<p>If NJSue says to read a book, I’m reading it! Thanks for this perspective.</p>
<p>Brava, NJSue - well said. I could not POSSIBLY agree more. I’ve known far too may “intelligent” idiots, and far too many noble, pragmatic, fantastic leaders with exceptional organizational skills who know how use resources wisely, discern justly and make SOLID decisions who might score in the 85-90 percentile.</p>
<p>I also reject the notion of a “ruling class”.</p>
<p>
Post 308 contained specific counter-examples to a point you made, although I understand you fail to recognize that. When I brought up Newt Gingrich in another post it was as a response to your specific use of a story about him as example of why you would prefer high scoring leaders. In fact, your own example was a clear counterexample to your own argument, which is likely why you chose to ignore my post about it. </p>
<p>History is littered with stories of highly intelligent people making stupid decisions. I suspect Richard Nixon scored very highly on standardized exams, and he certainly made his share of mistakes. </p>
<p>
You are the poster who claims to be so fond of data. But twice you have made statements like this with no evidence. The political class (and the elite commentariat that wields tremendous influence) is replete with individuals I’m certain scored very highly on standardized exams, including numerous Rhodes Scholars, who I’m also fairly certain obtained elite admission on their own steam. On both sides of the aisle. George Pataki, Rob Portman, Charles Shumer, Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh (both supposedly with near perfect SATs), John Sununu, Robert Reich, George Stephanopolous, EJ Dionne, both Clintons, Bobby Jindal. I could go on and on.</p>
<p>I think it’s a surprising discovery to many people that two highly intelligent, well-educated, and civic-minded people can have diametrically opposed views on an important topic–on which both of them are acknowledged experts.</p>
<p>My personal evaluation of this situation is that nobody is quite as smart as he thinks he is.</p>
<p>^^^
Amen.</p>
<p>I’m certain I’m not as smart as I think I am! I am also certain that whatever brains I do have are not always as useful in solving problems as some of the other attributes I’ve acquired or honed over the years (mostly after graduating from college): a sense of humor, respect for other people’s opinions, a willingness to listen to other points of view, the good sense to stop talking when I should stop talking (it’s sooner than I’m ready, most of the time). I could go on.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ROFL. I think there is a certain kind of utter dorkiness on CC at times – people often highly gifted in math / STEM matters - who seriously and honestly think that those abilities should be the drivers of “success.” Often these people think that life is full of predetermined right decisions and intelligence consists on finding the correct answer. These often tend to be people who “just can’t understand” the value of the 2200 SAT kid who demonstrates leadership in his community over the 2350 SAT kid who doesn’t, and they keep repeating plaintively, “But the 2350 SAT kid is smarter!! See?” They are really kind of hopeless and non-observant about what makes success in real life, which is why so many of them are stuck in the jobs they are.</p>
<p>^^^
Exactly.</p>
<p>How dumb do you have to be not to get that mathematical ability is just one form of intelligence, and there are many forms? And I say this as someone who always tested extremely well on standardized testing and was a math major myself.</p>
<p>And how dumb do you have to be not to look around and get that people who are successful (however one defines successful) get that way because of factors other than book-smarts?</p>
<p>Test scores, college courses, psychological tests, and interviews (which are performances and can be faked) don’t indicate moral character or civic leadership ability. I don’t want a "ruling class" </p>
<p>I dont think it is that easy to fake it. Do read the Jim Manzi article again. I dont care for a ruling class either, but there is going to be one whether you want it or not. All you can do is to influence the selection of this ruling class if you are fortunate enough to live in a country where this is possible.</p>
<p>Your suggestion alsy bypasses the thorny question of who gets to “select” the ruling class in a democracy. Read Christopher Lasch, The Revolt of the Elites.</p>
<p>Based on the sentiment here on CC, I vote for Harvard and her adcom. 
