Political Science Yale vs Harvard

<p>kyzan: where did you get the 60%-40% stats from? I tried to find some statistics about how people that get accepted to Harvard and Yale decide, but I couldn't find any. Does anybody know some?</p>

<p>Dr. Avrah, someone posted a cross-admit study done by professors on a CC thread about a year ago about this when they were trying to determine the "rankings" of colleges. The Yale Daily News also mentioned in an article that Yale was the only school that didn't lose disastrously when competing head on against Harvard with cross-admits, while Princeton, Stanford, and MIT yielded significantly lower.</p>

<p>Avrah is right that Yale is more politically influential and successful in Presidential politics than Harvard but more importantly, should that be the case? Clearly, the ideological differences at Yale favor a more Republican form of Patrician politics while Harvard is more Nobles Oblige. </p>

<p>You may say, what is the difference? Well, in directly comparing Bush with Kennedy we can typify it easily. Bush believes it is not necessary to care about what the people want, as he believes he and those of his ilk are more informed and endowed by God with wisdom to lead; "Father Knows Best".</p>

<p>Kennedy believed he had a responsibility to serve as a direct result of the fortunes given him by society (admittedly unearned). He and other Harvardians feel a social obligation for service and though they do believe in leadership as opposed to followship, there is a sense that they must first lead public opinion before they simply inflict their superior will.</p>

<p>Bush and other Yalees clearly believe (as evidenced by their styles and actions) that the people are ignorant and may always be, so 'why bother' to change their hearts and minds before inflicting political will? This is reflected by many Republican administrations and even those of the Dems who studied primarily at Yale. This type elitism is unique to Yale and we even saw it in the styles of the Clintons and Kerry. </p>

<p>Kerry, despite the knowledge his vocabulary was incomprehensible to most Americans, pushed his message forward with the assumption that the masses would be impressed with his superior intelligence and would consequently defer.</p>

<p>Bill and Hillary have regularly ignored the will of the people; Bill with NAFTA and globalization per se and Hillary with immigration. </p>

<p>Yale's internal socialization emanates from the philosophical differences within their Skull and Bones chapters. Yale more often aligns with the nouveau riche Western counterpart, USC (Haldemann and Ehrlichmann) the center of West coast nouveau riche conservatism. </p>

<p>Harvard is more often old money and represents a more royal approach than that of a dictator.</p>

<p>that's a very....opinionated way of stating things....and not necessarily the right/correct way...</p>

<p>I have tons of evidence to support these claims but I doubt anyone would require proof of the old money/new money argument regarding Harvard vs. Yale or even USC vs. Stanford. The analogy is quantifiable. As for the quality arguments, as for the actions of those Presidents, you may feel free to apply any better psycho-sociological explanation you may find more plausible.</p>

<p>However, I contend that old money families have come to realize that power is not something to wield willy-nilly as they know from history that money and power can be taken a way by the people. The nouveau riche generally express a false belief they have what they have from their hard work and ideas (in the first generation) and the inherited wealth is subsequently endowed by God.</p>

<p>Yale is a fine school, but all evidence suggests it is replete with new money and even those who have not yet made their wealth but will. These self-made individuals generally have an inflated estimation of their own contribution to their fortune. Basically, Harvardians realize they have what they have by the grace of God (using a religious tone) or by luck of circumstance (using a more atheistic tone).</p>

<p>Bush is new money (20th Century). Kerry was clearly a social climber and married money. Bill Clinton had been poor and only after his Presidency has he acquired significant wealth.</p>

<p>It is interesting how quickly the Kennedy family moved from a nouveau riche mentality (i.e. Joe Kennedy) to a family that from top to bottom seems to be immersed in public service. Of course, the Roosevelts typified old money and epitomized a 'bleeding heart' approach in the case of FDR, who went to Harvard with the express intention of preparing for public service while Teddy went with the expectation of being a scientist or mathematician (no interest in politics), so it seems FDR is a better case study for the embodiment of the Harvard political philosophy.</p>

<p>As for "opinionated", how can one quantify which political approach is better? At best, we can consider the enculturation of the individuals entering Harvard vs. Yale and the actions taken by the actions of those leaders from both.</p>

<p>Interesting Debate Addict would term my reasoned commentary as "opinionated" in a single proclamation that fails to specifically address any of my claims.</p>