defend the indefensible: THE IVY LEAGUE

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (406 of them)
'[Your] Pell Grant numbers' don't match up to those, being based primarily on income. The report goes into why it chose not to go on income.

The Century Foundation report does go on income. Just not income alone. It adds information about parental education and occupation. The reason it doesn't go on income alone is that the income figures relied upon are reported by the student and subject to mistake. I assume that income for purposes of receiving a Pell grant is not merely reported by the student and must be verified. And adding parental education arguably skews their results wildly - I would imagine that college graduates, especially those of highly selective schools, are far more likely to send their kids to highly selective schools than others, regardless of income.

In addition, the $35k upper limit on family income for a Pell Grant takes it out of the lowest quintile and quartile of family incomes.

You're arguing that the Ivies are evil because only 10% of students at 146 schools come from the bottom two quartiles. The Pell grant information reveals that at every Ivy but Princeton 10% or more come from an even lower-income sample.

While we're at it - the concept of 'Ivies' was expanded early on in this thread, so harping on the Ivies v. Duke is rather irrelevant when they're both in the 'elite' club.

Well us elitist Ivy graduates don't accept such schools in our precious little club. *turns up nose* Actually, I see it the way the author of the Duke article does - some schools that are 'elite' are not especially rigorous; thus, their elite status may have more to do with socioeconomic status than does the status of rigorous schools, and this may be borne out in their admissions policies. If you accept that most, perhaps all, of the Ivies are rigorous (I think so, though I think that there are non-Ivies that are equally if not more rigorous), then the argument that the elite status of highly selective schools derives from the socioeconomic status of the student body is less applicable to the Ivies than to the non-Ivies.

And then the, frankly, hysterical notion that ivy league grads' books are published just because they went to certain schools. . . omg.

really

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 10 March 2004 01:23 (twenty years ago) link

Yeah, I guess I do feel there is some unwarranted bashing going on.

Consider Howard Dean, John Kerry, G.H.W. Bush, G.W. Bush, Al Gore. All have similar backgrounds. Didn't all turn out the same way, nor do they think the same way.

%s of varying income groups admitted/attending. What is the "correct" proportion of each group? Why is that proportion desirable.

Are family connections limited to people from ivy schools?

The problem of self selection. In my experience, the people I went to school with as undergrads were almost uniformly motivated, prepared, and talented. This is not the case with my grad school class. If you're motivated enough to get to a certain school, you may be motivated enough to get a certain job, get your book published, whatever.

Of course people get jobs they don't deserve. Happens all the time. Wish it would happen to me some.

Skottie, Wednesday, 10 March 2004 01:28 (twenty years ago) link

I don't really get your point here, other than "yeah, the Ivies are still totally geared toward the well-off, but it's not that bad."

My point is that you used a study of the nation's 146 most selective schools to illustrate how awful the Ivies are, when in fact the Ivies are better than those in the study. Who else are you going to compare the Ivies to? At what level of selectivity does a comparison stop being relevant?

Nearly 20% of undergrads at Columbia come from families making less than $35K a year, as do nearly 10% of undergrads at the rest of the Ivies. The problem is?

Also, everyone's ignoring the elephant in the room - if the Ivies were not geared towards those who can afford them, they would cease to exist.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 10 March 2004 01:35 (twenty years ago) link

That's the college-admissions version of "why don't you ever complain about racist black people."

I think that's an unfortunate comparison. It's probably pointless even to participate in this kind of discussion because if you went to one of the schools in question, you automatically look like T. Howell III if you defend the schools. Anyway, Thurston thought Yale men were the most primitive on the planet, fwiw.

Also, forgive my hypersensitivity, but even in making the comment above, you're implying (and I'm inferring) an indirect charge of racism. And I don't think that's warranted.

Skottie, Wednesday, 10 March 2004 01:35 (twenty years ago) link

To be accurate, there have been (at least) two separate lines of discussion in the thread. One is the unfair exclusion of certain groups from these schools, and the ensuing exclusion of these groups from power positions in the society at large. This is probably true if you expand the def. to include all colleges in the country. If you only look at the ivies, it's probably not true. Well represented, true, but fortunately our nation of 300 million people is big enough to absorb the elitist swine. But still an interesting topic.

