Another Professor weighs-in on the degrees of Darcy and Dave

Comments

  1. 3

    zapporo spews:

    It’s not the degrees that people are upset about.

    It’s Darcy’s embellishment and her lack of truthfulness.

  2. 4

    Puddybud spews:

    As I said in the other thread, when lefty Ken Schram takes issue with your own words, you are in de toilet baby!

  3. 5

    Rujax! spews:

    She’s the better candidate and none of your juvenile caterwauling will change that.

    She’s gonna win.

    Shut the fuck up.

  4. 6

    spews:

    zapporo,

    Darcy didn’t embellish. Nor was she untruthful.

    I realize that you may not understand much about academia, but consider this: A Harvard Dean–the very one who designed the C.S. program under which Darcy got her degree–has stated that Darcy is correct. He takes issue with the way his words were misinterpreted by the Seattle Times.

    So…it is you Wingdings who, whether out of ignorance or just malice, are being untruthful.

    But, anything goes in the quest for power for you Wingnuts, eh?

  5. 8

    Ryan spews:

    I disapprove of your belittling two year degrees.

    Having a two year degree is a note worthy accomplishment and a way people advance themselves in life.

    Burner is smarter and would out perform Reichert in congress. That said, there are people with only two year degrees that can challenge Darcy’s intellect.

  6. 9

    spews:

    redwa087,

    The problem is…that ad is factually incorrect. It is a lie.

    So…is winning so important to you that the truth must be a casualty?

    Sad…very sad.

  7. 10

    spews:

    Ryan,

    “I disapprove of your belittling two year degrees.”

    Tough. I have high expectations for my lawmakers. They had better be damned effective, or well educated. (And preferably both!)

    Sadly…Reichert is neither.

  8. 11

    zapporo spews:

    Pompous Ass@6

    Darcy did embellish. And was she untruthful!

    :O

    I realize that you may not understand much about {Anything}, but consider this: Either Darcy has a BA Degree in Economics or she does not.

    This isn’t a “when is the beginning of life” above my pay grade kind of question.

    Darcy Embellished.
    Period.
    End of Story.

    Listen to her tape.
    It’s like she s just shunted a power station into the Ferris Wheel motor control and she’s spinning so fast, one more of Einstein’s theorems is about to be proven.

  9. 12

    YLB spews:

    11 – Burner got recognized by the Economics faculty at Harvard for course work she completed in that area. That by definition is a degree every bit as good or better by most folk’s reckoning than Reichert’s dismal AA from a backwater school in Oregon.

  10. 15

    spews:

    Zapporo,

    “Darcy did embellish. And was she untruthful!”

    Um…no. You just misunderstand what a degree is.

    “Either Darcy has a BA Degree in Economics or she does not.”

    This shows your basic confusion about what a degree is. Darcy’s degree, per se, is an A.B. (which is Harvard’s name for a bacheloriate degree). The degree is the degree.

    You are confusing her degree with the “field of study” of the degree (i.e. “computer science” and “economics”). Darcy had two fields of study that were used to complete her A.B. degree: Computer Science and Economics.

    Before you get all uppity about who is exaggerating, you really out to know what the fuck you are talking about, there, Squirt!

  11. 16

    dutch spews:

    Darryl: First it’s a B.A (not a A.B.)
    and I find it funny how you guys are trying to parse things. She has a degree. Her degree is in Computer Science….that is a respectable degree and requires hard work.
    But she has no degree in economics, no matter how much you try to “explain” it. All she should have said: I mis-spoke. I studied econmics and have a degree in……with a speciality in….
    But no…she lied…and is now protecting her lie.
    Come on…you work at the U…you know what a degree is and what it means. Arguing like you do just makes it ridiculous.

    But hey…think what you want…I do the same. It’s the undecided voter who has to get his/her opinion…and they will laugh about your arguments and Darcy’s performance today.

  12. 17

    YLB spews:

    16 – At the end of the day, this is a distraction from the real issue – who’s more qualified to represent the people of the 8th?

    In my opinion, it sure isn’t the bumbling, self-promoting Sheriff who barely got an A.A.

