Yale vs Havard

[557188]

I am sick and tired of having to vote for Ivy league candidates. People talk about change, and all of that BS, but it's still the same institutions pumping out our preselected leaders. And the primary voters are all fools to go along with it all.

This is a huge negative for both candidates in my mind.

Its a shame I am probably in the minority for feeling this way. I'd really like a large land grand university, or similar public institution, to get a candidate people support.

[The Delegates]

1. Ridiculous post

Yale and Harvard are far and away the two best schools in the country. They are the 2 of the 3 oldest schools in the country (H is oldest, Y is 3rd I believe).

Yale Law School is far and away the best LS in the country. HLS is 2nd (tied recently with Stanford).

It's not a matter of those schools pumping out our future leaders, it's that our future leaders choose those schools.

Also, even if you do go to a YLS or HLS, there are so many absolutely brilliant people there that it shows something if you can rise to the top.

[557188]

4. Haha wow defend the Elitism!

They aren't the "best" schools in the country. That is a myth that you buy into because you're told they are.

GEORGE W BUSH WENT TO YALE! One of America's brightest minds there let me tell ya!

They are the "best" because that is where our aristocracy goes and makes connections. It has NOTHING to do with the quality of education. Any idiot can tell you that. It's to keep the status quo and pat each other on the back.

Its disgusting to see so many Democrats buy into this elitist bullshit.

[neutron]

8. what's Havard?

[557188]

11. A Private School?

[The Delegates]

12. One of the top schools in the country

The law school rankings are:

1 Yale
2 Harvard
2 Stanford
4 NYU
5 Columbia

But there is a big drop off after Y and an even bigger drop off after S.

[557188]

18. Rankings

Made by the Corporate media.

Its like ranking college football.

[neutron]

55. I thought Harvard was the top school

[The Delegates]

72. Harvard is 2...tied with Stanford

Yale is 1 and it isn't even close. Yale is way in front.

[The Delegates]

9. They're not the best?

Harvard and Yale Law Schools place the best in V10 law firms.

Harvard and Yale Law Schools bar passage rates are 20% higher than the average in their jurisdictions (94%-74% for Yale, 95%-74% for Harvard)

Harvard and Yale Law Schools receive the highest marks from judges and lawyers

Harvard and Yale Law Schools have almost 100% of it's graduated employed (99.6% for Yale, 100% for Harvard)

Harvard and Yale Law Schools only take the best of the best when it comes to LSAT scores (the average for Yale is 170-176; all scores in the 99th percentile).

I have a few friends who got accepted to both Harvard and Yale. Guess what? They're regular guys. Not "the status quo" and not from some big powerful family.

Take off the tinfoil hat.

[557188]

16. Maybe you should take off the blinders

1. Connections. Keeping it in the family!

2. Bar Passage Rates are all over the place for many schools.

3. This means what? Lawyers and Judges that went there? oook.

4. I should hope because its apart of the Aristocracy elite. They pat each other on the back. Again connections.

5. The LSAT does not determine how good of a lawyer you'll be nor or how smart you are. This is pretty common knowledge. It's also why some schools favor GPA and other things over LSAT scores.

And you have friends there! That means a lot!

[The Delegates]

37. ?

5. Name 1 school that favors the GPA over LSAT scores.

LSAT scores are the biggest factor in Law School Admissions because there is a decent correlation between LSAT scores and 1L performance.


3. If Lawyers and Judges were rating a school high because they went there, YLS and HLS would be nowhere near the top since they have relatively small class sizes.

