Who does he think he is?

Bill Gates was at it again, dabbling in something his "education" doesn't really qualify him to do. I understand that the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation gives a lot of money to high school programs. I understand also that it might take someone who has experienced something to really know the bad impact of it. That said, Bill Gates goes beyond the reach of his mouse pointer when he shows up at a Governor's convention this past weekend saying high schools are obsolete. I understand he was a corporate sponser, so he is more than entitled to get up and speak. Still, what qualifies him to give suggestions to our elected governors on how schools should be run? Where is his Masters in Education and Business Administration? Oh that's right, he dropped out of college. So when he says high schools today aren't preparing kids for a college education and that every kid today needs to go to college, he must really know...right? He was smart enough to get into Harvard, but his high school teachers never taught him the value of education. Wrong. He attended Lakeside School, Seattle's most exclusive prep school. There, he got the education that took him to Harvard and that enabled him to drop out so he could become a software developer. Further, Bill Gates has no idea what it is like in the high schools to which he refers - the ones that are obsolete because they don't prepare kids for college. Those are typically the poorer schools, that have less funding due to whatever reasons, be it a poor state finance system or what not. Bill Gates never went to such schools...not when his mother was a trustee on various corporate boards and his father was a corporate lawyer. So where do his credentials come from that he is qualified to advise on such a matter? I grow very tired of money and power being the only two criteria one must meet before you are a guru on every subject. Governors should be listening to teachers, principles, parents, and students in these "obsolete" high schools to get the real picture. Corporate sponsorship is fine - but that is where it should end, at sponsorship. The goal of education reform is good, but the means choosen to effect that goal - coporate lecturers - have no rational relationship to that end. When will our politicians get a clue?