>>> James Farmelant <farmelantj at juno.com> 11/10/99 03:57PM >>>
While Bush's SAT scores are not unrespectable by contemporary standards, given the fact that he enjoyed what the Brits would call a "privileged" education one would have expected that he should have done better on them. (Indeed, I would bet that almost every subscriber to this list did better than Bush on the SAT exam). Also, despite the fact that he only earned gentleman C's while at Yale, he still managed to get into Harvard Business School which has long been notorious for requiring that prospective applicants not have less than excellent academic records. Also, Bush's achievements in his business career were not overly remarkable given the advantages that he started out with.
Whereas, in Britain, children of the ruling class with mediocre
talents like Bush's would be shunted off into a career in the Anglican Church, in the US we put such people into the White House.
(((((((((((
Charles: However, success in business is not that correlated with academic success, from what I have heard, no ? To the credit of the professors I might add. Real business is anti-humanist, and universities tend to instill some humanism. This is anecdotal, but Michael Perelman posted an article a while ago on PEN-L on a very successful CEO who couldn't read.
M-C-M focus ( instead of C-M-C) is thrown off by too much intellect. I just heard a radio interview of someone who has a book out on how the key to getting rich is that you never work for money, but rely on passive and portfolio income. The whole inclination of schooling that you learn a skill and earn money based on it is the wrong path to being rich.
George Soros and Bill Gates seem to be exceptions rather than rules, to the extent that they are intellectuals.
There are very few Ph.d's in business administration, no ?
CB