CAMBRIDGE — The rules were clear. No laptops. Ever.
And everyone would get called on. Elizabeth Warren made sure, leaving nothing to chance in her contracts class. While Warren, always in motion, zipped questions at the 80 first-year students, teaching assistants tracked her using notecards. At the break, they slipped her cards with the names of any students she had missed.
Comments
After reading more about Elizabeth Warren's tenure at Harvard and how she nurtured her students to succeed, it only solidifies my vote for her as our next Senator from Massachusetts.
How does being a successful teacher qualify her to be a good US Senator? I was a successful teacher for 14 years, and I'm not qualified to be a US Senator. If anything, her MO as professor makes for a poor politician: she lectures while her charges (students and voters) shut up and listen.
Western: Better reread the article. Her method is to make sure every student has a say in her classroom. You also forget her work as a consultant to many politicians, her expertise on the economic matters that has caused so much suffering for this country, and her political triumph to bring the Federal Consumer Protection Agency to a reality in spite of long odds. I do believe the Constitution allows for either of these candidates to vie for postion of Senator of the United States. Your belief is you should not be able to run for Senator because you were only a "teacher." You also stated that teachers allow no classroom interaction. This makes me wonder about your characterization as being successful. Most teachers want to know what their students think and if they can defend it. Guess it didn't happen in your classroom. I have actually spoken to former students of hers and to a person knew they had to participate because she eventually chose everyone in that class to say their piece whether they wanted to or not. It is refreshing to have someone who welcomes participation from all and insisted they do so.
Oh for heavens sake another puff piece about Professor Elizabeth Warren. All those left wingers in her classrooms are just closet staff of the Boston Globe. Excuse me. What's that you say? She was actually evaluated like this year after year by her students and even praised for her research and writing to boot? Unbelievable! You have got to be kidding. What, there even were actual conservatives who also thought she did a bang up job of teaching? Well holy smokes. Gee none of them even knew about her Native American heritage and they still wanted a seat in her course. Anyone knows that it is mandatory to like a teacher if they know you belong to a minority. Just how did she keep such a reputation for over 20 years without revealing this part of her DNA outright? Could it be she was good at her work? Come to think of it, at the last debate even Scott Brown thought she had a sterling career. However he still wondered if any drop of original American blood gave her some sort of advantage in fashioning her accomplishments. It jutst has to be that all those smart as a whip students had bad judgement and were blinded by deference to her background. Time out. Let's take a rest. I have got to come clean. This tongue in cheek commentary is the kind of loony template Scott Brown supporters use because they cannot bring themselves to recognize the major contributions of Elizabeth Warren. Without question she is an asset to this nation. Scott Brown and his followers certainly have the right to cling to negative erroneous beliefs. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence against it. I just wonder why they do it? Is their candidate so deficient in character and actual achievements that it is necessary to haul in faux arguments? Why does Scott Brown smear his political opponent instead of touting his own voting record? What does he actually support and who funds him? Who walks with him down the political path? The oil industry? Wayward financiers? For profit health insurers? Unregulated bankers? Grover Norquist? Mitch McConnell? Karl Rove? The Tea Party? The Koch Brothers? Business yearning to breathe free of rules that protect us? Those who believe the military is our primary protection against conflict? Anti choice groups? Just who sides with this candidate? This thinking out loud brought to you by a Elizabeth Warren voter. Thanks for listening and vote your self and this country's interest on Nov 6th. They happen to be the same thing.
yep, time for another Boston Globe "Puff Piece". And don't be so sure that she is "Loved" by the Harvard administration either. They have been forced to COVER UP for her Affirmative Action claim of Cherokee heritage. And the Globe wants us to forget that she was NEVER CONFIRMED by the Democratic Party US Senate for a post in the US government.
She was never confirmed because the obstructionist Republican Party was not going to allow her nomination to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau go forward (even though she was one of the driving forces behind that agency's creation).
Ah I just knew one of the Brown wrecking crew would wake up early. Good morning sunshine. Always glad to see you here to make people aware just who Scott Brown supporters are.
