Kerry says his daughter has won a Fulbright scholarship

[quaoar]

http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/michigan/index.ssf?/newsflash/get_story.ssf?/cgi-free/getstory_ssf.cgi?a0681_BC_BRF--VanessaKerry-Ful&&news&election2004


KETCHUM, Idaho (AP) -- Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said Saturday that his daughter Vanessa has won a Fulbright scholarship to study medicine in London.

Vanessa Kerry is a 27-year-old Harvard medical student who frequently travels with her father's campaign.

According to the Fulbright Web site, about 1,000 U.S. students are awarded the federally funded fellowships each year of about 4,500 who apply. Kerry told reporters traveling with him to a long weekend vacation in Idaho that Vanessa recently found out she was one of this year's winners.

[KittyWampus]

1. Junior Sez His Daughters Earned Free Drinks At The Local Saloon

how about those twins!

[alittlelark]

11. I think i saw them last week!

But I'm not sure if they were vertcal or horizontal - because I'm not sure which position I was in.

[Fridays Child]

13. I heard they earned them giving lapdances.

[regnaD kciN]

19. Yep, each of them just won...

...the prestigious FullBottle Scholarship.

:evilgrin:

(NOTE: Although I previously advocated cutting the twins a break, now that they're actively campaigning for Daddy, they're as much fair game as anyone else in that campaign.)

[oasis]

24. Twins win "Fullbottle scholarship". That one's a dandy.

:-)

[gmoney]

2. How long before the pukes turn this into a liability?

"Oooh, she's an INTELLECTUAL elite..."

"Oh, the millionaire's daughter wins a FEDERALLY FUNDED fellowship..."

"Studying in LONDON? Why not Havana?"

I can hear it already. Let's hope it doesn't lead to sensitivity in treatment of patients.

On edit: Almost forgot -- "I don't suppose her last name had anything to do with it... nobody in the BUSH family ever got ahead based on family connections."

[Rose Siding]

3. They haven't cried "intellectual elite" since Keyes got sent to Illinois

[kodi]

7. I can hear it now: "So, an American school wasn't good enough?"

some right wing yahoo will say fulbright was a liberal and that this is a liberal scholarship that perpetuates liberalism, and to show it, she has decided to spend tax payers money in overseas. not mentioned, of course, will be is what fulbrights are supposed to do and where fulbrights are supposed to go.

[chuck555]

26. HA! HA!

Good one.

[quaoar]

4. "Studying in London?"

"Isn't that next to France?"

[arwalden]

8. Excuse me, but what is the way to Europe, France?

Lorelei: Excuse me, but what is the way to Europe, France?

Dorothy: Honey, France is IN Europe.

Lorelei: Well who said it wasn't?

Dorothy: Well... you wouldn't say you wanted to go to North America, Mexico.

Lorelei: If that's where I wanted to go, I would.

Dorothy: The dealer passes.

[salin]

44. Who needs to wait to see how it will be turned

by the republicans - it happened very quickly on this thread.

[MikeG]

5. Not according to Med Students for Truth.

They say she skipped all her classes.

[arwalden]

9. Ya Big Screwball...

You crack me up!

-- Allen

[alittlelark]

12. Yes!!! She did!! We were in school at the same time

we didn't have any classes together ........but I heard she was inept...really - she didn't know an amoeba from a blastocyst. In fact she wanted to give the amoeba funds that the blastocysts deserved.

Damn her!!!!

[JohnKleeb]

74. haha

[NJCher]

6. that's fantastic!

Congratulations, Vanessa!

Woe be the day that we're such an anti-intellectual country that we can't celebrate and admire people who achieve such an honor.


Cher

[Nambe]

10. I don't like this! I'm proud of her BUT...

why not fund the underprivilaged?

[I Lean Left]

14. I'm with you.

Why are the children of millionaires even applying for federally funded scholarships?

[realcountrymusic]

18. It's not the same as need-based scholarship

I'm as populist as the next lefty, but you need to see shades of issues sometimes. The Fulbright fellowship programs (there are actually several) have an overarching purpose of encouraging international exchange between the US and its allies of the best and brightest young minds. They are *highly* competitive, and completely based on merit (well, not completely, in the sense that the process that funnels students to that level is not a blind meritocracy, but then you should be opposed to the children of the wealthy getting good educations to be consistent).

Fulbright fellows from the US study in dozens of different nations around the world, including many developing nations. Their fellowships support both traditional academic work and high level research at the doctoral level, plus a program for kids just out of college but before grad school. And the key point is that for every Fulbright scholar we send abroad, we also invite one from the country we sent her (or him) to, if I may torture a sentence. As Sen. Fulbright saw, this was a recipe for bringing up a new generation of intellectuals, artists, and activists who would *know* each others' countries from first hand experience and cut through the propaganda and mistrust of the cold war era. It continues to work that way today. Granted, the UK is hardly a country in need of more exchange of ideas with us; but many Fulbright scholars study in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. I've advised half a dozen Fulbright fellows in my career, and been on review committees for various Fulbright programs. They truly have been best-and-brightest material, and John Kerry should be nothing but proud of Vanessa, whose name, I assure you, had nothing to do with her success in this case (the process is anonymous). And I for one think Vanessa is a good ambassador for the young people of this country.

