You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
The ignorance of "highly educated" voters
2008-05-23
"The Diplomad"

Have a few minutes to spare? Go to "Google," type in the phrase "highly educated voters," hit "Search News." Go ahead. We'll wait . . . OK, what do you get? All sorts of stories about Obama voters, and how he attracts the "highly educated." . . .

. . . Every time you hear that phrase, "highly educated" substitute the phrase "attended a lame liberal college or university." That's what we are really talking about. Given the state of higher education in the world, including in our own beloved Republic, spending four years in a typical "liberal arts" institution generally qualifies you for . . . uh . . . well, not much, except, of course, to boast that you are "highly educated." And that just don't mean a whole hill of beans today. Let me explain.

A few years ago, more than I care to mention, I headed a large office at the State Department. I got tasked with hiring a couple of Presidential Management Interns (PMIs). These PMIs come from the elite of the elite student body at the elite of the elite universities. They get hired on a temporary basis and then, usually, get offered prestigious jobs in the government. I was told, in no uncertain terms, that whatever else I did, I had to hire women. So I began to pore over the resumes. My heart sank. I felt inadequate and so, so inferior to these kids. Their resumes, impeccably printed and organized, using dozens of words ending in "-ization," and listing prowess with a dazzling array of complex software programs, described accomplishments beyond my wildest dreams -- especially for when I was the applicants' age!

I thought I should resign and give up my job to one of the "brilliant" child wonders. Ah, naive me. I obviously had spent too much time overseas. I saw resumes as truthful documents actually written by the applicants, applicants, in this case, full of accomplishments and possessed of massive brains throbbing with energy and ideas. As I, however, kept reading, even slow-witted me began to notice oddities. They all began to look the same: the font, the format, the wording, the list of classes and even -- horrors! -- the "accomplishments." I noted this in passing to a cynical old friend (now, alas, departed) who worked in "human resources" (what a great phrase that). He laughed, "You dope! They get classes on how to write resumes! They have professors and computer programs that put these things together for them." (Remember, folks, computers were new things back then.) He said, "Just randomly pick a couple of women students, they're all the same, hire'em, and move on."

I could not do that. I stole a friend's idea and devised "The World War II Test." I invited the applicants for interviews. These PMI wannabes came off as slick and somewhat rude. I noted something among my subjects, a sense of entitlement, they all, to varying degrees, emitted a message along the lines of "Why are you bothering me with this silly interview? I am obviously brilliant. I have a degree from Columbia. I am not going to spend my whole life as you have in this stupid bureaucracy. I just need this to add to my resume. I am in a hurry." I hit them with the test, which consisted of about dozen questions about WWII and its aftermath. I recall a few,

Can you tell me how US troops got into Europe in the first place? When was WWII? (I would accept a variety of answers as long as the applicant could defend the dates as the true start and end of WWII.) What nations comprised the principal Allied and Axis powers? Who was Neville Chamberlain? What he did he do at Munich and with whom? Who was Mussolini? What did he do to Ethiopia? Who was Stalin? Who was Hirohito? What was D-Day? What President ordered the dropping of the atomic bombs and why? Can you name a result of the Conference at Yalta? What was the Berlin Airlift?

Of the 14 or 15 applicants I interviewed, only one got them all right -- the only male in the crowd, by the way. None, zero, zip of the rest got even ONE right. Not a single one. A very irritated applicant asked me, "Do we really need to know this old stuff?" I noted that we worked with NATO and Europe, hence, it was important to know the background that led to the creation of NATO and the then just-concluded Cold War. She stared at me and said, "What does World War II have to do with NATO, the Cold War and Europe?" I promptly offered the job to the male -- oh, the cries from "Human Resources" -- who turned it down for a more lucrative one in the private sector. In the best Foreign Service tradition, I stalled hiring anybody else, let my two-year assignment run out, and left my poor successor to get stuck with one of the clueless ones.