    Darcy Burner did not lie but all her detractors will say anything to self-justify their unfathomable resentments.

  13. 18

    spews:

    dutch,

    “Darryl: First it’s a B.A (not a A.B.)”

    No…listen up, Champ. Harvard does NOT award B.A.s. Harvard awards an A.B. degree, which is a bacheloriate degeree.

    I find it funny how you guys are trying to parse things. She has a degree. Her degree is in Computer Science

    Nope…her degree is an A.B. Computer Science is a field of study. At harvard, they call it a “Concentration”

    “But she has no degree in economics”

    Her degree is an A.B. period. The field of study is a “Concentration” in C.S. and a “technical specialization” in Economics.

    Look, Squirt, I’m a University Professor. I suspect you are not. The fact is, you don’t seem to understand what is actually the degree (or even what Harvard calls it!). You may not LIKE the answer. But when university professors (including a Dean at Harvard who designed the C.S. program that Darcy completed) tell you that you are wrong…you really out to do a bit of homework before piping up.

    “Come on…you work at the U…you know what a degree is and what it means.”

    Indeed, I do. In fact, I have a dual-topic degree myself (a single degree with two areas of study—a Ph.D. in Anthropology and Demography, in my case.) So I understand the etiquette of discussing credentials quite well. And Darcy was most certainly not out of line in her description of her credentials.

    So…it is OK with you if Reichert wins by blatantly lying about his opponent?

  14. 19

    spews:

    @8
    That said, there are people with only two year degrees that can challenge Darcy’s intellect.

    That may be true, but Dave Reichert is not one of them.

  15. 20

    zapporo spews:

    Pompous Chapped Ass @15, 18

    Your feats of mental midgetry are far from inspiring. Running circles around your blithe excuses takes less effort than winding a Timex.

    Look, you very clearly misunderstand the meaning of truth, plainly spoken.

    Darcy would have covered this in spades if she would have just handled herself with a modicum of humility. In fact this was a grand opportunity to endear herself to the electorate. BUT NOOOOOOOOOOOO.

    Instead she comes off as an untruthful, embellishing CHAPPED ASS on Shramm’s show.

    WAIT! I get it. I can see why you are so copacetic with Darcy. Mystery solved.

  16. 21

    spews:

    zapporo @ 20,

    What the fuck are you babbling about, there, Squirt? Or are you just drunk?

    I think you are suggesting that because (1) the Reichert folks don’t understand academic degrees and (2) either through incompetence or malice, they’ve made untruthful statements about Darcy Burner, that somehow that reflects badly on her.

    Sorry, Squirt, but Reichert & co. are undertaking a typical dishonest Republican smear campaign.

    The fact is, the candidates’ educational credentials ARE a legitimate issue in this campaign. I know it really pisses off you anti-intellectual retarded Wingnuts, but many folks are genuinely interested in getting problem solvers, with actual analytical abilities, elected to office.

  17. 22

    Mr. Cynical spews:

    She loved economics sooooooooo much, she got a degree in it.
    Burner screwed the pooch and gets into a 16-1/2 minute shrill catfight that centers around the premise that it depends upon what your definition of IT is?????????????

    People are sick of the word-parsing, misleading politicotypes like Burner.
    The bigger problem here is that Burner is a SERIAL LIAR.
    She LIED calling herself a MICROSOFT EXECUTIVE when she was really a mediocre, bottom of the barrel MIDDLE MANAGER, then she LIED about her activities at the Ames Lake Association.

    Darcy Burner is a SERIAL LIAR who will LIE whenever it is convenient to puff up her pitiful resume.
    Why not just tell the clear, unadultrated truth?
    Goldy is soooooooooo worn out trying to comfort & protect his love-fantasy, that he’s now handed the baton to poor Darryl.
    Pitiful.

  18. 23

    zapporo spews:

    HA Excuses Sock Puppet @21 -

    hahahahahahahahaahaha…..

    Yeah, Ken Schramm is working in collusion with Reichert.

    Darcy has no management experience, Darcy has never run a large organization and Darcy has no experience building cohesive teams. Her 16 minute taped exchange with Ken Schramm cements that fact quite nicely.