There should be much better need-based federal aid programs for higher education; but that doesn't mean we shouldn't fund the research of the most promising students without respect to need. How would you apply your logic to National Science Foundation fellowships, which are federally funded? We're talking about a tiny amount of money in the big picture, and I can vouch that this is one area where your tax dollars are well spent. For the student, even one who can afford the tab, the prestige of the fellowship is important, and so are the doors it opens to new colleagues, teachers, and communities in other countries, which no amount of private money could open. The number of superb teachers, thinkers, scientists, and artists whose careers have been enhanced by Fulbright support is unbelievable. Let's not get anti-intellectual; that's what some republicans do for blood sport.

RCM

[Hekate]

23. Thanks for your input, RCM. I am impressed by Vanessa's achievement.

There has to be space in our culture for both assistance to those who need it most AND recognition of sheer merit. Fulbright Scholars get there on merit, and I don't begrudge Vanessa this award.

I don't know what the Republicans get out of playing to the worst in our culture, particularly our streak of anti-intellectualism -- except it must play into their long-range plans to turn the majority of Americans into lowing cattle.

My family (ahem) had no money to speak of, but my parents bred children who were voracious readers like themselves and they flat-out expected us to somehow go to college and graduate. And we did -- in a time, fortunately for us, when California had made college affordable for working students. (We need to somehow get back to affordability.)

None of us achieved a Fulbright, but you better believe Mom held out honors like that as if they were the Holy Grail, the better to let us know what we should aspire to.

Hekate

[Darth_Kitten]

35. exactly......

even if the scholarship was based on merit, if I came from a rich family I wouldn't even put myself in the running for a benefit such as this one, or if I had won it, I would decline it.

:)

[goddess40]

39. Kerry should offer the equivalent money to someone based on need

What a wonderful achievement for Vanessa.

It would be a good move though for Kerry and/or Vanessa's mother to start a college fund with equivalent money (or more) to help someone with the brains but not the cash. Even scholarships for athletes are dwindling and there are few for those with brains. With republicans increasing the cost of education at every turn it would be nice to see the wealthy Dem's help a few struggling kids out.

[rocktivity]

54. Terriffic idea, Goddess

Clearly, Vanessa earned the honor and deserves the respect. BUT SHE DOESN'T REALLY NEED THE MONEY. That is what the mainstream media will zero in on, especially since Kerry issued a public statement. He should have issued a press release and left it at that. Who ARE Kerry's media advisors? I hope he spends his time off doing some housecleaning!

:headbang:
rocknation

[realcountrymusic]

62. Interesting idea

I'd applaud it if he did offer such "matching funds." Someone should suggest it to the campaign. But that's not the same as saying Vanessa didn't deserve, shouldn't have applied for, or should decline a prestigious fellowship.

RCM

[happynewyear]

17. that is what I was thinking

She's smart and everything no doubt. But just think of all of the smart and everything others out there that cannot even afford to go to ANY college anywhere due to lack of finances.

Hell, Kerry could pay for her entire education without one worry; not one! He is a millionaire; his wife a billionaire. I'd be embarrassed to take the money myself.

We need more people like Clinton, a very smart man (what a great mind Clinton has - whether you agree with some of his accomplishments/policies or not). He received needed assistance and became a prominent scholar that went on to become what I believe will be historically one of the finest presidents in the history of the United States. He didn't have the money to go either, but he was able to get the help he needed to go and succeed.

I don't like this give to the rich one bit. Giving more to the "have's" so they'll "have mores" and give nothing to those that might have significant contributions to our world that could possibly make astounding differences is where it should be targeted at.

We need to take care of those in need with BRAINS, oh don't you know it!!!

:dem: :kick:

[realcountrymusic]

20. And again

Bill Clinton did his Oxford stretch with a Rhodes Scholarship, which is private money, but I think he also had a Fulbright. And if I'm not mistaken, wasn't Chelsea at Oxford on a Fulbright as well, even though her dad (as he likes to remind us lately) is now a multi-millionaire.


See my post above. You folks don't know quite what you're talking about when you deride the Fulbright program, in particular, as some kind of giveaway to the wealthy. It's need blind aid, and anonymous, and based entirely on achievement and the quality of one's proposal, which is to say that it is , in the best American tradition, meritocratic. Working-class students, including some I have taught in graduate school, can win one too.

This kind of discussion easily shades over into thekind of Maoist nonsense that gave us, in its extreme form, the Khmer Rouge, and in its less extreme forms the faux populism of idiots like Hannity and O'Reilly. We should be above it.

RCM

[happynewyear]

21. I am sure having the name Chelsea Clinton did not hurt

and she went to Stanford University in Palo Alto, CA. I'm not saying she isn't smart as she is. However, there are others just as smart if not smarter. I wonder how many of these ultra-smart persons never make it to college?

Lets face it, its a rich man's world, always has been and always will be. I could have never gone to Stanford as I couldn't have afforded to even apply. Now that right there says a hell of a lot and it the reality for many persons that want to pursue a formal education unfortuantley. And those tests you need to pass and take - there is some assistance for it, but not nearly enough. Ever tried applying to law school with zero funding and help? It is not possible. :(

:dem: :kick:

[realcountrymusic]

22. Sigh

If she had a Fulbright, her name appeared nowhere on the application materials. How do I know? Because I've been on review committees for Fulbright.

