Do you non-Ivy Leaguers feel inadequate?

[odoreater]

Just from my own personal experience - I was an incredible slacker in high school, so I did not get into an ivy league school (didn't try actually). I went to a local Catholic university. At some point in my first year of college, I realized that if I actually tried I can do well, so I got straight As for most of my college career. The Catholics encouraged me. I then took the LSAT and did very well. I could have gone to an ivy law school, but decided that the Catholics had been good to me and they were willing to give me money to go to another Catholic institution - so I took that opportunity. I went to a good (first tier), but not top 15 law school. I outperformed most people who had come to my law school from ivy institutions (by outperform, I mean things like grades, class rank, law review, etc.). I now work at a big law firm where I like my job and make decent coin.

Would I have been better off if I went to an ivy? Probably not. I probably would have rested on the laurels of my ivy degree without learning how to work hard for things that I want and how to beat the competition when the odds are against you. Those types of lessons are learned best in adversity.

 

[CTGuy]

Originally Posted by mafoofan

This really does not help the case for Ivy/non-Ivy parity . . .
It's pretty ******* irrelevant actually. It's called a straw man argument-- I made a small typo, but it doesn't change the point at issue here.

 

[RJman]

I'd venture that mafoofran's arguments do actually make the case for a certain privity, if not parity...

 

[imageWIS]

Originally Posted by RJman

Don't worry about it Jon. If you were smart enough, they would have let you in and told you about it.

And if you were smart enough you wouldn't haven needed to go to work on the other side of the pond...with your current circumstances.

Now, regarding my question: how can an institution of so-called higher learning possibly allow a policy like that? My not as grandiose state school doesn't allow anything of that nature, you fail and you are fucked.

Jon.

 

[DNW]

Purchase yourself a Lordship and you wouldn't feel inadequate to those colonial Ivy-leaguers.

 

[Brad]

Originally Posted by RJman

Argh! Fixed. I wish I could say that if you'd gone to an Ivy you wouldn't make that mistake, but you would anyway.

For the record, I'm staying out of the little "Rumble in the Jungle" you and mafoofran are having.

That also drives me insane. People tend to get a little chippy when corrected on it.

 

[TheFoo]

Originally Posted by CTGuy

The point is-- I could care less what rationalization you have. You're not better, smarter, or in any way superior to someone who went to a state college (for the record, I didn't). I guess that stings because you've got so much stock in the fact that somehow you're superior because you went to a particular presitigious school, but most likely there's a large group of people out there more successful than you that didn't have the pricey education. For the record WERE your parents upper middle class? In the interest of full disclosure....

Hmm, how do you know I'm not smarter? I'm not saying I necessarily am. But my school taught me to be careful of reckless assumptions when making arguments. I also learned that it's foolish to counter a person's argument by attacking his motivations.

The fact that there are successful people that didn't go to an Ivy League school is really irrelevant to either of the points being discussed here: (1) whether non-Ivy alum sometimes feel inadequate, and (2) whether Ivy League students are generally more intelligent. The absolute number of successful people that didn't go to an Ivy League school reveals nothing unless you can compare it to the number that aren't successful, and then consider the ratio of successful to unsuccessful Ivy Leaguers.

I don't think I'm superior because I went to Brown. I do think that it took a lot of hard work and brains to get there. I cannot account for how you got to where you are, but I'm not about to make the insulting accusation that you only got there because of your parents' wealth.

It's interesting, really. Your attitude suggests that you do feel inadequate. Otherwise, why would you try so hard to believe that I am no better than you in any way, despite the lack of any evidence?

 

[A Y]

Originally Posted by Manton

At Cal, some of us were terribly envious of Stanford. Grade inflation ... you could drop classes 24 hours before the final ... no over-enrollment ... parking ... less chance of life threatening injury from crazy people ... Heaven!
I didn't want to mention Stanford's grade-inflation and insta-drop policy, but I had heard the same things as well. I think the worst thing you could do there was give a student a D instead of failing them since the class could be retroactively dropped in case of failure. We even had town-hall meetings at school to discuss whether our grading policy should be changed so we would be more competitive with schools like that. --Andre

 

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Andre Yew

I didn't want to mention Stanford's grade-inflation and insta-drop policy, but I had heard the same things as well. I think the worst thing you could do there was give a student a D instead of failing them since the class could be retroactively dropped in case of failure.