    Dave Reichert is the effective, reach across the aisles to get work accomplished, experienced legislator that we need in Washington DC to fight for Washington State.

  19. 24

    kirk91 spews:

    Whatever the story of her degree is this sort of economic thought makes no sense:
    On Fiscal Responsibility:

    America must get its fiscal house in order. As a mother and a businesswoman, I have successfully managed both my household and business finances. I know that balanced budgets are critical to financial health and we need to bring that principle back to the federal government.

    There are often times that a government needs to run a deficit, it’s what the government decides to go into debt to fund that’s important.

    Also if her degree in economics (or whatever you want to call it) is so important, why doesn’t she mention it there ahead of her ‘experience running a household’?

  20. 25

    spews:

    Mr. Cynical,

    “She loved economics sooooooooo much, she got a degree in it.”

    And, so she did. What is it about you Wingnuts and an inability to interpret plain-spoken English?

    I suppose if she had said she had “a B.A. from Harvard” you’d call her a liar because Harvard calls the degree an A.B.

  21. 26

    spews:

    zapporo,

    “Darcy has no management experience, Darcy has never run a large organization and Darcy has no experience building cohesive teams.”

    Nice going, Squirt. This is a shining example of how you Wingnuts will sacrifice EVERYTHING for ideology—especially simple things like TRUTH.

    Let me guess…you are working on some kind of Wingnuttery “merit” badge.

  22. 27

    Steve spews:

    Ranching in Montana is such easy work. It allows Cynical the time to post on a Western Washington political blog day in, day out, from morning to night. Yes, ranching is very easy work.

    There is no ranch. There are no investments. Cynical lies about everything.

  23. 28

    correctnotright spews:

    @24: Kirk

    Is there somthing wrong with wanting to have a balanced budget? Saying that we should balance the budget does not preclude emergency spenmding?

    the republicans have created the largest budget deficit in history. Bush entered office with a hug budget surplus from clinton and has turned that into the largest deficit in history. Much of that deficit is due to an unnecessary war and tax cuts for the rich and corporations.

    I agree with Burner that we need to work towards a balanced budget and I don’t want my kids paying off the interest for years to come.
    that is reponsible fiscal manangment – and Reichert does not have a clue.

  24. 29

    correctnotright spews:

    @22:
    short cynical;
    He admits that Burner has management experience in private industry – somehting Reichert has NONE of.
    oops – in between all the false accusations of lies.

    Hey cynical – how is the HS degree working for you? Learned hoiw to process information yet – or do you get all your info straight from The BIAW and Fox news?

  25. 30

    kirk91 spews:

    Calling for a ‘balanced budget’ without also calling for a massive decrease in war spending in playing right into the conservative playbook.

    Rebuilding America’s manufacturing capability that’s been destroyed by 30 years of bipartisan outsourcing, WTO-ing, union busting, and the encouragement of financial speculation in place of a real economy is going to require deficit spending.

  26. 31

    diamondshards spews:

    Burner, and her lefty acolytes here on HA have missed the whole point . You’re now playing right into the hands of Reichert’s campaign. This story has had legs for EIGHT days now because you and Darcy kept it alive.

    Going on The Commentators could have helped her yesterday if she’d put this story to bed. She should have acknowledged that there are different interpretations of her “degree” wording at Haaavard and left it at that. If she’d have joked with Schram about her ‘schrammie’, she probably would have won him over.

    Instead, she turns into a shrill, arrogant whiner and fills 16.5 minutes of valuable airtime sounding like a petulant child. Even Ken Schram can’t warm up to that. WHO is her media adviser????

    Thanks to Darcy and all her leftie HA buddies for handing this election to Dave Reichert. He’s the best candidate and deserves to be reelected – you’ve just sealed the deal.

  27. 32

    Steve spews:

    Why on earth would the voters of the 8th district want an irrelevant, uneducated Republican representing them?

  28. 33

    correctnotright spews:

    @31;
    Nice analysis – Reichert is the better candidate because….any actual issues here?

