Political Crossfire Forums

[Enoch]

Silkheat wrote: UrielsFyre wrote:
Really, and your PhD would be in what field? Have you ever done graduate study, let alone doctoral work? If not, then what is your basis for making a claim as to how "easy" a PhD in Political Science would be?


Whether or not you like Dr. Rice or not, you have to be an intelligent person to complete a doctoral program, be a full professor at a major university like Stanford, be promoted to University Provost, and have a $34.5 million dollar turn around in budget in two years.

Masters in Finance....... I do consider many programs easy, as certainly you wouldn't compare engineering to education now would you?

I will never to PHD work as a PHD is overkill in the real world. PHD is for teaching, nothing more. I do respect the work it takes to get a PHD, but only in hard fields. Political Science is a joke.

The turn around in the budget is the only thing that her name is attached to that I credit her for. I would be interested to know if it was for her abilities, or more than likely she was given good help. Yes, a PhD is a degree that is used if one wants to teach college. People who work in the business sector don't need the degree, and most often stop at a Master's, if they even go on. But, to say that programs are of differing caliber is a joke. It is easy for me to say that a Master's in Finance would be easy, because I have never done the program. Maybe it's easy, maybe it's hard; I really don't know and have no way to know since my MA is in Journalism.

And what makes you so certain that a PhD in Political Science is such a joke?

[Silkheat]

UrielsFyre wrote:
Yes, a PhD is a degree that is used if one wants to teach college. People who work in the business sector don't need the degree, and most often stop at a Master's, if they even go on. But, to say that programs are of differing caliber is a joke. It is easy for me to say that a Master's in Finance would be easy, because I have never done the program. Maybe it's easy, maybe it's hard; I really don't know and have no way to know since my MA is in Journalism.

And what makes you so certain that a PhD in Political Science is such a joke?

Programs are of a differing caliber. The amount of understanding in a Engineering class is much more difficult than a liberal arts class. Furthermore politicol science can be an ambiguous subject, certainly not definate. The classes I have taken in liberal arts were always much easier than my engineering and financial ones. Furthermore I hope you seriously aren't debating that a PHD in Political Science is one of the harder PHD's to get.

Law degrees aren't easy; why didn't she choose one of those?
Engineering degree's aren't easy; why didn't she choose one of those?
Finance is hard in the business degree world, but much easier than an electrical\computer engineering degree.

Point is there are tuff academic paths, and there are easy ones.

[Enoch]

Silkheat wrote: UrielsFyre wrote:
Yes, a PhD is a degree that is used if one wants to teach college. People who work in the business sector don't need the degree, and most often stop at a Master's, if they even go on. But, to say that programs are of differing caliber is a joke. It is easy for me to say that a Master's in Finance would be easy, because I have never done the program. Maybe it's easy, maybe it's hard; I really don't know and have no way to know since my MA is in Journalism.

And what makes you so certain that a PhD in Political Science is such a joke?

Programs are of a differing caliber. The amount of understanding in a Engineering class is much more difficult than a liberal arts class. Furthermore politicol science can be an ambiguous subject, certainly not definate. The classes I have taken in liberal arts were always much easier than my engineering and financial ones. Furthermore I hope you seriously aren't debating that a PHD in Political Science is one of the harder PHD's to get.

Law degrees aren't easy; why didn't she choose one of those?
Engineering degree's aren't easy; why didn't she choose one of those?
Finance is hard in the business degree world, but much easier than an electrical\computer engineering degree.

Point is there are tuff academic paths, and there are easy ones.
And what is tough and what is easy is a subjective judgment. The difference lies in qualitative versus quantitative methodologies and which methodology one finds to be easier or tougher for them.

[Silkheat]

UrielsFyre wrote:
And what is tough and what is easy is a subjective judgment. The difference lies in qualitative versus quantitative methodologies and which methodology one finds to be easier or tougher for them.


You can dance around the subject all you want, but no one is going to seriously debate that a Political science major is even close in difficulty to an engineering/accounting/medical/law degre. It isn't.

[Enoch]

Silkheat wrote: UrielsFyre wrote:
And what is tough and what is easy is a subjective judgment. The difference lies in qualitative versus quantitative methodologies and which methodology one finds to be easier or tougher for them.