Being smart is fine, and you're right -- it has nothing to do with being rich or poor. But there are smart rich people too. And you can't hold itagainst a kid if her daddy has money. She still has to make her own mark on the world with her own talents. Making something *of* your intelligence is more important than just being smart. And I've got news for you. You should have applied to Stanford. The best universities in this country practice need-blind admissions. And Harvard and Princeton have just enacted policies whereby students from families making less than $40K a year pay *nothing at all.*

And by the way, I put myself through the last two years of an Ivy League college by working full time as a piano mover and liquor salesman (I had parental help the first two years, until I dropped out to be a rock star, which was a Bad Idea). I applied for graduate school with "zero funding" but a lot of help from good teachers, and won a full ride fellowship for my PhD. A lot of working class college students end up in law school (perhaps the name John Edwards, whose primary candidacy I supported for exactly this reason, rings a bell?), so maybe it wasn't just the costs that stood in your way. Get over the stereotypes. It is a rich man's world, but griping ain't gonna change that. I'm not saying it's a fair system, but that doesn't mean the children of the wealthy don't deserve fellowships they won in a blind meritocratic competition.

RCM

[JDPriestly]

29. How to get your kids scholarships for the best schools

First, congratulations Vanessa. Well done. You don't get a Fulbright based on brains alone. It takes hard work to achieve that honor. Rich kids deserve rewards for working hard just the same as poor kids.

And I'm here to witness that poor kids who are willing to work hard can better afford an education at an "expensive" private university than at a "cheaper" state school nowadays. This is because the prestigious private schools have huge endowments, and they give away generous scholarships based on merit and/or need. State schools have lower tuition, but they don't give good scholarships.

We had no money. That did not stop our children. Our oldest won a full tuition scholarship to a top quality private university based on merit. Rich kids can also get that kind of scholarship. Our youngest went to one of the very, very, top, elite schools in the nation racking up very little debt, with scholarships and grants based on merit, but also on need. She loves her school and is showing her appreciation for the opportunity it gave her by giving back -- money and other support.

Parents, you can help your children live their dreams. Here is how.

Believe in your children. Keep telling them and showing them how proud you are of them, whether they "succeed" or "fail," provided they have worked hard. Read books, recite poems and sing songs with your pre-schoolers every single day without fail and, no matter how old your children are, listen to them, and pay attention to what they are saying, no matter how tired you are or how annoying they are.

Don't wait until the senior year of high school to talk to your children about the advantages of a good education. Explain to them in junior high what your financial limitations are. Don't be embarrassed. They need this information, and they will love you for being honest with them.

It was hard, but we told our children when they were about 13 that, if they didn't get high SAT scores, good grades and favorable recommendations from high school teachers, they would have to go to junior college and maybe transfer from there to a regular university. Many outstanding people have gotten a good education that way. It is nothing to be ashamed of. We gave our children this information so they could make their choice.

Our children did not speak English as their first language, and they went to ordinary big city public schools -- the kinds that get all the bad press. In fact, my oldest daughter's high school was rated one of the 50 worst schools in Los Angeles. Nevertheless, she took every AP course offered and got an excellent science background. (In fact, her high school chemistry course was so good that, in college, she got better grades in biochemistry and organic chemistry than her classmates who had gone to private schools.) My husband made our children study extra vocabulary words every Saturday -- to catch up with their English language skills. This was especially important for our youngest who did not like to read but was a whiz at math. We also got our children involved in lots of free activities at school and in our community -- Scouts, sports, music, etc., etc. This kept them out of trouble and taught them good social skills.

I am sorry this is so long, but it makes me sad to hear how many poor parents miss out on wonderful opportunities for their children because they don't know how plentiful the opportunities are. I believe that every child, rich or poor, deserves to be able to achieve his or her dreams, and I believe they can. It just takes hard work and planning.

[murielm99]

31. I don't mind that it is long at all.

It is very much what I would have said.

We are middle class people, too. There was very little money saved for our three kids' education, because we needed every penny just to live.

My two oldest kids did the same thing as yours. They received excellent scholarships to prestigious schools. Recently, my oldest finished a masters degree at Carnegie Mellon -- with scholarships and grants from the Vera K. Heinz Foundation. My son works for a teaching and research facility that pays his tuition. My youngest is at a state school, but that was her choice. They happen to have the program she wanted. She gets excellent scholarship support, too.

We told them they had to go for scholarships and high test scores, too.

I have a National Merit Scholar and two semi-finalists in my family. Two of them went to our state's Math and Science Academy for the gifted. That opened doors for them. We taught them how to look for every scholarship and financial aid deal under the sun.

My daughter is in the process of applying for a Fulbright right now. I think she has an excellent chance of getting it, too.

We took advantage of every community program offered, too. We did scouts and music. My son is an Eagle Scout. My youngest and oldest kids won science competitions at school that placed statewide, in a totally free program. All those things help in getting scholarships.

One of the things I noticed when my kids were growing up was the emphasis on sports. BTW, I like sports, and they did participate. But I did notice something when my kids were in academic and math team competitions, and participating in student programs at the community college. Most of the Caucasian kids were off at soccer practice and gymnastics. Often, my kids were the only non-Asian people there. I don't mean that in a negative way toward Asian Americans. I wonder about just who is taking advantage of the American dream. We seem to have misplaced our priorities.

The other equally bright kids mine went to school with missed out on opportunities. They went to the community college and state schools. They did not develop the background and skills available to them, the way my kids did.

Our school counselors are missing the boat. They should be doing more than scheduling and coaching. They should know what is available in their communities. They should be pushing all these programs, especially to the families who lack wealth.

[realcountrymusic]

61. Great story

Bravo to your kids, but especially to you. You done learned 'em good!

RCM

[fortyfeetunder]

85. In other words, parental commitment

<<. but it makes me sad to hear how many poor parents miss out on wonderful opportunities for their children because they don't know how plentiful the opportunities are. I believe that every child, rich or poor, deserves to be able to achieve his or her dreams, and I believe they can. It just takes hard work and planning....>>

I agree JD! Parenting a child means being committed to providing the best possible atmosphere for academic excellence. You have obviously done well with your children. Congratulations on their achievements!

