Ivy League Liability

[cope1989]

I was watching that new show "The Newsroom" with Jeff Daniels. He plays a famous news anchor who has kind of a nervous breakdown at a college lecture when someone asks him 'why America is the greatest country on earth.' He responds with an intense soliloquy about how the USA is no longer the greatest nation on earth and one of his reasons goes something like, "We used to aspire to intelligence, it didn't make is feel inferior."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YI7Oq8y-jXA

I find this to be very accurate in the political world today, especially with Mitt Romney's comment that Obama spent too much time at Harvard, even though Romney attended as well. You saw the same line of argument thrown at John Kerry, who was painted as an intellectual snob, even though Bush also was an Ivy Leaguer. It seems like Republicans use this line on Democrats quite often, but it's something politicians of both parties are guilty of.

So, when each presidential election seems almost guaranteed to have an Ivy League graduate on the ticket, whether they are Republican or Democrat, why is this often hurled as an insult? Do we not want our leader to be the best and the brightest? Is it class envy and insecurity? And why have voters not discovered the hypocrisy of this argument?

Will this once again be an issue in the campaign? I'm just genuinely curious to know why this line of attack plays so well.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-04-06/news/31301878_1_mitt-romney-rips-obama-private-sector

[whitneyB]

I think it can be a liability because of prejudice and jealousy in this country. A lot of people are either taught that Ivy League institutions are bad (liberal and/or elitist enclaves) or that they are these heavenly abodes where the future leaders of the Free World are groomed. Either way, an Ivy Leaguer is easily portrayed as aloof and out-of-touch simply by referencing his/her alma mater. Personally, I think it's an asset as the Ivy League schools breed astute thinkers and problem solvers who are remarkably political animals.

[ajb]

Mind you, the only two major party presidential candidates since Reagan not to have gone to an Ivy at some point in their career are Bob Dole and John McCain -- both of whom had the potential compensation of being war heroes, and both of whom lost.
As for the others, since 1988 they've all in fact gone to either Harvard or Yale for at least one degree. So if your only Ivy was Princeton, Brown or Columbia, you're out of luck.

[WhyteRain]

Do we not want our leader to be the best and the brightest?

Intelligence is overrated, especially in a president.  (And I say that as one who is in the top fraction of 1% in every general intelligence test.)

What's more important than intelligence, especially in a president?  A record of good judgment.

Remember, George Washington was the dumbest man in the room at all his cabinet meetings, which included such intellectual giants as Hamilton and Jefferson.  What made Washington a  great President while Jefferson was not (and even Hamilton's fervent admirers agree he'd've made a poor president)?  His amazing capacity for good judgment -- usually delivered after a long period of contemplation of the best ideas of real intellects like Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison.

[modify:]  I recall the president of a company I worked for saying to me, "You know what the secret of success in business is?  It's hiring people who are smarter than you."

[WhyteRain]

Do we not want our leader to be the best and the brightest?

I realize there are people in every society who want society to be commanded, in as many aspects possible, by a "philosopher king" or "the man on the white horse".  In America, we call such people liberals.

It's unsurprising that such people are angered and distressed if they think the king is not as smart as they are.  Of course, if the leader claims he doesn't want to rule society as much as they demand, then they'll claim that even a man -- even one with TWO Ivy League degrees (like Bush or Romney) -- is somehow secretly dumb.  It's a psychological defense mechanism.

[ModerateCoward]

Do we not want our leader to be the best and the brightest?

No.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqpFm7zAK90

[whitneyB]

Do we not want our leader to be the best and the brightest?

I realize there are people in every society who want society to be commanded, in as many aspects possible, by a "philosopher king" or "the man on the white horse".  In America, we call such people liberals.

It's unsurprising that such people are angered and distressed if they think the king is not as smart as they are.  Of course, if the leader claims he doesn't want to rule society as much as they demand, then they'll claim that even a man -- even one with TWO Ivy League degrees (like Bush or Romney) -- is somehow secretly dumb.  It's a psychological defense mechanism.