2. Whats your point? I just gave you the stats for those schools bar passage rates.

4. What does this have to do with anything?

(sorry for going in an odd order)

[557188]

54. So easy

1. Stanford favors GPA over LSAT statistically. Duke and UCLA also do. Shit that was 3. FUCK!

2. Its all about perception and how people like you buy into it.

3. I could give you stats for other schools as well. What does it prove? That bar passage rate is all over the place. The University of Toledo, for an example, has a first time bar passage rate that is higher than Harvard. What does that mean? According to you Toledo's law school is superior! I find test statistics meaningless and wouldn't make that argument. :)

4. Job placement rate has to do with the connections you've made. Not exactly a hard concept to understand.

[The Delegates]

61. Not so fast, junior

1. Let's see those statistics. If anything, it's a 50-50 split. Stanford might favor GPAs more than other schools, but they still don't favor it more than LSAT scores. Stanfords 25-75 is 3.77-396; Harvards is 3.72-3.95. Hardly a huge discrepancy. Their 25-75 LSAT is 167-172 whereas Harvard's is 169-175. Once again, hardly a huge discrepancy seeing as Harvard probably weighs the LSAT as being 60% of admissions.

2. Exactly. Perception is reality in this case. When a school like HLS or YLS is perceived as being top notch, people will go there because of that reputation.

3. You're misrepresenting what I said. What is the bar passage rate of Toledo's jurisdiction? YLS and HLS have a 95% passage rate in their jurisdiction (which includes NY), whereas the average is 74% (which is misleading, because take a look at what schools are in YLS and HLS jurisdiction: Columbia, NYU, UPenn, Cornell; you can even argue for Chicago and UPenn). This also isn't the only stat that matters. You have to look at job placement, faculty, class size, reputation, etc.

4. Sometimes true, sometimes false. Law firms come and do OCIs which have little to do with your connections. They look at your numbers after your first year and call you for an interview. IIRC, some schools even do name-blind interviews (they see numbers and pick who they interview based on those numbers) Someone in the bottom 10% at Harvard still has a great chance to get a job paying $200,000+ right out of school, irrelevant of their connections. If you get into a t5, you're set for a great job after graduation unless you're a total social dunce.

[557188]

62. Junior?

1. You said name a school that favored GPA. I did...then I named two others. I can name more but that'd get a bit pointless. Besides naming Stanford was fun because of it's perception. :) Its like using your argument against you.

2. Perception isn't reality in this case.

3. I love how you're proven wrong and you have to try to justify your wrongness. Toledo, I believe, is ranked 85th and has a top 10 first time bar passage. Job Placement is based on how connected the school is to the elites (the entire argument), faculty is hit and miss all over, class size is a false ranking and reputation is keeping the status quo.

4. Bottom 10% and still gets a job? That is due to elitism of the institution and keeping the status quo. That is how people like Bush make it to the white house. That is BAD BAD BAD.

[The Delegates]

65. Uh huh, junior

1. I asked for stats backing it up. Stanford may favor GPA moreso than other schools, but NOT more than they favor LSAT. I'd venture a guess that Harvard is 60% LSAT, 30% GPA, 10% ECs and Stanford is 50% LSAT, 40% GPA, 10% ECs. The LSAT is still more heavily weighted than anything else.

2. Yes it is. When a school is perceived as being elite, it will attract those who want the prestige that comes along with going to such a school. It will attract employers wanting those good enough to get into an elite school.

3. What is the bar passage rate in Toledo's jurisdiction? Bar passage rate by itself is irrelevant. If Bob's School of Law has a 90% bar passage rate but the bar passage rate average in its jurisdiction is 97%, that's not good. But if Jim's School of Law has a bar passage rate of 60% but the average in its jurisdiction is 5%, that's extremelygood. When you look at it compared to the average passage rate in the jurisdiction it starts to mean something, and when you look at it in conjunction with what other schools place in that jurisdiction it means even more. So when you get that number, we can talk.

4. No, because bottom 10% at HLS or YLS are seen in the light of "They were good enough to get there and survive the 3 years. They still have potential." And I'm not denying that the institution is elite, but it's not an elitist institution. You don't need an elite name to get there. You don't need elite connections to get there. You don't need elite money to get there. You DO need elite qualifications, however. Great GPA, Great LSAT, diversity, etc. I'm not saying that having connections and a name wouldn't help, but they are sufficient rather than necessary.

