Credentials and performance

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: DonVito
This is a completely specious comparison, and has no relevance whatsoever to Michael Brown's credentials. I'm literally at a loss to understand why anyone would suggest that the technical credentials of George Washington, of all people, could have any bearing whatsoever on running FEMA.

Moreover, as sMiLeYz correctly observes, nobody would be calling Mike Brown's credentials into question if he were demonstrating a high level of competence at his job.

My point is, for those who are unaware, for the politically elected or political appointees, there are no requirements! The other point is that credentials mean almost nothing when related to performance. They are an almost completely bogus criterion. Ref: Henry Ford, Bill Gates, etc.! If he is a bad performer, so be it. Just stop beating the underqualified dog. It never really lived!

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: feralkid

Bush told Brown he was "doing a great job".

What more do "you liberals" need?

<---------- (Climbs into full-body flame suit)

I'm not looking to turn this into an anti-Bush rant, but situations like this give me the impression that, as a man with a less-than-stellar work ethic, he condones and even encourages others with similarly low ambitions for the quality and quantity of their work. In addition to his record-breaking vacations and everyday workout time, he is known to leave the office at 6, and to order others to do the same.

It's almost as though he's uncomfortable with the idea of others working harder or better than him. In this culture of mediocrity, it's acceptable and even laudable to be a marginal performer. I think this is part of the reason he's so loyal to his staff, even when they fail (Rumsfeld claims he submitted his resignation to the President twice, and the President refused to accept it) - his standards just aren't very high.

Is this from the same liberal that used to point out that he was so stupid, he had to hand select his team because he was incapable of thinking on his own? I don't remember your being so critical of liberal underperformers. From that history, should we judge that you think they are all really great? Answer that one and you will be very busy at the keyboard.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Credentials is what you use to get a job.
Competency is what you need to do the job.

When your primary credential is "connections", it's not uncommon that your competency is equally lacking.

It's almost as though he's uncomfortable with the idea of others working harder or better than him. In this culture of mediocrity, it's acceptable and even laudable to be a marginal performer. I think this is part of the reason he's so loyal to his staff, even when they fail (Rumsfeld claims he submitted his resignation to the President twice, and the President refused to accept it) - his standards just aren't very high.

The primary reason he keeps Rice around is that she probably laughs at his jokes and giggles a lot.

She has a Mensa number, do you?

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
The primary reason he keeps Rice around is that she probably laughs at his jokes and giggles a lot.

In all fairness, although I have no love for Dr. Rice's politics, she seems to be smart as a whip, and was, in my view, well-qualified for appointment as Secretary of State. I thought her actions last week (i.e., shopping and attending "Spamelot" during the worst of the aftermath of Katrina) were in poor taste and not well-thought-out, however, even if they were irrelevant to her duties as SecState.

Note also that the lady screaming at her for shopping while Rome burned was shopping in the same department of the same store.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: feralkid

Bush told Brown he was "doing a great job".

What more do "you liberals" need?

<---------- (Climbs into full-body flame suit)

I'm not looking to turn this into an anti-Bush rant, but situations like this give me the impression that, as a man with a less-than-stellar work ethic, he condones and even encourages others with similarly low ambitions for the quality and quantity of their work. In addition to his record-breaking vacations and everyday workout time, he is known to leave the office at 6, and to order others to do the same.

It's almost as though he's uncomfortable with the idea of others working harder or better than him. In this culture of mediocrity, it's acceptable and even laudable to be a marginal performer. I think this is part of the reason he's so loyal to his staff, even when they fail (Rumsfeld claims he submitted his resignation to the President twice, and the President refused to accept it) - his standards just aren't very high.

Bill Gates has stated that he hires people that are smarter than him and tell him "no". He said that's the only key to success.

Check out my sig...

|
|
|
|
|
v

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: DonVito
This is a completely specious comparison, and has no relevance whatsoever to Michael Brown's credentials. I'm literally at a loss to understand why anyone would suggest that the technical credentials of George Washington, of all people, could have any bearing whatsoever on running FEMA.

Moreover, as sMiLeYz correctly observes, nobody would be calling Mike Brown's credentials into question if he were demonstrating a high level of competence at his job.

My point is, for those who are unaware, for the politically elected or political appointees, there are no requirements! The other point is that credentials mean almost nothing when related to performance. They are an almost completely bogus criterion. Ref: Henry Ford, Bill Gates, etc.! If he is a bad performer, so be it. Just stop beating the underqualified dog. It never really lived!

Sure it did, providing counter-examples does not disprove the general rule. If I'm looking for someone to do a job (even a political one), and I have two candidates, one with a lot of qualifications and one without, chances are good that the qualified one will be better. Now it's certainly possible that the underqualified person is great, but if I was a betting man, I know where I'd place my money.

