[Getsome]

I didn't read thru all of this and I may be pulling a red rider but this video is right on track with a couple of people's ideas here.

http://www.xroadsfilms.com/batescomedycentral/

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

WTF are you talking about?! The man has a degree from YALE! And not in art. Then he managed to fly fighter jets without killing himself. The man is not dumb.

1. Yale is just a school, and anyway, he got C's. Cs are average, so this proves only that his college performance was average. As a graduate of a graduate program, once you are in, you are in, and again, Harvard is just a school...It aint no Wharton, anyway.

2. He was a legacy student, and a legacy flier...His father was WWII hero material. GW went into the Available Nasty Girls to avoid a war...Just like Clinton and the hippies (avoiding military service in an actual war...).

3. Idiocy is a lack of capability, ignorance is a lack of acquired information. Dumb-ass is making poor choices. Don't we all occaisionally exhibit all three? His are just REALLY public.

4. Freud used coke.

5. Mozart drank.

I think he is a man of average intellect, who has been somewhat economically unsuccessful in his private affairs, but successful in partnerships, who parlayed a corn-pone charm and common conservative buzz words into a very successful political career. Good for him. Unfortunately, his mistakes, though no more prevalent than anyone else's, tend to cost jobs, lives, and international esteem. I would hope that our Presidents in the future represent the best and brightest, not the lowest common denominator.

[luvtolean]

It is my experience that an Ivy League school is different from a say state school. And not easier.

How about you?

[Mo Noyz]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

It is my experience that an Ivy League school is different from a say state school. And not easier.

How about you?

Ummmm...........

[fat2k3]

Originally Posted by analogbear

I would hope that our Presidents in the future represent the best and brightest, not the lowest common denominator.

Hope is the worst of evils, for it prolongs the torments of man.
Friedrich Nietzsche

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

It is my experience that an Ivy League school is different from a say state school. And not easier.

How about you?

Well, elitism at its best...

Having been to both myself, and having good friends who attended UPenn then the New School for Social Research (it is not as scary as it sounds), Yale and then CUNY, Columbia and then Pace, and several of whom teach and have taught at both types of schools as either under/ and graduate profs of Philosophy or Economics, or were Law Profs, I think that (as this topic has come up a lot while we're drinking) the primary differences (beyond the product-differences of having a degree with greater esteem and social-deference--look at the turn of THIS conversation) are the following:

Ivy:

1. The student body as a whole is more intellectualy and academically advanced, and this provides for a more stimulating classroom --not so significant in most undergrad classes, as they tend to be informational rather than theoretical.

2. Faculty scholarship tends to be greater, but the practical effect of this is less student-teacher rapport on the grand scale, and no real requirement that profs be good educators.

3. Lots of money for facilities. Well, yeah. I absolutely love the library, and none are better than the ones (more than 6!) at Harvard.

4. Academic program freedom: looking at least to Yale, the law school there is theoretical, and there are no required classes. There are also no letter-grades given. The idea is that there is a presumption of competence.

5. Expensive

Non-Ivy:

1. State: not expensive, Private: expensive.

2: State: usually some relaxed admissions policy, so unprepared students abound.

3. Profs often have an inferiority complex about not being at an Ivy, so thay overwork students or are too demanding and adherent to the letter of things rather than the spirit of things.

4. If there is a division 1 or 2 sports program, everyone else has to advocate for their department to get funds. If done well, the department will flourish. If there is no sports program, everyone is fighting over scraps.

SAME:

1. Quality of education:
a) There are many times more ivy and good private/state school-trained PhDs out there than there are positions as instructors, lecturers and professors. So, even Pike's Peak Community College in Colorado Springs, CO will have the same quality-level of faculty members as an NYU, or University of VA, and a UPenn. In fact, mere pedigree is insufficient at the non-Ivy schools. A documented ability as an educator, a teacher, is really the deciding factor in non Ivy schools, and this factor is all but irrelevant to the Ivy school who wants on-faculty the leading scholar in a given sub-discipline.
b) Students get out of college what they put into it. Ivy students are no different in this than there standard school counterparts, and generally, an A student at a state school would be an A student at an Ivy...Perhaps more easily so with the modern grade-inflation trend. State schools, under the misconception that limiting the number of A students will increase the esteem of the school, and its graduates, by the general population generally limit the number of As given --especially in professional schools like Law, Medicine, Business, and Social Work.