[Bunny]

79. Chelsea did undergrad at Stanford.

She went to Oxford on a Rhodes scholarship, I believe. That was AFTER she graduated from Stanford.

[alarimer]

42. I agree with you

It is nonsense to say Vanessa Kerry should give this incredible honor up because she or her father is rich and can afford a fancy education. This is primnarily a recognition of her hard work and dedication and should be rewarded as such. And should be available to anyone regardless of how much money they do or do not have. Perhaps later when she is practicing medicine she will give back to the community.

[Pachamama]

32. Fulbright is merit, not need based - and don't you remember when you

became an adult, wanting to "do things on your own" without your parents help, financially or otherwise?

So her father is wealthy....she isn't - she is in med school for crying out loud....ever meet a med student? Even if they had parents wealthy enough to pay the bills, by the time they are out on their own in residency, they are lucky if they are making $35K a year for 60+ hours of work and late shifts a week.

I think that we should give her a break and congratulate her on winning this incredible achievement.

PS: For the record - I believe Clinton had a Rhodes Scholarship, not a Fulbright.

[sandnsea]

25. Why not honor achievement?

We can do both. Why should she not be honored as one of the best and brightest just because she has money?

[realcountrymusic]

28. Precisely

If you don't honor achievement, you honor nothing. Come to think of it, that's a lot of what's wrong with America today. It's a basic reason Bush is even in this race. This is a man who has achieved only a fraction of what John Kerry has achieved in his life, who has worked so much less hard for what he has, and who honors ignorance with his every utterance. We should be damn thankful that there is still some sanity left in the federal government, in such programs as the Fulbright fellowships, where the largesse and honor has nothing to do with how much money you have or give to a political candidate, or even what color your skin is or whether you live in a swing state. You just have to achieve, and anyone who is smart, ambitious, motivated, and disciplined can win. Some of them may well be the children of rich people. We should not hate the rich; we should love the poor. Democrats will never win if they don't understand (as Clinton did) that the key to understanding America is that *everyone* who works hard and plays by the rules should have a shot at the brass ring.

RCM

[susu369]

38. Great information, RCM

Must go back and reread your posts. Thank you for sharing your knowledge....

[realcountrymusic]

80. My pleasure

Sincere thanks for the compliment.

The best debates happen when both sides respect each other, and are able to articulate their opponent's position clearly before refuting it with confirmable facts. We see so little of that in the noise machine. It's disheartening. Even in this discussion, the facts (such as the blind review process by which Fulbright fellows are selected) keep getting distorted even after they are clearly in evidence.

RCM

[susu369]

86. The main reason I must have my DU fix

there are so many informative people here. My posts are rarely of significance (mostly pent-up releases of bu$h frustration) but I do learn from others with knowledge.

:toast:

[JDPriestly]

30. Precisely

[lostnfound]

40. Would you feel the same if she had won a basketball scholarship?

Just curious.

[Tight_rope]

15. The Chimp will have to buy the 2 drunkards something from Harvard!

[MaryBear]

16. A Fulbright is an honor.

Good for her!

Vanessa, :yourock:

[JohnKleeb]

27. Way to go Vanessa

Good for her, she's a smart one.

[DaveSZ]

33. She probably reads this site.

Congrats Vanessa!

[JohnKleeb]

73. her step brother does

I think she's a good looking gal, though I think Alexandra is more attractive but thats because I prefer brunettes. She's smart too, wonder what kind of doctor she'll be.

[Darth_Kitten]

34. it actually does seem like favouritism.........

I don't know :shrug: Doesn't anybody else agree that there are probably many more people who would need this fellowship more than Vanessa Kerry?

She really doesn't NEED a scholarship.... :shrug: She can study anywhere she wants to! :)

[Misinformed01]

36. Merit based

She deserves it if she won it.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

37. to me it sounds elitists..

..the establishment taking care of their own.

[salin]

43. My father

took a sabatical on a Fulbright, back in 1958 or 1959. He was in no way a part of "the elite." Just a talented, young professor.

As stated above there are several different streams of Fullbright scholarships, and his was a different one (his was not for students). The point of Fulbright programs has to do with intellectual international exchange. I believe fulbright's also fund top scholars to come to the US to study.

The "establishment taking care of their own" - is much more applicable to the legacy admissions issue. Had to laugh when W akwardly said that he didn't favor legacy admits... given that is how he got into Yale... why he got turned down from U TExas law school (he wasn't a legacy).. and got into Harvard's MBA school. Where the heck would old W be without his legacy admissions.

[Boomer]

45. On the contrary

Since a Fullbright is based on merit, and is a very respected award, it's one of the ways that a working class kid can gain access to academic circles beyond their means.

[realcountrymusic]

64. simply wrong

You and Darth Kitten need to read some of the other posts in the thread. Fulbright fellowships are based on merit, not need, and are awarded through a blind process. No matter who your father (or mother) is, or howmuch money your family has, you don't have any advantage in this kind of process (other than a lifetime advantage of having had a good education and a family that supported that, which I admit is a significant one). But being a Kerry or a Clinton or Jane Sixpack has no bearing on the Fulbright award process.