[557188]

67. Names names names

1. Now you ask for stats! You ignored the other two schools though. How cute of you.

2. Actually no. There is intelligence everywhere, as with the case of John Edwards. The graduates of those schools, who join the elite companies, just continue to repeat the cycle. Hence the status quo. But you seem to be in favor of reputation and all of that.

3. Its more like you got hit with a number and now are trying to scramble because your argument is dead. Bar Passage rate is bar passage rate. Trying to compare it and make it competitive is simply you trying to duck the issue. But I'll play the stupid game. Ohio's jurisdiction rate in 06 was 64% in Feb and 78% in July for a grand total of 74%. Practically the same as Mass really. So...your little math argument to try and confuse people doesn't really work. But I guess when your whole perception of reality comes crashing down it is hard to accept. And I think stats are totally worthless!

4. Oh sure, there is a possibility to you getting into those of those schools. But that doesn't mean the school isn't elitist. It doesn't automatically mean you're smarter than everyone else either. Those type of institutions are designed to promote elitist values that simply are not healthy for our country, let alone our world. Job placement rate is patting each other on the back and keeps the status quo. It doesn't prove that you could hack it. Harvard Law isn't any tougher than a lot of other law schools. That is a perception myth.

[The Delegates]

69. Of course

1. You can't make a statistical argument without providing something to back it up. I ignored the other 2 schools because I don't have their numbers handy because I'm not subscribed to this years US News rankings :)

2. Reputation is huge. Reputation makes up for a lot of hard work. Sure you can do great without going to a Harvard, as did John Edwards, but you have to work harder and longer to do so.

3. http://www.ilrg.com/rankings/law/index.php/1/desc/Bar/2008 I don't see Toledo. And before you start attempting to make the case for Marquette, look at the "Employed @ Grad" stats. http://www.ilrg.com/rankings/law/index.php/1/desc/EmployGrad/2008

Funny, all those schools are t14s.

4. When did I make the argument that it makes you smarter?


There are also SO many other factors for why HLS and YLS are so highly regarded. Their libraries, age, faculty (look at some of the faculty lists), alumni, classes, reputation, law review, activities offered, endowment, etc

[kurth]

13. Don't forget the chimp is also a HARVARD MBA

"It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it." - George W. Bush

[UALRBSofL]

21. Bush isn't even comparable

He got a free pass to Yale and everyone knows it due to his family legacy.

[557188]

24. That is comparable

It strengthens the argument of the aristocracy and elitism of those institutions.

Its all about keeping it in their little circle.

[UALRBSofL]

14. Sorry to inform, but Stanford is 2nd, Harvard is 3rd

:) And don't you know Harvard alumni are not happy about it.

[The Delegates]

32. Stanford and Harvard are tied

http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/law/brief/lawrank_brief.php

Harvard still has better name recognition and placement when it comes to getting a V10 job because of its location.

[bidenista]

2. then vote huckabee

He went to Ouachita Baptist University. Definitely not Ivy League.

[557188]

5. Missing the point

Notice how the the most progressive candidates in the race didn't go to those schools either.

Just food for thought.

[Rabrrrrrr]

3. That's like being sick of all that corn and grain from the midwest,

and wanting it grown in Death Valley or Seattle.

The best of anything tends to come from the soil best suited to grow it.

People who have a strong desire/will to succeed, the type of people who WOULD seek the highest office, tend to be the people interested in going to the schools that will help them do that - Ivy League, and a few others.

Speaking personally, I'd like to see someone from Bard or Sarah Lawrence. Or MIT or Caltech.

[557188]

7. Uhh no

People go to different schools for different reasons.

But keep buying into the myth those are the best schools. Do you always listen when the corporates tell you something?

