The GRE and MLK Jr.

[emilyrobot]

I like to spend this day every year doing a little reading about Dr. King, and I happened across the following in one of the online document archives I was browsing:

"King took the examination on 3 February. A table enclosed with the test report indicates that his verbal aptitude score is in the second lowest quartile and his quantitative score is in the lowest ten percent of those taking the test. In the advanced test in philosophy, King's score (on a scale of 100) places him in the lowest third, while his other scores (on a scale of 800) are in the lowest quartile in all the subject areas except literature, where he placed in the top quartile."

http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/documentsentry/doc_510306_000/

So, whatever the GRE is measuring, it certainly isn't an infallible measure of your global verbal skills, guys. Arguably the greatest orator in American history couldn't crack the 50th percentile on the verbal. Just thought I'd add some perspective for all of us who are fretting over how we measure up.

[lalabooks]

I wish this forum had a "like" button like facebook does, because I like the above post!

[emmm]

It does -- Maybe you are the one who clicked on the green UP arrow.

[bdon19]

Makes me feel a hell of a lot better about that damn subject test, that's for sure! Hahaha

[MCS_aspirant]

George Bush had a 2.35 GPA at Yale.

[Safferz]

George Bush had a 2.35 GPA at Yale.

Yes, and he only got in because he was a legacy student from a notable family. I don't see how this is comparable to MLK though, GWB was mediocre then and he's mediocre now.

[Sigaba]

Yes, and he only got in because he was a legacy student from a notable family. I don't see how this is comparable to MLK though, GWB was mediocre then and he's mediocre now.

Safferz--

As a historian you should know better than to offer a definitive assessment of a living person. Bush the Younger's legacy as a president will remain unknown until professional historians have had the opportunity to sort through the millions of documents that are currently unavailable at the George W. Bush Presidential Library as well as the archival records of foreign governments, the oral histories and private papers of people from all walks of life, and the ensuing historiographical debate.

It is one thing to offer a personal opinion of a figure, but be careful of risking your intellectual credibility with one-off statements. (Also, given the fact that you're an aspiring Yalie and that institution's ties to the American intelligence community, is it wise to offer such a dour view of that institution's admissions process on an open source BB? )

Edited January 17, 2012 by Sigaba

[lalabooks]

Emm...no I barely know how to navigate this forum...but now I know what the green button is for!

[Safferz]

Safferz--

As a historian you should know better than to offer a definitive assessment of a living person. Bush the Younger's legacy as a president will remain unknown until professional historians have had the opportunity to sort through the millions of documents that are currently unavailable at the George W. Bush Presidential Library as well as the archival records of foreign governments, the oral histories and private papers of people from all walks of life, and the ensuing historiographical debate.

It is one thing to offer a personal opinion of a figure, but be careful of risking your intellectual credibility with one-off statements. (Also, given the fact that you're an aspiring Yalie and that institution's ties to the American intelligence community, is it wise to offer such a dour view of that institution's admissions process on an open source BB? )

Sigaba, I find your comment rather condescending. I am well aware of how academic historians work. That said, I stated my opinion of a contentious public figure and I stand by it (and I was being nice).

[Sigaba]

Sigaba, I find your comment rather condescending. I am well aware of how academic historians work. That said, I stated my opinion of a contentious public figure and I stand by it (and I was being nice).

Safferz--

If you want to take the conversation in this direction, I encourage you to develop your argument rather than just "stand by it."

Specifically what is your evidence that Bush the Younger was and is "mediocre"? What are your bases of comparison? For example, if your argument is that George W. Bush was a mediocre president, then who would you rank ahead of him and why?

Insofar as you taking umbrage with the tone of my post, I offer no apologies for my snarky reply. If you're going to privilege consistently your political and personal viewpoints over your sober judgement as a historian, you will likely encounter more of the same in the years to come.

[commguy]

Sigaba-

Of course I worry about risking the entirety of my intellectual credibility on the gradcafe forums as well; especially when making a bias comment about a US president. Those comments are so few and far between, people will really think I'm motivated by some political agenda.

I also worry that my inability to not lecture people about mundane things on something as trivial as anonymous forums may eventually ruin my interpersonal reputation.

These are my worries.

[Helpplease123]

You want evidence that George Bush is not the sharpest tool in the box? Didn't you seen enough during his presidency?

So to summarise, the evidence: pretty much everything George Bush said...ever.