It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are people from Ivy League education actually smarter?

page: 1
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 02:46 PM
link   
I recently had an discussion with a pal who is extremely left wing. He was remarking on certain people who he admired and listed their credentials with this far away look in his eyes. He thought was that these peoples opinions should be taken more seriously than others because of said credentials. He went on to tell me that only the SMARTEST people got into Harvard and Yale for instance.

My opinion is that if you can make the deans list in any accredited university that you can at Harvard and Yale as well. My thinking is that Ivy League schools are all hype and more about connections and money than they would ever admit.

The funny thing is he said, "well yeah, like GW."

I mentioned Al Gore, he then said, "but Al Gore is a very smart guy though!"

It's odd to me that no one puts two and two together and notices that all politicians at the top of the heap seem to come from Ivy schools. They are groomed there by power to protect power. The idea that the people that go there are smarter than the normal high IQ population is just conditioning the powerful have made everyone believe over time so they can keep doing what they are doing.
edit on 21-10-2017 by Fools because: sp




posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools


Oh this one is easy... NO, I have known people with Tech school training, Ivy League degrees, Community College, no college and honestly the school they went to has nothing to do with how smart they are. Just says they had the money to pay for a degree from those schools. I know people that did not go to college that are way smarter than some college graduates. Unfortunately our society places some kind of bogus premium on college.



posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

Sometimes it frightens me to think that the people running the government and important agencies are really just... sometimes less than average folk being stupid and greedy and childish. Like some of the people in that film, The Big Short...



posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

I don't assume Ivy League graduates are smarter, but I do assume they are privileged and corrupt. Just look at your average politician, CEO or lobbyist for proof.



posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 03:08 PM
link   
I don't think so. It's all about money, power and who you know. Einstein didn't attend an Ivy league school and here are a great many others in the upper levels of intellect who did not either. Pretty sure someone like GWB is fairly indicative of using power and influence to get into an Ivy League school in spite of intellect.



posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

Not usually smarter, they just could afford a good school. They may or may not have really learned anything.

I would think taking their cell phone apart, putting in a pile, have a few tools available and then observe.

Maybe drop in wilderness with some cord, a knife, a gun and then observe.

Depending on where they grew up maybe give them some duct tape to be fair.

But then again, I wouldn't want to dropped in the middle of a bunch of lawyers, bankers or stock brokers.



posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools
Well, as far as I know, basically there are two types of education systems: a classical one and a modern mass one.

The former implies the importance of developing an individual as a thinking, open-minded and creative person. For example, when they study languages, the grammatical errors are much less important than the ability to understand and express complex abstract thoughts and emotions in a creative way. They don't use tests, you know.

The latter implies the importance of acquiring certain skills to become a good specialist in a certain field. The individual himself is not important. When they study languages, the most important things are the grammar and vocabulary. They don't "waste" their time reading and discussing masterpieces. What's the point? Just pass the exam, get ready for the test.

As a result, the classical system grows creatively thinking individuals and the mass one grows narrow-minded workers.

That's the difference.

I don't know whether Ivy League implies a classical system, but if it doesn't, I doubt it grows "smarter" students.

Moreover, being "smart" has nothing to do with education at all.

And don't forget that our intellect is only ONE part of our nature, BTW.
edit on 2017 by JedemDasSeine because: grammar)



posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fools
I recently had an discussion with a pal who is extremely left wing. He was remarking on certain people who he admired and listed their credentials with this far away look in his eyes. He thought was that these peoples opinions should be taken more seriously than others because of said credentials. He went on to tell me that only the SMARTEST people got into Harvard and Yale for instance.

My opinion is that if you can make the deans list in any accredited university that you can at Harvard and Yale as well. My thinking is that Ivy League schools are all hype and more about connections and money than they would ever admit.

The funny thing is he said, "well yeah, like GW."

I mentioned Al Gore, he then said, "but Al Gore is a very smart guy though!"

It's odd to me that no one puts two and two together and notices that all politicians at the top of the heap seem to come from Ivy schools. They are groomed there by power to protect power. The idea that the people that go there are smarter than the normal high IQ population is just conditioning the powerful have made everyone believe over time so they can keep doing what they are doing.


It is over hyped.

Here is what I will say, having gone to Columbia. I barely graduated high school. At 22 I went back to community college and got high grades. I transferred to four year, did a lot of research, got top grades. From there did a lot of work that later got me into columbia for grad school.

I've had courses and teachers that were just as good at community college as Columbia. However, it's much harder to get into Columbia than most four year universities or grad schools. The same is true for public ivies like UC Berkeley or actual Ivies.

