[spacefreak]

Interesting, even if you don't like GWB. It examines the management style taught at HBS, and relates these processes to GWB decisions.

GWB: Harvard Business School MBA

This snippet is for the Bush-haters, however:

Having attended Harvard Business School at the same time as the President, graduating from the two-year program a year after he did, and then serving on its faculty after a year’s interval spent writing a PhD thesis, I am intimately familiar with the rigors of the program at the time, and the miniscule degree of slack cut for even the most well-connected students, when their performance did not make the grade.

There is simply no way on earth that the son of the then-Ambassador to China, or anyone else, could have coasted through Harvard Business School with a “gentleman’s C.” I never, ever heard of a case of an incompetent student being allowed to graduate, simply because a certain family was prominent. On the contrary, I did hear stories of well-born students having to leave prior to graduation. The academic standards were a point of considerable pride.

[eklipse]

Educated or not, he's still a muppet.

[Twilly Spree]

don't dis the muppets

[theolein]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Interesting, even if you don't like GWB. It examines the management style taught at HBS, and relates these processes to GWB decisions.

GWB: Harvard Business School MBA

This snippet is for the Bush-haters, however:

Why did you post this? Are you worrried that your hero's poor articulation, and obvious abuse of connections while doing, or rather not doing, military service in the ANG, might translate into suspicions of his time at university as well?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by theolein:
Why did you post this? Are you worrried that your hero's poor articulation, and obvious abuse of connections while doing, or rather not doing, military service in the ANG, might translate into suspicions of his time at university as well?

I posted it because I found it interesting as it desribes some of the Harvard Business School practices that Bush appears to be using.

I clearly stated as much in my intro to the article.

[Saddam H.]

Originally posted by theolein:
Why did you post this? Are you worrried that your hero's poor articulation, and obvious abuse of connections while doing, or rather not doing, military service in the ANG, might translate into suspicions of his time at university as well?

what, are you worried that your ill-considered, idiotic positions could be exposed, or that you might be forced to apply true logic and reason to your thought processes (albeit dysfunctional)?

[theolein]

Originally posted by Saddam H.:
what, are you worried that your ill-considered, idiotic positions could be exposed, or that you might be forced to apply true logic and reason to your thought processes (albeit dysfunctional)?

Well, probably, if it makes you that upset, then I must be doing something right.

P.S. The "albeit dysfunctional" comment in parenthesis above should be placed before the word "thought" to make grammatical sense.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by Saddam H.:
what, are you worried that your ill-considered, idiotic positions could be exposed, or that you might be forced to apply true logic and reason to your thought processes (albeit dysfunctional)?

Isn't it funny that the Swiss have to correct your English grammar? It is your first and, most likely only, language and you don't know how to use it. But you want us to take your opinions seriously??

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by theolein:

P.S. The "albeit dysfunctional" comment in parenthesis above should be placed before the word "thought" to make grammatical sense.

Well now, if we're going to hold people accountable to their grammar, I might as well point out that you should use the word parentheses (plural) instead of parenthesis (singular).

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
Well now, if we're going to hold people accountable to their grammer, I might as well point out that you should use the word parentheses (plural) instead of parenthesis (singular).

"grammAr".

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
"grammAr".

EAXACTLY my point! I knew that my post would be inspected thoroughly, so I triple checked it, and I still missed that one!!! That's what you get for posting before having a cup of coffee!!!

[Timo]

From the article:

This is patently incorrect. Having attended Harvard Business School at the same time as the President, graduating from the two-year program a year after he did, and then serving on its faculty after a year’s interval spent writing a PhD thesis, I am intimately familiar with the rigors of the program at the time, and the miniscule degree of slack cut for even the most well-connected students, when their performance did not make the grade.


_


There is simply no way on earth that the son of the then-Ambassador to China, or anyone else, could have coasted through Harvard Business School with a “gentleman’s C.” I never, ever heard of a case of an incompetent student being allowed to graduate, simply because a certain family was prominent. On the contrary, I did hear stories of well-born students having to leave prior to graduation. The academic standards were a point of considerable pride.


