Unimpressive, to say the least.
Kerry, who graduated two years before Bush, got a cumulative 76 for his four years, according to a transcript that Kerry sent to the Navy when he was applying for officer training school. He received four D's in his freshman year out of 10 courses, but improved his average in later years...
The transcript shows that Kerry's freshman-year average was 71. He scored a 61 in geology, a 63 and 68 in two history classes, and a 69 in political science. His top score was a 79, in another political science course. Another of his strongest efforts, a 77, came in French class.
Four D's as a freshman? Of all his freshman courses his 'best' grade was a C+? I can't say I'm surprised. Not. One. Bit.
And taking a course in a language he already spoke and scoring 77? Nice work. Reminds me of a line from The Sure Thing, with John Cusack.
Gibson: "I'm smart, and stuff."
Roommate: "You're failing English. That's your native tongue."
''I always told my Dad that D stood for distinction," Kerry said yesterday in a written response to questions...
There's also a couple of four-letter words that begin with D that might apply.
UPDATE: Kevin's on it at Wizbang. Check it out. I don't even want to go there, with Bush/Kerry comparisons. The naked transcript itself is enough.
And both PoliPundit and Jay Tea want to know what's still being hidden.
I've heard some speculation that Kerry held this back because one of his biggest strengths in the campaign was his perceived intellectual superiority to Bush, and this would put a big dent in that image. But I'm wondering if this is just some "red meat" to keep attention away from a REAL smoking gun...
UPDATE: Harry Forbes has the best headline: John Kerry: Mis-overestimated?
UPDATE: Michelle Malkin with the link-o-rama.
UPDATE: Random thought - you don't suppose Sen. Kennedy's college transcript is available, do you?
UPDATE: A good point made by Dean Barnett at Soxblog:
But the reason the inquiry regarding Kerry’s grades was important was because, as the Globe acknowledges in today’s story, “During last year's presidential campaign, John F. Kerry was the candidate often portrayed as intellectual and complex, while George W. Bush was the populist who mangled his sentences.” An interesting use of the passive construction there, no? Whoever could have been doing such “portraying?” Why, none other than left wing publications like the Globe and the Times!
Of course, he knew apples from oranges early on.
I’ve scrutinized Kerry’s record searching for evidence of his purportedly giant intellect. I’ve found none. His academic biography includes no Latin words like “laude” or “magna.” Who knows? Maybe Kerry’s just being modest and doesn’t want to boast about decades old accomplishments. But I doubt it.
Of course, the Kerry campaign could prove me wrong by releasing transcripts of his time at Yale and Boston College. What about it, Kerry campaign – care to weigh in on this?
UPDATE: Rusty notes that, "Anyway it just goes to show that speaking ability is not a very good measure of intelligence."
UPDATE: Patrick Ruffini wins the most thoughtful award.
The moral relativist who tells you there are no absolute truths and who uses complexity as a crutch has the mind of a child. He refuses to critically evaluate the information before him to reach certain conclusions. His thought process rises no further than A is A and B is B.
Okay. Now, I'm officially sounding like a Rand novel.
The believer in moral clarity and ideological "absolutes" employs a higher level of thought. He compares the information before him, sifts through the similarities and differences, and identifies the broad, overarching themes. Themes like: The government that governs best governs least. Or, a cradle-to-grave welfare state is the best way to ensure social justice. Or, a foreign policy rooted in our moral values is the most effective means of promoting democracy.
Of course, he could have just called Kerry indecisive.
