<p>^^Man, not this thread.</p>
<p>“40 years ago, Ivy League universities used to be exactly that. But, as we’re all aware, the world has become so filled with perfect resumes and blue-blood connections that ivy league has become more of a status symbol than a sign of broad intellectual interest.”</p>
<p>No. Forty years ago, the Ivy League schools were bastions of the WASP establishment. They were less competitive because the applicants were self-selecting. The top schools had quotas on immigrants, Jews, Asians, and other “undesirable” applicants and didn’t even care about merit until well into the 1960s. Ivy League students are much more “intellectually curious” now than they were 40 or especially 50 years ago. If you’re looking for an undergraduate school where students are intelligent and more concerned with intellectualism than any kind of prestige, I would suggest the University of Chicago. Chicago, of course, is “where fun goes to die” and it does not have much of a reputation outside academia. As such, those who matriculate at Chicago tend to be those who really value intellectual pursuits above all else. I think that’s what you’re looking for.</p>
<p>amarkov,
What’s wrong with “dissecting movies in order to dissect the social messages hidden inside [them]”? Why do you object to disciplines like literary analysis, social criticism, and cultural studies? You claim that we are the cultural elitists, but you seem to have no respect for the humanities. As for the “upper class,” I think it’s safe to say that the richest (in terms of monetary wealth) members of contemporary Western society are those in the bourgeois business and investment classes, not the social and cultural critics!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t understand this statement at all. Why would intelligent people be less inclined to academic, highbrow pursuits? Wouldn’t you assume that smart people would have a higher percentage of intellectuals than the average population?</p>
<p>^^ it didn’t say less. it just said not much higher.</p>
<p>having been around ‘intelligent people’ for some time, i have to agree. intelligence=/=academic.</p>
<p>Come on people, not this thread. Take it somewhere else.</p>
<p><quote>No. Forty years ago, the Ivy League schools were bastions of the WASP establishment. They were less competitive because the applicants were self-selecting. The top schools had quotas on immigrants, Jews, Asians, and other “undesirable” applicants and didn’t even care about merit until well into the 1960s. Ivy League students are much more “intellectually curious” now than they were 40 or especially 50 years ago. If you’re looking for an undergraduate school where students are intelligent and more concerned with intellectualism than any kind of prestige, I would suggest the University of Chicago. Chicago, of course, is “where fun goes to die” and it does not have much of a reputation outside academia. As such, those who matriculate at Chicago tend to be those who really value intellectual pursuits above all else. I think that’s what you’re looking for.</quote></p>
<p>Hard for me to believe, given that economic disparity in this country has been growing catastrophically over the last 40 years–thanks in large part to The Chicago School (pseudoscience which I wouldn’t touch with a 10-foot pole). In reality, the grip of upper class WASPS on the Ivy League has only grown, as they still gain acceptance very easily. What has actually been removed is middle class whites, who used to come to the Ivy League with voracious intellectual appetites. They have been removed to give the horribly superficial appearance of having diversified the university and weakened the control of the upper class, when really the only effect is that intellectual openness has been shut out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then clearly you haven’t been around “normal people.” It’s just absurd to suggest that people that have top grades and SAT scores are going to be only a little more intellectually curious than average.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t object to the existence of the humanities. I object to the idea that everyone who goes to the top schools should love and embrace them. When humanities majors are required to take 6 semesters of technical subjects for breadth requirements, you can complain about universities not respecting the humanities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ever heard of people who study really hard just to get good grades? They get top grades, but they don’t give a damn about ‘intellectual’ stuff (science, politics, social issues). Their intellectualism is restricted to that which will help them get top grades.</p>
<p>These are the kinds of people who get straight A’s, but will give you a weird look if you read non-fiction books like popular science or politics (since they won’t help you in your classes)…</p>
<p>I don’t define people who have to work hard to get their A’s as “intellectuals”… just hard workers. That was the main axiom of my earlier post-- good grades ~= smart (although one would hope for the reverse to be true). Under that definition, the intelligent people are probably more likely to aspire to be the kind of person you desire to associate with.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ignoring all the baseless assumptions you’ve made (have you looked at any relevant demographics data?), it seems the foundation of your entire argument is that the middle class white students have voracious intellectual appetites that the non-white or non-middle-class students cannot hope to possibly match.</p>
<p>Does that sound incredibly offensive to anybody else?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure there are plenty of people with good grades that aren’t intellectual. And it’s not just among the hard workers. But to suggest that they exist in the roughly same proportion as people without good grades that aren’t intellectual? There’s just nothing to back it up, and there’s no reason to think it’s a valid assumption.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well yes. I was responding to ThisCouldBeHeavn’s assertion that people who ‘have top grades and SAT scores’ are going to be significantly ‘more intellectually curious’, which i find isn’t true, since hard workers who aren’t very smart can achieve both.</p>
<p>ThisCouldBeHeavn, what i’m tryin to get at is that intelligence doesn’t have a strong correlation with being intellectual. there’s some correlation, of course—i don’t deny that—but intelligence (high IQ, quick to learn) definitely does not imply someone being intellectual (interested in science, cares about politics) most of the time.</p>
<p>My close group of friends are like that. They’re all intelligent, but most of them are definitely not intellectuals.</p>
<p>I have a big hunch that OP is a ■■■■■…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Totally agree Ray, especially about the demographics data part. Ivy Leagues, although not bastions of merit, are still far more equal, merit-based, and fair than they were 40-50 years ago, especially for the middle-class who previously were shut out from admission to these universities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good post.</p>
<p>St. John’s Annapolis.</p>
<p><quote> Ignoring all the baseless assumptions you’ve made (have you looked at any relevant demographics data?), it seems the foundation of your entire argument is that the middle class white students have voracious intellectual appetites that the non-white or non-middle-class students cannot hope to possibly match.</quote></p>
<p>Does that sound incredibly offensive to anybody else? </p>
<p>As a middle-class white student, I find this offensive anyway. Not all rich kids who go to a top university are going as a status symbol. Not all non-whites are only in because of AA. The notion that they are somehow “less intellectually curious” is, to me, ridiculous and I feel like this thread is simply your way of venting your frustrations.</p>
<p>Guess what? I consider myself intellectually curious. I love learning and the prospect of choosing a major freaks me out because I’m interested in so many things. And yet if, as I suspect, you suspect an intellectually curious person to be someone who, as another poster put it, dissects movies for deeper meanings or constantly wants to talk about things such as The Meaning of Life, then I think you would be mistaken. Intellectual curiosity manifests in a variety of ways, and I still stick with my original point that it’s arrogant to assume that the only “intellectually curious” students would be found at a top college. If there all being shut out, where are they going?</p>
<p>Edit: how on earth do I format the quote? It’s driving me crazy.</p>
<p>use [ instead of <.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think in a way, you agreed with the OP’s view on the subject. Colleges have become nothing but brownie-point givers- the people who have the best structured lives, work ethic, and “suck-up” attitude are the ones who rise to the top.</p>
<p>As opposed to the magical system in which college admissions line up perfectly with what everyone involved would like, yes?</p>
<p>It’s true that the things colleges make decisions based on don’t guarantee that intellectual students will be admitted. But at least everyone knowledgeable about the admissions process can say “okay, we’re looking for this this and this”. That’s much better than a process where everyone pretends they have a perfectly accurate system of admitting only the most intellectual students.</p>