    Because he is one of the most ineffective legislators?

    Because he supports a record budget deficit, an unnecessary war and Bush?

    Because he diguises his votes in congress and votes for republican amendments and then with democrats to appear moderate. This means he has no real values except to deceive the voters.

    Glad you came to your sorry conclusions based on real issues instead of contrived issues.

  29. 34

    diamondshards spews:

    @31 – Because Reichert has integrity. More than I can say for Darcy.

    Because Reichert has decades of public service to the community. More than I can say for Darcy.

    Because Reichert has a proven moderate voting record in Congress. More than I can say for Darcy (who has no voting record at all).

    Because Reichert doesn’t have to lie about his resume. More than I can say for Darcy.

    Go ahead, leftys – keep on trashing Reichert in a sad attempt to build up your candidate. There is no there, there with Darcy Burner.

  30. 35

    Isadora spews:

    Darcy on KOMO deserves an award for the single worst performance by a political candidate this year. The only other contender might be Rep. Murtha for calling his own constituents racists and then following it up by changing it to rednecks. Lot of blue money went down the drain on DBII, and she poured Liquid Plumber after it. Like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

  31. 36

    ThePug spews:

    I think the entire discussion of what’s on the piece of paper is baloney. I have a BA degree from Seattle University degree. That’s all the piece of paper says. If you look at the transcript, you see that I had two major fields of concentration, political science and history. I have a minor field of concentration in philosophy and another in theology. So looking at Darcy Burner’s accomplishments, she has a baccalaureate degree from Harvard, as we commonly call a four-year degree from anywhere.

    Which is no mean feat, to a) get in the place, and b) to get a degree in nything at all. To say that degree is highly sought is an understatement. So from her transcript, I gather the understanding, relying on what’s said and having never seen her transcript, she has a concentration in computer science with an emphasis in economics. That’s what the Harvard dean says, and, trust me, he’s hardly likely to misstate what’s involved in the degree program since that’s the core reputation of the degree and the institution at play.

    So what does that mean? Having taken an undergraduate macroeconomics class (and I hated every damned minute), I know that a emphasis program is not some like just sitting through a survey course, it’s work, especially at a place like Harvard. Five courses in economics is tough sledding for casual students, which, by all accounts, Darcy Burner was not.

    So heads up and even, compare the value of the degree. A two-year degree from a two-year institution that doesn’t have an outstanding reputation is pretty easy to accomplish. It’s easy to get into the school and it’s comparatively easy to accumulate enough credits to obtain the lowest level of degree conferred. Compared to Harvard, by and large, the instructional quality would be fairly low when compared to that provided by Harvard since the two institutions are hardly in the same class when competing for instructors. The curriculum at the two year school is particularly generalized with many fewer options and, in the main, one would rank graduates of that program as generally middling, if not mediocre compared to any graduate with a four-year degree. A four-year degree from Harvard, on the other hand, would generally be considered to be fairly sterling in quality, particularly if the associate grades and standing were good to excellent. You’d generally consider those candidates at the top of the heap compared to graduates of other liberal arts institutions, inlcuding other wise fine schools like our own state universities.

    Bottom line, we all get degrees like the ones Darcy Burner and Dave Richert did to obtain better jobs and to advance in careers. So, if you are the prospective employer conducting the interview, on at least the basis of academic background, you’d have to consider the AB degree from Harvard as far superior to any AA degree, particularly given the coursework accomplishments which underly these respective degrees. You have to ask the question if Dave Reichert has any academic background in his record like the economics classes Darcy Burner has, and I believe the answer is, no, he doesn’t. Not matter what else you can say, Darcy Burner has an economic background that Dave Reichert lacks.

    For the Reichert campaign to cast stones at Burner’s academic background can only be classed as an attempt to blind us to a somewhat invidious comparison to Beichert’s rather weak academic accomplshments. It’s an attempt to turn one candidate’s superiority or strength into a weakness is all.

    All the BS aside (not, that’s not Bachelor of Science), if you were a prospective employer and all other factors were equal except for the academic records of the two candidates, you’d definitely give the job to the Harvard graduate.