Ivy League Liability

[whitneyB]

I think people are getting a little carried away with the (fair and accurate) stories of value in different levels of higher education. No, Ivy League schools aren't quite as dominant as they used to be, but they are still extremely arduous and not possible for everyone. An education from one of those schools isn't necessarily as far and away better than any others, and a degree from there doesn't guarantee a genius. At the same time, it's silly to demean them to the point of saying they're nothing special. Yes, there are a lot of people who should be at those schools who aren't and a lot there that shouldn't be. That doesn't mean they've been rendered completely useless just because of their massive turn of focus to money (like most other schools).

Not attacking the schools.  Attacking a problematic symptom of the schools.  I think the problem is often worse outside the Ivy League institutions because at least they have some standards, so maybe a little bit of a envy-ish factor plays a role in the politics (IDK it doesn't with me), but then again the problem may be more pronounced or dangerous in regard to the Ivy's. 

PS: Yale and Wharton were the only schools that I seriously considered leaving the midwest to go to.         

DON'T go to Wharton, you'll become an apersonal robot (think "Ivy League Hustle" on Youtube). Yale is VERY liberal, but if you're fine with that, go for it. Honestly, if you're looking for a more friendly political atmosphere try Princeton, even though it's more apolitical than less liberal.

[AmericanNation]

I think people are getting a little carried away with the (fair and accurate) stories of value in different levels of higher education. No, Ivy League schools aren't quite as dominant as they used to be, but they are still extremely arduous and not possible for everyone. An education from one of those schools isn't necessarily as far and away better than any others, and a degree from there doesn't guarantee a genius. At the same time, it's silly to demean them to the point of saying they're nothing special. Yes, there are a lot of people who should be at those schools who aren't and a lot there that shouldn't be. That doesn't mean they've been rendered completely useless just because of their massive turn of focus to money (like most other schools).

Not attacking the schools.  Attacking a problematic symptom of the schools.  I think the problem is often worse outside the Ivy League institutions because at least they have some standards, so maybe a little bit of a envy-ish factor plays a role in the politics (IDK it doesn't with me), but then again the problem may be more pronounced or dangerous in regard to the Ivy's. 

PS: Yale and Wharton were the only schools that I seriously considered leaving the midwest to go to.         

DON'T go to Wharton, you'll become an apersonal robot (think "Ivy League Hustle" on Youtube). Yale is VERY liberal, but if you're fine with that, go for it. Honestly, if you're looking for a more friendly political atmosphere try Princeton, even though it's more apolitical than less liberal.

I thought about Princeton.  I think I would have had to visit (and like it) in order to bump it up the list from 3rd.  At least you're ahead of Harvard. 

wild tangent:
Part of me would probably feel better about Princeton if Krugman wasn't there.  I like opposing opinions, he is just annoying to me personally--especially how people fawn over him for no reason.  One guy shouldn't bother me I know, but I just suspect having the official establishment economist (who is also a moron) around would mess stuff up in a variety of areas.  Part of me would like challenging/undermining him, but why bother?     

[whitneyB]

I think people are getting a little carried away with the (fair and accurate) stories of value in different levels of higher education. No, Ivy League schools aren't quite as dominant as they used to be, but they are still extremely arduous and not possible for everyone. An education from one of those schools isn't necessarily as far and away better than any others, and a degree from there doesn't guarantee a genius. At the same time, it's silly to demean them to the point of saying they're nothing special. Yes, there are a lot of people who should be at those schools who aren't and a lot there that shouldn't be. That doesn't mean they've been rendered completely useless just because of their massive turn of focus to money (like most other schools).

Not attacking the schools.  Attacking a problematic symptom of the schools.  I think the problem is often worse outside the Ivy League institutions because at least they have some standards, so maybe a little bit of a envy-ish factor plays a role in the politics (IDK it doesn't with me), but then again the problem may be more pronounced or dangerous in regard to the Ivy's. 

PS: Yale and Wharton were the only schools that I seriously considered leaving the midwest to go to.         

DON'T go to Wharton, you'll become an apersonal robot (think "Ivy League Hustle" on Youtube). Yale is VERY liberal, but if you're fine with that, go for it. Honestly, if you're looking for a more friendly political atmosphere try Princeton, even though it's more apolitical than less liberal.

I thought about Princeton.  I think I would have had to visit (and like it) in order to bump it up the list from 3rd.  At least you're ahead of Harvard. 

wild tangent:
Part of me would probably feel better about Princeton if Krugman wasn't there.  I like opposing opinions, he is just annoying to me personally--especially how people fawn over him for no reason.  One guy shouldn't bother me I know, but I just suspect having the official establishment economist (who is also a moron) around would mess stuff up in a variety of areas.  Part of me would like challenging/undermining him, but why bother?     

Tangent alert:

I guess, but I think the school does a good job of hosting faculty with a wide range of opinions and worldviews (we have Robert George, for instance) and I find that the politics department is especially well-balanced. As to Krugman, he barely teaches - probably only graduate classes - and he's not even in the economics department, he's at Woody Woo.

Anyway, I think you would love the school because you really meet such a great group of people and I think that makes it a far-and-away better experience than if you only considered the classes. The social scene is also a lot more fun and inclusive than what I hear other Ivies are.

[WhyteRain]

Do we not want our leader to be the best and the brightest?

I realize there are people in every society who want society to be commanded, in as many aspects possible, by a "philosopher king" or "the man on the white horse".  In America, we call such people liberals.

It's unsurprising that such people are angered and distressed if they think the king is not as smart as they are.  Of course, if the leader claims he doesn't want to rule society as much as they demand, then they'll claim that even a man -- even one with TWO Ivy League degrees (like Bush or Romney) -- is somehow secretly dumb.  It's a psychological defense mechanism.

Well, I am not George Bush's biggest detractor, but you have to admit he wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed. I mean he went to Yale - the very definition of a safety school... <joking/> But in all reality, he wasn't the sharpest; Romney, on the other hand, is much smarter.

Besides the fact that Bush spoke with a Texas twang and Romney doesn't, what in the world makes you think that Romney "is much smarter"?

I'll bet dollars to donuts that I just put my finger on it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

At a minimum, I think we can agree that it doesn't "prep" them very well, if the last four presidents are much indication.

And, personally, I don't want a guy with his finger on the nuclear button who "has been incredibly successful at everything else he's done".  He's likely to have a dangerous self-confidence.

I always thought that the biggest reason to doubt Bush the Younger's intelligence was in fact his "dangerous self-confidence", and his reluctance to revisit policies and decisions in the light of changing evidence.

In his first year in office, Bush changed his position on McCain-Feingold.  Then later he changed on his opposition to "The Surge" and on his support for Harriet Miers.

That's the kind of humility I like in a President.  (Compare the current guy who literally thinks his rise to power "marked the day the oceans ceased to rise and the Earth began to heal" and that the 2010 elections wouldn't be like a GOP landslide like 1994 because "this time, you have me!"  Now that is ample evidence of the insane level of self-confidence -- self-delusion really -- that endangers us all.)