Bill Gates and Henry Ford and the like are outside the norm. Most college dropouts (like Gates) do not go on to found hugely successful software empires. Although I haven't done the legwork to verify this, my guess is that most Fortune 500 executives have very impressive credentials.

Now I agree, the kind of person you are is far more important to job performance than any other factor, but qualifications are a good indicator. In other words, they are a pretty good marker to show what kind of person you are, getting an engineering degree from MIT says to me that you are a pretty good engineer, not because a degree from MIT is so great, but because it's difficult to obtain, it takes hard work, dedication and a love of your field of study to get one. Jesse Ventura and Arnold aren't bad governors because they lack experience, they are bad governors because they aren't very good at or interested in politics, which is reflected by their lack of experience.

In my mind, qualifications are useful not so much because they make you better at your job, but because people who are good at their job are generally well qualified. Of course there are exceptions, but it's silly to ignore the obvious links between qualified individuals and job performance.

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: K1052
My vote for least equipped goes to Andrew Johnson.

Washington had no books or history to learn from. Not much in the way of any sort of resource was avaliable. You may be right, but Washington made my political point better.

Please, just rephrase that statement!

While not as omnipresent as now books did exist and education for the son and brother of a plantation owner was likely to be quite good.

 

[arsbanned]

The only thing that matters here is the answer to "Who has been the best FEMA director ever". I'll give you a hint, it ain't "Brownie"

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: DonVito
This is a completely specious comparison, and has no relevance whatsoever to Michael Brown's credentials. I'm literally at a loss to understand why anyone would suggest that the technical credentials of George Washington, of all people, could have any bearing whatsoever on running FEMA.

Moreover, as sMiLeYz correctly observes, nobody would be calling Mike Brown's credentials into question if he were demonstrating a high level of competence at his job.

My point is, for those who are unaware, for the politically elected or political appointees, there are no requirements! The other point is that credentials mean almost nothing when related to performance. They are an almost completely bogus criterion. Ref: Henry Ford, Bill Gates, etc.! If he is a bad performer, so be it. Just stop beating the underqualified dog. It never really lived!

That's total BS. So you are saying anyone can be a supreme court justice without practicing somekind of law in one form or the other? Credential does mean something when related to performance, it depends on what you consider as the credentials. There are plenty of things you can consider as credential, education, work experience or even life experience. Some government functions require people with more general background, as well as people with more leadership quality. In those types of functions, you will see people with various credentials and the requirements are less specific. But there are functions that are designed to handle specific task, and requires people with very specific skills, FEMA is a perfect example of that.

If you appoint a supreme court justice who never practice law before, you better have a damn good reason. Just like if you appoint a FEMA head who never had any experience coordinating disaster relief, or dealing with any kind of city/state/national emergency, you better be able to explain to the America why he was selected in the first place. Or accept the responsibility of picking someone not suitable to run a government funtion designed to save American life, and as the result thousand died.

 

[luigi1]

A fun thread. A lot of personalities thrown about and I?ll have to comment on some of them.

George Washington..This guy is a fun read. As president he really didn?t have much of an agenda. But everybody respected him, Truly a ?I cannot tell a lie? type of guy. In reality we probably owe the existence of our republic to this man. Beginnings are such delicate times.

Jimmy Carter.. This is my guy. My favorite president. Did you know he was a skipper of Polaris submarines? I am so overjoyed that an American president got the Nobel peace price. But even more so that it was my buddy Jimmy.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Condor
She has a Mensa number, do you?

Mensa! One of the biggest jokes going! At the age of 12, I took the Mensa entrance exam in response to an offer from the back of some stupid magazine and passed, and I'm no genius. But I was smart enough not to join!

Even at that young age, I could see through them.

They looked like a dubious, claptrap organization trolling for dues from the desperate in exchange for exciting benefits like 10% off on rental cars and the chance to buddy up to other socially challenged dweebs -- like you couldn't go into the musty corners of the reference section of your local public library on any weekday afternoon and chat up such ponderous, pedantic losers on your own!

The only question would be: Why would you WANT to?

Every person I've ever met who admits to being in Mensa has been a clueless dork, times ten.

The only difference between them and you, Condor, is that they apparently have high IQ's!

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Condor

Is this from the same liberal that used to point out that he was so stupid, he had to hand select his team because he was incapable of thinking on his own? I don't remember your being so critical of liberal underperformers. From that history, should we judge that you think they are all really great? Answer that one and you will be very busy at the keyboard.

