What schools do you predict will gain prestige in the next decades?

<p>^ Ohmigosh yes. But that’s going to be so much bad jokes. Asians must love rice. And especially if an Asian was wearing a Rice t-shirt or an African-American wore a Brown t-shirt.</p>

<p>I would suspect HYP to still be stronger in the future, as in, in 20 years.</p>

<p>

No, if anything they will be weaker because people will begin realizing how unsuccessful, arrogant, and useless Ivy league graduates are.</p>

<p>As an Asian guy who attends Rice and regularly wears Rice t-shirts/sweatshirts/hats, yes I’ve heard it all. </p>

<p>Also, the rice at Rice is usually terrible :/</p>

<p>^ I’m not sure about unsuccessful and useless, but arrogant, yes.</p>

<p>Haven t seen UMich in the thread so Ill throw it out there; what are your senses telling you about it’s future?</p>

<p>Bob Jones University is the worst of them all in names :cool:</p>

<p>UP:</p>

<p>Washington University in St. Louis, Vanderbilt, USC (AHHHH i can’t believe i said it as an ND fan) Georgetown, UCB</p>

<p>Down:</p>

<p>Cornell, Brown, Emory, Rice</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>By Jan 2013, the Oval Office will have been occupied by a graduate of Harvard or Yale (or both) for 24 straight years, with possibly many more years after that.</p>

<p>^ exactly. The most useless people are from Harvard and Yale.</p>

<p>haha jk but seriously average graduates from Harvard and Yale are not as exceptional as you think, so I think other schools will easily surpass them.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Your first clause does not logically lead to your second clause. It is absurd to generally characterize in this way:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>It is simply factually incorrect to say “unsuccessful.”</p>

<p>UC-Merced, there is no where else to go other than UP, one day it will rival UCB</p>

<p>:)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Judging from his academic performance, George W. Bush was clearly a below-average graduate of both Harvard and Yale; even joking about his poor grades later in his life. </p>

<p>*At the 300th Yale Commencement Monday, President George W. Bush '68 told the graduates, “C students – you too can be president.” *</p>

<p>[Yale</a> Daily News - Bush mixes humor with humility in Commencement talk](<a href=“http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/university-news/2001/05/22/bush-mixes-humor-with-humility-in-commencement-tal/]Yale”>http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/university-news/2001/05/22/bush-mixes-humor-with-humility-in-commencement-tal/)</p>

<p>Nevertheless, the bottom line is that he became a 2-term President, something that many Americans aspire to become. Whether that makes him useless or not would surely start a political debate that I’d rather not spark.</p>

<p>Well I don’t think that Bush would have gotten into Yale without his connections, but that doesn’t make him stupid. Clearly, like you mentioned, he was smart enough to become President twice. </p>

<p>While Bush, both from an academic and personality standpoint, probably wasn’t destined for Yale, he is proof that you don’t need ivy-level intelligence to achieve great things. Again, I’m not calling him stupid. I’m saying that he’s probably not as smart as the average Yalie.</p>

<p>Smiles - all you youngsters need to understand that until very recently, Ivy League meant rich not smart.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Certainly, there has been a diversification of socioeconomic representation. But what supports your claim about intelligence?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I think that is more due to being a rich, well-connected WASP than anything else.</p>

<p>Not necessarily, if you can become a president, you’re damn smart. You need to have some serious brains to navigate the political realm, no matter what your connections.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>As long as rich,well-connected WASPS (or rich, well-connected people of any ethnic group) continue to prefer Harvard and Yale, then those schools will continue to hold a strong prestige advantage.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>My two cents: There is no such thing as one person being more intelligent than the other. There is only luck. He was simply lucky. More lucky. That’s way I see things. So I see no reason to blame George Bush on his connections and his family wealth. He was simply born lucky.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Surely you don’t mean that.</p>