You can dance around the subject all you want, but no one is going to seriously debate that a Political science major is even close in difficulty to an engineering/accounting/medical/law degre. It isn't. I'm not dancing. I am pointing out the assinine nature of your "but, political science isn't a HARD program so she must not be intelligent" argument.

Programs have varying degrees of difficulty based on one's own strengths. The arrogance of your posts just betray a complete lack of understanding of that very fundamental concept.

[Silkheat]

UrielsFyre wrote: Silkheat wrote: UrielsFyre wrote:
And what is tough and what is easy is a subjective judgment. The difference lies in qualitative versus quantitative methodologies and which methodology one finds to be easier or tougher for them.


You can dance around the subject all you want, but no one is going to seriously debate that a Political science major is even close in difficulty to an engineering/accounting/medical/law degre. It isn't. I'm not dancing. I am pointing out the assinine nature of your "but, political science isn't a HARD program so she must be stupid" argument.


I am not saying she is stupid, just merely pointing out that her supposed "super intellegence" is nothing more than politicol propoganda. Sure she has some intellegence, but she isn't a genious, and most of what she has achieved is due to her being a "Black Women".


Is she smarter than GWB? Absolutely.

Quote: Programs have varying degrees of difficulty based on one's own strengths. The arrogance of your posts just betray a complete lack of understanding of that very fundamental concept.

Maybe I do display a little of that academic arrogance, but fact is I won't ever take a politcol science major seriously. I challenge you to take base level engineering classes; Cacl 3, differential equations, etc. Compare that to a politicol science class and tell me what is harder.

I respect the work it takes to become a doctor, a lawyer, engineer, architect, MBA (at good programs), PHD in Psychology (certainly not the undergrad), accountant, geologist, and physicist to name a few.

However history, political science, education, and various other liberal art majors just aren't on a comparable level. Not that I don't respect them, I am not impressed by them either.

[Enoch]

Silkheat wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Silkheat wrote: UrielsFyre wrote:
And what is tough and what is easy is a subjective judgment. The difference lies in qualitative versus quantitative methodologies and which methodology one finds to be easier or tougher for them.


You can dance around the subject all you want, but no one is going to seriously debate that a Political science major is even close in difficulty to an engineering/accounting/medical/law degre. It isn't. I'm not dancing. I am pointing out the assinine nature of your "but, political science isn't a HARD program so she must be stupid" argument.


I am not saying she is stupid, just merely pointing out that her supposed "super intellegence" is nothing more than politicol propoganda. Sure she has some intellegence, but she isn't a genious, and most of what she has achieved is due to her being a "Black Women".


Is she smarter than GWB? Absolutely. Show me where I said she has a "superior intelligence." I stated that she is an intelligent woman, despite your misguided views of her chosen field.

[Silkheat]

UrielsFyre wrote: Show me where I said she has a "superior intelligence." I stated that she is an intelligent woman, despite your misguided views of her chosen field.

Here:

Quote: While I may be outside the pail, and berated as providing a "predictable" response, I think Conaleeza Rice could make a legitamate run for the Oval Office. She is intelligent, and despite the current sentiments against the Bush administration, has shown herself to be a woman worthy of political respect. Now, Hillary Clinton on the other hand would likely only get the Democratic nod because she has the party in her back pocket.

She is intellegent, and worthy of political respect. Why? What has she done that is so great other than being a "Black women"? We have already argued the merits of her "academia". I see nothing more than a political pawn with lots of false hype surrounding her.

[Enoch]

Silkheat wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Show me where I said she has a "superior intelligence." I stated that she is an intelligent woman, despite your misguided views of her chosen field.

Here:

Quote: While I may be outside the pail, and berated as providing a "predictable" response, I think Conaleeza Rice could make a legitamate run for the Oval Office. She is intelligent, and despite the current sentiments against the Bush administration, has shown herself to be a woman worthy of political respect. Now, Hillary Clinton on the other hand would likely only get the Democratic nod because she has the party in her back pocket.

