So, you’ve redefined “Ivy” to mean any place a president or one of the twenty richest Americans went to school and then conclude that the country is “dominated” by people who went to one of those schools? I’m still trying to figure out where to place this on the nonsense to tautology continuum
Where did you get that from? Ah I see, nowhere.
Look at the billionaires, take even those who did not attend an strict “Ivy” and you have 2 that did not go to Ivies.
From your list, Ellison, Koch family (MIT except the one who does not appear to be involved in Koch Industries), Walton family, Page, Adelson, Brin, and Soros add up to a lot more than one who did not attend an Ivy League school. Note: Buffett attended Penn Wharton, but transferred to Nebraska to complete his bachelor’s degree, and later got a master’s degree at Columbia; he did not attend Michigan.
Of course, being from a wealthy family removes a significant roadblock that many face in choosing a college (or being able to attend a college) today – that of cost constraints. It also worth noting that the relative accessibility of colleges in general, or specific colleges (highly selective or otherwise), is different now compared to a generation or few ago when the politicians and super-wealthy people you listed went to college.
It’s not my fault you used the term “Ivy” to mean “elite school”; it’s best to be more precise in your use of language. Ivy means the 8 schools in the Ivy League. Elite school is a broader characterization.
Sergey Brin went to the U of Maryland. The original Sam Walton went to Mizzou and his son, the current chairman, to Arkansas.
As for someone like the Mars family with their candy empire - I think what you’re missing is that Yale didn’t provide anything special to them in developing a candy empire that shrewd businesspeople couldn’t have gotten elsewhere. People don’t buy all the Mars products because their founder went to Yale - they had good products, well distributed.
Sergey also might have learnt more from his parents than anyone else.
Also, I don’t think it makes much sense to include people who went to elite graduate or professional schools after attending less selective undergraduate institutions. Such people are counterexamples to the idea that elite institutions have some corner on the market for successful people, not examples of it.
But here’s the tough truth: the most elite colleges are to academic performance as Juilliard is to musical ability, or as a professional sports team is to sports ability. You have to have very, very high academic performance to be admitted to one of these schools. Even if you are hooked in some way, you still need very high performance. It is simply the case that people from financially secure and highly educated families are much more likely to have the opportunities to exhibit that kind of performance, just as a rich kid is more likely to have the early music lessons and access to high quality instruments that will help him get into Juilliard.
Now, if you are an elite university, how do you try to get students who lack those advantages, without significantly reducing your admissions standards? In my opinion, you do exactly what they are doing. Perhaps they can do it somewhat better, but I don’t see any sensible big ideas on how to change things. You could eliminate some of the hooks that tend to benefit rich kids more than poor kids–like legacy, or developmental cases, or recruitment for preppy sports. But will that result in more middle or lower income students, or just a bunch more rich (but slightly less rich) kids with top academic performance?
Ellison studied at UIUC and University of Chicago, but never graduated from either, and was introduced to CS at UChicago, and where he left with his business ideas.
Charles Koch, CEO of the industry, went to MIT. Frederick also went to MIT.
I can’t find where Christy went to college.
Larry Page went to UMich, and as I said, Stanford. Brin also went to Stanford. Soros going to the LSE is pretty much going to an Ivy, considering it is a breeding ground of British politicians and nobel winners.
I am not criticizing Ivies, I understand they want the best of the best, I am criticizing the types of people that get in - many of whom started at an insanely advantageous position.
Brin went to Stanford graduate school, as I said before. Sam did go to UofM, but he is dead, and not one of the 20 richest people in the US.
Going to an Ivy offer you unmeasurable networking, and the ability to achieve basically any position that will lead to success. If you are a pathetic individual incapable of proper work, no it will not help - but an Ivy school tend to either refuse those that are or in the case of Legacy, drill it out of them. Forrest did not only go to an Ivy, but was born to opulence.
How exactly is that true? Ivy League graduate schools are as, if not more competitive compared to their undergrad. My argument has not been that people attending Ivy leagues are not academically achieved - of course they are. My argument has been the academically achieved are overwhelmingly from the upper class. 46% of Harvard undergrad students came from the top 3.8%. 69% of all Yale students came from families making 120K plus, double the household median.
My argument has not been to reduce the standards of the Ivies, my argument has been the academic services the poor and middle class receive are far from adequate. That is the problem, not Ivy League standards.
“I am not criticizing Ivies, I understand they want the best of the best, I am criticizing the types of people that get in - many of whom started at an insanely advantageous position.”
If they are smart and hardworking, why the need to criticize them?
And taking full advantage of opportunities one has is the very definition of smart.
UIUC = Big Ten (D1 FBS)
Chicago = UAA (D3)
MIT = NEWMAC (D3)
Michigan = Big Ten (D1 FBS)
Stanford = Pac-12 (D1 FBS)
LSE = not in any US athletic conference
There are no Ivy League schools in the above list.
If somebody is able to go to Bob Jones University, and then get into Harvard Law School, and that person goes on to great success, that is proof that you don’t have to go to an elite undergraduate school to succeed. It shows that people are able to get into elite graduate and professional schools based on their performance in college, even if it’s not a top, elite college.
@Pizzagirl
Because I am not criticizing them, as people, I am criticizing the societal structure that allows the rich, and only the rich, to receive wildly superior education. As an individual, of course they should take advantage of it.
But you see the issue here is these people will be the ones who dominate the country, as I said before. They receive the connections, the money, and the education to dominate any field of the spectrum so long as they did not barely squeak by on Legacy.
Just look at CC. Endless elitism and snobbery is found in almost every thread here(and there are of course those that are not). Just in this thread you have people saying that the poor, genetically, are stupid and thus deserve to live in poverty. Arguments that essentially advocate for static social mobility, and the entitlement to familial fortunes in no way earned by themselves are also common. An estate planning thread, which with few exceptions, deals with the vast fortunes some people her posses. If you are fine with having the rich benefit entirely off the backs of the poor, that is fine. I however seek a society that is more equal in opportunity then the one that exists.
@ucbalumnus
I suppose you can completely ignore the “Ivy league education or equivalent line” I dropped. UChicago if a top 5 global university. You are ignoring what I am saying and focusing on semantics, a common logical fallacy I would hope you know.
@Hunt
The exact same can be said of the undergrad! Just do well in high school and middle school. For college graduate school is just the third level. The issue is that it is again, far easier to succeed with wealth. No need to worry about financing the school, take that unpaid internships. No need to worry about tuition - attend whatever school you want, and feel free to study abroad. No family to support, and no poverty culture to overcome.
It’s not a logical fallacy and it’s not semantics. You used the term Ivy. That term refers to 8 specific schools. So we all thought you actually meant those specific schools. Later on you clarified you simply meant elite schools as a whole. Words have meaning.
But, that’s not happening. More people than just the rich have access to superior educations.
What is the alternative?
I don’t know anyone who uses the term “Ivy” to refer to any schools but hypbcd or p. Those schools make up the ivy league. Elite, usnwr top 20, highly selective…these are terms used for some of the schools you describe.
“An estate planning thread, which with few exceptions, deals with the vast fortunes some people her posses.”
I don’t participate on such a thread, but what is wrong with estate planning? Should rich people be stupid and not manage their wealth? I fail to see the objection.
“But you see the issue here is these people will be the ones who dominate the country, as I said before. They receive the connections, the money, and the education to dominate any field of the spectrum so long as they did not barely squeak by on Legacy.”
Did you know that legacies typically have higher scores, etc than the student body as a whole?
123, increased social mobility doesn’t mean “get into the top 20 richest people list.”
Why not do away with legacy preference then? The legacies have higher scores so would anyway get in.
The legacies are only a small portion of the high-score-holding crowd.