A disorganized thinker in charge of reorganization
Bookworm on Apr 19 2009 at 6:03 pm | Filed under: Uncategorized
Politico writer Lisa Lerer unabashedly characterizes Elizabeth Warren, the gal Congress appointed to oversee trillions in financial rescue funds, as “brilliant.” Lerer therefore appears genuinely perplexed that Warren is “the scourge of conservative Republicans, who question her panel’s exploration of more-liberal approaches such as nationalization and bank liquidation.” At a policy level, I’d almost certainly agree with the Republicans, because I can’t think of anything worse than nationalizing anything, but I have to admit that I don’t have before me any facts about her actual plans, so I’m only guess about that last bit.
I do, however, have some facts about Lerer’s unsubstantiated conclusion regarding Warren’s purported “brilliance.” Many moons ago, Warren was my professor when I took a banking law class. There’s no doubt that, back then, I could have been a better student — I was a third year student by then, had a job lined up, and wasn’t overwhelmingly interested anymore in the academic side of law school. What I’m about to write, therefore, is not meant to defend me. It’s just an observation about Warren.
Warren was one of the worst professors I’ve ever had, and she was one of the worst for a very specific reason: she was a disorganized thinker. Ask her a question, and hundreds of pointless, disconnected words and sentences would spill out of her. Coherence just didn’t happen. You could tell that there was a lot of information resident in her brain, but you really wondered which synapses were firing, and, indeed, if any were firing simultaneously, when she tried to tap into and regurgitate that information.
As you can imagine, the combination of my malaise and her inability to teach coherently resulted in a complete absence of learning on my part. It’s only because she is a genuinely nice lady that I got a decent grade in her class. I didn’t deserve the grade, since my work product was terrible, but I didn’t feel too bad about getting it, since her teaching was terrible too.
All of which is to say that I have my doubts about Elizabeth Warren’s ability to oversee trillions of your and my tax dollars. I’m sure she has all sorts of grandiose ideas — and they seem to be ideas that I disagree with at an ideological level — but I’m more worried about the waste that seems inevitable given her inability to structure ideas, or to respond logically to any demand for information or product.
Related posts:
- And yet it still has the chutzpah to charge astronomically high tuition
- I’m not getting the information I need
- A trend I hate
Email This Post To A Friend
12 Responses to “A disorganized thinker in charge of reorganization”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Interesting. Anyhow, why would a law professor—even a banking law professor, even if she were brilliant and well-organized—be an appropriate person for this job? Understanding the laws and rules that apply to an industry is not the same as understanding the dynamics of that industry. Would the General Counsel of an airline be an appropriate choice to serve as CEO of that airline? Probably not.
If the definition of the job is simply to ensure that everything is done legally and above-board, then maybe a law professor is a reasonable choice (although I would be very worried about the “organization” issue that you raise.) But if the job involves making decisions about the best use of the money, then I would be surprised if someone like this was the best candidate–or even a good candidate.
Also: there is such a thing as executive ability. It correlates partly, but not completely, with IQ…there are people with high IQs who are terrible executives. Too many members of the “court scribe” class–who themselves usually have little or no experience in running anything–are eager to believe that general intelligence and educational credentials are adequate for any executive job. It’s not true.
A law professor as an administrator? Mind boggling. Like going to MIT to find basketball players. Yes you can find them, but the odds are not good.
So, she is brilliant and will come up with many ideas, but ideas that are not necessarily organized. “Let’s try this..let’s try that…” Brain storming in a seminar. Whether they will work or not is another issue.
I am reminded of the word that lefties have so often used in commenting on the Allende years in Chile: “experiment.”
Methinks this woman would be gung-ho to “experiment” without adequately considering whether or not the “experiment” would be likely to work.
The Allende “experiment” did not work. Those who “experimented” failed to examine the historical record to show that mass nationalizations of industry did not result in superior economic growth. The record was already out on East versus West Germany, North versus South Korea, Taiwan versus the PRC. ( Maoist style, not what we have today.)The takeovers of agricultural lands, in spite of a previous land reform law that had limited farm size to 80 hectares – 200 acres- resulted in a drop in agricultural production of 25% Surprise, surprise. Whooda thunk that would happen? Have to “experiment” to find out what had already been tested ( See USSR , etc.), I guess.
It is perhaps not an accident that one of the key histories of the USSR was titled “Utopia in Power.” Give power to the theoreticians to try things out. See what happens, and then see what happened. I am not saying that this woman is a Communist. I am saying that like Communists, she may be prone to try out unproven or already disproven ideas.
