<p>^ People also like the calling to a higher public service. Arnold Swarzenegger is an example.</p>
<p>Fortune magazine had an article about Pepsico CEO Indra Nooyi…the article mentioned she’d be a good candidate to be wooed to a government advisor position. It helps round out their resume with a variety of experiences, and the they get the thrill of tackling some problems on a larger stage - despite the lower pay.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agree. But I’m not sure I get your point. That doesn’t mean that we can assume those in the public sector AREN’T motivated by money </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a poor example with regards to financial motivation. Arnold (Hollywood), Robert Rubin (ex-McKinsey and Goldman), Jon Corzine (ex-Goldman), Hank Paulson (ex-Goldman) – these are all guys that had hundreds of millions of dollars in the bank before they answered the call to public service (or a cynic would say – esp. in Corzine’s case – the ultimate ego boost). I mean Corzine effectively “bought” his way into politics – he spent over $60 million – the most expensive in Senate history – on his campaign to become NJ Senator. He outspent his GOP counterpart by a whopping $50 million dollars. This is a guy that had not served a single day in an elected position then became a Senator literally overnight. He is now Governor of New Jersey. You think that he’s a really lucky guy? Is he particularly good at speeches? Does he have natural born instincts as a savvy politician? Did he have groundbreaking ideas with regards to public policy? Perhaps he’s really charismatic? No. His bank account is particularly charismatic. This underscores the point about money and politics.</p>
<p>So let’s be real for a second. If you want to be a serious player in government – i.e. a Senator, Governor, etc. you have to be either rich or have some serious rich friends.</p>
<p>Let’s not over romanticize the public sector is all I am saying. It is just as susceptible to corruption and greed as any other. Just look at Spitzer for the latest example of hypocrisy from “those who serve the public”.</p>
<p>^ Yeah, Arnold Swarzenegger is a better example. I agree with you on money and politics.</p>
<p>My example was talking about her taking on a cabinet post…not becoming elected, but rather appointed because of her expertise. It’s analogous to Condoleeza Rice. But, I imagine Indra Nooyi gets paid a heck of a lot more as CEO of Pepsi than Rice did as provost for Stanford.</p>
<p>Ivy grads get good jobs cause they were smart enough in the first place to get into those schools and do well at them. A diploma doesn’t mean crap if you don’t have the skills</p>
<p>^ Thank you Dragondefonce</p>
<p>^^I agree. the only reason the Ivies are so famous is cuz they recruit such awesomely smart people. Try putting an idiot in harvard and see where he goes…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, not to make an overly political statement, but seems to me that the current President - a Yale and Harvard graduate - went pretty darn far. </p>
<p>To be fair, let me point out that his election opponents, Gore and Kerry, weren’t exactly the most brilliant of students either. For example, Al Gore was a mediocre high school student who graduated only 25th out of a high school class of 51, hence barely within the top 50% of his class, yet got into Harvard anyway because his father was a powerful Senator. His mediocrity continued at Harvard, with his sophomore year in particular being worse than any of Bush’s semesters at Yale. Similarly, John Kerry, who went to Yale, actually ended up with a worse college GPA than Bush did. </p>
<p>[Gore’s</a> Grades Belie Image of Studiousness (washingtonpost.com)](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18]Gore’s”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18)</p>
<p>[Yale</a> grades portray Kerry as a lackluster student - The Boston Globe](<a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/07/yale_grades_portray_kerry_as_a_lackluster_student?mode=PF]Yale”>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/07/yale_grades_portray_kerry_as_a_lackluster_student?mode=PF)</p>
<p>Yet all 3 of these chaps seemed to do very well for themselves later in life despite their mediocre academic performances.</p>
<p>All these three politicians had sick family connections, as well. In Bush’s case, his family influenced him to become what he is more so than for others…Not necessarily the result of his abilities.</p>
<p>^^To be fair Gore was smart, he just didnt work. (and its weird cuz the two of us have exactly the same IQ)</p>
<p>And for what its worth Gore graduated Cum Laude from Harvard</p>
<p>I don’t think there is much doubt that the family connections got each of George W., Gore and Kerry into their Ivy colleges. We all have our opinions about whether they deserved it or not (count me as a NO for all three) and I wonder if they would have been admitted today. </p>
<p>But not all politicians are intellectual lightweights. I doubt anyone would say this about Senator Clinton and, while Obama’s campaign might be flying on a lot of fluff right now, I don’t know many folks who would consider him intellectually challenged. McCain’s academic achievement was much less as he was constantly in trouble at Annapolis and graduated near the bottom of his class (that maverick streak was obvious, even back then and not sure if we want that in our commander-in-chief). But probably the smartest and most academically accomplished of all was Mitt Romney who was valedictorian of his class at BYU before going on to be a Baker Scholar (top 5%) coming out of Harvard b-school.</p>
<p>yup, Mitt Romney is THE man. He got a perfect score on the SAT btw</p>
<p>Bush scored a 1200 on his SAT. Converted to today’s score that is ~ 1320, hardly an idiot and good enough to get into many top 25 universities today. Although not intellectually elite, this hardly qualifies him as an idiot. I bet you can find people at some IVY and equivalent schools with equivalent SAT scores. Hell a 1320 is plenty good enough for U-Michigan…not really a school of dummies.
[Bush/Gore</a> Grades and SAT Scores](<a href=“http://www.insidepolitics.org/heard/heard32300.html]Bush/Gore”>Bush/Gore Grades and SAT Scores)</p>
<p>Factor in grade inflation and those "C"s on the transcripts would in all likely hood be B+s today.</p>
<p>1320 would be on the very low end for Yale today.</p>
<p>how’s the SAT back in the days converted from 1200 to ~1320 today? what’s the reason for the conversion?</p>
<p>I bet he did not study for it either. Ya think?</p>
<p>a 1201 SAT score back then correlates to an IQ of ~129. </p>
<p>[Pre-Recentering</a> SAT to IQ Estimator](<a href=“http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/oldSATIQ.aspx]Pre-Recentering”>Pre-Recentering SAT to IQ Estimator)</p>
<p>A 129 IQ on pre 1996 SAt is ~1240</p>
<p>[Pre-Recentering</a> SAT to IQ Estimator](<a href=“http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/oldSATIQ.aspx]Pre-Recentering”>Pre-Recentering SAT to IQ Estimator)</p>
<p>1240 pre recentered SAT ~1300-1320 recentered (1996-present SAT)</p>
<p>In essence, the SAT is an IQ test and all 3 SATscores above equate to an IQ of ~128-131, or 2 standard deviations above the mean. Stated another way, someone with these scores has an IQ greater than ~95%ish of the populaton. Hardly an idiot.</p>
<p>Be careful making decisions without fully analyzing the available data.</p>
<p>NOOOO i can think of two ivy leaguers right now who are less than 26.</p>
<p>one is a substitute teacher and baseball coach (Yale)
one has spent 5 years out of Columbia doing SAT tutoring- not exactly high income jobs right there</p>