[Rabrrrrrr]

17. Neither of your statements relate to anything I said.

Keep trying, though.

I never said that people don't go to different schools for different reasons. To pull that out of what I said is to be miserably short on reading comprehension.

I also never said they were the best schools.

And your answer to the last question is - nothing; because it's not a question, it's a childishly pejorative insult cloaked in an interrogative form.

[557188]

19. No

Your post was trying to be cute and utterly stupid.

My post was about actual change and being disappointed that the media selected candidates continue to come from the same places.

[Rabrrrrrr]

22. My post was trying to be neither -

I am a big fan of analogy and metaphor, very legitimate rhetorical and pedagogical methods that have been in use for thousands of years. It was an attempt to show that your disappointment, though it may be very real (and as I said, I would like to see some candidates from other schools as well), is also not entirely realistic because the Ivy Leagues are the types of schools that tend to be attractive to the types of people who have a strong will to succeed, and especially the type who have the kind of will to go into high-level elected politics.

It's not those schools make better presidents - it's that the majority of people who might want to be president tend toward those schools. There is no conspiracy here. If you want Joe Schmoe from Local Community College to be president - and he'd probably do a better job of it, IMO - go help Joe Schmoe be president. Don't piss and whine because others are stepping forward.




But you go right on ahead reading stuff however you want.

[557188]

25. No

People that go to those schools want to be apart of the elite ruling class. That, right there, is dangerous for us as citizens. I don't think that is healthy for us or good for us. I don't think those people should be leading us to begin with.

There are plenty of other people that want to be president that don't go to those schools. Far better people in fact. John Edwards would be my first example as would Dennis Kucinich. They stepped forward, would've made far better presidents, and got ignored for the traditional elite.

[Rabrrrrrr]

30. Wow, you do have difficulty reading, don't you?

"People that go to those schools want to be apart of the elite ruling class" - that is precisely (in meaning) what I said in my posts (though technically, your use of "apart" negates what you are trying to say - assuming you mean "a part", then we are in total agreement).

I never spoke at all about whether this is healthy for the country or not.

I don't know why need to say "no" when your very next statement is a completely accurate (barring the misspelling) paraphrase of what I've been saying.

:shrug:

[557188]

43. Uhh

Why did you even point a typo out?

My case, that I don't think you're quite getting, is it's unhealthy for us to keep following this pattern. The way you presented your argument I read as a defense of the system. If I misread that I apologize.

[Rabrrrrrr]

51. I pointed out the typo to ensure that I was reading you correctly.

Pardon me for enacting due diligence in communication and making sure that what I thought you said was what you actually said.

:eyes:

I agree with you that it's unhealthy - or potentially unhealthy, anyways - of following this pattern of our nominees and elected leaders overly representing a small batch of schools.

However, that's not what you originally stated. Your original argument was about how disappointed you are that so many candidates come from those schools - hence my corn/grain post.

[557188]

56. That is what I was saying

Pointing out typos, on an internet forum, is bad form. Using the rolleye emoticon really wasn't needed and just makes you look hostile.

That was the point. My disappointment that our candidates came from there. That, logically, means its unhealthy and represents the status quo.

[Rabrrrrrr]

74. If you find that to be logic, then I can only

:eyes:

I could quickly list ten utterly distinct things that disappointment that our candidates came from Ivy League schools could mean. With the help of others, we could come up with thousands, if not millions.

If you wish to communicate, you need to communicate clearly and precisely.

And to help in your reading comprehension skills, let me reiterate that I never pointed out a typo - I pointed out a POTENTIAL typo which could make your statement the exact opposite of what you meant, and I asked you for clarification - which asking is prima facie good etiquette and proper communication form. If you can't deal with that, then you might need to work on growing a thicker skin while you study up on logic and clarity.

[featherman]

6. Reagan wasn't an Ivy leaguer...neither was Carter or Nixon

[557188]

10. But

Dukakis, Clinton, Kerry, Hillary and Obama are.