She has totally turned me off. She and her campaign have done nothing but pointed out the flaws in Scott Brown and fear tactics on RvW. Every day I get one or two pieces of Scott Brown hate mail. I'm sick of it. In a country where we have a totally polarized Congress we don't need another polarizing figure. I don't particularly care about her position any more.
Yes just what are we going to believe? Karl Rove or Elizabeth Warren? Working people or Wall St Bankers? I guess you think Scott Brown's backing from the extreme right makes him a reasonable politician. He is just expert in sugar coating his actual beliefs. Having a mother, a wife, and two daughters is not a substitute for his voting record. The backing from groups who fight to limit women's freedom is more telling. By the way my mail includes Scott Brown's unfounded vicious attacks against Elizabeth Warren. Could you please clue the rest of us how you filtered out his campaign's mailings? Are you so polarized that you can only recognize one side of the argument. It is not that Scott Brown votes sparsely for reasonable legislation. It is just he is on the wrong side for regular people that is the problem. He has repeatedly told us he thinks that taxes on the overpaid should be cut even further. He thinks the private insurers have done a wonderful job of tackling our health care costs. He thinks spending two weeks in a protected hotel in Afghanistan makes him a combat veteran. Wake up you have been snookered.
Wall Street bankers supported Obama 4-to-1. Jamie Dimon at JP Morgan is Obama's guy. The housing crisis was a gift years ago from Bill Clinton. The weakness in housing was exposed by rising gas prices. Gas prices rose due to the US dollar falling and oil being traded on world markets in US dollars. The dollar fell because Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid gained power/more power after the 2006 elections... and then they spent WAY too much money, killing the US dollar, and setting in motion the whole stupid thing. But you're right: someone has been snookered alright! Wake-up. Grow-up.
She is a very nice little old lady, for sure. Her only character flaw seems to be her emotional hatred for Billionaires and Millionaires. One problem I am sure to have is listening to her for the next six years. Will she ever stop waving her arms an doing the "Indian" chop when no one is looking. I read on the internet that she has inherited some of the scalps her relatives collected during the frontier wars. They are in a secret little box under her bed.
She is a very nice little old lady, for sure. Her only character flaw seems to be her emotional hatred for Billionaires and Millionaires. One problem I am sure to have is listening to her for the next six years. Will she ever stop waving her arms an doing the "Indian" chop when no one is looking. I read on the internet that she has inherited some of the scalps her relatives collected during the frontier wars. They are in a secret little box under her bed.
She is a very nice little old lady, for sure. Her only character flaw seems to be her emotional hatred for Billionaires and Millionaires. One problem I am sure to have is listening to her for the next six years. Will she ever stop waving her arms an doing the "Indian" chop when no one is looking. I read on the internet that she has inherited some of the scalps her relatives collected during the frontier wars. They are in a secret little box under her bed.
Will you show me any evidence that she is against millionairs and billionairs. She thinks they should be paying a higher marginal tax rate that is a policy of fairness that has been with us for decades. It is would not produce one drop of economic sweat for them and might improve their citizenshop.
OETKB- when you raise rates on the rich, you also pull-in every small business owner in this country who nets little or no money and you crush new job creation. That is why Democrats didn't raise them in the first two years when they had all the votes they needed....
Oops, sorry! I have no idea how it got posted three times.
After reading your post, maybe it's because you're a dumb person in general.
911c2, please don't get your panties in a knot over my little bit of humor. I'm really sure she hasn't hidden any scalps in a secret little box under her bed and she only does the Indian chop when she goes to the Washinton Redskin games. Besides how would you know a really dumb person? It takes one to know one! So, there!!!
Prof. Warren sounds like an excellent teacher. Perhaps she should stay in teaching. The Senate is not an extension of the university - it's a job that demands openminedness and a willingness to compromise, qualities which she has not demonstrated.
Her ruthless attacks on her opponent and strident denunciations of corporations are the mark of an ideologue cut from the same cloth as Obama--a pious, uncompromising academic who thinks of the private sector as the enemy.