The other argument, which I think is specious, is an anger at people at certain schools because they're rich. And a presumption that because they're rich, they're also unqualified, lazy, stupid, whatever. That certainly wasn't my experience, and I don't think it holds up statistically, as if such a thing could ever be empirically measured. Even the ivies can't afford to admit too many stupid rich people. They don't need to. They're are plenty of smart rich legacies to admit.

Skottie, Wednesday, 10 March 2004 01:42 (twenty years ago) link

UCLA wanted me to give them my grades back to SEVENTH GRADE when I was applying to schools; not even Harvard wanted that!

We have our ways.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 10 March 2004 01:43 (twenty years ago) link

"Skew results wildly" = "disagrees with what I'm saying"?

"Not income alone" = what I said. That's where the difference is. The numbers I cited to start with aren't tied solely to income, and income is only one factor. What's your argument here? By their numbers 3%, based on income-only 10% - in either case, still putting the lower incomes at a disadvantage.

You're arguing that the Ivies are evil because only 10% of students at 146 schools come from the bottom two quartiles. The Pell grant information reveals that at every Ivy but Princeton 10% or more come from an even lower-income sample.
No, I didn't argue that. I cited a study, which you seem to have read, that states that 3% come from the bottom quartile (not quartiles), not based solely on income.

Once more, the Pell Grant isn't applicable. It has nothing to do with the SES stats this was written with. And, at $35k in the upper-limit, goes beyond the lowest 20-25% of family incomes.

But, just to cover this once more -

By the study cited, 3% come from the bottom quarter.
By your argument, choosing to limit it solely to Ivies, 10% come from the bottom ~35%.

Meaning - drumroll please - the Ivies (or the 146 most prestigious, either one), still place the worse off among us at a disadvantage. The extent of your disagreement is "well, it's not that bad." It's still a disadvantage.


(several x-posts)
Bullshit, Skottie, that had nothing to do with insinuations of racism. It's about the question being asked. "Well, the Ivies are bad here, BUT SO ARE THESE SCHOOLS." That's the same argument as "Well, yes, whites are racist, BUT SO ARE BLACK PEOPLE."

No one disagrees that there are black racists, but they aren't an issue. There's no widespread disadvantage for whites because of black racism.

Likewise, Ohio State's legacy admissions really don't mean anything - it's a 35k+ campus that isn't limited in socioeconomic status, and on top of that carries no special cachet as a name. Pretending the 'elite' schools are just like any other requires a lot of dancing around.

Gabbneb, once more, why do you continue to conflate the study with Pell Grant numbers? You can't make them analgous, because the Pell Grants don't take any other factors into consideration.

miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Wednesday, 10 March 2004 01:43 (twenty years ago) link

I don't think anyone said that Ivy grads books get published 'just because' they went to Ivies. It just makes it far more likely.

If you're motivated enough to get to a certain school, you may be motivated enough to get a certain job, get your book published, whatever.

Wow, you're a big believer in 'meritocracy', aren't you? I better get off this thread, because frankly, you're confirming a lot of stereotypes.

Gabbneb, I'm well-aware that the colleges would not survive if they didn't let people in who could afford the full tuition. My only point is that not everyone is there because of 'merit' - it doesn't stop people from being impressed because so-and-so went to an 'elite' school.

Consider Howard Dean, John Kerry, G.H.W. Bush, G.W. Bush, Al Gore. All have similar backgrounds. Didn't all turn out the same way,

Oh my god, you can't be serious!


Kerry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 10 March 2004 01:44 (twenty years ago) link

Skottie, about your second 'line' of discussion - um, you realize the Ivy bashing wasn't serious right? The joke of this thread appears to me to be as much about specious Ivy-bashing as it is a joke at the expense of Ivies.

miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Wednesday, 10 March 2004 01:45 (twenty years ago) link

The other argument, which I think is specious, is an anger at people at certain schools because they're rich. And a presumption that because they're rich, they're also unqualified, lazy, stupid, whatever.

How can someone come out of Yale and not be able to understand someone else's argument?