She is intellegent, and worthy of political respect. Why? What has she done that is so great other than being a "Black women"? We have already argued the merits of her "academia". I see nothing more than a political pawn with lots of false hype surrounding her.
I said she is intelligent, not of "superior intelligence." That is a term I would reserve for the likes of Stephan Hawking. And, if you choose to label her as nothing more than a political pawn, and downgrade her abilities since she is a black woman, I see no reason that anything provided to the contrary would change your opinion. Suffice it to say, I have not seen anything of her that makes me doubt her ability.

[Silkheat]

UrielsFyre wrote:
I said she is intelligent, not of "superior intelligence." That is a term I would reserve for the likes of Stephan Hawking. And, if you choose to label her as nothing more than a political pawn, and downgrade her abilities since she is a black woman, I see no reason that anything provided to the contrary would change your opinion. Suffice it to say, I have not seen anything of her that makes me doubt her ability.

What I realy don't like is the fact that her proponents usually talk about her high intellectual abilities, and the fact she has written so many articles and can speak russian. Then you see her in a russian interview and the total ability of her mastery of Russian language is to say yes and no. Then you look into her academic career and find out that she hasn't written any articles or papers, and the only work you can accredit her with is a bad piece of literature.

Why is she hyped so much? Well her being black and a women is a poweful political tool, especially for Bush as a means to garner the black vote...

[Selfish_Meme]

Her being a black woman in the second most powerful seat on the planet should be enough to accord her intelligence and guts a degree of respect. If its a tough road to be the president then its five hundred times harder for a black woman, if its hard to get to be a 'smart' advisor for a dumb president then its 50 times harder for a black woman.

[Silkheat]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Her being a black woman in the second most powerful seat on the planet should be enough to accord her intelligence and guts a degree of respect. If its a tough road to be the president then its five hundred times harder for a black woman, if its hard to get to be a 'smart' advisor for a dumb president then its 50 times harder for a black woman.

Not really, as politics has nothing to do with intelligence. Just like Gonzalez they are placed there for specific reasons, just like Bush. It is all about sales and image....

This is especialy transparent with the propoganda surrounding her supposed academia. None of you have presented a list of her research papers. Why is that? :lol:

[Selfish_Meme]

Probably because she never went into research, though she did write/co-author these books

* Rice, Condoleezza with Zelikow, Philip D. Germany Unified and Europe Transformed: A Study in Statecraft. Harvard University Press. hardcover (1995), 520 pages, ISBN 0-67435-3242; trade paperback, 1997, 520 pages, ISBN 0674353250.
* Rice, Condoleezza & Dallin, Alexander (eds.) (1986). The Gorbachev Era. Stanford Alumni Association, trade paperback (1986), ISBN 0916318184; Garland Publishing, Incorporated, hardcover (1992), 376 pages, ISBN 0815305710.
* Rice, Condoleezza (1984). Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691069212
* Rice, Condoleezza, "Campaign 2000: Promoting the national interest" in Foreign Affairs, 2000. [3]

Was the National Security Advisor and is now the secretary of state, had her phd by the age of 26, how many people can claim that, oh wait..

Amercian Society of Limnology and Oceanography wrote: The average age at time of Ph.D. completion was 32.3 years (median of 31.3). American
registrants (blue bars) averaged 32.4 (median 31.3) years. Other citizenships (red bar) averaged 32.2 (median
31.1) years. In all, there were 141 Americans and 193 with other citizenships.

Queen's University wrote:
Graduate Average Age by Faculty and Gender
(Full-Time and Part-Time)
November 1, 2005
School of Business
Female
35.8
Male
35.7

[perdidochas]

Silkheat wrote: UrielsFyre wrote:
Education:
BA - University of Denver, 1974
MA - University of Notre Dame, 1975
PhD - University of Denver, 1981
Honorary PhD - Moorehouse College, 1991
Honorary PhD - University of Alabama, 1994
Honorary PhD - University of Notre Dame, 1995
Honorary PhD - National Defense University, 2002
Honorary PhD - Mississippi College School of Law, 2003
Honorary PhD - University of Louisville, 2004
Honorary PhD - Michigan State, 2004

Honorary PHD's mean absolutely nothing. Furthermore her PHD is in Political science. WTF how easy is that? Very easy. Why not take underwater basket weaving?