The CFPB is a flawed agency that is symbolic of everything wrong with Washington. 60% of its employees make over $100,000 salaries. It is funded directly by the Federal Reserve, which removes it from control by and accountability to the Congress. Its stated purpose is to protect people from abuse by "financial" companies, but the actual result is to raise the cost of financial services.
Warren lectures passionately about the "social contract between corporations and society", and there is no doubt that she believes the things she says, but she lacks a basic understanding of how wealth is created. America needs jobs more than it needs another ideologue in the Senate. Stay in academia, Professor Warren, which is your core competency.
If anything, her MO as professor makes her a poor politician. She's the lecturer who already knows all the answers, while her charges (students and voters) are expected to gain wisdom from her. Her job is to tell us what's right; our job is to shut up and listen.
This comment has been removed.
So wait, Professors aren't supposed to be subject matter experts? That explains so much!
This comment has been removed.
Ms Warren is an extremely qualified woman who will represent the state of Massachusetts with dignity and intelligence and energy. I am proud of her for taking on this challenge and for representing women so well.
This comment has been removed.
Qualified for what? She's not qualified for senator. She has never been a selectman, never been a mayor, never been a state rep, never been a state senator, she has never run a major product line for a company, she has never run a company, she has never laid awake at night worried about meeting payroll every two weeks. Liz Warren hasn't had a real job since she was 19 years old! Liz Warren has no experience in the real world that can help one single person in this state! Democrats have such a low threshold for competence that Liz is seen to be competent simply by showing up and 'speaking calmly and clearly'... as if THAT is all she needs to know for the job!!!! Liz Warren's candidacy is an INSULT to every thinking, tax-paying person in this state!
What a one-sided, biased story! Her and President Kardashian could wallow in left-wing idealogy! Only bleeding-heart Massachusetts!
Yawn. I had professors twenty times better than Liz... yet I wouldn't make a single one of them a senator! If that isn't enough, Liz Warren has exposed and embarrassed herself as totally inexperienced for the job and an outright liar and a fraud. More pathetic propaganda from the Boston Globe.
How is it one sided? It makes true statements based on research and interviews.
Bias is overlooking the truth. When the truth is positive, that should be reported. That there is no negatives doesn't mean something is biased.
Learn to think and analyze.
I don't know whether Professor Warren is a poor, middling, or great law professor, anymore than I know whether she has Cherokee blood and, if so, whether she used that element of GGF (Genetic Good Fortune) to secure hiring and promotional advantages for herself in Left-leaning academe. But I do know two things: (i) based upon this piece of sycophancy, Moskowitz and Carmichael are, as journalists, lightly-equipped; and (ii) I think I would like to see, in the interests of balance alone, more Republicans and fewer big government liberals in our Massachusetts Congressional delegation.
We NEED more women in Congress...it's not a Boys Club, or is it?
Women are more tha 50% of the population and we are under-represented.
It's no wonder we're always off to some far flung war, with our sons paying the price.
Ms. Warren is highly qualified for this job.
So we should elect her because she is a women? I would elect the best qualified person. BTW:I'm for womens rights and equal rights for everyone.
Could the Globe at least pretend to be an objective reporter of the news? They do constant hit pieces on Scott Brown, and you get stories like this, talking about how wonderful Elizabeth Warren is.
All I can say is that if Warren gets elected, we'll get to say "I told you so" to the Globe every day. She can't name a Republican in the Senate she can work with. She's quoted as saying she'll "leave blood and teeth on the floor of Congress". The worst problem is a lack of bi-partisan cooperation - Senator Brown has proved his ability to work across the aisle and Warren has proven having no interest in cooperation.
WSD: how did you go from naming Richard Lugar, to "can't name a Republican in the Senate she can work with?" I think someone needs a nap.
So now the DNC gets to file stories directly in the Globe, rather than relying on the resident Dem reporters?
The story makes statements of fact that the Globe researched. Just because you disagree doesn't mean that it is wrong.
When you see the truth as a conspiracy - you have a real problem in how you think.
Geoffrey - so you are expecting to see a matching story in the Boston Globe on Scott Brown as a father, state Rep and Senator and National Guard JAG lawyer for decades?