_


An inability to learn and apply the lessons of the classroom and the voluminous nightly study materials, from regression analysis to strategy-formulation to marketing to human behavior in organizations, was simply not tolerated. Grading took place on a strict curve, and those who found themselves on the lower range of the curve in too many subjects hit the dreaded “screen” and had to supply convincing rationales to the Academic Performance Committee as to why they should be allowed to attend the second year of the program, much less graduate. The screen was a vital component of the HBS quality assurance program, itself an essential method of protecting the value of the school’s MBA “brand.” Harvard Business School would no sooner voluntarily graduate an incompetent MBA holder than Coca Cola would ship-out bottles containing dead mice.

Uh-huh. Three paragraphs about what a powerhouse HBS is -- don't you think the lady doth protest a little much? When I lived in Beantown nobody partied harder, starting Thursday night, than the B-school crowd. Ejaculations regarding their "quality assurance program" need to be measured against the assuptions behind them: if HBS is concerned primarily with protecting it's brand image, than nothing projects brand image like graduating the sons of the rich and powerful.

Cf the State Nobility, Bourdieu, 1996; e.g.:
http://www.polity.co.uk/book.asp?ref=0745608248

[maxelson]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
EAXACTLY my point! I knew that my post would be inspected thoroughly, so I triple checked it, and I still missed that one!!! That's what you get for posting before having a cup of coffee!!!

Grammar is important. More important is critical thinking. I don't base my idea of Bush's critical thinking abilities on his stilted speech. He's no orator. So? I don't particularly care. Quayle couldn't talk his way out of a wet paper bag either, but I'd still say he has a far better politcal mind than our current leader. Then again, my opinion may be dismissed because I am a mere "Bush Hater" anyway. No way I can support my opinions with anything other than ill conceived idiotic positions and a dysfunctional thought process.

[boots]

Spacefreak: I am under the assumption you lump me in with the "Bush Haters."

Check my posting record. You'll find very specific comments regarding this. (heh...pre-emption before it was cool )

1) I don't think bush is an idiot...I disagree with his style. It is too impulsive and not enough thought is put into the outcome.

The example I used was "he likes to shake the apple tree, but I like to know where the apples will fall." (close enough to use quotation marks)

2) Dan Quayle was one of the most politically astute people in Washington.

So, please don't lump me in with the "He's a moron" sub-sect of the Bush-Haters Club™. there are much better reasons than that particular straw-man.

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by maxelson:
No way I can support my opinions with anything other than ill conceived idiotic positions and a dysfunctional thought process.

Don't be too harsh on yourself...

[spiky_dog]

Originally posted by Timo:

Uh-huh. Three paragraphs about what a powerhouse HBS is -- don't you think the lady doth protest a little much? When I lived in Beantown nobody partied harder, starting Thursday night, than the B-school crowd. Ejaculations regarding their "quality assurance program" need to be measured against the assuptions behind them: if HBS is concerned primarily with protecting it's brand image, than nothing projects brand image like graduating the sons of the rich and powerful.

Cf the State Nobility, Bourdieu, 1996; e.g.:
http://www.polity.co.uk/book.asp?ref=0745608248

as one who went through harvard as an undergrad, i would also agree with the assessment that the business school is not all that the article makes it out to be. those who concentrated in science, whether undergrad or grad, worked hard every day, while everyone else would seemingly party from thursday through sunday...

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Timo:
When I lived in Beantown nobody partied harder, starting Thursday night, than the B-school crowd.

Were you there in the early 1970s, as the author states he is, and specifies with the phrase "at the time" in his statement "I am intimately familiar with the rigors of the program at the time, and the miniscule degree of slack cut for even the most well-connected students"?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by spiky_dog:
as one who went through harvard as an undergrad, i would also agree with the assessment that the business school is not all that the article makes it out to be.

Were you in attendence there 30 years ago - in the early 1970s - as the author of the article clearly states?