We don’t need exciting experimenters. We don’t need the creation of Utopia.We need dull but sober administrators. We don’t need people saying ” I have seen the Future , and it works.” We need people who say, “In the past, A usually didn’t work, and B had a 60% success rate.” Dull and proven beats exciting and unproven every time. If not for lab scientists, if not for actors, it does for administrators.
It is surprising how many of these Harvard elite and various other academic cliques keep ending up in charge of our affairs.
Contrary to what the Left claims, that America is owned by businesses and CEOs. America is really absolutely run by a few graduates from a few elite universities.
And what’s scary about that is that none of them could have crafted a plan that would have defeated a mortal enemy in war. None of em. Yet they hold, not executive office, but all kinds of bureaucratic satrapies.
RE: “Contrary to what the Left claims, that America is owned by businesses and CEOs. America is really absolutely run by a few graduates from a few elite universities.”
Wow. And to think – liberal fool that I am – that America was “owned by” God and that He just let us live on His land.
fake liberals, fools or not, don’t believe in God. They believe in the Strong Man. There’s a difference.
Peter Drucker once asserted that unless you have your first management job before the age of 30, you’re never really going to be very good at it. This isn’t *always* the case, IMNSHO, but is probaby true in general…the person who has come up as an individual contributor has not learned to internalize the idea of getting things done through other people, and tends to regard his employees–of whatever level–as mere “arms and legs” and is unlikely to understand delegation and the proper use of organizational hierarchy. This can sometimes be observed with a PhD turned executive, who thinks of his direct reports as his graduate students.
If Prof Drucker was right about this hypothesis, then the increased focus on credentials–by delaying serious management resposibility and then fast-tracking the credentialed–will sysematically harm the level of management in America’s organizations, public and private.
>> Wow. And to think – liberal fool that I am – that America was “owned by” God and that He just let us live on His land.
If this is His land, then we are His people. An excellent argument against abortion!
And an excellent argument for treating each individual soul as a unique soul, not as an anonymous member of some clumped-together identity group.
Also, since the devil has work for idle hands, everyone should be required to work. No handouts.
Then there is the Parable of Talents. Jesus was most favorable to the son who took the three talents and brought back more talents than he’d been given. Note that the government did not seize the talents and redistribute them, either. So each individual should be free to keep the fruits of his or her own labor, expand upon them, and do with them as he or she pleases.
You beat me to the punch, MikeD, with your excellent point. I wonder if the people of NoKo believe they are living in God’s garden.
I seem to recall reading somewhere that we were expelled form His garden a long time ago, Helen. Heaven will just have to wait, as we still have quite a bit of sorting out left to do here on earth.
Academics and those that find refuge in academia tend to be folks who don’t like their opinions questioned.
Econ professors spend entire careers seeking a way to make Socialism work. In a University environment, this effort is supported and applauded.
The population should be very careful about allowing University faculty or administrators to hold appointed or elected office because chances are that they have never worked in the real world before. And as such, they have very little idea how a free market works.
She just proves one of the fallacies of allowing tenure. When I was in Junior High I had an awful time with Algebra. The Guidance Councillor advised my parents to have me attend Summer School so I could retake Algebra come the Fall and pass. So it was that I went to Summer School and took the recommended mathematics class.
The teacher was an ancient, doddering, tenured man who started the Summer School course with … wait for it! … Addition!
Whoo-Boy! And then came Subtraction, and so on. I seem to recall he napped through most of the classes.
It was only a few years ago, trying to see what my then Lady Friend saw in Math – she was a Mathematics Major in College – that I bought a few Algebra books and learned to work it out. (Now I’ve forgotten all of it! Sheesh!)
My teacher wasn’t fit to even baby-sit, but by golly the NEA thought he was important enough to teach students in school.
So I can see where a poor teacher might be the best thing, for Leftists who want to destroy our economy, to look after our treasure.
Sad, but not unexpected, Bookie, by this Administration.
Warren is co-author, a few years ago, of a study that purported “medical emergencies” were the leading cause of consumer bankruptcy filings (this is the field in which I work, so I gave it some attention). That study is still cited authoritatively, and its conclusion is absolute bunk. It was an example of scientific method and data being manipulated in service of an agenda, specifically, to make a case for national health insurance. The report defined “medical emergency” very broadly, stretching the data to fit the preordained conclusion. If this is the kind of rigorous scholarship and discipline Warren brings to her new job, well, we’re that much more screwed.