<p>I agree...completely.</p>
<p>However, a lot of people on these boards debate that students can get an equal-valued education at a lowered-tiered/state school. IF that is true and all things being equal, why would any of us pay almost $100,000 for an Ivy/Top-teired education when we could run on down and enroll at our local city/state college and spend half the money?</p>
<p>haha, make that 170,000 dollars for an ivy league education</p>
<p>A reminder that we should all take what we read on CC with a grain of salt -- the OP of this thread is a troll - he's wasted my time & yours:</p>
<p>4/10/05 @ 11:06pm
Board: College Search & Selection
Thread: Did anyone get more rejections than I did?
Post: #1</p>
<p>
<hr>
<p>I got rejected from: Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, Georgetown, Duke, Cornell, Dartmouth, Johns Hopkins, Yale, Brown, Stanford & Penn.</p>
<p>I was only admitted to Wisconsin and waitlisted at WUSTL.
</p>
<p>Haha! Well, that explains a lot! :-D</p>
<p>lol...Thanks, lucky!</p>
<p>It just gets somewhat old when people are always trying to convince everyone about "Don't go to a school because of prestige" or "You can get a quality education at a city college". As noble as that sounds, that's not reality.</p>
<p>Well, I'm certainly not arguing that the level of education is the same at say...Cal State LA as it is at UCLA. I'd be mad (and self-defeating) if I argued that. Nonetheless, the quality of education at the top-25 (or maybe even most of the top 50, and the top LACs is on the whole comparable. I mean, my experience at my little public university has been that UCLA profs write books that Berkeley profs use who write books that Harvard profs use who write books that UCLA profs use, etc etc.</p>
<p>Hell, half my favorite profs at UCLA were stolen by Stanford during my time at UCLA, so they must've been at least "okay."</p>
<p>Stupid stupid Cardinal and their stupid money. Geh. We make 'em, Stanford steals 'em. Geh. :-P</p>
<p>Exactly. I wasn't comparing the top 25 with each other. In my eyes, I guess it's the Top 25-30 and everyone else.</p>
<p>Oh, well if we start talking second-tier, then no, I can see a huge qualitative difference.</p>
<p>Then again, some of our most successful businessmen and politicians went to pretty podunk schools, so what do I know?</p>
<p>Can I just point out </p>
<p>"Bush, Kerry, Dean, Bush Senior and Clinton also have Yale degrees..."</p>
<p>"Reagan, LBJ, and Truman"</p>
<p>"Karl Rove."</p>
<p>"Condy Rice
Karl Rove
Tom DeLay
Dennis Hastert
Nancy Pelosi"</p>
<p>none of these are impressive politicians... (with the POSSIBLE exceptions of reagan and clinton)</p>
<p>just because they are IN politics, doesnt mean that they deserve to be...</p>
<p>Reagan, LBJ, and Truman are not impressive people?</p>
<p>Karl Rove is unimpressive?</p>
<p>So how is GW Bush impressive and Reagan not?</p>
<p>Troll.</p>
<p>that was a fast reply...</p>
<p>i didnt say that bush was impressive, and i did say that reagan sort of was...</p>
<p>It is interesting though...a lot of the administration that worked under Clinton got their degrees from prestigious universities and most of the staff under Bush went to, as you put it, "podunk schools...lol". I'm not siding with Clinton or Bush, I just find it funny that each admisnistration has a completely different educational background...hmmmm</p>
<p>Karl Rove is unimpressive because he's only in politics due to the sale of his soul & integrity to satan. Anyone can develop scheming, lying, dirty tricks in politics... But Rove will never actually BE a politician. Imagine how evil he could have been if he went to Wharton.</p>
<p>Sorry, but the Speaker of the House is certainly an impressive position. I'm not a Republican myself, but I have to say that anyone who achieves that status is a successful human being.</p>
<p>And basically, according to you guys, there are no impressive American politicians, so what's the point at all then?</p>
<p>Thomas, the Bush administration has its fair share of well-educated people. The myth of the stupid executive branch right now is just that, a myth.</p>
<p>And remember, to the victor goes the spoils (history lesson).</p>
<p>Oh, I wasn't implying that Bush's staff is not well-educated. I think Clinton's staff was known because he went to Georgetown, Madeliene Albright went to Johns Hopkins, etc. I know G W went to Yale, but he doesn't seem like the "Yale" type...whatever that is.</p>
<p>I just find it absurd to say that the current Speaker of the House, Majority Leader, Minority Leader, and Chief of Staff are not distinguished people. Maybe, in this world where Arnold gets more press than the most important people in Congress, they aren't; it doesn't change the fact that it's sad.</p>
<p>"And basically, according to you guys, there are no impressive American politicians, so what's the point at all then?"</p>
<p>there isnt</p>