Michelle Wie accepted at Stanford; writers pick Woods, Ochoa, Haas as players of the year
Making good on one of her promises, 17-year-old Michelle Wie has been accepted to Stanford and said she would enroll in the Fall.
“No one really believed me,” Wie told the Associated Press. “Now that I got into Stanford … it was one of my dreams, and I want to go through with it. I definitely want to go there and really try to graduate.”
Tiger Woods was voted player of the year for a record eighth time by the Golf Writers Association of America. Lorena Ochoa was selected as the best female player, while Jay Haas was tabbed as the best senior player. …
The Masters field is nearly set as the prestigous tournament has sent out the majority of its invitations, including 17 to first-time players. Jeev Milkha Singh and Camillo Villegas are among the first timers. …
At MyrtleBeachGolf.com, Tim McDonald lays out his perfect South Myrtle Beach golf itinerary.
|« Howell to cut back European schedule in 2007; Nick Price commits to three Champions Tour events||Tiger caps 2006 season with Target World Challenge win; Els gets first 2006 victory at South African Open »|
I bet she doesn't last four years.
Just wondering if she will turn out to be 1) Tiger Woods, or 2) Notah Begay.
For one I would like to congratulate Miss Wie for accomplishing another one of her goals.
Stanford as the third rated University in the nation does not admit people for who they are. It takes some great academic credentials to be one of the rare few granted early admission.
Michelle's best friends applied to Harvard and Duke early, so I guess she hangs out with the right crowd since they were also granted early admission.
I get a kick out of the folks that underestimate the determination of this young lady. To her golf is simply a game (that pays very well) and not the most important thing in life. To her this step into academia is better than winning the US Women's Open.
Michelle's fans need to get used to a 10 event schedule for the next four years. It may be longer if she hangs around for her Masters or even a PhD.
Nike and Sony are preparing an advertising blitz targeted at college students as I write this.
By the way, anyone who thinks MW got a free pass through the Stanford admissions office has no knowledge of Stanford. These things may happen at Yale - not Stanford.
Way to go Michelle. Check-off one goal !
Would this soften the anti-Wie sentiment?
I'm not sure what you're talking about; I never made any predictions about Bubbles' academic success. I will say, however, that I find it hard to believe that any school would reject the Bubbles unless her grades were bottom-of-the-barrel.
From Loud and Clear:
Looks like just as in the game of golf Michelle and her star power have taken another spot away from a probably more deserving kid out there. She acted as if she was suprised that she got in, was there ever any doubt...For those out there that think she got in based on her academic achievement and test scores, all I can say is that it must be nice living in a dream world. I guess if W can get into Yale anything is possible...
If stanford wants a student, they will accept that student. If stanford wants you as a part of their student body, they will accept you regardless of whether michelle wie has taken your spot or not. Stanford also does not have a max amount of students that they admit per year which means that if a student is deserving enough, they will be accepted.
US Women's Open
The possibility of another KPGA event early in the mix.
Michelle may not play in any other events during her first semester at Stanford.
"Wie said two other students from Punahou also got into Stanford, while her best friends were accepted at Duke and Harvard. She did not know what she would study, narrowing it to business, economics or marketing. Wie will not be eligible to play NCAA golf."
Notice the part where she says she'll study either business, economics or marketing. Nothing wrong with economics, but it's clearly she did not put the effort into researching about Stanford. If she did, she wouldn't have considered in majoring in business or marketing. Why? CAUSE STANFORD DOESN'T HAVE A BUSINESS OR MARKETING MAJOR! It clearly shows that she did not really research about the college she got accepted to.
For me, it amazes me how I was able to catch that, while she from a "top" private school didn't know about that. Makes you wonder how much does she really know. "Dream school? please, more like not nothing scrap about the schoool. you heard it hear first.