Why not give credit where it is due? Warren has been successful as an instructor of law, where she has spent the better part of her 35-year career; wouldn't one assume she's an accomplished teacher after all these years? She's never been a partner in a law firm, in case no one else has noticed, where the glass ceiling in the legal profession is notorious and well-known, and alive and well. Warren has never had to worry about losing her teaching gig while she takes leaves of absence, or takes a case here or there or gets called in by the US government to lend her expertise; she's never known the glass ceiling of her own profession and has never been treated like other women in her own profession. She's safe and sound in academia. She's never had to worry about being down-sized, apparently. Newsflash: law firms have been downsizing for years. Anyone else notice that all of the examples of former students in the article are now law instructors and work in law schools (or aspire to), too? Her calling is teaching, clearly. I'm not saying I won't vote for her, but frankly, her teaching accomplishments are not part of the equation; I would have been more impressed if she'd been on the front line of her profession, as a working attorney, relating to people more horizontally than vertically. Note: there's no denying that gift of the dog, Faith, was a nice touch. :)
Lawyers pay their licensing dues to the state (just like plumbers and electricians). Liz didn't. Lawyers keep segregated bank accounts for the protection of her clients (just like realtors). Liz didn't. Lawyers carry malpractice insurance and other insurance for the protection of their clients (just like many professions.) Liz didn't. You should have heard the lawyers and tradesmen calling in and noting what they have to pay, even for inactive licenses, and how upset they were with Liz! Half of these people can't even go to work until their licensing is paid but Liz skirted the whole system! And the lawyers and tradesmen who are following the rules while Liz gets away with by-passing them again has them very upset! Her 'success' isn't impressing anyone...
yoga - Yes, she's a good professor!
user_ - SHHH! At the Globe they don't talk about her lack of law license while practicing law in Massachusetts. Scott supporters "Tomahawk Chop" get's front page for a week, but we don't talk about Warren paid Union sign carriers yelling/insulting a gay supporter of Scott Brown. We don't talk here about plagiarism in Pow Wow Chow cookbook. Senator Brown's truck is frequently mentioned, but we don't mention Elizabeth Warren selling her BMW shortly before announcing her candidancy. No talk of Warren house flipping on the foreclosed. OK to talk about the "Pay Fairness Act" ... but don't mention that the Globe editorial board said that it was a bad idea. Don't get into how her most recent justification for claiming Native American heritage is based on parents eloping that has been totally debunked.
OETKB, I appreciate your spirited argument in favor of Warren and I credit your view that Browen as a Republican would be more closely aligned with McConnell, Norquist, too little regulation, over-emphasis on military respoonses to every provocation. There are all issues that concern me as well and why I generally vote Democrat.
However, there are a few other factors to consider. First, at this time we are confronted with nearly complete paralysis in Washington. If you read Woodward's "The Price of Politics" it is clear that Reid and Pelosi as well as the Obam administration are playing politics, and not very effectively. Waren promises to be little more than a foot soldier in what I see as a useless war. I'd rather have what little bi-partisanship Brown brings as a Republican who is beholden to a liberal Democratioc consitutency.
Second, she showed a poor ability to work with others when she was putting together the CFPB. Not just Republicans, even the Democrats were comlpetely sick of her by the time she was done. I doubt her ability to work effectively in a settgin like the Senate.
The third big issue for me is the character issue. I'll offer two examples. First, in Warren's very first radio interview she was asked a question about GE (led by her Obama administration cohort Jeffrey Immelt) and their failure to pay taxes. She badly fumbled and dodged the question. That warned me that she would be taking positions not on her own analysis and values, but based on party-line coaching. The second was when she was first asked about her allegedly claiming Indian heritage. Her answer was that the first she heard of it was when she read it in the Herald. That wasn't true. Since then, she has purchased a carefully crafted statement from her consultants which she repeats every time the question comes up. This seems dishonest and inauthentic to me. It's nothing new in politics, of course, but here the whole combination of factors tips me away from her and for Brown.
She got the CFPB through. I don't call that a poor ability of any sort. Compromising with people who are out to sabotage the economy is unacceptable.