I simply don't get this little bubbling current of anti-intellectualism among progressives. There is nothing wrong with recognizing and awarding intellectual accomplishment. It does not help poor kids get better educations if Vanessa Kerry doesn't get a Fulbright. Indeed, the Fulbright program has helped lots of working class American students, and thousands of students from poor and developing countries who could otherwise never have studied in the US. It's a shining light of American education policy. Oppose legacy affirmative action at good schools and you have my support. Oppose the property tax funding of public schools and you have my support. Oppose the Fulbright fellowship program of the US DOE, and you lose this progressive entirely. Knowledge, achievement, and exchange are unqualified good things. Resentment of the accomplishments of others, cloaked in populist tones of anti-elitiism, is not progressive to me.

I'm sorry to post so much in this thread, and so heatedly. I happen to care very much about this issue, and I believe I know something about the subject. America without the Fulbright fellowships is intellectually impoverished.

RCM

[HereSince1628]

75. Well, several Fulbright programs have political components.

This is certainly true of assistance for academics to do research and/or teach in foreign countries.

Only some countries are available as exchange sites...availability has rather obvious political overtones, though not necessarily American in origin.

Only scholars from some areas of study need apply. Certainly not part of the egalitarian search for the truth, but for damned sure part of the interest to develop both production and markets.

Countries make political choices about participating and make political choices about what sort of scholarship they want to invite. I'm not willing to say that is all bad. But, everything that involves the policies governments adopt is by definition political.

[realcountrymusic]

82. Let me explain

The original goal of the Fulbright programs was to enhance America's image abroad and encourage scholarly exchange with countries that were or could be allies during the cold war. The list of available countries for exchange programs largely continues to reflect that. The list also reflects countries which actually have an academic infrastructure of some sort (not all developing nations do), and where the US dept. of state is willing to send young Americans (I had a student lose a Fulbright to go to Kenya right after the embassy bombing there,, because DOS decided it was unsafe; he is now in Tanzania on another Fulbright). Fulbright ought to be reoriented toward countries with significant Muslim populations to reflect the current state of world tensions, but in fact many such nations are on the list (such as Kenya, Tanzania, and many other African and Middle Eastern nations, not to mention Indonesia and India).

Although the origins of the list of participating nations is "political," it is so in the best sense of that word: the program was designed to improve our nation's image abroad, and to foster exchange between nations with whom we had or were developing "political" alliances. There's nothing venal about it. I'm a bit critical of the European programs, which I think overlap lots of other sources of exchange funding and do reflect a rather musty cold war history (but then, it is MUCH harder to get a Fulbright to study in England than in Africa because of the demand).

The overall goals are noble, and the number of participating nations is large and growing, and it has great results for our young people (and some mid-career scholars too), and for many scholars from other countries who would otherwise never be able to study in the US. If that's seen as "political" in a negative sense, I don't get why.

RCM

[molly]

83. Most of us agree - you should read entire posts

not just what you are looking for.

[realcountrymusic]

65. simply wrong

You and Darth Kitten need to read some of the other posts in the thread. Fulbright fellowships are based on merit, not need, and are awarded through a blind process. No matter who your father (or mother) is, or howmuch money your family has, you don't have any advantage in this kind of process (other than a lifetime advantage of having had a good education and a family that supported that, which I admit is a significant one). But being a Kerry or a Clinton or Jane Sixpack has no bearing on the Fulbright award process.

I simply don't get this little bubbling current of anti-intellectualism among progressives. There is nothing wrong with recognizing and awarding intellectual accomplishment. It does not help poor kids get better educations if Vanessa Kerry doesn't get a Fulbright. Indeed, the Fulbright program has helped lots of working class American students, and thousands of students from poor and developing countries who could otherwise never have studied in the US. It's a shining light of American education policy. Oppose legacy affirmative action at good schools and you have my support. Oppose the property tax funding of public schools and you have my support. Oppose the Fulbright fellowship program of the US DOE, and you lose this progressive entirely. Knowledge, achievement, and exchange are unqualified good things. Resentment of the accomplishments of others, cloaked in populist tones of anti-elitiism, is not progressive to me.

I'm sorry to post so much in this thread, and so heatedly. I happen to care very much about this issue, and I believe I know something about the subject. America without the Fulbright fellowships is intellectually impoverished.

RCM

[DemBones DemBones]

94. Why do you oppose property tax funding of public schools?

I was surprised to read that sentence in your post.

[Boomer]

46. It's more than money

Sure, she doesn't need the financial support, but the Fullbright itself is more than just money -- the prestige of the award opens doors. She earned the respect that comes with the award.

[molly]

41. Congratulations Vanessa!!!!!!

:kick: :kick: :kick:

:party:

For those that do not understand the honor involved - I'm truly sorry for you!

http://exchanges.state.gov/education/fulbright/

..." With this goal, the Fulbright Program has provided more than 250,000 participants — chosen for their academic merit and leadership potential — with the opportunity to study and teach in each other's countries, exchange ideas, and develop joint solutions to address shared concerns."

[Boomer]

47. The criticism is just another proof of...

the rampant anti-intellectualism in this country.

Too many people in this thread see this as an issue of money versus no money, rather than understanding that the crux of the award is the recognition of merit and a program to enlarge the cultural perspective and experience of the student.

I'm all for an increase in financial programs that will help working-class and middle-class students gain acces to good educations. But the Fullbright Scholarship is NOT one of those programs, nor should it be.

[Darth_Kitten]

49. Hardly.........

if one of the Bush girls got this scholarship, most people would be screaming "unfair", but favourtism seems to be okay if it's one of "our" people. I'm sorry, but I won't be very surprised if the GOP makes accusations of "elitist" and it sticks.