I'm not sure what you're talking about; I never made any predictions about Bubbles' academic success. I will say, however, that I find it hard to believe that any school would reject the Bubbles unless her grades were bottom-of-the-barrel.***
Michelle placed a single school application to Stanford last summer. Students who appy for early admission are required to only apply at Stanford and no other colleges. Less than 10 percent of Class 2011 were granted early acceptance. Tiger was recruited as a golfer and did not recieve early admission under the academic program application.
Now to even infer that Stanford would waive their high academic standards for Michelle is simply ridiculous.
Notice the part where she says she'll study either business, economics or marketing. Nothing wrong with economics, but it's clearly she did not put the effort into researching about Stanford. If she did, she wouldn't have considered in majoring in business or marketing. Why? CAUSE STANFORD DOESN'T HAVE A BUSINESS OR MARKETING MAJOR! It clearly shows that she did not really research about the college she got accepted to.***
She was obviously speaking of her complete college career chineseboy08.
Undergraduate degree in economics.
MBA from the Stanford graduate school of business.
PhD in Behavioral or Quantitative Marketing from the Stanford graduate school of business.
There you go again, trying to underestimate Michelle's goals.
She did say she wanted to earn a PhD like her father.
What is ridiculous is thinking that PC institutions like Stanford, occupied by relativistic liberals (yes, I know it's an oxymoron), would hold any standards sacrosanct.
What is ridiculous is thinking that PC institutions like Stanford, occupied by relativistic liberals (yes, I know it's an oxymoron), would hold any standards sacrosanct.***
Michelle will feel like a fish out of water as a conservative Christian girl cast into a den of relativistic liberals. Thank God Bo will be there to look out for her. Maybe it was a letter of recommendation from the ultra relativistic liberal, Doctor Rice that got her in the door at Stanford.
Oh, Bubbles is a "conservative Christian girl" now? Well, that's a new one. It's good to hear, though, because now I know it's only a matter of time before she donates money to pro-life causes and the Christian Coalition.
I meant to say that "relativistic liberals" is a redundancy.
Oh, Bubbles is a "conservative Christian girl" now? Well, that's a new one. It's good to hear, though, because now I know it's only a matter of time before she donates money to pro-life causes and the Christian Coalition.***
Now I didn't say she was a Right Wing Conservative JS, just conservative. The liberal indoctrination techniques used by secular progressive college professors are quite effective on many young minds. Hopefully Michelle will stay just as she is now and resist their attempts at reprogramming her mind..
We agree on the nature of higher miseducation, and I join you in the hope that Bubbles will resist indoctrination. But what makes you assume that she's conservative? It's highly unlikely that she is so, given the fact that she fits a certain liberal profile perfectly. She is female (a majority of women vote for liberals), she's of Asian descent (68% of such people voted for liberals in the last election), she hails from one of the most liberal states, and her father is a college professor (95% of all professors are registered Democrats).
You may want to rethink your assessment.
It may be hard to believe, but the Judge's esimate is actually low when considering those professors in the schools of Law, Journalism, Economics, and the
"social sciences" at elite universities.
At Cal Berkeley, for instance, the number of registered Republicans teaching at that law school is ZERO.
Any person's political party registration is a matter of public record.
UC Berkeley, of course, doesn't track or document the political party affiliation of any of their faculty members. They don't find it necessary, since the vast majority of the faculty there are only too happy to profess their political leanings. They do it every day in their classrooms.
The ultra left-wing columnist for the New York Times, Paul Krugman, himself a ptofessor, frankly states that conservative professors are but a miniscule fraction of the faculties on elite campuses.
From the tenor of your posts, I get the feeling that you may actually think that some sort of diversity or even-tempered neutrality exists on elite campuses. Such diversity or neutrality does not exist in the world of academia. The faculties at these elite colleges are not at all reticent about admitting it.
For some reason, you appear to be in denial of this fact.
The politically ideologies of faculties on elite campuses are similar to those of the well-documented Hollywood left.
Hoyt is like many who are sympathetic to the left. He doesn't want to accept the reality of leftist hegemony in these arenas, either because doing so would be seen as a relinquishment of underdog status or because he, and this is common among liberals, fancies himself to be the very soul of moderation, the true center. If the latter, it means that anything that accords with his ideology he views as centrist, while any deviation to the right is conservativism.