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by analogbear

Well, elitism at its best...

Having been to both myself, and having good friends who attended UPenn then the New School for Social Research (it is not as scary as it sounds), Yale and then CUNY, Columbia and then Pace, and several of whom teach and have taught at both types of schools as either under/ and graduate profs of Philosophy or Economics, or were Law Profs, I think that (as this topic has come up a lot while we're drinking) the primary differences (beyond the product-differences of having a degree with greater esteem and social-deference--look at the turn of THIS conversation) are the following:

Ivy:

1. The student body as a whole is more intellectualy and academically advanced, and this provides for a more stimulating classroom --not so significant in most undergrad classes, as they tend to be informational rather than theoretical.

2. Faculty scholarship tends to be greater, but the practical effect of this is less student-teacher rapport on the grand scale, and no real requirement that profs be good educators.

3. Lots of money for facilities. Well, yeah. I absolutely love the library, and none are better than the ones (more than 6!) at Harvard.

4. Academic program freedom: looking at least to Yale, the law school there is theoretical, and there are no required classes. There are also no letter-grades given. The idea is that there is a presumption of competence.

5. Expensive

Non-Ivy:

1. State: not expensive, Private: expensive.

2: State: usually some relaxed admissions policy, so unprepared students abound.

3. Profs often have an inferiority complex about not being at an Ivy, so thay overwork students or are too demanding and adherent to the letter of things rather than the spirit of things.

4. If there is a division 1 or 2 sports program, everyone else has to advocate for their department to get funds. If done well, the department will flourish. If there is no sports program, everyone is fighting over scraps.

No elitism at all. Having been to all 3, ivy, state and community actually, I found Ivy the most difficult. With community much tougher than state. Before I'd gone to Stanford, I said just what you do. I mean, they use the same textbooks and everything right?

I agree with what you say, if I didn't make it red.

I haven't looked much into Yale's law school as I'm pretty sure I couldn't get in. I know they are currently ranked first in the nation. Their BAR pass rate is in the 90's and so is their employment rate. Lower tier law schools pretty much always have a lower BAR pass rate.

I also happen to know at most other Ivy league law schools, the program is set in stone, as visualized by an incompetent lawyer cum Harvard law prof by the name of Langdell. It's the standard first year at every school I've looked into. You take torts/contracts/civ pro/crim law/property and con law. (My GF is currently suffering through all of this, and I'm paying close attention as I'm considering law school when she's done, so I have a pretty good idea how it works.)

In 1870 he built a program of law based on law as a science, that college admins loved as it meant more lawyers per teacher.(so more profits) It also has guaranteed most lawyers graduate from school "not fit for trial". Many law profs have never worked as lawyers. Several have never bothered with the BAR.

SAME:

1. Quality of education:

Totally, and completely disagree.

First off, as you say, the ivy leagues have lots more money. As an engineering student at Stanford, you have access to a wafer fab! In physics the linear accelerator. At state schools you can't have the same experience or learn the same things!

The higher level of students forces you to work at a higher level. I agree the "A" kids at state would do well at Ivy, but the B and C kids at state, would find it much tougher going. The lower tier at state is far less selective than the lower level at Ivy.

IME, I got incredibly good teachers (I was at the grad level). I only took a few classes before I had to quit, but the 3 teachers I had were all surprisingly good, enthusiastic people, working on very interesting research. Maybe I just got lucky. But I don't think so.

Let's not forget, the best teachers from around the world are applying to work as a prof at the ivys. They are able to select the very best talent...where state has to take what ivy passes on. They also worked the living hell out of us.

Now, as an undergrad, I have had profs at Stanford tell me state is better due to teacher/student ratios. But not at the grad level.

If there was grade inflation, I didin't see it.

The ivy leagues turn out great scholars, and highly theoretical people. Where state does better with practical education as there's more hands on.