Well, I am not George Bush's biggest detractor, but you have to admit he wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed. I mean he went to Yale - the very definition of a safety school... <joking/> But in all reality, he wasn't the sharpest; Romney, on the other hand, is much smarter.

But going back to the idea of who we want to be leaders, I think we want leaders who - as you said, I believe - can surround themselves with smart people but are confident and certain in the decisions they make. There is something to be said about bringing something to fruition by making a tough call and sometimes the smartes - or the most academic shall we say - are just not willing to come out and own those tough decisions. At least not in my experience.

On the other hand, I do think the Ivy League "preps" many presidential candidates because Ivy Leaguers are smart, ambitious, rich, or a combination of the three. You can't deny that people that go to these schools have been incredibly successful from a young age.

[WhyteRain]

Do we not want our leader to be the best and the brightest?

I realize there are people in every society who want society to be commanded, in as many aspects possible, by a "philosopher king" or "the man on the white horse".  In America, we call such people liberals.

It's unsurprising that such people are angered and distressed if they think the king is not as smart as they are.  Of course, if the leader claims he doesn't want to rule society as much as they demand, then they'll claim that even a man -- even one with TWO Ivy League degrees (like Bush or Romney) -- is somehow secretly dumb.  It's a psychological defense mechanism.

Well, I am not George Bush's biggest detractor, but you have to admit he wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed. I mean he went to Yale - the very definition of a safety school... <joking/> But in all reality, he wasn't the sharpest; Romney, on the other hand, is much smarter.

Besides the fact that Bush spoke with a Texas twang and Romney doesn't, what in the world makes you think that Romney "is much smarter"?

I'll bet dollars to donuts that I just put my finger on it.

On the other hand, I do think the Ivy League "preps" many presidential candidates because Ivy Leaguers are smart, ambitious, rich, or a combination of the three. You can't deny that people that go to these schools have been incredibly successful from a young age.

At a minimum, I think we can agree that it doesn't "prep" them very well, if the last four presidents are much indication.

And, personally, I don't want a guy with his finger on the nuclear button who "has been incredibly successful at everything else he's done".  He's likely to have a dangerous self-confidence.

[AmericanNation]

  This probably started with a William F. Buckley observation something like 40 years ago.  Paraphrased it is something like: "The Harvard faculty is less capable of running a business or a government than the first 100 names in the phone book."  It has nothing to do with bashing education or intelligence.  It is correctly observing the harmful effect of spending a lot of time in an out of touch bubble.  Group think, tribalism and mob psychology are real things and they affect most leftist enclaves in an extremely unhealthy way.
PS, Aaron Sorkin is so good, I can put up with the nauseating lefty crap littered throughout the show.

[ajb]

  This probably started with a William F. Buckley observation something like 40 years ago.  Paraphrased it is something like: "The Harvard faculty is less capable of running a business or a government than the first 100 names in the phone book."  It has nothing to do with bashing education or intelligence.  It is correctly observing the harmful effect of spending a lot of time in an out of touch bubble.  Group think, tribalism and mob psychology are real things and they affect most leftist enclaves in an extremely unhealthy way.
PS, Aaron Sorkin is so good, I can put up with the nauseating lefty crap littered throughout the show.

I'd argee with you, though I think that one of the things that's changed in the last 40 years is that now there are more right-wing bubbles around, thanks to think tanks, new conservative media, and so on. So there's now more right-wing groupthink countering the academic establishment...

[ajb]

Do we not want our leader to be the best and the brightest?

I realize there are people in every society who want society to be commanded, in as many aspects possible, by a "philosopher king" or "the man on the white horse".  In America, we call such people liberals.

