<p>"Well, that's partly because you take the 100 year cutoff."</p>
<p>So, how far back do you want to examine? If you look too far back, there would be of course only ivy league graduates as their schools are among the oldest schools in the nation.</p>
<p>So, to answer the question: Only if you go to HYP. The lower half of the ivies isn't that different from any of the top 20 schools in the nation.</p>
<p>I'm going to make this a little clearer:</p>
<p>Wealth + influential family + apptitude = high admissions potential to Ivy League
Wealth + influential family + apptitude = high probability of being influential in a political party</p>
<p>There's a common antecedent. The logical jump to "Ivy League = influential in politics" is therefore invalid as the two share a correlation due to a common underlying latent variable.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There's a common antecedent. The logical jump to "Ivy League = influential in politics" is therefore invalid as the two share a correlation due to a common underlying latent variable.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>President Barack Obama pretty much blows a major hole in that theory. He didn't come from a trust fund-silver spoon fed family. His family didn't wield any political influence (in fact he was elected in spite of any). He was a hard working ambitious guy who made the most of his opportunities -- oh, and his Columbia and Harvard degrees certainly didn't hurt in helping open doors.</p>
<p>Probability, the_prestige. Probability.</p>
<p>In fact, the story about President Obama was specifically about how improbably his path was.</p>
<p>G.P. is right-- Ivy Leaguers are actually more likely to be the analyst/policy wonk/activist than the political figure. Why? Because we're not all wealthy with a well-bred background.</p>
<p>Those who have those two advantages are far more likely to get into politics with some success than someone who went off to an Ivy and then came home to tell everyone how now they're much smarter than the average bear and should be their political representative.</p>
<p>last 100 years, 7 out of 18 Ivy undergrads? That's nearly 40%! Pretty damn good number considering that Ivy schools represent way less than .01% of colleges in the US. </p>
<p>"Sure. Great percentages for Yale (3) and Harvard (2), the only Ivies that can claim more than one President in the last 100 years. With one apiece, Princeton and Columbia are in exactly the same boat as Ohio Central, Amherst, Stanford, the US Military Academy, Texas State-San Marcos, Whittier, Michigan, the US Naval Academy, Eureka, and Georgetown. And the rest of the Ivies can't even claim that much. There's no question that Yale and Harvard have had a disproportionate impact on presidential politics. The rest of the Ivies, not so much; they're just free-riding on Yale and Harvard's glory. But if being in the same sports conference with Yale and Harvard impresses you, fine. Like I said, they're good schools, but you're only fooling yourself if you think going to Brown, Dartmouth, Cornell, or Penn somehow puts you closer to the Presidency than going to, say, Stanford, Amherst, Michigan, or a service academy."</p>
<p>bclintonk, that's a genius argument I never thought of. It's true, lol. It's also true that prestige is regional. In the are around Middlebury, if you say you go to Middlebury, people are extremely impressed, like EVERYONE, and a lot of people don't even know what Penn is. Same in Houston with Rice, Rice is the one prestigious school in Houston that EVERYONE every single person knows and is impressed with. same with Emory in Atlanta, if yo say you go there, everyone reveres you basically. I'm exaggerating but you get the point. A LOT of people don't even know what Brown is.</p>
<p>Also, something to think about. People say that "the peopel who matter" recognize the prestige and importance of Ivy league degrees, and Swarthmore and Haverford and Harvey Mudd degrees because they're hard to get even though they're not prestigious. But wouldn't those same people also be intelligent to recognize that a lot of unintelligent people get into those schools due to legacy status, developmental admit status, or athlete status? So they won't automatically revere you, there's still that 15 percent chance or so that you only got into Harvard because of some unfair advantage you have.</p>
<p>"Ivy Leaguers are actually more likely to be the analyst/policy wonk/activist than the political figure. Why? Because we're not all wealthy with a well-bred background.</p>
<p>Those who have those two advantages are far more likely to get into politics with some success than someone who went off to an Ivy and then came home to tell everyone how now they're much smarter than the average bear and should be their political representative."</p>
<p>Remeber what Bclintonk said, when you say "Ivy League," you are actually only referring to Harvard and Yale, and possibly maybe Princeton.</p>