I'm not trying to be gratuitously contentious, but I'm not going to do legwork for people on message boards. I write commentary, thus, it is my business to know these things, and I endeavor to be accurate when disseminating statistics. I didn't manufacture that particular statistic out of thin air; I read it some years ago and, while my memory is good, it's not so spectacular that I can quote chapter and verse about its source. I will only tell you that if you're truly interested in knowing the truth, a little honest investigation on the Web will reveal it.
I can, however, relate to you an apropos anecdote. One of my editors used to occupy a lofty position in an Ivy League institution, however, he decided to resign from it and enter the private sector partially because of the leftist environment that prevailed. He once related a story about how he was shouted down at a faculty meeting simply because he expressed a politically incorrect opinion. He remarked to me that most academics are "wretched" people.
Lastly, I'll also mention that the media mirrors this ideological monolithism. For instance, in 1992, 86% of Washington journalists voted for Bill Clinton; in 1996 the percentage was 92. And, no, I can't quote chapter and verse there, either, but I can assure you it's accurate.
You certainly have a right to choose to be liberal, but why deny reality? I think you may want to investigate the writings of Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci. He wrote about how a "War of Position" was necessary if the communist revolution was to succeed. This pertained to the placing of leftists in "positions" of cultural influence, such as academia, the media, Hollywood, etc., for the purposes of reshaping culture. Gramsci is long dead (not a lamentable fact), but his idea lives on and has been brought to fruition by his many philosophical soulmates.
Open your eyes.
Not being taken into account here are the significant minority of academics that are members of the Green Party and other left-leaning organizations.
All my offspring encountered the same proliferation of lefties when they were in college.
Wherever there is a majority of academics residing, and college students have permanent residence, the voter registration will always show a decided advantage to the Democrats and liberal causes.
Examples: Austin, Ann Arbor, Madison, Boulder, and Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, among others, all liberal strongholds surrounded by rural and semi-rural conservatism.
I'm not in denial that diversity or neutrality does not exist in the world of academia. But you wrote that at Cal Berkeley "the number of registered Republicans teaching at that law school is ZERO." I just want to know where this stat comes from? And I want you to substantiate your charge that the number of registered Republicans teaching at Cal Berkeley's law school is zero? But you can't, can you?
AH! You write commentary! On the Internet! Under a fake name. And you "endeavor to be accurate." Well, how silly of me then to question you when you pull some "facts" out of your rump!
>>>>>"One of my editors used to occupy a lofty position in an Ivy League institution, however, he decided to resign from it and enter the private sector partially because of the leftist environment that prevailed. He once related a story about how he was shouted down at a faculty meeting simply because he expressed a politically incorrect opinion. He remarked to me that most academics are 'wretched' people."
Gosh, given that you endeavor to be accurate, I believe 100% (not 99.43%) that this happened and was not just imagined to help make your point (indeed your whole worldview) seem more credible!
>>>>"... in 1992, 86% of Washington journalists voted for Bill Clinton; in 1996 the percentage was 92. ... I can assure you it's accurate."
I know you you endeavor to be accurate, but I do not believe your statistics. I know 4 Washington journalists, and yes they are all liberal. However, none were ever surveyed on how they voted. And, to a man (eek! They're all white men - the dreaded limo libs!), they each told me that, if they HAD BEEN "surveyed" on who they had voted, they would have told the surveyor it's no one's damn business who they vote for.
It is an article of faith in the national press that 93% of African-Americans(I really dislike that hyphenated description)vote for the Democratic candidates.
No one ever polls them individually, it is assumed by the demographic structure of wards and precincts and the results of the vote in those wards and precincts that black voters cast their ballots in that manner.
Several studies of political leanings of academia have been done by groups from all segments of the political spectrum. Usually they are done by investigation of voting registration rolls and secondarily by polling.
The number that reply is normally about 60%. From these results, inferences are naturally made since there can never be any proof positive about what anyone does in a secret ballot.
