Are people from Ivy League education actually smarter?

a reply to: Fools

I have to whole heartedly agree with Norhoc though I am not stateside, for we the question would be Cambridge and Oxford and the answer is the same NO.

Smartest kid I ever knew was a dyslexia sufferer with no qualification's at all but whom had the sharpest mind I have ever encountered.
I am not the sharpest tool in the box either despite having a couple of qualification's.

Qualification's do not equate common sense, they do not equate real world intelligence either.

Now here is the problem with elite establishment's, it is also a boon depending on what angle you come at this point from.

They create an elite mind set, those that go to these institution's then travel in these social circles and this in turn creates an elitism among there members which can be and usually is good for them but not that good for those that went to less prestigious educational institutions and whom in many cases are just as bright in not even brighter.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

It's a powerful opportunity more for the networking than the actual intellect they have though.

I'm not all that convinced most of them are any smarter then a lot of other folks I've known. That's not to say I think they're dumb, just not super smart, but then, I had serious interest from Brown and Columbia myself and chose not to go rack up that kind of debt.

Maybe I might have been better off, but knowing my introversion and realizing now that I was working on developing chronic migraine, I likely made the smart choice.

a reply to: Fools


In general, I'd agree. There's probably a few scholarship types that are downright smart.

I'd guess a surprising number follow the history of their family.
If parents are college educated, likely the children follow. Likewise those that do not have parents that are college educated...or even those that don't finish high school. The kids tend to follow. Not all, of course, but I'd guess most.

a reply to: Metallicus

Your post brought the Great Gatsby to mind.

Ever thus. Not much has really changed, has it.

You can't deny the tremendous opportunity to study with professors who are tops in their fields and to be acquainted with powerful people and their children. Of course there continues an incestuousness of generational prevalence at Ivy leagues that contribute nothing to the schools but their pedigree and most often stay socially within their own. Hence, certain fraternities and sororities.

It's very hard for an intelligent, unless one is a genius, first time Ivy Leaguer to break into those social circles without an introduction from an interested student or professor.

It actually depended on the type, kind of intelligence is being discussed. That is not an easy answer. If we are talking power intelligence, then, yes, the Ivy Leaguers have it hand over fist over the rest of us due to their opportunities and knowledge from exposure to the above.

America, however, does offer opportunity for the less privildged due to hard work, ambition and luck.

I think people just get too caught up in what they measure as intelligence. One of the smartest guys I know in terms of I.Q. gets hopelessly lost if you drive him down the street a few blocks.

No.

I've litigated cases with and against lawyers from "Ivy" and other smart schools. Generally speaking, they're not very good lawyers in terms of serving their client's interest, and not pissing off the judge.

One of Harvard's best filed a 75 page brief in a case I was opposing him on. Granted, it was comprehensive and examined all the angles from all sides. Problem was, the judge had a 15 page limit. Judge picked up his brief, counted out the first 15 pages, tore them off and threw the rest in the garbage, right there in court.

I worked with another guy that was top of his class at DePaul. About a week after we started together, he quietly comes into my office and in an embarrased whisper asks, "do you know where the federal courthouse is?" (pre-internet). The thing was, the courthouse was across the street from our office, literally outside his window.

To make matters worse, DePaul law school is about two blocks from the federal courthouse, so he literally spent three years working down the block from it.

Last one: had a case with 30 defendants, all represented by Ivy and other assorted "best of the best", biggest law firms in the country. Had a big joint defense counsel strategy meeting where my partner and I brought up, "hey, let's try this tactic, isn't there federal preemption of the plaintiff's case?" They all poo-poohed the idea, how dare we even talk!

So F them we went ahead and filed the motion, got most of the claims dismissed against our client. Wouldn't you know they *all* filed "copycat" motions, some literally copied ours word for word, inserting their client's facts; others were humble enough to just join in our motion. Our firm wound up getting the whole case dismissed against everyone - after it had been pending six years with the eggheads in charge.

Smarter? Not by a long shot.

ETA: That said, if you have a case with 300 banker's boxes of documents that you need reviewed and summarized in a nice memo, they're good at that and don't seem to mind doing it even though it's scut work and generally pointless.

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.

On average, I'd say the typical student from Ivy and peer schools are generally smarter. However, I wouldn't say they are any smarter than the top students from lesser schools. In other words, a middle of the pack Ivy student is probably on par with the top 5-10% at lesser schools. The big difference is the bottom half of the lesser schools are usually not as sharp as the bottom half from an Ivy in my experience.

I went to a top business school for my MBA. All of my classmates were extremely accomplished and definitely smart by almost any measure. You have to realize these schools are only accepting top students for the most part.

While 2+2 = 4 at Harvard just as it does at University of Phoenix, the biggest difference is professor and student quality and depth of that quality.

Not only did we read about current business issues, a lot of my classmates and professors were intimately involved first hand. As an example, in a corporate finance class, a lot of my classmates worked at top M&A banks, VC, and PE firms and actually were part of deal teams on the cases being discussed. So when the community college finance class is talking about say Amazon buying Whole Foods reading newspaper articles, at HBS or some other like school, your classmates may have actually worked on the transaction. That type of first hand interaction is something that you can't really put a price on.

One of my marketing professors wrote the text book used at most business schools for marketing. Oprah taught a class at my school. So I'm literally sitting in a class with Oprah at the front. You come to class one day and out of the blue, Henry Kissinger walks in like it is nothing or other major business or political figures.

With all that said, you can get a good education anywhere. Anyone who has hustle and ambition will be successful. Some of the smartest people I've met didn't go to Ivys.

a reply to: Fools

It doesn't matter how smart they are. People with money have more opportunities. When you start on third base and hit a single it still feels like a home run!

a reply to: Fools

But what is your definition of 'smartest'?

That's where the problem steps in and takes up house.

I now men/women who are so incredible intelligent they can explain the meaning of life until my ears ache - but they can't hunt, shoot, butcher and preserve a deer to save their starving lives.

See what I mean?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

It's a powerful opportunity more for the networking than the actual intellect they have though.

I'm not all that convinced most of them are any smarter then a lot of other folks I've known. That's not to say I think they're dumb, just not super smart, but then, I had serious interest from Brown and Columbia myself and chose not to go rack up that kind of debt.

Maybe I might have been better off, but knowing my introversion and realizing now that I was working on developing chronic migraine, I likely made the smart choice.

Right, it's not a be all and end all by any means. In fact, for many people it doesn't make sense given the cost.
The student loan debt bubble is absurd.

Re-read my original response. It covers most of it. Then, as a former educator, there are the social and economic privilege issues we have discussed before, which obviously tie into access to higher level education. There is absolutely educational access privilege, on average, all things considered.

As any rationale and fair person will agree, there are smart and capable people everywhere. Elite colleges are a false arbiter of real human value.

a reply to: Fools

Getting into an Ivy League fresh out of high school is pretty difficult, and only a handful make it. Out of those that meet the criteria, it's pretty much random chance as to who gets in and who doesn't. If you're transferring in, it's significantly easier.

So, the students do tend to be higher achievers. That doesn't necessarily mean they're smarter though. Ivy Leagues do have better teachers, but they're also known for grade inflation. At some of them (Yale is the one that comes to mind first) it's virtually impossible to fail. Students simply don't get below a C grade.

When you look at things in those terms, while it's more impressive to get into an Ivy League school compared to an ordinary state school, actually graduating from the state school can be more difficult.

To give an example, when I did my Computer Science degree, our program had an 8% graduation rate. In contrast, Stanford had 360 students start Computer Science in 2012, and in 2016 they awarded 263 of those students with degrees, a graduation rate of 73% for one of the hardest majors there is.

More anecdotally, I've taken a few of their classes online, as prep for my actual classes. They had a lower work load, and much more hand holding, and generally gave students more research materials... my experience at a small state school was that we had to derive the theory and then build something rather than being allowed to look up existing theory and then build it.

Really, what Ivy Leagues are for, is for average people (in ability) to make above average business connections.

originally posted by: geezlouise
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...

Leadership is typically made up of C students that knew the right people. Advisors, researchers, and other support tend to be the super smart ones.

originally posted by: Bramble Iceshimmer
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.

What do either of these state about intelligence? One has to do with the ability to function without the internet (which anyone who is 50+ did for most of their life already), the other is about self sufficiency in the wilderness which is pretty much the exact opposite of academic ability.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
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.

This is true of non Ivy too. I'm currently finishing up a degree in game/simulation engineering from a top 10 school. The school is small, and the program is open to everyone. They just make the course work really, really hard. One of my friends who graduated last year is probably the best programmer I've ever seen. Last semester I watched him invent his own computer language, then write a game engine in that language, and then write a game in that engine.

Some people just aren't human.

a reply to: Kali74

No, the internet really hasn't leveled the playing field. Ivy Leagues aren't where the most challenging course work was assigned. Those schools have helped to bring a lot of classes online, but that only allows you to sit in a lecture. The proper experience and learning environment requires the ability to ask questions, talk to classmates, and have interactivity.

All the internet has done is let people sit in on the lecture, but still miss out on half of the reason to actually attend a class. Online classes are in no way a substitute for the real thing.

a reply to: silo13

But hunting a deer is a really low impact activity. It's not multinational negotiations, managing a hedge fund, engineering the vehicles that will get us to Mars, or anything that's actually important for us as a species.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
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.

This is true of non Ivy too. I'm currently finishing up a degree in game/simulation engineering from a top 10 school. The school is small, and the program is open to everyone. They just make the course work really, really hard. One of my friends who graduated last year is probably the best programmer I've ever seen. Last semester I watched him invent his own computer language, then write a game engine in that language, and then write a game in that engine.

Some people just aren't human.

Right, and I think you are pointing out that there are top notch specific programs across all kinds of schools. That's why in reality it's not really about the school itself or "ivy" but going to a good program in a specific field. A good example would be that University of Arizona might not be a world famous school, but its dance and anthropology programs are I think top ten. Same with a number of their hard sciences like astronomy.

In those cases, like your program, it will attract great students and professors.

originally posted by: Justso
You can't deny the tremendous opportunity to study with professors who are tops in their fields and to be acquainted with powerful people and their children. Of course there continues an incestuousness of generational prevalence at Ivy leagues that contribute nothing to the schools but their pedigree and most often stay socially within their own. Hence, certain fraternities and sororities.

It's very hard for an intelligent, unless one is a genius, first time Ivy Leaguer to break into those social circles without an introduction from an interested student or professor.

It actually depended on the type, kind of intelligence is being discussed. That is not an easy answer. If we are talking power intelligence, then, yes, the Ivy Leaguers have it hand over fist over the rest of us due to their opportunities and knowledge from exposure to the above.

America, however, does offer opportunity for the less privildged due to hard work, ambition and luck.

This, is basically the real value beyond branding. If you don't come from a highly connected family, it is very difficult to make the powerful connections if someone is ambitious. Top schools basically provide this to you via your fellow students, who on average are from privileged circles (not all) and professors, who are often leaders within various fields.

If someone is really driven, then the cost of doing this will be worth it long term in the sense of increased opportunities for high level business, political, or social connections. You'll go to school with the children of prime ministers, CEOs, etc.

However, I've said this often, that if someone doesn't have such interests or ambitions, you really don't need such connections, and unless you have a large scholarship the debt might not be worth it.

A good example is I've known people who are getting a teacher certification or social work degree from an Ivy league school, and paying $50,000 a year in tuition.

For the job they want, they don't need a degree from such a school, and will not be making a lot of money and it will be hard to pay back the student debt. In this case, it's advisable to get their professional degree from a state school, get the same job, and graduate with far less debt.