<p>Rehnquist and O’Connor weren’t from Ivies, IIRC. Pac-10 FTW</p>
<p>Sorry, ran across this thread and found it interesting.</p>
<p>Ivies DO matter (apparently a lot) since we’re here arguing this, and I’m sure there are plenty of threads covering the same topic. </p>
<p>Going back to the Supreme Court topic and politicians with Ivy backgrounds, I would like to state that people who attend Ivies obviously excel in academia or pulled one heck of a bluff to fool those adcoms. If you have not noticed, people who go to Ivies mostly do succeed post-college because if they can make it in the cutthroat game of admissions, they’re prepared to rise to the top once again after graduation! 
</p>
<p>There are some amazing school that aren’t “Ivies” like MIT, Caltech, Stanford, Duke, UChicago, UMich-Ann Arbor, JHU, and the list goes on and on. People who go to Ivies aren’t bad, and so what if several politicians went there? Some aren’t the most competent when it’s crunch time (i.e. Bush), but Gore’s no slouch. Colbert didn’t go to an Ivy, but he owns everybody! ;)</p>
<p>To people who attended an Ivy (or similar-caliber school), you simply shake their hand, congratulate them, and walk away because they have accomplished something spectacular (thanks to Kenny ‘The Jet’ Smith for the quote). </p>
<p>To think that Ivy Leaguers do not provide a good enough perspecive to ‘run’ our world is quite strange (in comparison to non-Ivy Leaguers) because don’t Ivies emphasize diversifying their student populations (although there are the ‘quintessential Ivy Leaguers’ still present)? Ivy Leaguers have a great track record for incredible success, as we all know.</p>
<p>Sure, it’s great to have diversity (with people from sveral different schools), but some of you seem bitter towards the Ivies! Well, that’s my two cents; best wishes! :)</p>
<p>Buffett said he wasn’t satisfied with the education at Wharton which was why he transferred.</p>
<p>I actually read that article on NYT and thought that it was a very interesting connection. All but one of the supreme court justices came from either a Ivy undergrad, grad, or law school. The exception is a judge that went to U of Chicago then went to Northwestern Law school.</p>
<p>Big Dreamer - “People who go to Ivies aren’t bad, and so what if several politicians went there? Some aren’t the most competent when it’s crunch time (i.e. Bush), but Gore’s no slouch. Colbert didn’t go to an Ivy, but he owns everybody!”</p>
<p>Colbert for President!</p>
<p>The current US Supreme Court:</p>
<p>Name - College/Law School
Roberts - Harvard/Harvard
Stevens - Univ. Chicago/Northwestern
Scalia - Georgetown/Harvard
Kennedy - Stanford/Harvard
Souter - Harvard/Harvard
Thomas - Holy Cross/Yale
Ginsburg - Cornell/Harvard & Columbia
Breyer - Stanford/Harvard
Alito - Princeton/Yale</p>
<p>Next up: Sotomayor - Princeton/Yale</p>
<p>So it looks like an Ivy degree is not an official requirement for a seat on the supreme court, but it’s pretty much the functional equivalent of a requirement. In fact one of the criticisms of Hariett Miers’s qualifications that helped sink her nomination to the court was that she hadn’t attended a fancy law school (SMU).</p>
<p>But how many of us actually plan to sit on the US Supreme Court someday? For the vast majority of careers in this society the appropriate degree from any respectable college or state U will get you there just fine.</p>
<p>I think the point people have to understand is that people who are the most driven in our society and show the most capacity are the people who are most likely to sit on the Supreme Court and are the most likely to be people who go to the Ivy Leagues</p>
<p>^^Yeah, those things usually go hand in hand, but in the case of Supreme Court nominees, observers and critics do in part judge their qualifications by the strenth (i.e. prestige) of their legal educations. As in the recent Harriet Miers example, she was a talented, driven attorney who rose to the high level of Chief White House Counsel. But when it came time for the Supreme Court merely being driven, talented, and successful wasn’t enough. She was bashed for having “only” gone to SMU. As it was put at the time: “the second best law school in Texas.”</p>
<p>We shouldn’t be judging people by where they go to school, we need to judge them on their merits and characteristics as a potential supreme court justice.</p>
<p>I"m not usually on the Ivy side, having gone to Northwestern :). But…I have to say when it comes to the Supreme Court, a level of intellect and ability to read and understand is incredibly important at a very deep level. It is one of THE most intellectually demanding positions in the world and the people who go to Ivy’s can be extremely intellectual in a really academic way. I think the Supreme Court is one place where this type of intellectual, critical thinking is just paramount. As for President? I think a little bit of the common touch is in order, like State School undergrad and whatnot, just because it’s a position which requires a broader perspective. FWIW</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I agree that in a perfect world we shouldn’t be judging SC nominees that way. But the current reality is that we do. Both their “merits and characteristics” and their educations are considered to be important.</p>
<p>The title of this thread should be “HYP Do Seem to Matter…”. It’s not the ivy league actually, it’s just the top 3 schools in the nation. Cos the bottom ivies did just the same as other non ivies in term of producing famous politicians.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah it’s true. And even then more Harvard and Yale than Princeton.</p>
<p>Columbia scored a (rare) win with Obama though in the great presidential sweepstakes.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t be surprised, however, if “lower ivies” started producing more national leaders in the years ahead as they now have student bodies that are just as awesome as the “upper ivies.” The brightest kids the lower ivies ever had are the ones who are there right now.</p>