This failure to 'understand' is exactly what pissed me off when I was in college. It is not about money. It is about people with enormous educational privileges who take them for granted.

I already told you once that I don't assume that all 'rich' people are unqualified. Just keep on misrepresenting my arguments.

How ironic that the same crap that annoyed me in college is annoying me on this very thread. I need to log off now and watch 'American Idol'.

Kerry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 10 March 2004 01:50 (twenty years ago) link

oh...it's a joke? Oh...right...I have to go now....sorry.... Rats! Missed it again!


Consider Howard Dean, John Kerry, G.H.W. Bush, G.W. Bush, Al Gore. All have similar backgrounds. Didn't all turn out the same way,

Oh my god, you can't be serious!

Got me. You're right. I'm not serious about that. I do think they turned out surprisingly similarly.

There's no widespread disadvantage for whites because of black racism.

Likewise, Ohio State's legacy admissions really don't mean anything -
Yes, yes, I understand that. I'm sorry. That was directed to the "second line of discussion. To wit: I would imagine so. In my experience, the dumbest kids at school were the richest ones - they didn't have to work to compete - they got legacies, or their daddies gave lots of money to the school. Those were the ones who sat around their dorms all day getting drunk or snorting coke.

Skottie, Wednesday, 10 March 2004 01:56 (twenty years ago) link

cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 10 March 2004 01:58 (twenty years ago) link

Just keep on misrepresenting my arguments.

Sorry. I don't mean to. I will stop.


Zey laughed at me at zee university, but zey'll see ven I perform my song on American Idol!!! AAAAaaahhh hhaaaaaaa haaaaaa!

Skottie, Wednesday, 10 March 2004 01:58 (twenty years ago) link

milo - unless my writing above is unusually atrocious, i can conclude only that you are unable to read

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 10 March 2004 02:18 (twenty years ago) link

Yale Man
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/ghlong/images/2ages.jpg

Skottie, Wednesday, 10 March 2004 02:32 (twenty years ago) link

Proof indisputable that the Ivy stranglehold on Hollywood is unshakable. What? Oh. Vincent Price. Oh, I see. Most powerful man in...Encino? No, that Michael Jackson. Uh....dead? Oh, that's just a myth.

Skottie, Wednesday, 10 March 2004 02:35 (twenty years ago) link

Gabbneb - no, sorry. But conflating two different statistical measures doesn't work.

Pell grants and the study's SES-based statistics are not analgous, in any way, shape or form.

miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Wednesday, 10 March 2004 02:56 (twenty years ago) link

If you re-read my posts again, you will see that I have responded to each of your arguments and that my responses in fact suggest that the Pell grant data is more informative than the SES data. I just noticed an additional reason why that may be true - the Pell Grant data is for 2001; the SES statistics are for the class of 1995.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 10 March 2004 03:06 (twenty years ago) link

But it's not more informative. Nor is it less informative - it's a different measure completely. Like I, you know, said.

miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Wednesday, 10 March 2004 03:10 (twenty years ago) link

But I find the SES measure to be a better tool to start with - the benefit of a prestigious school isn't necessarily about post-graduate earnings potential, but about the culture and connections, it would make sense to factor those in.

miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Wednesday, 10 March 2004 03:12 (twenty years ago) link

Ivy League drop-out

http://www.clairedanes.net/imgs/misc4.jpg

And such early promise

http://clairedanes.gmxhome.de/wanted/francaise.jpg

Mary (Mary), Wednesday, 10 March 2004 05:39 (twenty years ago) link

see also, Columbia College Class of 1996...

http://www.bryanspage.com/Lauryn.jpg

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 10 March 2004 05:46 (twenty years ago) link

I.L. ABD

http://www.delos.fantascienza.com/delos57/img/duchovny/duchovny.jpg

Mary (Mary), Wednesday, 10 March 2004 05:47 (twenty years ago) link

Haha! Another Lycee Francais alum, of course...

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 10 March 2004 05:48 (twenty years ago) link

another drop-out

http://www.capitalcentury.com/youngfitz.gif

Mary (Mary), Wednesday, 10 March 2004 05:50 (twenty years ago) link

i dunno, lauryn hill has never struck me as being very bright. not dubya-dumb, true, but not OMGWTF brilliant either. she's not exactly compelling proof of ivy league intellectual firepower AFAIC.