Back to our story. I wonder how many of the "highly educated voters" could pass that WWII test? Or the Vietnam War Test? Or the Cold War test? Or know much about American history? Or understand the economy? And worst of all, the odds are they can't fire a gun, either. . . .
Posted by:Mike

#25  The artivcle certainly explains a lto abotu State Dept and its penchant for brie, snooty parties and rampant ignorant condescending liberalism.
Posted by: OldSpook   2008-05-23 19:57  

#24  If you educate a stupid person who has no common sense, do you end up with a wise, intelligent person, or an educated stupid person with no common sense?
Posted by: no mo uro   2008-05-23 19:52  

#23  the trick is in relating history to their current lives. When I show them the Anasazi ruins where an entire society disappeared? I say "this is your life , without an education"
Posted by: Frank G   2008-05-23 19:41  

#22  sorry lotp...

~;)
Posted by: RD   2008-05-23 19:38  

#21  Art in the service of learning -- cool.
Posted by: lotp   2008-05-23 19:38  

#20  Parents? I have an"obsessive" interets in history. When I took my sons to Tombstone, AZ, they didn't know any of the history. I played the "Wyatt Earp" and "Tombstone" DVD's for them and they said "we were there?"

My Lil Dumbasses™.....next time they were there, they knew, and they cared.
Posted by: Frank G   2008-05-23 19:36  

#19  Ours are a bit more practically oriented. Theirs are very intellectually curious, self-motivated and able and motivated to delve into new material on their own to a greater degree.
Posted by: lotp   2008-05-23 19:33  

#18   lotp: An unwarranted assumption, to be sure. But despite the fact that Mr. Lotp and I teach at a rather highly ranked, well-regarded school, when he spent a year on sabbatical at one of the better Ivies he *did* report a quality difference in the students, on average, compared to ours.

lotp, fyi:
I never did finished my Degree... duh... so forgive as Ima kinda slo..

Then as to the quality difference between the students at Ivies and yourns, whose smarty-pantz quality was greator, yourns or dem students at the Ivies?
<:|~
Posted by: RD   2008-05-23 19:29  

#17  What do you think of the quality of education actually delivered?

My only insight into that, beyond the general news article/scholarly publications bit, has to do with the course outline for the one standard course Mr. Lotp taught there before offering his visiting professor special course. The content of that standard course was rigorous and useful, both. FWIW
Posted by: lotp   2008-05-23 19:22  

#16  CF, the students are not the issue overseas so much as the parents. Not many dummies get selected to go overseas for the government or companies. So it shouldn't be surprising their children are bright. I believe I learned a lot more at the dinner table than in class.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2008-05-23 19:09  

#15  I remember a very sharp high school history teacher. He had a gift for motivation, and often had his students on the edge of their chairs, desperate to hear the climax of his lesson before the bell went off--and he teased them mercilessly about it.

Some days, at the next opportunity after class, there was a mad dash to the library to find out the answer to the cliffhanger.

But they were rewarded for it. In the last few days before finals, he gave "special" classes on "secret" history. Students would bring tape recorders to class, even though it was not testable stuff.

Those classes were almost confidential, in that the stuff was not only not taught in high school, but most of it wasn't even taught in college.

He was the only teacher I've ever heard of who provided a bibliography to students on request, and some would actually would hang on to it for years, punching their way through it.

He created a lot of history teachers.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2008-05-23 18:50  

#14  a smart MBA would outsource the actual fighting to be done. Relatively cheaper, much less risk, and more specialized talent. Go the big ones that fight dirty. I like the "windpipepunch™" and "eyegouge™", along with the "elbow to the bridge of the nose©". In my twenties, I broke a beer mug in a biker's face. Got to warn you - I'm management now - I ain't cheap ...
Posted by: Frank G   2008-05-23 18:12  

#13  Was his MBA printed on more absorbent double-ply paper?

;)
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2008-05-23 16:04  

#12  Worse yet is the assumption that, since someone went to 'Columbia' (or any of the other name-brand institutions) they *have* to be good.

Fifteen years ago I nearly goaded a Columbia MBA into a bar fight by describing his MBA as 'marginally better' than my UMass-Boston MBA. I haven't seen a gasket blown like that in a while.
Posted by: Raj   2008-05-23 13:38  

#11  #3, CF. Be careful, after all Barry is an esteemed Columbia graduate.
Posted by: Woozle Elmeter 2700   2008-05-23 12:58  

#10  A related but critical matter is the make-believe and silliness regarding current world events that fill many of these "highly educated" heads, of all ages. They read the NYT and listen to NPR - and thus have their sometimes outlandish misunderstandings of the world reinforced on a daily basis. They are entertained at movies and on The Daily Show as some of these core bigotries and areas of ignorance are mined for laughs.

Their world-view can be thrown into disarray with the simplest questions, as they are not in the habit of thinking at all, much less critically or rigorously, and especially about cherished bigotries and assumptions.

In this sense Obama IS the perfect candidate for them. Hugh Hewitt finally started calling him a lightweight (and acting, in his odd characteristic way, that this was some sort of new info or insight) this week on his radio show. Obama is "highly educated" - and he displays not the slightest understanding of any topic under the sun, from economics to history to national security to, especially, his area of alleged expertise and training, US constitutional law (where his pronouncements are astonishing in their absurdity, and horrifying in that they are not uncommon from the clueless of his persuasion).

I remain mildly hopeful that generational change (i.e., passing of the Worst Generation, a large portion of the Vietnam War era folks) will help things get back to more sensible territory. But the borrowed trouble, the self-inflicted wounds of the nonsense that's been drubbed into young heads throughout the educational complex for a few decades now, will impose costs in the areas of wealth creation, rule of law, human rights, and development of human potential for years to come.
Posted by: Verlaine   2008-05-23 12:53  

#9  Good point lotp. My sister was a teacher who would, at times, teach at American schools overseas (Abu Daubi for example) and her experience was that most American students overseas are much more 'ready' and 'prepared' to learn as opposed to a Public School in the USA.

I am curious. What do you think of the quality of education actually delivered? Just wondering....
Posted by: CrazyFool   2008-05-23 12:49  

#8  Although I could once, I certainly no longer can integrate x2dx, JFM. Most American students never get further than basic algebra and geometry, because being able to do bookkeeping is more important in the lives they end up with.

Most Germans don't know much in the way of history, either, although they can probably spit out more facts that they don't understand. People go to university to specialize these days, not to get a comprehensive education. No doubt most of the Diplomad's applicants were political science majors. I'm not sure what a degree in that field teaches.
Posted by: trailing wife    2008-05-23 12:30  

#7  Highly educated in what?
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2008-05-23 12:22  

#6   Worse yet is the assumption that, since someone went to 'Columbia' (or any of the other name-brand institutions) they *have* to be good.

An unwarranted assumption, to be sure. But despite the fact that Mr. Lotp and I teach at a rather highly ranked, well-regarded school, when he spent a year on sabbatical at one of the better Ivies he *did* report a quality difference in the students, on average, compared to ours.
Posted by: lotp   2008-05-23 11:19  

#5  Funny because my friends and I had a girlfriend test we'd play on each others girlfriends back in the days right out of college and it wasn't all that different. Name three countries that fought in WW2 and whos team they fought for. Most thought the Soviets were the enemy although a couple got Vietnam vs the US.

For some reason history is something that has far more attraction to men so our test was unfair and mostly for laughs but the Diplomad has a point if you are going to consider yourself brilliant it does seem like something you should know to fill out the mental skillset and absolutely if you're going into politics or international business or any number of other jobs.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2008-05-23 11:18  

#4  Education and Intelligence are different things, the problem is that they are correlated.
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2008-05-23 11:00  

#3  Worse yet is the assumption that, since someone went to 'Columbia' (or any of the other name-brand institutions) they *have* to be good.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2008-05-23 10:43  

#2  Good to see "The Diplomad" is back.
Posted by: tu3031   2008-05-23 10:41  

#1  Also I wonder how many of those "highly educated" could integrate x2dx. Am I the only one who is irritated that what passes for highly educated refers exclsuively to litterary subjects, that you can be crass ignorant about basic physics or maths and still pass for educated?
Posted by: JFM   2008-05-23 10:29  

00:00