Why do people who are obviously VERY well off eligible for scholarships, based on "merit"? "Merit" is VERY subjective, surely there were more needy individuals trying to get this scholarship?

[molly]

51. Bill Clinton was a Fulbright scholar

and he was not wealthy or elitist. He grew up as a poor southern boy - but he was/is brilliant.

The Bush girls would never-ever qualify. First of all, they are as stupid as their father, second of all, they just have no class or compassion for humanity.

[mike_c]

57. Clinton was a Rhodes scholar....

His bio does not list a Fulbright Fellowship.

[molly]

58. Sorry - my bad!

[Boomer]

63. Favoritism has nothing to do with this

If one of the Bush twins had won a Fulbright, I would indeed be impressed and applaud their initiative. This is NOT a recognition of "needy invidividuals" -- other financially-oriented scholarships do that job quite well. This award promotoes scholarship in its truest sense.

Frankly, the Bush family could really use a family member who was this scholastically inclined. Bush bought his way into an Ivy League college, but you can't buy a Fullbright -- you can only earn it.

[July]

68. You seem to assume favoritism comes into this,

even though people familiar with Fulbrights have explained that it is a blind application process.

Sure, the GOP will try to cry "elitist." That doesn't mean they know what they're talking about. They usually don't.

Fulbrights have gone to needy, wealthy, and middle-class applicants. The "merit" is in their intellectual accomplishments. It's a good thing that talented students (no matter their wealth -- poor AND rich) get these opportunities to further their studies.

[realcountrymusic]

70. Wrong again

If one of the bush twins wona Fulbright, I like to think I'd be applauding her, after I picked my jaw up off the ground. Were I to scream "unfair' I'd be a hypocrite.

Merit is of course subjective, but in a blind review process (as the Fulbright fellowships are reviewed) each applicant is subject to the same standard. At the level of a Fulbright, one has many objective accomplishments to shore up a claim to merit.

As for why well off people apply for fellowships, they are *honors* and not simply financial awards. The real value of a Fulbright is the prestige it confers, for the rest of one's life in the academic world.

What's with you people who can't see that you sound a lot like Bill O'Reilly bashing "liberal elitists" as a way to make a cloaked stab at people who are smart and ambitious?

Jeez. It's enough to make me worried about the future of the democratic party. I had no idea these Maoist ideas had such currency. You should worry more about the "charge" of "communist" sticking to us than the "charge" of elitism. Most Americans, in every survey, want their kids to succeed, get educated, win fellowships, do better than they did, and yes, be rich. Think of John Edwards and why he's so inspiring. By acting like we resent people simply because they ARE well off, we confirm the worst stereotypes of liberals, and we are also hypocrites. I assume some of you would turn down federal support for something you could otherwise afford? No student loans? No scholarships? No social security as a supplement to your otherwise *adequate* retirement income? Not too many of the underclass posting to DU, as far as I can tell. But most of them would call this the BS it is too.

Unbelievable. Now I'll take a chill pill.

RCM

[molly]

84. How'd that chill pill work out for you?

[realcountrymusic]

89. nicely, thanks!

It took a couple of hours to sink in. All's well with the world now.

peace

rcm

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

71. I agree with some of the other posters here... If one of shrubya's twins

could win something like the Fulbright (Vanessa Kerry) or the Rhodes (Bill Clinton), which are entirely based on the merit of one's accomplishments, I would be impressed and congratulate them. Particularly after overcoming the family legacy of mediocrity from skating by on money and connections.

[tblue37]

91. Why can't you understand that the Fulbright process is

blind. No one judging the applications has any idea of who the applicants are. They can't show favoritism to someone because of their family background, ebcause they can't tell what that background is.

Complaining about the money is one thing, though probably a bit wrongheaded, simply because it would be unfair to deny smart rich kids who have worked hard the opportunity to win what is essentially an intellectual gold medal. I am quite sure the honor and prestige of the scholarship is a large part of what motivated Vanessa to compete for it. But complaining about "favoritism" is simply nonsensical. No favoritism. None. Not possible. The judges would not even have known whom they were giving the scholarships to. They were giving the scholarships to "dossiers," not to people with names.

[Darth_Kitten]

50. Don't be......

like NO doors open for you if you are the child of a president or presidential candidate... :)

[molly]

55. Here are the qualifications to become a Fulbright scholar

http://www.cies.org/us_scholars/eligibility.htm

How many of us would qualify? :shrug: Not me.

[realcountrymusic]

90. And that's only the "scholars" program

Fulbright has many programs, including one I never knew about specifically to foster exchange with the Muslim world (see my earlier post). The qualifications are various, but in every case the goal is to enable high achievers with leadership potential and ambassadorial qualities to participate in international intellectual exchange. All of the various programs are listed at:

http://www.cies.org/Fulbright_programs.htm

I'm not even sure which one VK won. My graduate students tend to win IIEE awards to fund doctoral-level field research in developing countries (I've had six PhD advisees win Fulbright IIEEs and that's the award for which I've served as a reviewer too). I've also had undergraduates win Fulbrights that allowed them to study abroad for one year after college, in an area that ideally leads them to graduate study.

People on this board should also know that there is a long history of right wingers trying to cut or shut down the Fulbright programs. This alone should make it clear that most progressives should support it.

RCM

[July]

69. But that doesn't mean that NO accomplishments of VK

are the result of her own talents.

[tblue37]

92. But NOT THIS door!

This door is a blind process. No one judging the scholarship applicants knows what their names are or can in any way tell whether they are the daughters of presidents or presidential candidates.