What does my take on "liberal underperformers" have to do with anything? I was just pointing out what I felt, and continue to feel, is the motivation behind President Bush's praise of "Brownie," in spite of his demonstrated incompetence (even if we ignore his crappy performance and stupid commentary about the present disaster, in the aftermath of the 2004 Florida hurricanes, FEMA paid for more than 300 funerals, even though less than 150 people were killed!).

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Condor

Note also that the lady screaming at her for shopping while Rome burned was shopping in the same department of the same store.

This is another competely inapt comparison (this one is so transparent that I won't even flatter you by calling it specious). The one thing we know for sure about the woman who saw Condi shopping is that she WASN'T the Secretary of State. Hell, I'll go out on a limb and say she wasn't a Cabinet member, or even a member of the White House staff!

You won't hear me say this was ever a big deal, but it does demonstrate a real insensitivity in my view. She ought to have shopped on the Internet if she really needed the Ferragamos so badly.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: DonVito
This is a completely specious comparison, and has no relevance whatsoever to Michael Brown's credentials. I'm literally at a loss to understand why anyone would suggest that the technical credentials of George Washington, of all people, could have any bearing whatsoever on running FEMA.

Moreover, as sMiLeYz correctly observes, nobody would be calling Mike Brown's credentials into question if he were demonstrating a high level of competence at his job.

My point is, for those who are unaware, for the politically elected or political appointees, there are no requirements! The other point is that credentials mean almost nothing when related to performance. They are an almost completely bogus criterion. Ref: Henry Ford, Bill Gates, etc.! If he is a bad performer, so be it. Just stop beating the underqualified dog. It never really lived!

Sure it did, providing counter-examples does not disprove the general rule. If I'm looking for someone to do a job (even a political one), and I have two candidates, one with a lot of qualifications and one without, chances are good that the qualified one will be better. Now it's certainly possible that the underqualified person is great, but if I was a betting man, I know where I'd place my money.

Most people will do the human judgement call before any of the others. If a leader is looking for a person to fill a very critical slot, he/she will pick the person that he/she knows and trusts the most. They will depend on hiring the expertise to aid the trusted person of choice. It always works like that.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: PELarson

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: K1052
My vote for least equipped goes to Andrew Johnson.

Washington had no books or history to learn from. Not much in the way of any sort of resource was avaliable. You may be right, but Washington made my political point better.

Please, just rephrase that statement!

While not as omnipresent as now books did exist and education for the son and brother of a plantation owner was likely to be quite good.

Preface, Websters New International Dictionary of the English Language, 1916

"It is something over a hundred years nsince Noah Webster began to work on "American Dictionary of The English Language", having in mind the wants of of his countrymen of the United States; the population being sparse and for the most part with very meager opportunities for school education.

The then recent Revolutionary War, --- the destruction of property, the deaths by disease, and the other fortunes of warthat had come to the native population, --- had left a condition of poverty such as produces disaster to schools and the means of education. The situation impressed a citizen of a patriotic and thoughtful turn of mind as one in which facilities for self-education were more important than any other provision which could be made for the welfare of the people. It is not strange that a young man of Websters character, having become a teacher, should think of a spelling book as the first of all necessaries for a population that must be self-taught for the most part, or else remain illiterate."

It goes on, but the point is that education was just not that deep back then. Certainly, no one pasted from the Internet to the Constitution. What we know today, people like Washington wrote, not learned.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: DonVito
This is a completely specious comparison, and has no relevance whatsoever to Michael Brown's credentials. I'm literally at a loss to understand why anyone would suggest that the technical credentials of George Washington, of all people, could have any bearing whatsoever on running FEMA.

Moreover, as sMiLeYz correctly observes, nobody would be calling Mike Brown's credentials into question if he were demonstrating a high level of competence at his job.

My point is, for those who are unaware, for the politically elected or political appointees, there are no requirements! The other point is that credentials mean almost nothing when related to performance. They are an almost completely bogus criterion. Ref: Henry Ford, Bill Gates, etc.! If he is a bad performer, so be it. Just stop beating the underqualified dog. It never really lived!

That's total BS. So you are saying anyone can be a supreme court justice without practicing somekind of law in one form or the other? Credential does mean something when related to performance, it depends on what you consider as the credentials. There are plenty of things you can consider as credential, education, work experience or even life experience. Some government functions require people with more general background, as well as people with more leadership quality. In those types of functions, you will see people with various credentials and the requirements are less specific. But there are functions that are designed to handle specific task, and requires people with very specific skills, FEMA is a perfect example of that.

If you appoint a supreme court justice who never practice law before, you better have a damn good reason. Just like if you appoint a FEMA head who never had any experience coordinating disaster relief, or dealing with any kind of city/state/national emergency, you better be able to explain to the America why he was selected in the first place. Or accept the responsibility of picking someone not suitable to run a government funtion designed to save American life, and as the result thousand died.