What this means is that the average level of student is much higher, across many variables. Also, the average level of professor has more fame, expertise, studies, etc, which is how they got their job there. Hence, while the coursework is not necessarily better, your fellow student and your professors are. That's the network you referenced. For example, your professors may be famous authors, or advisors to presidents or the UN, etc etc. Some of the students are so ambitious or accomplished it's scary and daunting to be around.

So, yes, I do not think that the coursework itself produces smarter students. What is actually happening is that such institutes only let in mostly already very intelligent or accomplished people. So, they tend to be successful, especially once given the opportunity to network with other such people. A good example are top MBA programs. It's well known that they are very hard to get into, but once you do much of the coursework is a joke. So what is the value? Getting to learn from, do team projects with, and network with very smart fellow students and professors. That's it really.

This doesn't mean at all that going to such schools means you are brilliant, nor that not going to them is the opposite. The majority of amazing, brilliant people I have known across my life did not go to such schools, and some no college at all.

Feel free to ask any questions about the experience, but please not personal attacks.
edit on 21-10-2017 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-10-2017 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14


Doesn't make them better professors because they are more famous.



posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

They're better at convincing others of how smartified they are, and nothing more.

Intelligence is an abstraction that expresses itself in numerous ways. It's not really something concrete though we continue to measure it (haphazardly) and place value on it (foolishly.)

It's simply another case of "My dog's better than your dog."



edit on 21-10-2017 by NarcolepticBuddha because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14


Doesn't make them better professors because they are more famous.


Once again you aren't getting the crux here.

You get the opportunity to study and meet with professors that aren't even academics, but world leaders, top experts in their field, leading scientists, etc. Having the opportunity to work with leading experts in a given field, and a lot of them, is a powerful opportunity.

For example, I studied intensely with Jeffrey Sachs, one of the top international development experts and advisors to the past two UN secretary generals.



posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: JedemDasSeine
a reply to: Fools
Well, as far as I know, basically there are two types of education systems: a classical one and a modern mass one.

The former implies the importance of developing an individual as a thinking, open-minded and creative person. For example, when they study languages, the grammatical errors are much less important than the ability to understand and express complex abstract thoughts and emotions in a creative way. They don't use tests, you know.

The latter implies the importance of acquiring certain skills to become a good specialist in a certain field. The individual himself is not important. When they study languages, the most important things are the grammar and vocabulary. They don't "waste" their time reading and discussing masterpieces. What's the point? Just pass the exam, get ready for the test.

As a result, the classical system grows creatively thinking individuals and the mass one grows narrow-minded workers.

That's the difference.

I don't know whether Ivy League implies a classical system, but if it doesn't, I doubt it grows "smarter" students.

Moreover, being "smart" has nothing to do with education at all.

And don't forget that our intellect is only ONE part of our nature, BTW.


I can speak to Columbia. Columbia University focuses very much on a broad classical education.



posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 03:38 PM
link   
It is true that the children of the powerful get in without merit.

But, for the majority of students attending they have to be pretty hardcore students prior to undergrad, or accomplished in one way or another before grad school.



posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 03:49 PM
link   
It's not really a matter of smarter so much as it is a matter of better educated. The internet has leveled the playing field to a degree but in general ivy league schools can afford the best materials and don't have to restrain their selection. To see the truth of this compare the main libraries of an ivy league school to a community college or even a state college.

Students are also different in ivy league schools most students come from money in community colleges most students don't and are working their way through, which isn't to say that if you aren't rich you'll never succeed to the degree a rich person can... but it can be a matter of what and how much do I want to learn versus what can I afford to and have time to learn.



posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14


You want a cookie for that? Are you reduced to name dropping now?



posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 03:57 PM
link   
As long as thats what they think they will stay in their boxes and keep burning up their candles for us.....lol.



posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74


It's weird how talented teachers can work miracles with motivated students from expensive private schools.



posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Entry requirements plays a big part, what the course is and probably the background the person comes from, assuming they don't have affirmative action policies.

Someone from a poor background doing an engineering degree, a classical degree or something like law who got in purely on academic merit will probably be smarter than someone who paid their way in, or someone on the course to match diversity quotas.

Of course something like a gender studies degree is worthless trash regardless of where you got it from, and anyone with one of those types of degrees, be it from somewhere Phoenix or somewhere as renowned as Yale probably isn't too bright. Not in my experience anyway.

There are a lot of factors rather than just the school they went to.
edit on -050004pm10kpm by Ohanka because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

My guess is that you have to be initiated into one of the secret societies before you get tagged for positions in society .



posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: SilverOwls

I wasn't saying that it's automatic, merit and motivation can overcome obstacles.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join