[truthisfreedom]

48. doing well in school is CONTRARY TO AMERICAN BELIEFS ACCORDING TO BUSH

THE SCHMUCK!

[jmowreader]

52. Why are we arguing about this?

This is a great achievement! Congratulations, Vanessa!

If this was a Bush daughter, we'd have the right to complain because she would have Floundered her way into it. (Floundering is the act of using name or connections to get somewhere one wouldn't be accepted to otherwise. It comes from Animal House, where the fat, ugly, almost-friendless nerd Kent Dorfman got into Delta House because his brother Fred was a Delta.) Just like her daddy Floundered his way into Yale, into Skull & Bones, into Harvard Business School. He Floundered his way into the executive offices of three different oil companies, Floundered his way into the Texas governorship and Floundered his way into the White House.

They wouldn't have received the Fulbright because the Fulbright doesn't care who you are. They don't even KNOW who you are. You could have grown up in a trailer because your dad's job moved every six months, or you could have parents whose bank balance has three commas. What they care about is: if we give you this money and send you overseas to use it, what will you do with the knowledge you receive?

The Bush twins will Flounder themselves into some corporation somewhere who recognizes the value of having the offspring of Really Old Money working there. Their primary task will be making sure the coffee pot stays full. Vanessa Kerry will do great things.

[molly]

59. I don't know really - this scholarship is based on

academic achievement. The Bush twins would never qualify.

[jmowreader]

72. This is true, which is why they'd never apply for it

A "merit-based" scholarship that has their names on each page of the application is more their speed.

In fifty years or so, after everyone's forgotten that their father was The First President To Commit Capital Crimes While In Office, they can put "children of presidents received this prestigious scholarship" in their recruitment and fund-raising brochures and not look like total dumbasses.

But for right now, Floundering your way into a teaching slot in the mildest public school in Harlem will have to do.

[mike_c]

53. for the critics-- the Fulbright program is a Fellowship, not...

...a scholarship in the sense that most of you are thinking. It is awarded for meritorious academic achievement, not for financial need. Vanessa Kerry should certainly NOT turn this honor down-- it is significant milestone in her academic career. Turning it down would be tantamount to earning high marks in her course work but declining them. The financial part of the fellowship is simply recognition that accepting the academic award-- being chosen for an elite academic program-- is expensive and the cost should not be borne by the recipient of the award. The fellowship grant is incidental to the academic recognition and opportunity.

[gatlingforme]

56. That is great to read another woman who is on her way to a

successful and challenging career!!!!!! I love it. and I am just wondering what type of scholarship the Bushies will receive.? And, if their daughters do receive some type of scholarship it would have the words "Jack Daniels" included in the name.

[molly]

60. Someone must have "helped" them thru college

wonder what that cost was.

[realcountrymusic]

67. So? Your point is?

People who "help" their kids through college must be cut down to size? The Khmer Rouge had a policy of placing all people who wore glasses in "reeducation camps" (where most of them died) as a surefire way to silence all intellectual and middle class critics of their brutal (but populist) regime. This tone of *ressentiment* is really surprising to me. MOST American parents "help" their kids through college, and most would see nothing wrong with any other family doing so to the best of its ability.

Harvard, my alma mater (and I'm from the middle middle class, went to public schools) makes almost all of its financial awards (other than sports scholarships and a few merit scholarships) based on financial need. If your family makes less than $40K, you pay NO tuition at a school that costs a Kerry or a Bush over $30K a year in tuition. Back in the 80's, it cost me about $8K a year when tuition was $18K The reasoning behind admitting wealthy "legacy" kids (which I have problems with) is that these people's money, both tuition and future gifts, helps sustain the allocation of need-based financial aid. As someone above said, it's actually more expensive for middle-class kids to attend most state universities these days.

You can tell a lot about the source of some of the knee-jerk thinking in this thread by reading between the lines. My position: achievement based on merit is never bad, no matter how rich or poor you are. Resentment of achievement based on merit is reactionary and dangerous.

I will cease fire.

RCM

[molly]

81. You think the Bush twins could have made it on their own

merits? Just like their stupid father?

[tblue37]

93. RealCountryMusic,

I think Molly was referring to the way she thinks the Bush girls got through college, not to Vanessa Kerry. She was suggesting that the Bush girls slid through on their father's name, just as he slid through on his father's name, so that they would be unlikely ever to win a scholarship based on actual merit.

However, we don't know this. For all we know, the Bush girls could be bright and decent students. We just don't know. We do know, however, that their father is a fool and was not a competent student.

[realcountrymusic]

96. If so, my mistake

and apologies to Molly.

We don't really know. I don't even remember which one went to UT (I think it was Jenna) and which to Yale. In either case, admissions decisions are not blind (there's an interesting idea), and I doubt the Bush name didn't come into play in both cases, which is (in one way of looking at it) a shame for them. It means they can never be sure they achieved admission to such good schools on merit alone, though I think that Barbara at least turned in a pretty strong performance, if memory serves me.

As I said, Barbara's decision to teach in a public school, even if it's a bit of personal PR, strikes me as worth supporting and honoring. Good for her. And as I also said, I don't feel inclined to pick on any 22 year old kid. I was immature as hell at that age. I wish both sides would agree to leave the kids on the sidelines of any nastiness. It's fine to have kids support their parents in a race, and to make something of their success as a claim for the candidates' character. But for the media (or us) to get nasty about any of them -- Chelsea, Barbara, Jenna, Vanessa, etc. -- even the ones who are in their later 20s, is just bothersome to me. They didn't ask to be famous.

