It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14
Doesn't make them better professors because they are more famous.
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.