It's unsurprising that such people are angered and distressed if they think the king is not as smart as they are.  Of course, if the leader claims he doesn't want to rule society as much as they demand, then they'll claim that even a man -- even one with TWO Ivy League degrees (like Bush or Romney) -- is somehow secretly dumb.  It's a psychological defense mechanism.

Well, I am not George Bush's biggest detractor, but you have to admit he wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed. I mean he went to Yale - the very definition of a safety school... <joking/> But in all reality, he wasn't the sharpest; Romney, on the other hand, is much smarter.

Besides the fact that Bush spoke with a Texas twang and Romney doesn't, what in the world makes you think that Romney "is much smarter"?

I'll bet dollars to donuts that I just put my finger on it.

On the other hand, I do think the Ivy League "preps" many presidential candidates because Ivy Leaguers are smart, ambitious, rich, or a combination of the three. You can't deny that people that go to these schools have been incredibly successful from a young age.

At a minimum, I think we can agree that it doesn't "prep" them very well, if the last four presidents are much indication.

And, personally, I don't want a guy with his finger on the nuclear button who "has been incredibly successful at everything else he's done".  He's likely to have a dangerous self-confidence.

I always thought that the biggest reason to doubt Bush the Younger's intelligence was in fact his "dangerous self-confidence", and his reluctance to revisit policies and decisions in the light of changing evidence.

[AmericanNation]

Do we not want our leader to be the best and the brightest?

I realize there are people in every society who want society to be commanded, in as many aspects possible, by a "philosopher king" or "the man on the white horse".  In America, we call such people liberals.

It's unsurprising that such people are angered and distressed if they think the king is not as smart as they are.  Of course, if the leader claims he doesn't want to rule society as much as they demand, then they'll claim that even a man -- even one with TWO Ivy League degrees (like Bush or Romney) -- is somehow secretly dumb.  It's a psychological defense mechanism.

Well, I am not George Bush's biggest detractor, but you have to admit he wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed. I mean he went to Yale - the very definition of a safety school... <joking/> But in all reality, he wasn't the sharpest; Romney, on the other hand, is much smarter.

Besides the fact that Bush spoke with a Texas twang and Romney doesn't, what in the world makes you think that Romney "is much smarter"?

I'll bet dollars to donuts that I just put my finger on it.

On the other hand, I do think the Ivy League "preps" many presidential candidates because Ivy Leaguers are smart, ambitious, rich, or a combination of the three. You can't deny that people that go to these schools have been incredibly successful from a young age.

At a minimum, I think we can agree that it doesn't "prep" them very well, if the last four presidents are much indication.

And, personally, I don't want a guy with his finger on the nuclear button who "has been incredibly successful at everything else he's done".  He's likely to have a dangerous self-confidence.

I always thought that the biggest reason to doubt Bush the Younger's intelligence was in fact his "dangerous self-confidence", and his reluctance to revisit policies and decisions in the light of changing evidence.

  W. was only confident relatively speaking.  He was incredibly hard on himself his entire life and only began easing up after becoming POTUS.  ...Unbelievably driven by measuring up to his father --who did lead a nearly flawless life until the tough blow of the 1992 campaign ending his political career.   

W. was not a typical Ivy Leaguer either.  He went to Yale shortly after it started to get messed up, but he had a ton of perspective from his previous 4(?) generations of family about the good ole Yale.  His social fraternity and secret society probably helped as well.  I don’t consider MBAs from Harvard or Wharton “In the Bubble”, so he’s golden with regard to that as well.       

[cope1989]

  This probably started with a William F. Buckley observation something like 40 years ago.  Paraphrased it is something like: "The Harvard faculty is less capable of running a business or a government than the first 100 names in the phone book."  It has nothing to do with bashing education or intelligence.  It is correctly observing the harmful effect of spending a lot of time in an out of touch bubble.  Group think, tribalism and mob psychology are real things and they affect most leftist enclaves in an extremely unhealthy way.
PS, Aaron Sorkin is so good, I can put up with the nauseating lefty crap littered throughout the show.