Finally, I find it strange that your liberal journalist acquaintances would be adamantly opposed to divulging their voting choices, but that somehow you know that they are in fact liberal.
My take on that subject is that since you are a liberal, they don't have a problem with sharing their liberal bias with you, but would not want it revealed to any outsider who MIGHT not be of like mind. I personally have never met a liberal left-winger who would admit it. They are all "moderates", "middle-of-the-roaders", "in the mainstream".
Do you have that same difficulty getting a conservative to admit his political leanings? I don't think so. I admit my conservative proclivity. Hoyt, I notice that thus far you haven't proudly stated that you are a liberal.
Of course not, you're talking about a HUGE, ever-changing number of people - a group of people we are not discussing, by the way. What I want to know about is where you got your VERY specific number (zero) of registered Republicans teaching at the Cal Berkeley law school. And I'd still like to know where your friend Smails learned that 95% of all professors are registered Democrats. Note that he did not say "a majority are liberal" or "a minority hold conservative views" or anything of the kind. No, he wrote that 95% of all professors are registered Democrats. (You know, I suspect that 94.6% of the time statistics from the likes of you two are just used to wow mush brains.)
>>>>>Alex wrote: "Several studies of political leanings of academia have been done by groups from all segments of the political spectrum. Usually they are done by investigation of voting registration rolls and secondarily by polling."
Great. Which one of these studies showed that there are zero registered Republicans teaching at the Cal Berkeley law school?
>>>>>Alex wrote: "Finally, I find it strange that your liberal journalist acquaintances would be adamantly opposed to divulging their voting choices, but that somehow you know that they are in fact liberal."
Well, they divulged their voting preferences (and other twisted preferences, I might add) to me over many beers over many years. Old friends do that.
>>>>>Alex wrote: "Hoyt, I notice that thus far you haven't proudly stated that you are a liberal."
And I notice you haven't proudly stated that you are a cross dresser but that doesn't make you one. Does it?
This blog has gone so far afield, it's probably time that I made my final post here.
I see that you still won't admit your strong liberal bias, and I don't blame you that good piece of judgment.
But you see, Hoyt, you don't have to. Your propensity for blockheadedness and personally insulting invective gives you away.
An objective observer of liberal bias in the media need look no further than today's column by Jeff Wilson of the Associated Press on the death of former President Ford.
It is so slanted that it is almost funny. Mr. Ford has not been President for thirty years but one would never know it by Wilson's column.
Maybe Jeff Wilson is as protective of his privacy as your four liberal journalist friends. He might tell anyone who asked about his voting preference that it was none of the business, but, really, can there be any doubt?
As for cross-dressing, I don't know a thing about that subject, so I'll defer to your expertise. I suppose it takes one to know one.
Contributors to the findings of these groups were Judith Reisman, Joseph Sobran, Dinesh D'souza, Thomas Sowell, and John Howard, all distinguished authors, lecturers, columnists, and professors. Also, all are admitted and unrepentant conservatives.
There findings confirm that not only Cal Berkeley but many other elite universities had zero percent of the faculties in the so-called social sciences as professed conservatives.
These findings do not in any way surprise me, but I am sure Hoyt will dismiss them as right-wing propaganda.
So you're bummed this dialogue has gone so far afield (note that I have kept very much to the same point/s), but then you bring a story about Ford into it!? That's rich.
Hey, since this is your final post here, I'll just go ahead and assume that you are patently unable to verify your claim that there are zero registered Republicans teaching at the Cal Berkeley law school. I'll assume too that your pal Smails cannot verify that 95% of all professors are registered Democrats.*
What I'd still like to know, though, is why you toss around numbers like that in the first place?
* I'll give both of your the benefit of the doubt on cross dressing. You sure seem like real men to me.
Did you do any research on the organizations I named?
You'll find verification of my claim there.
All you need do is a little homework.
Can you give positive proof that you have four liberal, journalist friends?
Don't throw around numbers unless you can prove them.
Comments are closed for this post.