<p>Statistically, according to bclintonk's research, going to Penn, Cornell, Dartmouth and Brown have not produced all that impressive a number of important political figures.</p>
<p>Anyways, Penn only got "selective" and "prestigious" a short time ago. It wasn't too long ago that it had liek a 60 percent acceptance rate.</p>
<p>And it wasn't until the late 1950s that Brown was a non-regional school and now it's one of the most selective schools in the country and it's quality as a top university is hardly questionable.</p>
<p>I think this conversation is mostly crazy nonsense.</p>
<p>No one cares what your GPA was or what your transcript says after 2-3 years in the work force. Similarly, while your alma mater may be impressive to specific people or serve to connect you with others you meet in the workforce, 95% of the time your alma mater wont' matter 2-3 years into the work force. </p>
<p>Very quickly, and this is true once you're into a top school as well, you're defined by what you do, not where you are.</p>
<p>If you think that by going to Cornell, UPenn, Dartmouth or Brown would increase your chances of becoming a president, you're fooling yourself. Ivy or not!</p>
<p>Almost completely for me... </p>
<p>It's cheaper than the UCs with their financial aid programs... without aid, I wouldn't even consider Ivies...</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>hawkette,</p>
<p>I find no small irony in your touting of "prestige" as something that "does not fall out of the sky" and "must be earned and maintained over many years" in light of your frequent and vociferous denunciations of the US News peer assessment (PA) rating and NRC peer rankings of faculty quality, which you characterize as worthless "subjective" and "uninformed opinion." So I guess your view, then, is is that the subjective opinions of college and university administrators (PA rating) and faculty members in the same field (NRC rankings)---that is, the opinions of people who are expert in the field and whose job, in part, is to know what's going on with the competition, who's doing what, and so on---is worth less than the subjective opinions of a lay public who generally have far less information and are far less attentive to the matter than the professionals? A curious view, indeed.</p>
<p>Look, prestige can occasionally buy you something, but not much, not for long, and rarely by itself. In my opinion, it's not nearly as valuable as a sound education, which will take you much farther. I'll take the latter any day. That's something you can get at any Ivy, though it's not guaranteed you'll get it even at an Ivy---that depends on what you put into it, just as at any school. But you can also get it at dozens of other schools---including a lot of schools hawkette regularly touts, like Duke, WUSTL, Vanderbilt, and others, which are generally held in higher regard by the professionals (PA rating, NRC rankings) than by a non-expert public which generally holds the Ivies in an exalted and unique "prestige" category disproportionate to their (concededly outstanding, but hardly unmatched) academic quality.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I find no small irony in your touting of "prestige" as something that "does not fall out of the sky" and "must be earned and maintained over many years" in light of your frequent and vociferous denunciations of the US News peer assessment (PA) rating and NRC peer rankings of faculty quality, which you characterize as worthless "subjective" and "uninformed opinion." So I guess your view, then, is is that the subjective opinions of college and university administrators (PA rating) and faculty members in the same field (NRC rankings)---that is, the opinions of people who are expert in the field and whose job, in part, is to know what's going on with the competition, who's doing what, and so on---is worth less than the subjective opinions of a lay public who generally have far less information and are far less attentive to the matter than the professionals? A curious view, indeed.</p>
<p>Look, prestige can occasionally buy you something, but not much, not for long, and rarely by itself. In my opinion, it's not nearly as valuable as a sound education, which will take you much farther. I'll take the latter any day. That's something you can get at any Ivy, though it's not guaranteed you'll get it even at an Ivy---that depends on what you put into it, just as at any school. But you can also get it at dozens of other schools---including a lot of schools hawkette regularly touts, like Duke, WUSTL, Vanderbilt, and others, which are generally held in higher regard by the professionals (PA rating, NRC rankings) than by a non-expert public which generally holds the Ivies in an exalted and unique "prestige" category disproportionate to their (concededly outstanding, but hardly unmatched) academic quality.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A well written but fundamentally flawed post.</p>
<p>1) the underlying assumption that the PA (of all things) represents some kind of bonafide gold standard definition of "prestige" -- hardly. I think there have been at least a dozen threads dedicated to demonstrating why the PA = total crap.</p>
<p>2) the typical stance against those who claim that an Ivy is the only place to get a "real" education... huh? Has anyone ever said that in the history of CC, or is this just your overused bread-and-butter strawman argument tactic straight out of page 1 of the "anti-Ivy" playbook. Or further the more nuanced spin that this ever so elusive "sound education" which can be had at the top non-Ivy schools (an assertion mind you that no one here has every argued against) is somehow even more elusive at an Ivy.</p>
<p>3) the blanket discounting of the so-called "non-expert public" -- (because, one must assume from the earlier part of this post, that any opinion regarding prestige which deviates from the PA ranking must somehow be invalid)</p>
<p>^ the_prestige in comfortably numb,</p>
<p>1) I've never said the US News PA ranking is the "gold standard" of anything. I think it's a flawed measure; but so are all the other measures US News uses in its rankings, which are more or less garbage. With all its flaws, though, I do think PA is a crude indicator of something worth knowing. I just find it ironic that those who criticize it for subjectivity and being based on incomplete information---all true enough--would simultaneously boast up "prestige" which is nothing but the equally subjective opinion of a broader and generally less well informed public. If you can't appreciate that irony, well so be it.</p>
<p>2) Go back and read the OP. The question was whether "there is a definite advantage of going to an ivy league school vs. Other top schools . . . like duke northwestern or uchicago." In other words, does "prestige" reside so heavily and exclusively in the Ivies that schools of the caliber of a Duke, Northwestern, opr Chicago should be viewed as second-rate? This isn't MY "overused bread-and-butter strawman argument." I was responding to a real question by a real person who, apparently, was genuinely grappling with the question whether the Ivies have so much more "prestige" than a Duke, Northwestern or Chicago that the latter simply don't measure up. You're right, on some level it's just an absurd question. But that's the question that defines the thread. (And by the way, I'm not "anti-Ivy"---I went to two Ivies and taught at a third, and I've repeatedly said they're all outstanding schools).</p>
<p>3) I'm not doing a "blanket discounting" of the "non-expert public." I just said I find it ironic that someone who would credit the subjective opinion of the non-expert public would simultaneously discount the subjective opinions of qualified professionals who are likely to be better informed on the subject. That doesn't mean the experts are always right or that the non-expert public is always wrong. On a lot of subjects I'd want to hear both views. On a political question like whether candidate X or candidate Y will be a better Senator, I'll go with judgment of the non-experts every time, however limited the information on which that judgment is based might be. On the quality of a law firm or a law school, I'd trust the opinions of lawyers, judges, and legal academics above that of the general public. On the quality of the scholarship produced by a philosophy faculty, I'd trust the opinions of professional philosophers above that of the general public. On the quality of an undergraduate college it's probably a closer call because there's so much that goes into it---it's not just the pure academics, it's the overall quality of the experience for the students both in and out of the classroom, and the non-academic services they get (things like career counseling and so on). The general public---the people who make up "prestige"---are not likely to know much about any of this, other than that some colleges are more famous than others and therefore must be more "prestigious," possibly bolstered by a stray anecdote from a person or two who happen to have attended a particular college that they happen to remember. Employers, and more specifically HR personnel who do a lot of hiring, will have their own take on it, and offer a valuable perspective (but only one perspective); but that's different from "prestige," and it's not measured or in any way reflected in the US News rankings. Academics will have their own take on it; they'll know where the individuals on the faculty stand in the field, more from their research and publications than from what goes on in the classroom; but that's valuable information, too. And college and university administrators will also have a perspective, based partly on who on a school's faculty they'd like to hire if they had the chances, and partly on what moves competitor schools are making that, in their professional judgment, suggest some kind of value added. That's another valuable data point, but only a data point. And that's all I'm saying.</p>