I'd argee with you, though I think that one of the things that's changed in the last 40 years is that now there are more right-wing bubbles around, thanks to think tanks, new conservative media, and so on. So there's now more right-wing groupthink countering the academic establishment...

Oh trust me, right wing bubbles are just as common as left wing bubbles, maybe even more common.

Example: I have some relatives. All 3 girls were home schooled. The oldest girl went to a 2 year fundamentalist bible college, then took online classes at Liberty University. Nothing wrong with this, but I seriously doubt she got much exposure to ideas that were anywhere to the left of fundamentalist and conservative. And I'd wager that there are many more people in her situation than there are students at Harvard, Yale, Berkeley and others like it.

[cope1989]

Do we not want our leader to be the best and the brightest?

I realize there are people in every society who want society to be commanded, in as many aspects possible, by a "philosopher king" or "the man on the white horse".  In America, we call such people liberals.

It's unsurprising that such people are angered and distressed if they think the king is not as smart as they are.  Of course, if the leader claims he doesn't want to rule society as much as they demand, then they'll claim that even a man -- even one with TWO Ivy League degrees (like Bush or Romney) -- is somehow secretly dumb.  It's a psychological defense mechanism.

Well, I am not George Bush's biggest detractor, but you have to admit he wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed. I mean he went to Yale - the very definition of a safety school... <joking/> But in all reality, he wasn't the sharpest; Romney, on the other hand, is much smarter.

Besides the fact that Bush spoke with a Texas twang and Romney doesn't, what in the world makes you think that Romney "is much smarter"?

I'll bet dollars to donuts that I just put my finger on it.

On the other hand, I do think the Ivy League "preps" many presidential candidates because Ivy Leaguers are smart, ambitious, rich, or a combination of the three. You can't deny that people that go to these schools have been incredibly successful from a young age.

At a minimum, I think we can agree that it doesn't "prep" them very well, if the last four presidents are much indication.

And, personally, I don't want a guy with his finger on the nuclear button who "has been incredibly successful at everything else he's done".  He's likely to have a dangerous self-confidence.

I always thought that the biggest reason to doubt Bush the Younger's intelligence was in fact his "dangerous self-confidence", and his reluctance to revisit policies and decisions in the light of changing evidence.

  W. was only confident relatively speaking.  He was incredibly hard on himself his entire life and only began easing up after becoming POTUS.  ...Unbelievably driven by measuring up to his father --who did lead a nearly flawless life until the tough blow of the 1992 campaign ending his political career.   

W. was not a typical Ivy Leaguer either.  He went to Yale shortly after it started to get messed up, but he had a ton of perspective from his previous 4(?) generations of family about the good ole Yale.  His social fraternity and secret society probably helped as well.  I don’t consider MBAs from Harvard or Wharton “In the Bubble”, so he’s golden with regard to that as well.       

I would argue that the tactics he and his team used to win the 1988 election were less than flawless.

[ajb]

Do we not want our leader to be the best and the brightest?

I realize there are people in every society who want society to be commanded, in as many aspects possible, by a "philosopher king" or "the man on the white horse".  In America, we call such people liberals.

It's unsurprising that such people are angered and distressed if they think the king is not as smart as they are.  Of course, if the leader claims he doesn't want to rule society as much as they demand, then they'll claim that even a man -- even one with TWO Ivy League degrees (like Bush or Romney) -- is somehow secretly dumb.  It's a psychological defense mechanism.

Well, I am not George Bush's biggest detractor, but you have to admit he wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed. I mean he went to Yale - the very definition of a safety school... <joking/> But in all reality, he wasn't the sharpest; Romney, on the other hand, is much smarter.

Besides the fact that Bush spoke with a Texas twang and Romney doesn't, what in the world makes you think that Romney "is much smarter"?

I'll bet dollars to donuts that I just put my finger on it.

On the other hand, I do think the Ivy League "preps" many presidential candidates because Ivy Leaguers are smart, ambitious, rich, or a combination of the three. You can't deny that people that go to these schools have been incredibly successful from a young age.

At a minimum, I think we can agree that it doesn't "prep" them very well, if the last four presidents are much indication.

And, personally, I don't want a guy with his finger on the nuclear button who "has been incredibly successful at everything else he's done".  He's likely to have a dangerous self-confidence.

I always thought that the biggest reason to doubt Bush the Younger's intelligence was in fact his "dangerous self-confidence", and his reluctance to revisit policies and decisions in the light of changing evidence.

  W. was only confident relatively speaking.  He was incredibly hard on himself his entire life and only began easing up after becoming POTUS.  ...Unbelievably driven by measuring up to his father --who did lead a nearly flawless life until the tough blow of the 1992 campaign ending his political career.   

W. was not a typical Ivy Leaguer either.  He went to Yale shortly after it started to get messed up, but he had a ton of perspective from his previous 4(?) generations of family about the good ole Yale.  His social fraternity and secret society probably helped as well.  I don’t consider MBAs from Harvard or Wharton “In the Bubble”, so he’s golden with regard to that as well.       

I'd suggest that Yale was much more bubble-like before the late 1960's, when the entire undergraduate student body was male, almost the entire student body was white, and being a "legacy" counted for much more than it does now. At the time, Yale was much more a finishing school for a pretty narrow class of Northeastern WASP young men -- a community that was pretty out of touch with the problems and experiences of ordinary Americans.

[Progressive Realist]

Do we not want our leader to be the best and the brightest?

I realize there are people in every society who want society to be commanded, in as many aspects possible, by a "philosopher king" or "the man on the white horse".  In America, we call such people liberals.

It's unsurprising that such people are angered and distressed if they think the king is not as smart as they are.  Of course, if the leader claims he doesn't want to rule society as much as they demand, then they'll claim that even a man -- even one with TWO Ivy League degrees (like Bush or Romney) -- is somehow secretly dumb.  It's a psychological defense mechanism.

Well, I am not George Bush's biggest detractor, but you have to admit he wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed. I mean he went to Yale - the very definition of a safety school... <joking/> But in all reality, he wasn't the sharpest; Romney, on the other hand, is much smarter.

Besides the fact that Bush spoke with a Texas twang and Romney doesn't, what in the world makes you think that Romney "is much smarter"?

I'll bet dollars to donuts that I just put my finger on it.

On the other hand, I do think the Ivy League "preps" many presidential candidates because Ivy Leaguers are smart, ambitious, rich, or a combination of the three. You can't deny that people that go to these schools have been incredibly successful from a young age.

At a minimum, I think we can agree that it doesn't "prep" them very well, if the last four presidents are much indication.

And, personally, I don't want a guy with his finger on the nuclear button who "has been incredibly successful at everything else he's done".  He's likely to have a dangerous self-confidence.

I always thought that the biggest reason to doubt Bush the Younger's intelligence was in fact his "dangerous self-confidence", and his reluctance to revisit policies and decisions in the light of changing evidence.

  W. was only confident relatively speaking.  He was incredibly hard on himself his entire life and only began easing up after becoming POTUS.  ...Unbelievably driven by measuring up to his father --who did lead a nearly flawless life until the tough blow of the 1992 campaign ending his political career.   

W. was not a typical Ivy Leaguer either.  He went to Yale shortly after it started to get messed up, but he had a ton of perspective from his previous 4(?) generations of family about the good ole Yale.  His social fraternity and secret society probably helped as well.  I don’t consider MBAs from Harvard or Wharton “In the Bubble”, so he’s golden with regard to that as well.       

I'd suggest that Yale was much more bubble-like before the late 1960's, when the entire undergraduate student body was male, almost the entire student body was white, and being a "legacy" counted for much more than it does now. At the time, Yale was much more a finishing school for a pretty narrow class of Northeastern WASP young men -- a community that was pretty out of touch with the problems and experiences of ordinary Americans.