But if we're to judge intelligence on grades, after my experience, I will always give kids that goto an ivy league school the benefit of the doubt.

BTW, I didn't quit Stanford due to poor grades, it was due to several personal issues that made the timing poor.

[luvtolean]

BTW, my experience at "state" was the Cal State "CSU" system. The other state funded "UC" system is tougher, Berkeley is certainly close to Stanford.

But it's close for all the same reasons you list the Ivy schools as better above. Very selective of students ( I had a friend in HS turned down by Berkeley, accepted by Stanford), great funding and prestige that draws profs.

[analogbear]

Sorry to break this to you, but Stanford is not one of the "ancient eight," and though an awsome school, is not really an Ivy league school. I would argue that in some ways it is better, but it is more "like an ivy than an ivy."

Yale has no required courses in the law school. Zero. The others (Ivy and not) have a required first year program plus usually a fed tax, a professional responsibility class, and an evidence class. Christopher Columbus Langdell's model is poor, but it is "what we got..." Join the NLG and fight the power!

"The higher level of students forces you to work at a higher level. I agree the "A" kids at state would do well at Ivy, but the B and C kids at state, would find it much tougher going. The lower tier at state is far less selective than the lower level at Ivy."

Again, the profs chosen for the Ivy schools are SCHOLARS, not necessarily TEACHERS. There is a huge difference, and to me an all important one.

I agree about C- through B having it tougher.

[luvtolean]

You a lawyer?

[luvtolean]

BTW, I guess we'll call it "West Coast Ivy".

[analogbear]

I have been so accused, but I prefer Doctor of Jurisprudence, which is a more philosophical approach to the law, ethics and applied morality.

Of course, all JD degrees ay Doctor of Jurisprudence...

[luvtolean]

Oh yeah, the "Doctor of Jurisprudence"...explanation aside, you wouldn't want to go by the old law title LL.B or Bachelor of Law...doesn't give enough status.

And of course my favorite, the Master's in law, next step up, is a Master's in Law or LL.M.

PM coming.

[analogbear]

I had a prof who had an LLB; he majored in law at the undergraduate level. He was also older than dirt, and taught his first law class before WWII...Scary.

[analogbear]

I like the JSD, the Doctor of Juridicial Science...With enough post grad education credits and writing for 3 full doctoral degrees...

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

BTW, I guess we'll call it "West Coast Ivy".

To quote the shaq/ ali g advert: "We'll just agree to degree..."

[Baketech]

Originally Posted by analogbear

I like the JSD, the Doctor of Juridicial Science...With enough post grad education credits and writing for 3 full doctoral degrees...

And here you are boinking about in an internet forum...sounds like money well spent...

[sheepofblue]

OK I am confused in one post there is a comment of him being a "C" student (which is not even passing in a Engineering Masters ) then in a later thread he claims that Yale does not even give grades It would seem at first glance that one statement is FALSE. Also grades can be an indicator of intelligence but they measure much that has nothing to do with intelligence.

[luvtolean]

Bush did his MBA at Harvard. I don't know if C's are or aren't passing in biz, but yeah, in engineering you're in real trouble if you don't maintain a 3.0.

Yale has grades in at least some of their other programs, but apparently not in law.

[sheepofblue]

Of course the liberals like to claim Al Gore was a genius and he flunked out of seminary. Also as far as daddy being important Al Gore Sr. was VERY powerful in TN and voted against the civil rights act. He also failed to Graduate from Vanderbilt Law School (I am not in that area but the buzz is that it is very respected) Of course he did create the internet while Bush was drinking and doing coke...

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by Baketech

And here you are boinking about in an internet forum...sounds like money well spent...

Of course, I didn't say that I had that JSD. Mine is a garden variety 84-credit post-grad with a publishable article degree, the JD. I was mocking the JSD, and L2L was mocking the LLM...

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by analogbear

and L2L was mocking the LLM...

...and the irony that the "first" law degree now contains "Doctor" in the name, while the next higher has only "Master" as it wasn't updated to reflect the renaming of the LL.B to JD.

But hell, all kinds of well edjumicated spend far too much time posting here. Hell, we've even had profs.