NationStates Jolt Archive

Sen. John F. Kerry’s grade average at Yale University was virtually identical to President Bush’s record there, despite repeated portrayals of Kerry as the more intellectual candidate during the 2004 presidential campaign.

Kerry had a cumulative average of 76 and got four Ds his freshman year — in geology, two history courses and political science, The Boston Globe reported Tuesday.

In 1999, The New Yorker magazine published a transcript showing Bush had a cumulative grade average of 77 his first three years at Yale, and a similar average under a non-numerical rating system his senior year.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8127403/

Further proof that there is nary a difference between the two parties, aside form the hoopla of partisanship... what do you think?

Further proof that there is nary a difference between the two parties, aside form the hoopla of partisanship... what do you think?

I think everyone stoped caring during december last year.

I think everyone stoped caring during december last year.

Are you kidding? This is NationStates! Nothing is EVER resolved. :D

I think that's somewhat funny... in contrast, I also don't give a shit. Funny how things work out.

Sen. John F. Kerry’s grade average at Yale University was virtually identical to President Bush’s record there, despite repeated portrayals of Kerry as the more intellectual candidate during the 2004 presidential campaign.

Kerry had a cumulative average of 76 and got four Ds his freshman year — in geology, two history courses and political science, The Boston Globe reported Tuesday.

In 1999, The New Yorker magazine published a transcript showing Bush had a cumulative grade average of 77 his first three years at Yale, and a similar average under a non-numerical rating system his senior year.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8127403/

Further proof that there is nary a difference between the two parties, aside form the hoopla of partisanship... what do you think?

Thus, the choice was made, to choose the lesser of two evils... only one evil was better at pretending to be lesser! :D

Thus, the choice was made, to choose the lesser of two evils... only one evil was better at pretending to be lesser! :D
LOL! Very well done.

I think everyone stoped caring during december last year.

Partly agreed. Bush won, Kerry lost. Maybe Kerry was the better candidate, maybe he wasn't. But that part is over. Doesn't mean you can't critisize Bush though -but that criticism should be based on how he is functioning as president. Not on how well Kerry scored at his tests.

Still, only partly agreed, because the question "is there really any difference between the republicans and democrats" is also important outside the election period.

Further proof that there is nary a difference between the two parties, aside form the hoopla of partisanship... what do you think?

Which is why I voted for Michael Badnarik.

Kerry had a cumulative average of 76 and got four Ds his freshman year — in geology, two history courses and political science, The Boston Globe reported Tuesday.


OK he fluncked in geology, but in political science! Somehow you would hope that a future presidential candidate would be able to pass based on his personal interest in the subject.

In china almost all politicians has a degree in natural sciences or engineering, just like Mrs Tatcher. In most cases humanity is more important than brains if the combination is to much to ask for.

I wonder where the combination of balls and well-connected-daddy will take the US, and the world.

Which is why I voted for Michael Badnarik.

Good idea... I voted for Perot, once. :)

Which is why I voted for Michael Badnarik.
Ditto.

So basically, you were screwed from the start?

So basically, you were screwed from the start?

Yeah, but for me, it was the principle of the thing. It always is with me. If everyone voted their conscience rather than for the lesser of the two evils, we might end up with a decent president for a change. Oh I know, it's a radical idea and it will never work - but I can dream, can't I?

Grades are quite possibly the worse measure of intelligence.

Which is why I voted for Michael Badnarik.

Ding, ding, ding!!! We have the answer!

Grades are quite possibly the worse measure of intelligence.

Agreed. But I do find it amusing that one party (Republicans) accused the other of not serving honorably in Viet Nam when their candidate never went at all. Now we find out that one part (Democrats) accused the other of not deserving to be president because of their poor performance in college when their candidate was also a poor student. Add in that both parties put up blue bloods who pretend to be men of the people, both put up warmongers, etc., and you see that both parties don't really give us much of a choice for someone to hold the highest office in the land.

OK he fluncked in geology, but in political science! Somehow you would hope that a future presidential candidate would be able to pass based on his personal interest in the subject.

In china almost all politicians has a degree in natural sciences or engineering, just like Mrs Tatcher. In most cases humanity is more important than brains if the combination is to much to ask for.

I wonder where the combination of balls and well-connected-daddy will take the US, and the world.
That's also freshman year. It is possible that he goofed off (as many do) and then straightened up and did well the rest of the time. He must have gotten some pretty good grades to pull his average up after those D's.

And most unis have more than one class in political science... generally after you get past the first year one, there's a second year one... et c. It's possible to do relatively well in the course and then end up with two exams scheduled the same day and do poorly on the exam, thus in the course, it's also possible to write an essay that the prof didn't like. There are many reasons for getting poor grades.

Grades are quite possibly the worse measure of intelligence.
Yeah, in some courses it's basically how well can you regurgitate what your prof tells you.

That's also freshman year. It is possible that he goofed off (as many do) and then straightened up and did well the rest of the time. He must have gotten some pretty good grades to pull his average up after those D's.

And most unis have more than one class in political science... generally after you get past the first year one, there's a second year one... et c. It's possible to do relatively well in the course and then end up with two exams scheduled the same day and do poorly on the exam, thus in the course, it's also possible to write an essay that the prof didn't like. There are many reasons for getting poor grades.

His average his senior year was only an 81. That is hardly getting his grades up. Neither one of them was a stellar student and four years of mediocre grades can hardly be the fault of one professor. In fact, I doubt he had the same professor for the four unrelated courses he got D's in.

Both Kerry and Bush went to Yale. Both were members of the same fraternity, Skull & Bones.

Two idiot frat boys, like peas in a pod as far as I'm concerned. Men who have rank and privilege and power beyond most of our personal experience.

One is a Senator married to a billionaire and the other is President of the United States.

Other than the fact that one of them has some testicular fortitude, there isn't much of a difference in the two men.