Compromising without any moral core, any ability even to state what his reasoning is - that is Brown. Brown does not compromise, he meanders.
Ah, the character issue...Scott Brown serves 2 weeks in the rear in Afghanistan, and "he's served in Afghanistan" ...President Obama "signed Brown's bill" (which is only true if Brown used the alternative spelling of "Leiberman" when submitting the legislation)....he's met with Kings and Queens... the Blunt amendment was about religious freedom...Warren's salary causes tuition increases at UMass...
This comment has been removed.
Dear Lizzy, XOXOXO- your friends. Boston Globe
Ain't Love Grand?
Get a room you two!
Nothing like morning propaganda.
What a fraud. Guess where the majority of her students will end up? That's right. Big buisness. They're not going there to get out and help the little man, that's for sure. $750,000 to teach one class, no wonder tuitions are through the roof.
Prof. Warren just got a raise from $350,000 to $750,000? I don't think so!
If you are talented and lucky enough to be admitted to Harvard Law School, the Law School will see to it that you can afford it. The salary structure at Harvard Law has absoloutely nothing to do with salaries at public undergraduate institutions.
Ah, but it does. It sets the top tier. The bottom tiers fall in line. Funny that you didn't comment about the fact that the vast majority of Harvard Law students will go into corporate law, working for multi-national companies that skirt tax laws and fight against everything the middle class stands for.
The Morrissey Blvd bum-kissers at the Globe will fawn over any candidate with Harvard in front of his/her name. Come on, she contends she's for the middle class but her ridiculous salary for teaching one class is one of the reasons for the 2X inflation rate cost of public education. When is the middle class going to realize people like her are just cover for the 1%?
So you've bought Scott Brown's latest digression. Elizabeth Warren is at the pinacle of her career at the nation's most prestigious law school, where she is compensated similarly to other professors for providing similar services. That's called the market. As Mitt Romney might say, what do you have against success?
Perhaps if she were a billionare venture capitalist, that would somehow be better?
Harvard Law School is an extremly competitive private law school. Tying Warren's salary (and that of all the professors there) to the cost of a public undergraduate education is just ignorant. Scott Brown (who is himself well educated) should know better. But whatever it takes to win, I guess...
frank - and ... Romney is at the pinacle of his career, compensated similarly to others for providing similar services!
What Warren says doesn't matter. What Brown says doesn't matter. What the Globe says doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that Warren is a Democrat and Brown is not. Brown's win over Martha was an aberration, probably due primarily to the modest turnout. The turnout in this election will be huge, with too many voting a straight Democrat ticket for Brown to have a chance. It's too bad because Brown is the kind of politician who can move the discussion to the middle; Warren is not.
Brown makes her career choice and profession an issue every time he calls her "professor", and when he treats her with obvious derision for being sucessful in her career. Hence, the title of the article. So, stop whining about the Globe slant. As for her salary, thought all you republicans were in favor of the free market. Have some cheese with that whine.
You are confused. Liz wants more taxpayer money for colleges, so we can keep pumping money into the liberal ideology.
Anybody read Howie today?
You mean the guy from Wellesly attacking folks living in Cambridge for being rich elitists?
esf - Awesome, laughing at that one!
Ah, the weekly (daily?) puff piece on Liz Warren. C'mon Globe, try at least to disguise it a little bit will you?
Puff piece? Are you saying she's actually not a wonderful educator admired by both faculty and students at the top law school in the country? You're upset the Globe hasn't run a profile piece admiring Scott Brown's, umm, real estate closings? Because he was such a great nationally known, ummm..real estate attorney. Yeah, umm, he really did a great job reviewing those, ummm, purchase and sale agreements. Admired by both buyers and sellers, I hear. Yeah, those closings were really something. It's pretty much the same level of professional success as being a nationally known bankruptcy expert that gets a call from the Senate majority leader in the biggest financial crisis in our life times. Same thing. Really.
All Brown is about is name calling, a typical bully.
Wonderful! Let's hope this fine professor gets to teach full-time for the next four years. It would be a shame to take her out of her classroom where she can preach to students all day long.