That's what he meant when Yale "started to get messed up."

[whitneyB]

  This probably started with a William F. Buckley observation something like 40 years ago.  Paraphrased it is something like: "The Harvard faculty is less capable of running a business or a government than the first 100 names in the phone book."  It has nothing to do with bashing education or intelligence.  It is correctly observing the harmful effect of spending a lot of time in an out of touch bubble.  Group think, tribalism and mob psychology are real things and they affect most leftist enclaves in an extremely unhealthy way.
PS, Aaron Sorkin is so good, I can put up with the nauseating lefty crap littered throughout the show.

Buckley said that because he had a huge chip on his shoulder and he was lashing out against a faculty that was by-and-large left-leaning if not Marxist at the time. Yes, I agree that a lot of professors and academics can be aloof, but I don't think that Buckley is the best source you could use in a partisan argument.

As to George Bush's intelligence: all I can say is that he never really applied himself and school and was only ever able to get past his screw-ups thanks to daddy's money and connections. The same can probably be said of Romney but I would venture to guess that Romney has less of a shoot-from-the-hip mentality than Bush which I think is the mark of someone who is more mature, if not more intelligent.

Also, from what I've heard from my parents' friends who know the Bushes and the Romneys, W is the least impressive of the lot intellectually. Granted, this is anecdotal evidence, so take it as you will...

[AmericanNation]

I'd suggest that Yale was much more bubble-like before the late 1960's, when the entire undergraduate student body was male, almost the entire student body was white, and being a "legacy" counted for much more than it does now. At the time, Yale was much more a finishing school for a pretty narrow class of Northeastern WASP young men -- a community that was pretty out of touch with the problems and experiences of ordinary Americans.

     Fair point, but that is a different type of bubble.  Monolithic-ish class, race, and region demographics of students may have negative aspects, but probably less than a monolith of thought.  

I would argue that the tactics he and his team used to win the 1988 election were less than flawless.

Willie Horton?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I find this to be very accurate in the political world today, especially with Mitt Romney's comment that Obama spent too much time at Harvard, even though Romney attended as well. You saw the same line of argument thrown at John Kerry, who was painted as an intellectual snob, even though Bush also was an Ivy Leaguer. It seems like Republicans use this line on Democrats quite often, but it's something politicians of both parties are guilty of.

Attacking Obama for getting a JD at Harvard is epic fail when you got both a JD and an MBA at Harvard. Of course this is Mitt Romney, so he'll probably use that attack anyways.

[Mercenary]

I think intelligence and a good education is important. I don't think going to random community college and transferring to a state school is any worse than going to an ivy league though. The people I feel are snobs aren't simply people who attend a school like Harvard, but rather it is the people who feel they are superior because they attend a place like that. That they feel themselves smarter and more worthy of leading because of it. I don't see attending the place in of itself as a negative or a positive. That they worked hard is a positive, but where they went to school isn't, only the attitude they have do I really concern myself with when it comes to elitism. I don't really see Obama as being elitist. I'm not fond of his politics, but I don't consider him elitist. If anything he is lesser elitist modern presidents.

[whitneyB]

I think intelligence and a good education is important. I don't think going to random community college and transferring to a state school is any worse than going to an ivy league though. The people I feel are snobs aren't simply people who attend a school like Harvard, but rather it is the people who feel they are superior because they attend a place like that. That they feel themselves smarter and more worthy of leading because of it. I don't see attending the place in of itself as a negative or a positive. That they worked hard is a positive, but where they went to school isn't, only the attitude they have do I really concern myself with when it comes to elitism. I don't really see Obama as being elitist. I'm not fond of his politics, but I don't consider him elitist. If anything he is lesser elitist modern presidents.