Seems like they can do no wrong.</p>
<p>Looking at book reviews, Lasch is basically saying that the system is not working. Is that not what I have been saying as well? He seems to blame it on the professional class. My feeling is that the professional class are work slaves too, having to answer to the ruling class (the elites, if you will) that pay their salary. They have their own cross to bear so I would not be as hard on them as Lasch probably would.</p>
<p>When I brought up Newt Gingrich in another post it was as a response to your specific use of a story about him as example of why you would prefer high scoring leaders.</p>
<p>I prefer high scorers in any job, including politics. I did not say, however, that intelligence alone is sufficient to be a good political leader. Did I not talk about doing a Jim Manzi on them before they are put in positions of responsibility? Doing a Jim Manzi involves a lot more than checking for high scores. In my response to Bay, did I not make general comments about how a Jim Manzi for management consultants may be modified for teasing out potential political leaders? I think you are taking my comments out of context.</p>
<p>You are the poster who claims to be so fond of data. But twice you have made statements like this with no evidence.value</p>
<p>You understand how empirical philosophy works, right? Based on whatever data I have available, I come up with a hypothesis. As long as I can use it to explain and predict events around me, I would continue to assume it is true or accurate enough. When there is evidence to the contrary, then I would go back and re-examine my hypothesis, maybe adjusting or maybe scrapping it all together. Why is this so unreasonable?</p>
<p>Look, since a mathphob has come into the thread, this is probably my last post here. It has been fun while it lasted.</p>
<p>Very well CG. I won’t respond because I know what it is like when you’d like to bow out of a thread and some wiseacre continues to debate.</p>
<p>"
Look, since a mathphob has come into the thread, this is probably my last post here."</p>
<p>I assume you mean mathphobe. May I remind you that I was a math major myself.</p>
<p>*Very well CG. I won’t respond because I know what it is like when you’d like to bow out of a thread and some wiseacre continues to debate. *</p>
<p>I cannot see why gentlemen can not disagree without being disagreeable .funny thing is that I still dont know where you are coming from. I am almost certain it is a case of What-you-mean-is-not-what-I-think-you-mean. That is ok. We can continue another day.</p>
<p>For those who are still here, I can only say read the Manzi article carefully. This is the procedure they use in BCG and Bain. Test scores and transcript is only the first screen. Next come the analytical case interviews, under pressure, interspersed with conversation about you and us. Finally, offers are only made to those potential high performers they assessed holistically (another term folks here love); book smarts alone wont get anyone far here.</p>
<p>I think my conversation here with another poster tells a very different story from what is being portrayed in this thread (see posts 151, 156, and 162). I think it is uncouth to strawman others.</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1240448-virtues-liberal-arts-education-11.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1240448-virtues-liberal-arts-education-11.html</a></p>
<p>I assume you mean mathphobe. May I remind you that I was a math major myself.</p>
<p>Thank you, and may I remind you that my name is Moses?</p>
<p>I can see it now: childhoods consumed with scoring the magic 750 in order to secure a spot in the “ruling class” caste. CB and test prep businesses will be on fire as children take, prep and retake the SAT over and over hoping to snag a golden ticket. Will those not succeeding wear a mark , like a red 749, on their foreheads so we know not to tap them for anything too influential?</p>
<p>The thing is, Canuckguy, it was odd that you referred to a “mathphob” [sic] entering the thread, when no such thing had happened, assuming Pizzagirl was the person to whom you were referring. I do not happen to be great at math and, as such, I am happy to have found a career in which my relatively “low” math SAT score (80th-something percentile ranking compared to 99th for critical reading) is not a disadvantage. I mean to say: SO WHAT? Back in my day, late 1970s, you just took the darned test and moved on. The fact that test prep is a burgeoning industry and multiple test sittings is more and more the norm does not seem to me a good development.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is the only aspect of your selection process for the “ruling class” (your phrase) that does not involve numeric evaluation; however, do you really think that people can’t fake a good performance in this kind of controlled setting? Some have a nice manner and a convincing line of bull. History is replete with great leaders who would never have made it past the first cut in your system. </p>
<p>I know that humans are hierarchical animals and there will always be elites, but I also believe that the constitution of the elite should be fluid, not fixed. They certainly should not be picked by some sort of Star Chamber of intellectuals according to a checklist of approved credentials. Ugh.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, and if I’d only kept my offer letter from BCG I could have scanned it for you to prove that I made the cut of having both the quant skills and the problem solving skills and the client-glad-handling skills. But now what? So? Who died and made BCG/Bain/McKinsey the keeper of all-that-is-good-and-smart-and-righteous? They don’t have the corner on smart people, at all. They aren’t more meritorious or anything.</p>
<p>Chapter 2: Once the “ruling class” spawn have been identified for their 750’s, they sally forth to the colleges that will most assuredly award them a 3.5 gpa while enrolled in the “hard” classes. Those who do not make the grade, are branded with a 3.499 on their foreheads, in order to eliminate clandestine entry into the “ruling class” caste. Outside of the “hard” classes, all time in college is spent on interview skills, and “you and us” practice conversation sessions.</p>
<p>What is the significance of conversations interspersed with references to “you and us”? Is this code for something? Are the elite such nimrods that they can’t have plain-old conversations without resorting to a method that another elite person developed?</p>