But yes, I'm sure it helped to be a Bush *or* a Kerry when they applied to good colleges. On the other hand, I'm willing to bet none of them had any financial aid, and their full tuition (plus the bucks their parents almost certainly gave to their alma mater schools) helps those schools fund deserving students with fewer resources.

I hope all the kids of all the candidates have rich, fulfilling lives of service, out of the spotlight if they don't want to be in it.

RCM

[DiverDave]

66. So, she should TURN IT DOWN??

WTF is wrong with you people?
She is smart enough, she earned it.
Why is it that just because of her name you feel she doesn't deserve it?
Smacks of class envy and it is unworthy of anyone to put her down for achievement.
Let her live HER life, not the life of "John Kerry's daughter...sheesh, get a grip.

[realcountrymusic]

77. Right to the point, DiverDave

To be intellectually consistent, some of those crying "elitist" here and suggesting VK should not have applied for or accepted a Fulbright fellowship because it might divert funds from needier students ought to be prepared to sell their computers and give the proceeds to a charity feeding starving children in Sudan. "Privilege" is also subjective. For anyone with access to the benefits of American society to complain too stridently that even relatively meritocratic benefits of that society are "unfair" raises the issue most front and center in global politics today: just being an American citizen is an "unfair" advantage,conferred by birth rather than achievement (except for recent immigrants). The obligation of accepting the privilege is to make something of it worthy of deserving it in the first place. Someone like Vanessa Kerry is doing that with her life; the same can be said of John Edwards, and millions of other working and middle class Americans who "work hard and play by the rules." Such conduct, earning the privileges of American citizenship, ought never be decried or tarred as "elitist."

There are systematically disadvantaged people in the United States. Few of them are likely to be posting on internet discussion forums. Some of them don't even have electricity, let alone computers. We need the talents of high achieving, public minded Americans, from all stations in life, to do something about injustice and disadvantage both in our country and around the world. For decades, the Fulbright fellowships have nurtured and honored and supported just such people, coming from many stations in life, without respect to their station. To claim otherwise is wrong, and to resent the success of others who have demonstrated real achievement in any area, including doing their job every day, is churlish. The question is not whether Vanessa Kerry is rich; it's what she makes of her advantages in life. From the evidence, including having won a Fulbright on her academic merit alone, I'd say she's doing fine.

One reason the Bush daughters strike many of us as a chip off the old block is precisely that they take their privilege and advantages for granted, although the choice of Barbara to teach in a public school, even a "mild" one (there are no truly "mild" public schools in New York) is a significant sign of a maturing person, I think. I would never write either one off, at least until they have actually demonstrated their father's level of hypocrisy, venality, lack of personal achievement or personal responsibility, etc. They are young still. Many of us (myself included) were not model citizens at 22. I hope sincerely that Jenna and Barbara can make something more of their lives -- on their own merits -- than their father did. The odds are against them, coming from such a family and surrounded as they are by the temptations of wealth and privilege. But in fact, I hold the view that someone who is rich and privileged is *more* to be pitied if they do not achieve something substantial with their privileges than someone without the same advantages. As many American family histories prove, success spoils. The Kerry family would appear to be an exception to that general rule, and John and Theresa (and his first wife) must be applauded for instilling a sense of service, achievement, and discipline in their privileged children's upbringing. These are real "family values," and they don't belong to any one class or region or religion in America. This was Barack Obama's point in his convention keynote address.

Being rich is not a crime. Being rich and indolent and ignorant is a crying shame. Being poor is not a crime. But being poor, or not rich, and curdled with resentment and blame for others is not very admirable either. Being smart is not a virtue. Being smart and disciplined and good of character is a virtue. Being of average intelligence and good of character is worth more than being smart and venal. The issue is what you make of what you are given to begin with, and what good you do for others.

Sorry, I'm just very passionate about these issues. If we turn against the recognition of academic achievement in the name of populism, we turn against ourselves. Ask many leaders of the Civil Rights Movement era in the African American community what they think has gone wrong in the last two decades in their community, and you'll hear a similar argument. Barack Obama said it much more eloquently:

"Go into any inner city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can't teach kids to learn. They know that parents have to parent, that children can't achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white."

Peace

RCM

[MrsMatt]

87. Hear hear

I agree wholeheartedly with your assessments.

It's been a bit disheartening to read some of the posts in this thread; the narrow-minded and uninformed interpretations exhibited by some posters are very disturbing.

Vanessa Kerry has earned this honor, the same as her father earned his honors in Vietnam - by her own merit.

[JohnKleeb]

76. wait what the hell, we're arguing abotu this

christ y'all.

[realcountrymusic]

78. disagree

I think it's an important argument to have! Many people probably have not examined their consciences on these issues, and discussing them and having it out a little is a good way to put facts in evidence and change opinions.

That's what a discussion forum is for, right?

RCM

[goclark]

88. Yea for Vanessa!

We are very very proud of you.

You are bright and you are lovely.

We can't wait to welcome you as one of our "first daughters."

[enigmatic]

95. Vanessa deserves it, period...

She got it on merit, not by connections; I can't believe anybody is slagging her because of this..

[w4rma]

97. Kerry's daughter wins Fulbright fellowship

Shorter headline, less ink, and more to the point. So why did the AP make it longer by using the word "says". Is it because now, it makes Kerry sound like he's bragging? Or is it because now, it makes Kerry sound like he might be lying? Why did the AP, less accurately, use the word "scholarship" instead of "fellowship"?