Spelling and sentence construction are appalling. This won’t do for aspiring conservative politicians.

Come back when you have done some work on that.

A dumber, lazier Australia?! Wow, what a great idea seems to be coming out of this discussion.

You are so smart Natasha. I hope you are thinking of standing for preselection But do tell me, what refereed journals does your wisdom come from? Archie comic books?

It is about the actualy quality of the education at those unis and the fact that the entrance requirements are very rigorous and include alot more than just an excellent academic record.

Dare I say it, they look at the WHOLE package. Oh dear me yes, that’s right. Sorry to destroy the ignorant parochial world of a few people, but they are the facts.

Wipe the green off yourselves. And if you are so down on the idea of high achievers, then seriously, the socialist party will happily accept you.

Good luck!

Whilst an Oxbridge or Harvard degree deserves much respect, Australia is no longer in the 1950s where Liberal Party branch memebers would fall over an Oxbridge graduate and give them a seat in parliament.

A dedication to higher learning is to be admired and respected, but this alone will not make a good Senator.

BTW, a careful reading of the above comments suggests that Foxy Ross’ education is NOT the subject of ridicule. Think about what the initials JF stand for?

One thing and only ONE THING matters:

Numbers.

A pox on Fox – such a loser.

The problem with the Liberal Party is that there are no liberals left in it.

We await 25% of you on the other side. Come out of her my children.

The rest will burn.

Because that is exactly what appears to be happening on this site. No-one needs a psych degree to see what is going on here. There is no actual interest in talent, merit or skills. It is all about maintaining the status quo.

There appears to be an awful display of jealously and a determination to completely deny that a good education (and hence knowlegde) just might be one of the criteria to look at. No-one is suggesting that it is the only criteria!
But a few people on this discussion board seem to be using it to ridicule people who have a decent education, and by implication making them out to be a joke not worthy of consideration.
A friendly reminder –the Liberal party spirit is about advancement, doing better and being better. If education is not valued and at least one means of achieving that, then the Liberal party had better stop being such supporters of elite schools.

The other point is that a few people do not seem to be genuinely interested in looking at the whole package as you suggest that they should.

The tacit message coming through a few of the comments is that the candidates who have nominated are hopeless…and they are made fun of on the basis of the uni they went to or their credentials…

Meanwhile, people who speak in support of a candidate are crucified.

Doesnt seem like a very liberal approach to me.

Condemnation to anyone who thinks that this alone makes someone a good candidate for preslection.

Judge the person as a whole, not just the University they attended.

Yawn. Yeh, let’s have a “decress”… hahaha

Only Oxford, Cambridge and Harvard graduates can apply for preselection.

I must confess that I did take it to mean that you thought Sanrda was whacko coz she admired someone of an SC’s calibre.

I dont think it is an unfair assumption to draw about your discussion.

Your swipe at Sandra for merely supporting democratic ideals, merit, achievement and trying to stop excessive negativity online was poor form.

Numerous on-line dictionaries suggest that “wacko” is an acceptable spelling.

As for the SC, there is not a single comment in this thread that is critical of her (ignoring McPerton’s humorous aside re human rights law).