<p>I don't think you'll get much of an argument from hawkette about your past two statements bclintonk. Now if you added a top state public school such as California or Michigan in the mix of this discussion, that's where she would vociferously object.</p>
<p>
[quote]
President Barack Obama pretty much blows a major hole in that theory. He didn't come from a trust fund-silver spoon fed family. His family didn't wield any political influence (in fact he was elected in spite of any). He was a hard working ambitious guy who made the most of his opportunities -- oh, and his Columbia and Harvard degrees certainly didn't hurt in helping open doors.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Obama's success is one of the most obvious cases of "knowing the right people". Haven't you read his first book?</p>
<p>Even if you ignore the fact that his grandmother was one of the first female VP's in banking in the 1970s:</p>
<p>He went to Occidental, made some influential friends, they used their clout to get him into Columbia. Those same influential people introduced him to the "right people" in Chicago, which landed him a nice position as a "community organizer", a spot at Harvard Law, and a nice position after graduation. Then he met Michelle (who was even more well connected politically in Chicago than him), she introduced him to more influential people, and he started his rise through politics.</p>
<p>It's the perfect case of how knowing the right people both got him into Columbia, Harvard, and then the White House. And that's not to diminish his success - but the idea that he was just some poor kid that "worked hard" and was accepted to Columbia is a myth. Clearly he worked hard, but if he didn't know certain people at Occidental, he would have graduated from there and not Columbia, and if he didn't have a wealthy grandmother, he likely would have never left the Islands.</p>
<p>Haven't you ever wondered why he hasn't released any of his test scores or transcripts?</p>
<p>And the above isn't "Ivy Bashing"; it's an obvious observation that people who are highly successful after an Ivy likely had pre-Ivy factors that played into both their later success and their admission to the Ivy. </p>
<p>There are many blatantly obvious examples, but here's one in contrast to the Obama example: Georgia W. Bush attended both Yale and Harvard. Do you think he was just a hard worker to get into those schools, then used the connections there to forge a successful career afterward? Or, do you think he came from a wealthy and well connected family, that both got him into Yale, then Harvard, and then Texas Governor's Mansion? There's a reason people get into top schools. </p>
<p>I personally know many people who came from modest backgrounds at state colleges, were admitted to grad school at a HYPS, then became very successful based on their connections and affiliations. But at the same time, I've known people do to that from non-HYPS schools.</p>
<p>^^^ that's a nice historical account, but it misses the bigger picture.</p>
<p>Why did he aspire to transfer from Occidental to Columbia? Why was it important for him to "land a spot" at HLS? Obviously he (and his network around him) realized the value of attending those Ivy League institutions early on -- the fact that his smarts matched his resourcefulness in achieving those aspirations really misses the point -- at least in the context of the current discussion at hand.</p>
<p>He went to Columbia because he had a bright future, and that's where people with "bright futures" go.</p>
<p>Maybe it's getting confusing what I'm trying to argue: the claim has been made here that people who go to Ivy's are successful, and that the Ivy is the reason they are successful. My claim is that people who have high potential because of wealth and influence are successful, in part, because they have wealth and influence. Those same people tend to also go to Ivy's because they have wealth and influence. As such, being successful is not conditional on attending an Ivy. The two have the same cause.</p>
<p>So, Obama did not become successful because he went to Columbia. He became successful because he knew the right people. He went to Columbia because he knew the right people.</p>
<p>^^^ you'll note that not once did I ever assert that Obama was successful BECAUSE of the schools he attended. </p>
<p>Did it it HURT his political career that he attended Columbia and Harvard? Certainly not. Did it help? Probably. Does it completely explain his success? Absolutely not. My point was simply refuting your earlier claim that ALL successful politicians with Ivy backgrounds must come from old money and / or political dynasties -- Obama being a prime example.</p>
<p>Brown, Cornell, Dartmouth and Penn combined have not graduated a single US president. Prior to Obama, Columbia had not graduated a single US president either.</p>
<p>bc,
Please go back and read # 15 and # 26. That might make my meaning a little clearer.</p>
<p>I think we probably agree on much of this. However, re PA, for anyone contemplating a career outside of academia, I would never assign the same import as you to the views of academics.</p>