Eisbär (llamasfur), Wednesday, 10 March 2004 05:53 (twenty years ago) link

Dartmouth '62

http://www.rockcritics.com/christgau2small.jpg

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 10 March 2004 05:55 (twenty years ago) link

Sarah Lawrence's loss was our gain

http://incolor.inebraska.com/sumaree/beatles/images/dryoko_a.jpg

Mary (Mary), Wednesday, 10 March 2004 05:57 (twenty years ago) link

Yale '80 (BA) '83 (MFA)

http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/movie/sunshine_state/angela_bassett_01.jpg

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 10 March 2004 05:58 (twenty years ago) link

U. Miss. Drop Out

http://www.olemiss.edu/depts/english/ms-writers/dir/faulkner_william/hollywood.jpg

Mary (Mary), Wednesday, 10 March 2004 06:06 (twenty years ago) link

More Yalies (the two on the right)

http://www28.brinkster.com/1082/images/episodios/308.jpg

Mary (Mary), Wednesday, 10 March 2004 06:13 (twenty years ago) link

http://www.j-cinema.net/gossips/jodiefoster/012.jpg

Allyzay, Wednesday, 10 March 2004 06:14 (twenty years ago) link

Two people I have seen in between classes:

http://www.heavenlycelebrities.com/Pics/Julia%20Stiles/Album/julia266.jpg

http://www.onlygoodmovies.net/celebrities/n_portman/images/nat_07_jpg.jpg

This obviously doesn't actually prove the worth of the Ivy Leagues but quite honestly most of the people I've met at Columbia are no brighter than a box of nails so this is the best defense I have to offer.

Allyzay, Wednesday, 10 March 2004 06:20 (twenty years ago) link

Yale '86

http://my.netian.com/~t2man/soundtrack/80s/Flashdance.jpg

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 10 March 2004 06:21 (twenty years ago) link

Which Ivy League Stereotype Fits You?

(I got Brown.)

Mary (Mary), Wednesday, 10 March 2004 06:23 (twenty years ago) link

Are the historically black colleges under attack too?

http://www.raquenel.com/different/bonet1b.jpg

Mary (Mary), Wednesday, 10 March 2004 06:31 (twenty years ago) link

HAHAHAHA I got Columbia, c'est la vie.

Allyzay, Wednesday, 10 March 2004 06:32 (twenty years ago) link

"Designed by an employee at the Brown Admissions Office"

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 10 March 2004 06:34 (twenty years ago) link

Haha, Ally, I was actually happy that I got Brown but then I looked and saw that the test was created by a Brown administrator so I thought it was rigged. I thought I would get Columbia as well.

x-post

Mary (Mary), Wednesday, 10 March 2004 06:36 (twenty years ago) link

Apparently I'm not good enough for Brown!!!

Allyzay, Wednesday, 10 March 2004 06:43 (twenty years ago) link

Cornell '74

http://www.raptiye.com/images/Christopher-Reeve.jpg

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 10 March 2004 06:48 (twenty years ago) link

haha that kind of doesn't help, dude.

Allyzay, Wednesday, 10 March 2004 06:54 (twenty years ago) link

Penn '49

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V115/N13/chomsky.gif

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 10 March 2004 06:54 (twenty years ago) link

no wonder christgau can be such a jackoff.

and first one who posts river cuomo gets xferred to SUNY-purchase or rutgers-camden.

Eisbär (llamasfur), Wednesday, 10 March 2004 06:58 (twenty years ago) link

oh god

  • My #1 result for the SelectSmart.com selector, Which Ivy League Univeristy Stereotype Fits You?, is Yale

    Eisbär (llamasfur), Wednesday, 10 March 2004 06:59 (twenty years ago) link

  • Rutgers '19

    http://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/r/pics/robeson-paul.jpg

    gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 10 March 2004 07:02 (twenty years ago) link

    Actually Tad these are ALL Harvard grads!!!

    http://www.toughpigs.com/extraweezer15.jpg

    Allyzay, Wednesday, 10 March 2004 07:04 (twenty years ago) link


    You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.