You should watch more TV. They just did a thing on the Supreme Court Justice a night or two ago. No, there is no requirement for the knowledge of law to become a Justice.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Condor
She has a Mensa number, do you?

Mensa! One of the biggest jokes going! At the age of 12, I took the Mensa entrance exam in response to an offer from the back of some stupid magazine and passed, and I'm no genius. But I was smart enough not to join!

Even at that young age, I could see through them.

They looked like a dubious, claptrap organization trolling for dues from the desperate in exchange for exciting benefits like 10% off on rental cars and the chance to buddy up to other socially challenged dweebs -- like you couldn't go into the musty corners of the reference section of your local public library on any weekday afternoon and chat up such ponderous, pedantic losers on your own!

The only question would be: Why would you WANT to?

Every person I've ever met who admits to being in Mensa has been a clueless dork, times ten.

The only difference between them and you, Condor, is that they apparently have high IQ's!

Ouch, and your number is?

 

[nageov3t]

taking Watergate out of the picture, I've always thought of Nixon as a fairly effective president.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Condor

You should watch more TV. They just did a thing on the Supreme Court Justice a night or two ago. No, there is no requirement for the knowledge of law to become a Justice.

I'm not sure I see your point. The fact that the Constitution doesn't require a Supreme Court Justice to be an attorney doesn't mean it would be a good idea. It seems to me it would be completely crazy to appoint a non-attorney to the Supreme Court. Are you suggesting a non-lawyer would be a good choice for the Supreme Court?

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: loki8481
taking Watergate out of the picture, I've always thought of Nixon as a fairly effective president.

I liked him about as much as most. I was a Democrat, and possibly a liberal back then, and didn't agree with the treatment he got. I think his biggest sin was in cheating on his taxes. He was the President and if he didn't like the system, he should have fixed it.

 

[chrisms]

Woodrow Wilson was a PhD. I don't understand the point of this thread or how it relates to liberals/conservatives so I will conclude that you are an idiot.

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: PELarson

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: K1052
My vote for least equipped goes to Andrew Johnson.

Washington had no books or history to learn from. Not much in the way of any sort of resource was avaliable. You may be right, but Washington made my political point better.

Please, just rephrase that statement!

While not as omnipresent as now books did exist and education for the son and brother of a plantation owner was likely to be quite good.

Preface, Websters New International Dictionary of the English Language, 1916

"It is something over a hundred years nsince Noah Webster began to work on "American Dictionary of The English Language", having in mind the wants of of his countrymen of the United States; the population being sparse and for the most part with very meager opportunities for school education.

The then recent Revolutionary War, --- the destruction of property, the deaths by disease, and the other fortunes of warthat had come to the native population, --- had left a condition of poverty such as produces disaster to schools and the means of education. The situation impressed a citizen of a patriotic and thoughtful turn of mind as one in which facilities for self-education were more important than any other provision which could be made for the welfare of the people. It is not strange that a young man of Websters character, having become a teacher, should think of a spelling book as the first of all necessaries for a population that must be self-taught for the most part, or else remain illiterate."

It goes on, but the point is that education was just not that deep back then. Certainly, no one pasted from the Internet to the Constitution. What we know today, people like Washington wrote, not learned.

Actually it was quite deep. Probably a lot deeper than todays educational system. It was however limited to fewer citizens of which George Washington was one.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Condor

You should watch more TV. They just did a thing on the Supreme Court Justice a night or two ago. No, there is no requirement for the knowledge of law to become a Justice.

I'm not sure I see your point. The fact that the Constitution doesn't require a Supreme Court Justice to be an attorney doesn't mean it would be a good idea. It seems to me it would be completely crazy to appoint a non-attorney to the Supreme Court. Are you suggesting a non-lawyer would be a good choice for the Supreme Court?

Not at all, I was responding to the post I responded to.

Quote from rchiu: "That's total BS. So you are saying anyone can be a supreme court justice without practicing somekind of law in one form or the other?"

The key word is "can".

 

[Jadow]

my vote for least was prepared was the one who forgot his coat and died of pneumonia.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: chrisms
Woodrow Wilson was a PhD. I don't understand the point of this thread or how it relates to liberals/conservatives so I will conclude that you are an idiot.

Reading comp. Review the text. Test tomorrow.

This thread is regarding lots of whining about Brown being unqualified for FEMA chief. My point is that there are no qualifications and that credentials don't always produce the best candidate. Since you are kinda slow, Nixon was the most credentialed President for the job in history and by many accords, the worst President. The example of Washington was just to contrast his lack of credentials with Nixon's. Y'know, if you still don't understand the point, I'm not the only idiot here!