We even had town-hall meetings at school to discuss whether our grading policy should be changed so we would be more competitive with schools like that.

--Andre

You can drop your classes at Stanford after you fail them? I took Manton's post to say that they could audit the course up to 24 hours before the final exam.

 

[RJman]

Originally Posted by mafoofan

It's interesting, really. Your attitude suggests that you do feel inadequate. Otherwise, why would you try so hard to believe that I am no better than you in any way, despite the lack of any evidence?

"Leave it out." -- Daniel Day-Lewis, My Beautiful Laundrette.

 

[Manton]

24 hours before the final. This was a long time ago, and maybe they have changed the policy.

Oh, one other thing. There were no Fs at Stanford. Not as in, they never gave Fs. As in, such a grade did not formally exist on the books.

 

[TheFoo]

Originally Posted by imageWIS

Wait...what???

Jon.

You can elect to take any class pass/fail rather than receive a letter grade. However, the resulting pass or fail will not be factored into your final GPA. Moreover, anything below a 'C' (admittedly, difficult to get), results in failure.

The pass/fail option should only be used less than a handful of times. Otherwise, employers and graduate schools begin to wonder. Unless they're law schools, apparently. I knew a kid who got into Yale and Columbia Law with exactly one grade on his transcript. It was an 'A', giving him a 4.0. No doubt he had a mighty LSAT score.

 

[A Y]

Originally Posted by Brad

You can drop your classes at Stanford after you fail them? I took Manton's post to say that they could audit the course up to 24 hours before the final exam.

What I posted was hearsay in the early 90s, so I could be completely wrong.

--Andre

 

[Brad]

Does anyone know if I'm correct in understanding that there are no grades given during a student's first year at Yale Law?

 

[CTGuy]

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Hmm, how do you know I'm not smarter? I'm not saying I necessarily am. But my school taught me to be careful of reckless assumptions when making arguments. I also learned that it's foolish to counter a person's argument by attacking his motivations.

The fact that there are successful people that didn't go to an Ivy League school is really irrelevant to either of the points being discussed here: (1) whether non-Ivy alum sometimes feel inadequate, and (2) whether Ivy League students are generally more intelligent. The absolute number of successful people that didn't go to an Ivy League school reveals nothing unless you can compare it to the number that aren't successful, and then consider the ratio of successful to unsuccessful Ivy Leaguers.

I don't think I'm superior because I went to Brown. I do think that it took a lot of hard work and brains to get there. I cannot account for how you got to where you are, but I'm not about to make the insulting accusation that you only got there because of your parents' wealth.

It's interesting, really. Your attitude suggests that you do feel inadequate. Otherwise, why would you try so hard to believe that I am no better than you in any way, despite the lack of any evidence?

I originally stated that I felt that the "prestige" of the Ivies is mostly and intimidation factor and personally I am unintimidated. I've had the chance to go to some very fine institutions (though not Ivy) and had the chance to meet people that went to both Ivy and unremarkable state schools. You could make the argument I am not an amazing judge of intelligence, but I some of the smartest people I have met went to state colleges of little or no prestige.

Personally, I'd like to judge someone by their work, achievements, and most importantly character and maybe I am so sort of reverse snob for doing so-- but I'd rather not here about where you got into college at 17 or 18 as an indication of very much. I happened to have worked at Brown at one time-- it's an excellent school in the sense that I respect its liberal attitudes, historic collections, and its location on the east side, but I would be hard pressed to consider it some sort of incubator of competitive academic excellence.

You may be a very brilliant guy, but I why be insulted that there are people out there smarter and more successful than you that went to state schools? I know that there are smarter and more successful people than ME out there from Ivies and from state schools-- who cares!