To accept your assessment on the rigors of a program 30+ years ago, it's quite essential for you to actually have been there at the time.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Were you in attendence there 30 years ago - in the early 1970s - as the author of the article clearly states?

To accept your assessment on the rigors of a program 30+ years ago, it's quite essential for you to actually have been there at the time.

Then you were, then as well? If not, then we can't accept your assessment, either by that logic. So that means you're in no position to refute the other guys assessment.

Essentially, I imagine none of us on this board were there under those conditions, but it sure didn't prevent you from discussing it, so why do you set restrictions on others?

just curious.

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by maxelson:
Grammar is important. More important is critical thinking. I don't base my idea of Bush's critical thinking abilities on his stilted speech. He's no orator. So? I don't particularly care. Quayle couldn't talk his way out of a wet paper bag either, but I'd still say he has a far better politcal mind than our current leader. Then again, my opinion may be dismissed because I am a mere "Bush Hater" anyway. No way I can support my opinions with anything other than ill conceived idiotic positions and a dysfunctional thought process.

You just don't like his policies, his vision. That's fine but at least it admit it. I'm not a fan of all of Bush's policies but I will tell you that he's got you guys tied in a knot. Bush has just about everyone beat when it comes to his political mind. Why do you think he's been so successfull with his policies? Are you implying that he has some sort of Forrest Gump mystique about him?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
You just don't like his policies, his vision. That's fine but at least it admit it. I'm not a fan of all of Bush's policies but I will tell you that he's got you guys tied in a knot. Bush has just about everyone beat when it comes to his political mind. Why do you think he's been so successfull with his policies? Are you implying that he has some sort of Forrest Gump mystique about him?

sure. I for one will admit I don't like his policies, or the vision he's using. And I'm not as sure as you are that its HIS political mind that's at work here.
But be that as it may, YES, I don't like his policies or the vision. you finally get it.

He's successful with his policies because people like YOU have a Forrest Gump mystique about you. No matter what he does, you think its a wonderful box of chocolates. As far as I can tell, people like you are not employing any critical discernment whatsoever on his policies or vision.
You start with the premise that he can do no wrong, then when he obviously does wrong, you guys tie yourselves in knots trying to justify or rationalize that which is basically indefensible.

Why would you defend a policy that actually increases the risk of terror while allledgly waging war against it? Why would you defend a budget deficit of monstrously record size and a reduced tax responsibility at the same time? Why would you defend first using UN resolutions as an excuse to invade Iraq, then decry the UN's relevance? Why would you defend the administration's claims of ironclad intelligence that they refuse to reveal as justification for invasion and then again defend the administration when it hits the fan and the administration's claims the intelligence was faulty and needs an overhaul but hey, the invasion was still justified....because why? If the intelligence was faulty wouldn't that mean the invasion WASN"T justified?

no, no, my friend. The people twisting themselves into knots are the bush apologists. I see things with extreme clarity.

(Note, references to "you" mean the collective bush apologist "you")

[Timo]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Were you there in the early 1970s, as the author states he is, and specifies with the phrase "at the time" in his statement "I am intimately familiar with the rigors of the program at the time, and the miniscule degree of slack cut for even the most well-connected students"?

and

Were you in attendence there 30 years ago - in the early 1970s - as the author of the article clearly states?

To accept your assessment on the rigors of a program 30+ years ago, it's quite essential for you to actually have been there at the time.

Surely you're not suggesting its possible that HBS was once top notch but now has fallen into disrepute? That the reputation of HBS has ever been anything but stellar? Heh. I think it'd be "quite essential" for you demonstrate this.

But don't bother, because I think the explanation is simpler. The author tries to remove his assessment from criticism by making it time-specific; he pulls the "you can't know because you weren't there" schtick. That ploy is typical of strategies to obfuscate and is central to the process of myth-making.

But I'm not buying the idea that standards at HBS are so significantly different now than from the 1970s -- after all, using the author's own logic, most folks would quickly agree that HBS's "brand" is still very well regarded, then as now. People too quickly forget, as well, the kind of durable traditions that go on at universities. No, this author is just being an ass -- we don't need to have attended or to have sat at the poker table with GWB to have an opinion, although the "experts" at the B-school might like us to take their word over our own judgment.

Anyway, as for HBS's "standards," I'd be inclined to argue the opposite: if anything, things were even more loosey-goosey in the early '70s, as folks who are students of 1968 will recall.

[daimoni]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Then you were, then as well? If not, then we can't accept your assessment, either by that logic. So that means you're in no position to refute the other guys assessment.

Essentially, I imagine none of us on this board were there under those conditions, but it sure didn't prevent you from discussing it, so why do you set restrictions on others?

just curious.

Thank you, Lerkfish for that much needed Smack Down. It needed to be said.

... now back to the program.


I'm not saying all people with MBAs are less than clever, but I've interviewed a few of them over the years. They all had one thing in common.

I never talk about ones education during an interview unless they bring it up. For me, it's all about skills and experience.

But each one kept on repeating to me that they had an MBA.

It got to the point where I'd finally say... "So, I hear you have a MBA? Wow, that's great!"

[Face Ache]

How do we know Bush was even there?

I mean, has anyone seen the records, or have they mysteriously gone missing? A torn piece of paper? Anything?

[Face Ache]

Bush is seen having his second lieutenant bars pinned on by his father, George H.W. Bush in September 1968.

I just find the whole idea offensive. You can't tell me "the system" isn't corrupt.

Is this the American Dream? Or a frikkin' nightmare?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by daimoni:
Thank you, Lerkfish for that much needed Smack Down. It needed to be said.

you're right. it needed to be said.

BOT: does anyone actually believe Bush did NOT benefit from his father's coattails, like all children of the priveleged? History does not bear out that contention if we look at who set him up in the businesses he ran into the ground, connected him into political campaign work he did while he was supposed to be serving in the national guard, etc, etc.
GW's is completely a father-made man. (rather than a self-made man), and it continues today with everyone who surrounds him and advises him previously worked for or with his father.

I suppose it seems necessary, if your goal is to mindlessly hero worship GW to live in complete denial of that, but it doesn't really help your credibility to pretend those things didn't happen.

Hey, it happens with all offspring of the rich and powerful, not just Republicans....do you think the kennedy clan doesn't pull a few strings for their kids? Of course they do....RHIP. To pretend that doesn't happen you're fooling yourself or trying unsuccessfully to fool us.

[OldManMac]

Hell, he couldn't even put his own lieutenant's bars on, could he?

[finboy]

Originally posted by daimoni:


I'm not saying all people with MBAs are less than clever, but I've interviewed a few of them over the years.

Gee, me too. Of course, I had to find out that they had MBAs by looking at their resumes or their achievements. Generally, anyone who comes into an interview discussing their degrees rather than their accomplishments should be suspect, whether they have an MBA or a GED.

How many folks here who've shat upon MBAs work for someone who has one?

Also, how many folks here taking turns on MBAs have one themselves? Anyone? The "those guys suck, and we didn't want to play with them anyway" mentality of 10-year-olds is starting to show through in some of these posts.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Then you were, then as well? If not, then we can't accept your assessment, either by that logic. So that means you're in no position to refute the other guys assessment.

The author of the article was there 30 years ago. It is his assessment I am more inclined to accept, not the assessment of people who weren't there within 20+ years of the period being discussed.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
you're right. it needed to be said.

BOT: does anyone actually believe Bush did NOT benefit from his father's coattails, like all children of the priveleged? History does not bear out that contention if we look at who set him up in the businesses he ran into the ground, connected him into political campaign work he did while he was supposed to be serving in the national guard, etc, etc.
GW's is completely a father-made man. (rather than a self-made man), and it continues today with everyone who surrounds him and advises him previously worked for or with his father.

I suppose it seems necessary, if your goal is to mindlessly hero worship GW to live in complete denial of that, but it doesn't really help your credibility to pretend those things didn't happen.

Hey, it happens with all offspring of the rich and powerful, not just Republicans....do you think the kennedy clan doesn't pull a few strings for their kids? Of course they do....RHIP. To pretend that doesn't happen you're fooling yourself or trying unsuccessfully to fool us.

It happens all the time, and not with just the
Rich and Famous.

If you are good at something doesn't mean
you are going to get the great job, because
some idiot knows somebody!

I can't even count how many jobs I have had
where the managers, VP's were totally
illiterate, and had very poor communication
skills, yet they commanded six figure salaries!

Just look at Hollyweird's offspring.
I feel another thread coming on, in
another forum. lata'.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The author of the article was there 30 years ago. It is his assessment I am more inclined to accept, not the assessment of people who weren't there within 20+ years of the period being discussed.

:whooooosh:

[Timo]

Originally posted by finboy:
Also, how many folks here taking turns on MBAs have one themselves? Anyone? The "those guys suck, and we didn't want to play with them anyway" mentality of 10-year-olds is starting to show through in some of these posts.

Got someone in mind, finboy?

[Timo]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The author of the article was there 30 years ago. It is his assessment I am more inclined to accept, not the assessment of people who weren't there within 20+ years of the period being discussed.

How do you feel about the word "perspective"?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
It happens all the time, and not with just the
Rich and Famous.

If you are good at something doesn't mean
you are going to get the great job, because
some idiot knows somebody!

I can't even count how many jobs I have had
where the managers, VP's were totally
illiterate, and had very poor communication
skills, yet they commanded six figure salaries!

Just look at Hollyweird's offspring.
I feel another thread coming on, in
another forum. lata'.

completely OT: I loved your old sig, the gray one with flash zooming by.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by GG Allin:
Isn't it funny that the Swiss have to correct your English grammar? It is your first and, most likely only, language and you don't know how to use it. But you want us to take your opinions seriously??

On the grammar topic:

When you use commas to set off that which precedes it, you should be more careful with the placement of the comma. Removing the appositive should not affect the sentence's grammar.

For example, you wrote:

"It is your first and, most likely only, language and you don't know how to use it."

Please consider this correct alternative:

"It is your first, and most likely only, language and you don't know how to use it."

If you remove the appositive "and most likely only" it leaves the remaining sentence "It is your first language and you don't know how to use it."

Your use produces "It is your first and language and you don't know how to use it." The comma leaves us with an extra conjunction.

Thank you. Glass houses and all that.

[Saddam H.]

Originally posted by KarlG:
Hell, he couldn't even put his own lieutenant's bars on, could he?

It is a common tradition to have your 'butter bar' pinned on by someone close to you. I'd consider it an honour if someone asked me to pin theirs on.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by vmarks:
On the grammar topic:

Thank you. Glass houses and all that.

Oops, I misplaced a comma.

"Glass houses and all that." Is an incomplete sentence.

[voyageur]

I wonder about the atmosphere at HBS in the early 70s. Harvard College at that time was in chaos with protests agains the Vietnam War. The administration building was taken over by students in '69 or '70. Final exams that semester had to be cancelled because of the conflicts, according to an aquaintance who was a student there. During this time, professors felt pressured not to fail students, as flunking college would mean getting drafted and shipped to Vietnam. This was at the college, but I wonder if any of this spilled over into the professional schools at the time.

[swrate]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Interesting, even if you don't like GWB. It examines the management style taught at HBS, and relates these processes to GWB decisions.

GWB: Harvard Business School MBA

This snippet is for the Bush-haters, however:

am I a bush hater?
no....
bushes remind me of Mwsa, Moses

i travelled bush covered lands w*n*e*s
lol
voyageur, a taste of reality
deserts
texas,,, yes, they pomped out of Louisiana before it started sinkinggg.


ok return to the linked article

1.the first lesson is to drown masses under loads of data
2.the second lesson is to attack and then put them to sleep
3.the third lesson is a stick and paste, from i.e.

"A third major goal, closely related, is to get and keep the economy growing at a healthy pace. The President inherited an economy moving into recession as he took office. Then, 9/11 knocked the stuffing out of many industries, and dealt a huge financial and psychological blow to the nation. Aggressive tax cuts, augmented by cooperative Federal Reserve management of the money supply and interest rates, have now restored the economy to robust growth. Complaints about low job growth miss two points: that in the early stages of an economic recovery, employers defer adding staff, and that the economy as a whole is moving away from the full-time-job model of work towards independent contracting forms of work, thus omitting many people’s work (including my own) from being counted as a “job.”"

- Surprise here, wasnt it Clinton who managed to reduce the debt?

- how many working for private >Corps undeclared? :O


"A healthy economy which creates opportunities for work and self-advancement generates new members for the American Dream Coalition. A robust and successful conduct of the War on Terror secures domestic safety, encouraging investment and growth, and brings pride as an American to all groups in society. All of these factors encourage more people to identify as Republicans, securing the political goal of the President. The three goals mutually reinforce one another."

- Are the next opportunities to enter: army, police, security, defence, in order services?

"Another basic lesson young George W. Bush learned in the classrooms of Harvard Business School is that different managers have legitimately different styles of operating as executives. There is no “one right way” to manage. Successful executives develop a style which is true to their own nature, and which builds on their strengths. George W. Bush is a natural delegator, an executive who seeks the best possible people to work for him, instills loyalty (by practicing it himself),...."


- So why didn't he discuss going to war at a better moment with the international parties outside?

- ask the CIA how well

Will the next elections suffer of another "data" problem?
rambling

[maxelson]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
You just don't like his policies, his vision. That's fine but at least it admit it. I'm not a fan of all of Bush's policies but I will tell you that he's got you guys tied in a knot. Bush has just about everyone beat when it comes to his political mind. Why do you think he's been so successfull with his policies? Are you implying that he has some sort of Forrest Gump mystique about him?

No. He has a Karl Rove about him. I won't imply it. I'll just come out and say it.

[Saddam H.]

Originally posted by maxelson:
Karl Rove

Oh man I seriously dislike that guy. He's a nasty ****. I've never forgiven him for the dishonest adverts he ran against McCain.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Saddam H.:
Oh man I seriously dislike that guy. He's a nasty ****. I've never forgiven him for the dishonest adverts he ran against McCain.

Well, get used to him. He's running the Bush reelection campaign.

[Saddam H.]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Well, get used to him. He's running the Bush reelection campaign.

I figured as much. The country is worse off for it.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Saddam H.:
I've never forgiven him for the dishonest adverts he ran against McCain.

Has anyone found a link to the advetisements or flyers from the Bush-McCain duel in South Carolina?

[chalk_outline]

Originally posted by Saddam H.:
Oh man I seriously dislike that guy. He's a nasty ****. I've never forgiven him for the dishonest adverts he ran against McCain.

Oh ****, we agree. It's the end of the world. I also dig McCain. IMHO he is the only GOOD politician. The only good one!!

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by Face Ache:

Bush is seen having his second lieutenant bars pinned on by his father, George H.W. Bush in September 1968.

Nice pic!

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by Saddam H.:
It is a common tradition to have your 'butter bar' pinned on by someone close to you. I'd consider it an honour if someone asked me to pin theirs on.

Went right over you, huh?

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by Face Ache:

See, this here coat's got one of them epaulette thingys on it, unlike mine, which is just plain as all daylight.

[Saddam H.]

Originally posted by KarlG:
Went right over you, huh?

The thought that someone could make a joke that stupid and lame crossed my mind, but it seemed far more logical that your ignorance was the culprit of such a remark.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by chalk_outline:
Oh ****, we agree. It's the end of the world. I also dig McCain. IMHO he is the only GOOD politician. The only good one!!

As long as you can ignore McCain's campaign finance reform, also known as 'incumbent protection and ability to ignore the First Amendment act.'