Until you have (or have at least worked on) a Ph.D., you can't make that judgement. Any Ph.D. (even in underwater basketweaving) requires a lot of knowledge, work and intellectual ability.

[Silkheat]

perdidochas wrote:

Honorary PHD's mean absolutely nothing. Furthermore her PHD is in Political science. WTF how easy is that? Very easy. Why not take underwater basket weaving?

Until you have (or have at least worked on) a Ph.D., you can't make that judgement. Any Ph.D. (even in underwater basketweaving) requires a lot of knowledge, work and intellectual ability.[/quote]


I can and I will. I have a masters in finance. Liberal arts bs degree's like political science hold nothing for me.

She is a fraud, and I proved that to you guys. Her highly hiped intellectual abilities are just hype. She is a black women political figure. She can't speak russian, she hasn't really published anything, and her degree is in an easy field.

[Silkheat]

Silkheat wrote:


Until you have (or have at least worked on) a Ph.D., you can't make that judgement. Any Ph.D. (even in underwater basketweaving) requires a lot of knowledge, work and intellectual ability.


I can and I will. I have a masters in finance. Liberal arts bs degrees like political science hold nothing for me.

She is a fraud, and I proved that to you guys. Her highly hiped intellectual abilities are just hype. She is a black women political figure. She can't speak russian, she hasn't really published anything, and her degree is in an easy field.

[name]

Quote: Women aren't running. If women aren't running, women aren't going to win. The question, I suppose, is Why? I happen to think it's because women don't have the desire.


Women have been running for several years. They just haven't made it onto the ballot yet. It'll take some catching up, but eventually, strong female candidates will begin to emerge.

[perdidochas]

Silkheat wrote: perdidochas wrote:

Honorary PHD's mean absolutely nothing. Furthermore her PHD is in Political science. WTF how easy is that? Very easy. Why not take underwater basket weaving?

Until you have (or have at least worked on) a Ph.D., you can't make that judgement. Any Ph.D. (even in underwater basketweaving) requires a lot of knowledge, work and intellectual ability.


I can and I will. I have a masters in finance. Liberal arts bs degree's like political science hold nothing for me. [/quote]

Master's work isn't Ph.D. work. While, I wouldn't say that a Ph.D. in political science is equivalent to an M.D. or a Ph.D. in engineering, it is still harder than most master's programs.

Silkheat wrote: She is a fraud, and I proved that to you guys. Her highly hiped intellectual abilities are just hype. She is a black women political figure. She can't speak russian, she hasn't really published anything, and her degree is in an easy field.

Speaking Russian is somehow the judge of how intelligent she is? How much Russian do you speak?

Regardless, she's an intelligent woman, and IMHO, would probably have succeeded if she was a white man (maybe not SoS, but she would still be at least at the Undersecretary level)

[perdidochas]

name wrote: Quote: Women aren't running. If women aren't running, women aren't going to win. The question, I suppose, is Why? I happen to think it's because women don't have the desire.


Women have been running for several years. They just haven't made it onto the ballot yet. It'll take some catching up, but eventually, strong female candidates will begin to emerge.

There were several women on the Presidential ballot in minor parties in 2004. Eventually, a major party woman candidate will emerge.

[Silkheat]

perdidochas wrote:

Master's work isn't Ph.D. work. While, I wouldn't say that a Ph.D. in political science is equivalent to an M.D. or a Ph.D. in engineering, it is still harder than most master's programs.

No it isn't, but we are going to differ on that opinion. Furthermore she got many helping hands due to her color and her gender. I am glad you at least agree that on the academic side it isn't the hardest path.

Quote: ]

Speaking Russian is somehow the judge of how intelligent she is? How much Russian do you speak?

You missed the point. When she is advertised as such an intellegent lady they always talk of her ability to speak russian, and she can't. It is all sales my friend.

Quote:
Regardless, she's an intelligent woman, and IMHO, would probably have succeeded if she was a white man (maybe not SoS, but she would still be at least at the Undersecretary level)

She is intellegent, just not this super being people make her out to be. Furthermore a lot of her PR is fraudulent. She perpetrates this meaning she is a fraud. To think that she wasn't picked for her color and gender is silly, as you know that played a huge part.