At the same time, this attitude is very prevalent precisely because these institutions cultivate and create it. At the Ivy League and at the famous prep schools, young kids are constantly told that they will be "the leaders of tomorrow" that they will "run the world" so it's hard for these kids not to believe it when they hear it day-in and day-out from a very young age.

[AmericanNation]

At the same time, this attitude is very prevalent precisely because these institutions cultivate and create it. At the Ivy League and at the famous prep schools, young kids are constantly told that they will be "the leaders of tomorrow" that they will "run the world" so it's hard for these kids not to believe it when they hear it day-in and day-out from a very young age.

repeating "save the world" "save the planet" a thousand times is probably mob mentality.  It creates a demon (thing or people), appeals to the hubris they cultivate by constantly pumping up self esteem, and forms a collective mob (We can stop the evil).  For redistribution, reparations, and redefinition of marriage I think they just say "Fair" and "Fairness" over and over.  Part of me is still shocked every time I run into a very educated person who can't form an argument or a rational beyond the slogan (chanting-bumper sticker). 
I've had a lot of conversations about this situation.  How does someone with a great brain, great test scores, good work habits... come to not just a wrong conclusion, but a staggeringly simple minded one AND is ADAMANT about their bumper sticker being infallible to reason or logic.  Never being in the "Real World" (outside of a prestigious classroom) usually has something to do with it.                 

[Chareth Cutestory]

I think people are getting a little carried away with the (fair and accurate) stories of value in different levels of higher education. No, Ivy League schools aren't quite as dominant as they used to be, but they are still extremely arduous and not possible for everyone. An education from one of those schools isn't necessarily as far and away better than any others, and a degree from there doesn't guarantee a genius. At the same time, it's silly to demean them to the point of saying they're nothing special. Yes, there are a lot of people who should be at those schools who aren't and a lot there that shouldn't be. That doesn't mean they've been rendered completely useless just because of their massive turn of focus to money (like most other schools).

[whitneyB]

I think people are getting a little carried away with the (fair and accurate) stories of value in different levels of higher education. No, Ivy League schools aren't quite as dominant as they used to be, but they are still extremely arduous and not possible for everyone. An education from one of those schools isn't necessarily as far and away better than any others, and a degree from there doesn't guarantee a genius. At the same time, it's silly to demean them to the point of saying they're nothing special. Yes, there are a lot of people who should be at those schools who aren't and a lot there that shouldn't be. That doesn't mean they've been rendered completely useless just because of their massive turn of focus to money (like most other schools).

Oh I completely agree, they are great schools (going to one I shouldn't be complaining too much ) but they do have their issues as you point out. I think that this lampooning of the institutions has prevaricated over the balanced argument you present and is being an "Ivy League intellectual" is used as a slur. On a side note, I worry not so much about the "intellectuals" at these schools - they're fairly harmless - I worry more about those who attend and merely reap the benefits (degree, girls, booze) rather than give back to the community and themselves by really internalizing the interactions one can have in such institutions.

[AmericanNation]

I think people are getting a little carried away with the (fair and accurate) stories of value in different levels of higher education. No, Ivy League schools aren't quite as dominant as they used to be, but they are still extremely arduous and not possible for everyone. An education from one of those schools isn't necessarily as far and away better than any others, and a degree from there doesn't guarantee a genius. At the same time, it's silly to demean them to the point of saying they're nothing special. Yes, there are a lot of people who should be at those schools who aren't and a lot there that shouldn't be. That doesn't mean they've been rendered completely useless just because of their massive turn of focus to money (like most other schools).

Not attacking the schools.  Attacking a problematic symptom of the schools.  I think the problem is often worse outside the Ivy League institutions because at least they have some standards, so maybe a little bit of a envy-ish factor plays a role in the politics (IDK it doesn't with me), but then again the problem may be more pronounced or dangerous in regard to the Ivy's. 

PS: Yale and Wharton were the only schools that I seriously considered leaving the midwest to go to.