (GED, Night school)

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm

Flag this comment

All kidding aside, this WAS one of the best articles I've read this year in the DP. For Mr. Penn 09 up there, get over yourself. This was a fair piece. It's not a sin to critique politicians.

Derp

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm

Flag this comment

[QUOTE id="26eed5ba-5ed4-4acf-893c-c73b41014b86"]C'mon. Obama did not in fact admit to "being a cokehead." He acknowledged that he used cocaine on occasion during a specific span of time. In contrast, Bush has never spoken about his history with drugs. That's his prerogative--although by remaining silent he doesn't disavow what others who knew him report: that he had a misspent youth of very heavy alcohol and cocaine use, including problems with the law and car accidents. Even in their drug use, the difference between Obama and Bush is pronounced. One is open about his use and reflective about his reasons; one is silent, probably from necessity, about behavior for which others have been thrown into prison under his administration.[/QUOTE] No one admits to being a coke head you dumb ass. Do you Obama worshipers have any idea how crazy you guys are? Obama does coke the right way! Bush does coke the evil way! I recently read a story about how a shop that sells cookies Obama likes is now sold out because people are driving miles to try them now. Doesn't this weird anyone else out? Do you think anyone cares what cookie McCain eats? Anyways, this article was OK. The bush bashing was unnecessary but it elicits praises from the idiot sheep who declare anyone who simply regurgitates the Bush is an idiot phrase a genius. I mean the overall thesis of the article is that we should elect and appoint smart people, not people who went to good schools. Not exactly controversial or novel....

Not Bush Bashing?

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm

Flag this comment

If the following quote isn't Bush bashing, then I don't know what is. "Jan. 20, 2009, will be a historic day. George W. Bush (Yale, Harvard MBA) will no longer be the president of this nation, ending a reign that I will generously term disgraceful. After eight years of incompetent decision-making and leadership, Obama and Co. will have to begin cleaning up the mess left behind by Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney (Yale attendee), former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (Princeton) and former Attorneys General John Ashcroft (Yale, Chicago Law) and Alberto Gonzales (Rice, Harvard Law)."

Benthead

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm

Flag this comment

Of course there is a wrong and right way (better and worse way) to do coke. Think about it. I'm sure you agree. I'm sorry the criticism of Bush, a lousy President, offends your sense of civility--kind of a surprise for someone who calls people dumb ass in public exchanges. But my regrets.

sergei eisenstein

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm

Flag this comment

[QUOTE id="1dfbe8c7-d1c1-408d-b7c5-016e24c66107"]great column, david kanter (penn).[/QUOTE] Sarah Palin, Excellent comment to this piece! You did not seem nearly as smart during the campaign.Not kidding.

Sarah Palin (Hawaii Pacific, North Idaho, Matanuska-Susitna,

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm

Flag this comment

great column, david kanter (penn).

Penn 09

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm

Flag this comment

Obama admitted to being a cokehead himself. But I guess it's okay to overlook our savior's faults in the name of some good old fashioned GWB bashing, right?

Benthead

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm

Flag this comment

C'mon. Obama did not in fact admit to "being a cokehead." He acknowledged that he used cocaine on occasion during a specific span of time. In contrast, Bush has never spoken about his history with drugs. That's his prerogative--although by remaining silent he doesn't disavow what others who knew him report: that he had a misspent youth of very heavy alcohol and cocaine use, including problems with the law and car accidents. Even in their drug use, the difference between Obama and Bush is pronounced. One is open about his use and reflective about his reasons; one is silent, probably from necessity, about behavior for which others have been thrown into prison under his administration.

doesn't matter

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm

Flag this comment

fuck Barack Obama

Take That!

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm

Flag this comment

[QUOTE id="1e289a71-c9b3-4973-8d57-06b3c67bdad4"]fuck Barack Obama[/QUOTE] That'll show him!

Alum 02

December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm

Flag this comment

One of the more interesting and well-written columns in the DP this year. And for those of you who seem to suggest it was GWB bashing, respectfully, I disagree. The point of the column is that the incoming admistration, just like the outgoing one, is possessed of tremendous academic pedigrees but will be judged on what it accomplishes, not what its apparent intellectual ability promises.

Comments are closed for this item.