Notice the Democratic trend?

[Benhurst]

15. They are both Ivy Leaguers, but you cited the wrong schools.

Obama, although he did go on to get a law degree from Harvard, is a Columbia man.

Clinton, although she did go on to get a law degree from Yale, is a Wellesley graduate.

If you are offended by their being Ivy Leaguers, at least cite the right institutions.

[557188]

20. They graduated those schools

Just because their undergrads came from other places doesn't make my post any less valid.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

26. usually your undergraduate defines your alma mater....n/t

[557188]

28. Not always

Certainly not in the case of Law Schools and joining the aristocracy.

Alma mater undergrad identification is something that is more popular with sports fans and other trivial school matters. You make your connections in Grad School.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

34. I would have to disagree

for example, Howard Dean went to the Einstein Medical School for graduate, but went to Yale undergrad.

[557188]

44. Ok

I'd classify Dean as part of the elite as well if it makes you feel better. :)

[Benhurst]

39. Yes, but you are a "Harvard man" only if you get your undergraduate

degree there, despite the pretensions of some of those who go there for graduate degrees. The same applies to other universities as well, Ivy league or not.

[557188]

57. By whose definition?

I consider you a "school whatever" where you get all your degrees.

[Benhurst]

71. By whose definition?

That of the institutions themselves.

[Benhurst]

31. No, if they hadn't gone to Ivy League schools as undergraduates,

your post would not be valid.

In fact both did: Columbia University and Wellesley are Ivy League schools, which makes both Clinton and Obama Ivy Leaguers, not where they happened to continue their educations.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

38. Wellesley isn't an ivy league school.

There are eight: Brown, Cornell, Columbia, Dartmouth, Harvard, Penn, Princeton, and Yale

[Benhurst]

46. You're right, of course!

It's one of the Seven Sisters, historically liberal arts women's colleges in the Northeastern United States. They are Barnard College, Bryn Mawr College, Mount Holyoke College, Radcliffe College, Smith College, Wellesley College, and Vassar College. They were all founded between 1837 and 1889. Four are in Massachusetts, two are in New York, and one is in Pennsylvania. Radcliffe (which merged with Harvard College) and Vassar (which is now coeducational) are no longer women's colleges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Sisters_(colleges)

So in the strictest sense, Hillary is not an Ivy Leaguer.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

40. Here's the link to wikipedia for reference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_League

hope this helps :).

[Benhurst]

49. You are right of course. I always tend to throw the Ivy League schools

and the Seven Sisters together when thinking of them.

Well, this saves Hillary from being one of those damn Ivy Leaguers; but doesn't do much for Obama, I fear.
:rofl:

[belpejic]

23. OK, so

where did Jimmy Carter go to school? The Naval Academy, as did John McCain. The armed forces colleges are super elite--they not only require brains but physical prowess as well. Mittens graduated from Harvard Business School (just like the Chimp). Ground Zero Man went to NYU law school, which is generally regarded as a top five law school in the US.

Not sure what to make of the original post, but I do love the fact that Huckleberry is who he is. More fried squirrels...mmmmm. Imagine that on a White House banquet menu.

[557188]

27. Jimmy Carter?

And he was a great man...we'd be honored to have people like that right now.

I'd rather vote for a Jimmy Carter than the last string of Democrat nominees. So I'm not sure what you're saying?

[belpejic]

35. I love Carter as well

I wish we had the opportunity to elect Carter all over again. And I loved Bill Clinton. I'm just saying that people who end up in leadership positions tend to come from elite academic programs, whether West Point, Annapolis or Yale. I'm not making value judgments about any of those institutions.

And I still would like to see fried squirrel on the White House banquet menu!

[jakem]

29. What an inane argument.

They are admitted at ivy league schools because they are either smart (Obama, Clinton, Kerry, etc) or connected (Bush).
But they want to go there because they are career and politically driven people.

You don't go to Podunk-U to become president.

Good schools give an advantage. There are reasons.

Are there other good schools that are lesser known? Academically, sure.
I went to Carleton College- where are my social advantages?!

[557188]

42. Rankings are BS

They are like college football rankings.

Any school is as good as you make it. The best, smartest, Professor I ever had went to Syracuse I believe. I've had a few that went to Ivy league and their knowledge was all over the map. Because, guess what, every school has people of different intelligence and knowledge levels.

People go to those schools for the connections. The connections that I don't like or even trust. It does keep the status quo of the power elites.

And we had better candidates in this race.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

47. upstate pride! n/t

[belpejic]

48. Absolutely agreed that rankings are BS

But some, like Washington Monthly's, make more sense to me than, oh I don't know, maybe US News & World Report?

Check out the most recent:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0709.collegeguide.html

[557188]

58. Those are interesting

Giving a quick glance at those rankings I think they are a lot better than the US News ones.

Thanks for the link!

[Jed Dilligan]

33. I agree

The Ivy League seems to teach its scions to disagree in public and agree in secret.

[THUNDER HANDS]

36. you can always vote for Huckabee

[557188]

59. Or John Edwards or Dennis Kucinich

An actual progressive.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

73. both of whom dropped out.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

41. you know you shouldnt get punished for being intelligent and ambitious

[Rabrrrrrr]

45. Please, lioness, don't speak of intelligence or ambition.

Next thing you'll be suggesting that the smarter kids in school should have special classes geared to their needs, or other hateful stuff like that.

:eyes:






:rofl:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

50. i think the disdain for academia and intelligence has a lot to do with why neither gore nor kerry

were considered likable.

i respect intelligence. if a politician is smarter than me, i consider this a good thing.

[Rabrrrrrr]

52. I hear you - and why Shrubbie was so fantastically loved.

"He's a guy I could have a beer with!!!!"

Have a beer with Gore or Kerry, and the conversation might involve more than farts, tits, and NASCAR. "Gore and Kerry would make me think, and that's bad!!!"

I hate this country sometimes.

"Smart people scare me! They're no better than anyone else! Can they change a tire, that's what I wanna know! Smarts means nothing!"

:eyes:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

53. ---

:applause:

i dont want someone leading the country to be academically inferior to me.

[557188]

60. Intelligence is found all over

Harvard and Yale don't have a monopoly on that.

They do, however, seem to have a monopoly on the Democratic party nominees.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

63. or maybe intelligent people who are left leaning pick harvard and yale

[557188]

64. Kucinich, Edwards...

The actual progressives that were running didn't pick them.

But George W Bush did! What a leftie he is!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

66. so the school is to blame because edwards and kucinich were not qualified to get in

or did not apply?

also in every school, no matter how liberal there will be republicans.

[557188]

68. Status Quo

The issue is the status quo of the candidates coming from the same places. There is intelligence everywhere and its a bit scary the same schools produces the same candidates for our party. Even more so since they generally lose.

You're trying to promote those schools as having a monopoly on leftist ideals. Two candidates far more to the left went to other schools while right winger Bush went there. It was to show how stupid your statement was.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

70. its pointless arguing with you because your argument makes no sense

so some of the candidates who are winning from the dem party picked harvard and yale as their grad/undergrad schools. hence harvard and yale are to blame for some sort of monopoly and for the dem party losses

since this statement so far removed from logic it cannot be argued with

[Rabrrrrrr]

75. None of his arguments make sense.

It's like arguing with Anne Coulter or Rush Limbaugh or an Intelligent Designist. Make shit up, pull crap out of the air, illogically connect utterly unrelated things and call it "therefore" and so on... there is no abiding by any common or sensible rule of debate or argument.

Pure lunacy is all I can call it.

You're right, arguing with this guy is pointless.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

76. again had maybe he gotten a good education he would know correlation is not causation.

:hi: