Southern Ivy League

[hawkette]

<p>mg,
And you accuse of having poor reading skills?</p>

<p>I’m hardly into “jock idolatry.” LOL. For me, the games and the wins and losses are secondary and certainly not how I would expect a student to self-identify. </p>

<p>I see athletic life as another branch of the social life that one gets at a college. It’s a different dimension of the collegiate experience and the impact of this dimension will vary depending on the campus that you’re on. </p>

<p>I like the fun and the hoopla that goes on around the games. I like the parties before, during and after the games. I enjoy the tailgating and seeing all of the people. I enjoy the bands and the cheerleaders and the flag wavers and the acrobatics and all of the colors. I like the pageantry and the passions of the fans. It’s live entertainment and often the best show isn’t even on the field or on the court. </p>

<p>I also enjoy the wonderful and positive energy these events can bring to a college campus and how they can connect people in a different way to their college than just thru their academic experience. But I don’t get how folks can look on this stuff with such scorn. It’s just for fun.</p>

[meangirl]

<p>

@hawkette

mg,
And you accuse of having poor reading skills?

</p>

<p>I accused you of no such thing. My exact words were that: “your reading comprehension is getting better.” I made no claims about what your reading ability was to begin with. Again, please read carefully.</p>

<p>

@hawkette

I’m hardly into “jock idolatry.” LOL. For me, the games and the wins and losses are secondary

</p>

<p>Do you hear yourself talk? If the games and/or the wins and losses are “secondary,” then why do you keep putting down ivy-level athletic competition because it is not “nationally relevant”? If the games themselves are not what matter, then what does (national) relevance have to do with anything???</p>

[Corbett]

<p>

1. It’s true that Stanford, Duke et al drop their admissions standards for athletes. So do the Ivies. IMO, there are not great differences between them and all of the student-athletes would likely be fine at either set of schools and would graduate at a rate not much different than other students.

The Ivies do far better than your schools overall, in terms of NCAA Public Recognition Awards. You’re doing a good job of finding individual sports in individual years where APRs are comparable. But you can’t escape from the overall pattern. Last year, for example, 28 Yale teams won such awards. Vanderbilt teams won 3. No great difference?</p>

<p>

2. Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame are quaint??? LOL.

Your notion that “the bands and the cheerleaders and the flag wavers and the acrobatics and all of the colors” should be an integral part of the 21st Century university is quaint. Do you like [raccoon</a> coats and straw hats](<a href=“http://www.fashionencyclopedia.com/fashion_costume_culture/Modern-World-1919-1929/Raccoon-Coat.html]raccoon”>Raccoon Coat - Fashion, Costume, and Culture: Clothing, Headwear, Body Decorations, and Footwear through the Ages) too?</p>

<p>

3. Stanford, Duke et al are the past??? Major LOL. If anything, these schools get stronger every year. Regardless of how we might differ on this, I hope you agree that all are in the top 1% of American colleges.

I’m talking about athletics. No way are these schools “getting stronger every year” athletically. Notre Dame football fans can only sadly wish. Northwestern is building on its record streak of missing the NCAA tournament. Rice football peaked in the 1950s. Stanford has given up hope of major national titles, and just hopes to be competitive in the Pac-10. Duke football is an embarrassment.</p>

<p>I will grant you Duke basketball – but that’s because Duke is prepared to go [url=<a href=“http://dukechronicle.com/node/140753]incredibly”>http://dukechronicle.com/node/140753]incredibly</a> low<a href=“sub-1000%20SATs”>/url</a> for basketball players. This is beneath the standards of other hawkette schools; for example, [url=<a href=“http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2008/11/05/stanford-vs-duke-basketball-the-difference-in-admissions-standards/]Stanford[/url”>Stanford vs. Duke basketball: The difference in admissions standards - College Hotline]Stanford[/url</a>] won’t match. </p>

<p>The notion that a great university should also have great athletics is dated. It was reasonably true once, but not since the early 20th century. As I pointed out before, it is now routine to establish a large, world-class research university and not equip it with a football team. </p>

<p>

4. I’ll concede that Stanford, Duke et al are not football powers every year, but each has had some recent success. Are you aware that, other than Duke, each of the others has played in and won a bowl game in the last two years?

That doesn’t sound quite right. Let’s check. Hmmm.</p>

<p>Northwestern hasn’t won a bowl game since 1949.
Duke hasn’t won a bowl game since 1960.
Stanford hasn’t won a bowl game since 1996.
Rice has won a single bowl game since 1954.
Vanderbilt has won a single bowl game since 1955.
Note Dame has won a single bowl game since 1994.</p>

<p>Are you aware that this is rather unimpressive?</p>

<p>

5. Re athletic competitiveness, if you investigate, I think that you’ll discover that the Stanford, Duke group of schools are very competitive in their conferences. Look at the major sports of football, basketball (men and women), and baseball and see how they’re doing. It’s impressive. By comparison, none of the Ivies are close.

hawkette, they’re only games. The notion that they really matter is quaint.</p>

<p>

I still can’t figure out the negatives that you and others see of going to Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt or Notre Dame or how their athletic life somehow damages their academic reputations. I haven’t seen it.

Different schools have leveraged athletics in different ways. Notre Dame has a reputation for football. Rice has a reputation for baseball. Duke has a reputation for basketball. </p>

<p>But the Ivy League schools have leveraged athletics in such a way as to develop a reputation for intelligence. And this is the most impressive approach of all. Let’s face it: fairly or not, the Ivies have the strongest academic reputation. The term “Ivy League” is synonymous with academic excellence worldwide. Terms like “Pac-10” or “SEC” just don’t have the same cachet.</p>

[thisgirlisaG]

<p>Duke
UNC-CH
Georgetown</p>

[episcopal]

<p>So many misconceptions…</p>

<p>First of all, the vast majority of big-time division programs are well regarded major universities (top 100 or so in the entire US) with massive endowments, successful alumni, expansive grad programs, etc. the vast majority FCS, DII and DIII universities are the “North Central Western State A&M” schools; poor, crappy and irrelevant. Not to mention the Ivy League is DIVISION I. Cornell lacrosse? Cornell Hockey? If you took your intellectual lifestyle so seriously, why not demand they drop sports all together or at least move to the NIAI?</p>

<p>Secondly, for all the talk of academia, everyone seems to have missed the fact that undergrad programs are meaningless. Grad school is what counts. Its also where you’ll see CAL, Michigan, etc. more than holding their own with Harvard and Yale, and where you wont see Emory, Wash U and all the other also-rans people listed as awesome universities. Who west of the Mississippi or outside the US cares about Dartmouth…? It gets even worse when you move into the thirties and forties… Case Western Reserve? University of Rochester? Are you kidding me? You really think those schools compare to the University of Texas?</p>

<p>The University of Chicago has been tossed around a lot. Go look up the folks responsible and the circumstances regarding their dropping of football. You’ll see that the university was BETTER before football was dropped, and that they’ve spent the last 70 or so years rebuilding their reputation. The guy who dropped football, Hitchens, thought the GI bill was a bad idea and was opposed to ANY type of physical activity… You may also remember that until recently it had around a thirty percent acceptance rate, and is widely mocked as a school full of socially ■■■■■■■■ nerds, even on college admission websites filled with said demographic.</p>

<p>Similarly, you may be aware the Wash U, Emory, et. all are rarely anyone’s “Dream School”; they are generally back-ups, attended with a bit of apprehension, and have quite a reputation for poor social life, lack of student involvement, and a whole host of other less than positive traits.</p>

<p>Athletics-less schools being the wave of the future was also brought up. This person clearly has little knowledge about college athletics, or the colleges they listed. The UC’s listed, with the exception of San Diego (with we will get to) are division I. They are also no better academically than your average sports-crazy state flagship. Within California, no one is impressed by UCSB; it’s a party school that grantees community college students with a freaking 2.9 admission. Many are also upgrading their athletic teams (UC Davis being a great example) and have student bodies clamoring for big-time sports. The only reason they don’t have them is chronic underfunding and mismanagement, which I don’t consider a plus. Universities across the country are adding teams, not dropping them. And anyone whose says Stanford should drop down to FCS and manufacture a rivalry with a school on the other side of the country is completely out of touch with reality. It’s nothing but an insecure fantasy. They simply have a chip on their shoulder because being smart never got them layed.</p>

<p>UCSD takes the cake though… No one has really heard of it, and even its students hate it. Many desperately want major sports; their student body president basically was a one issue candidate with a campaign based around DI football. It’s were you go when CAL and UCLA reject you. You know, those good for nothing sports schools.</p>

[the_prestige]

<p>

for all the talk of academia, everyone seems to have missed the fact that undergrad programs are meaningless. Grad school is what counts. Its also where you’ll see CAL, Michigan, etc. more than holding their own with Harvard and Yale, and where you wont see Emory, Wash U and all the other also-rans people listed as awesome universities. Who west of the Mississippi or outside the US cares about Dartmouth…?

</p>

<p>Excellent point regarding grad schools. </p>

<p>I wonder if there is a ranking of the top undergrad programs which consistently “feed” their undergraduates to the elite grad schools (e.g. Harvard Business School, Yale Law School, Johns Hopkins Medical School, etc.) – oh wait, there is – the Wall Street Journal Feeder Ranking. Let’s take a look at that.</p>

<p>WSJ Graduate School Feeder Ranking (Top National Universities):</p>

<p>**01) Harvard University
02) Yale University
03) Princeton University
*04) Stanford University
05) Duke University
06) Dartmouth College <a href=“who%20cares%20about%20D-mouth?%20looks%20like%20elite%20grad%20school%20admissions”>I</a>
07) MIT
**08) Columbia University
09) Brown University
**10) University of Chicago
**11) University of Pennsylvania
**12) Georgetown University
13) Northwestern University
**14) Cornell University
**15) Caltech</p>

<p>Let’s see, 6 out of the Top 10 spots held by Ivy League schools, all 8 Ivy Schools in the Top 15.</p>

<p>Where is Berkeley undergrad? Cal ranked 41st overall.</p>

<p>I totally agree that grad schools matter. And there is no better starting point on your road to an elite grad school than an elite undergrad program. Period.</p>

<p>“so many misconceptions”</p>

[meangirl]

<p>

@hawkette

Quote:
ONLY Stanford, Duke and Northwestern have “Ivy academics” if we’re using the conventional meaning of ACADEMICS, namely faculty and departmental strength. </p>

<p>What nonsense. </p>

<p>Not Rice or Vanderbilt or Notre Dame?? Oh yeah, that’s right. **They’re in the South or they’re religious. Must be full of rednecks or bigots or religious fanatics or maybe worse….Conservatives! **</p>

<p>Do you really believe that the quality of the undergraduate education is markedly different at Rice, Vanderbilt and Notre Dame than at the non-HYP Ivies???

</p>

<p>Here you are throwing the logical equivalent of a hissy fit. While it’s extremely amusing for everyone to see a 50-something cry and whine like a 5 year old, most of what you say (everything I bolded) is a complete non-sequitur. You have absolutely no idea what my religious or political beliefs are. Nor do I wish to disclose them. But let me clue you in on a little secret. Ready? Like Rice and Vanderbilt, Duke is in the South as well.</p>

<p>Allow me to further my argument and present yet more evidence that the only hawkette schools of ivy quality are Stanford, Duke and Northwestern:</p>

<p>

@the_prestige

WSJ Graduate School Feeder Ranking (Top National Universities):</p>

<p>01) Harvard University
02) Yale University
03) Princeton University
04) Stanford University
05) Duke University
06) Dartmouth College (who cares about D-mouth? looks like elite grad school admissions)
07) MIT
08) Columbia University
09) Brown University
10) University of Chicago
11) University of Pennsylvania
12) Georgetown University
13) Northwestern University
14) Cornell University
15) Caltech

</p>

<p>And the WSJ study reveals something else very peculiar. By any academic measures, Georgetown is equal to Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt and Notre Dame. In terms of professional school placement, Georgetown actually does better than all of these other hawkette schools. As for athletics, Georgetown basketball is bigger and better than any sports program at Northwestern, Rice and Vanderbilt. Yet somehow Georgetown does not deserve a place in the hierarchy of hawkette schools. I wonder why. Hmmm… Must be those darn “religious fanatics” and “conservatives,” huh???</p>

[meangirl]

<p>

@Corbett

Your notion that “the bands and the cheerleaders and the flag wavers and the acrobatics and all of the colors” should be an integral part of the 21st Century university is quaint. Do you like raccoon coats and straw hats too?

</p>

<p>Haha. Classic!! Watching you debate hawkette is like watching UT-Austin play football against Rice. Or UNC play basketball against Northwestern (except for this year).</p>

<p>Well played (excuse the pun)!!!</p>

[Knights09]

<p>For what it’s worth…</p>

<p>If I had the stats, I would be more likely to attend a UVA, UNC, Duke, etc. than a WUSTL, Emory, etc.</p>

<p>It’s not the fact that the teams are so good, it’s the fact that they exist.</p>

[episcopal]

<p>The_Prestige…</p>

<p>As you addressed only a single point from my entire post, I assume that, in your view, the rest is valid?</p>

<p>Regarding the WSJ rankings: As I’m sure you’re aware, WSJ measures admissions to PROFESSIONAL programs… These involve very little research and have nothing to do with the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, etc. Seems to me Dartmouth is more of a glorified magnet school for future MBA’s than an institution of learning. You also seem to have ignored the fact that regardless of Dartmouth’s “feeder” status in some magazine, CAL is a better school in everything that matters (ie grad programs).</p>

<p>You seem to have latched onto the Ivy League, so I feel a previous point of mine could use further emphasis: The Ivy League is a Division I conference with as many successful programs as any other mid-major conference. So let me ask you: How do you explain the fact that 12 of the WSJ top 15 have Division I athletic programs, if major college sports are so antiquated and irrelevant? Shouldn’t the list be filled with D III schools?</p>

[hawkette]

<p>meangirl,
You have a poor understanding of why I have posted supportively of the group that I do (Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt, and Notre Dame) and not including places like Georgetown and USC.</p>

<p>My respect for the Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt, and Notre Dame is because they offer Ivy level academics and they compete at the highest levels athletically, put on an athletic show that has great entertainment value for students and alumni, AND their students graduate. They are in a different, higher, class than all of the Ivies and also different from Georgetown and USC (btw, I’d love to include Wake Forest because I think that they do it right as well, but I don’t think that Wake has the same selectivity as those in the Stanford, Duke et al group and thus does not merit inclusion in the top group). </p>

<p>If you look at the record for the two major sports of football and basketball for Georgetown and USC, their graduation rates are abysmal, particularly for their signature sports. College, after all, is about academics and Georgetown’s basketball and USC’s football/basketball seem to have their priorities crossed. </p>

<p>Look at how Georgetown and USC compare to the Ivies in their Academic Progress Rate score:</p>

<p>Football </p>

<p>939 , Nat’l Avg for Division I</p>

<p>966 , Georgetown
956 , USC</p>

<p>996 , U Penn
992 , Dartmouth
991 , Brown
991 , Yale
983 , Cornell
983 , Harvard
980 , Columbia
979 , Princeton</p>

<p>Mens Basketball </p>

<p>933 , Nat’l Avg for Division I</p>

<p>942 , Georgetown
906 , USC</p>

<p>1000 , Columbia
996 , Princeton
996 , Yale
995 , Harvard
984 , U Penn
982 , Brown
977 , Cornell
976 , Dartmouth</p>

<p>Thus, I don’t feel that I can include Georgetown and USC with the premier group of colleges that offer the best of academics to go along with the best of athletic life.</p>

[meangirl]

<p>

@hawkette

meangirl,
You have a poor understanding of why I have posted supportively of the group that I do (Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt, and Notre Dame) and not including places like Georgetown and USC.

</p>

<p>No, I do not have a “poor understanding” of your flimsy arguments. As I said earlier, I don’t accept that the APR is a good metric for measuring the academic qualifications of student-athletes. </p>

<p>And for the record, I never brought up USC. Nor do I think it approaches ivy quality. But since you’re the queen of non-sequiturs, I wouldn’t have expected anything less.</p>

<p>That said, based on their admissions stats, Georgetown basketball players are not much dumber than Duke basketball players and USC football players are not much dumber than ND football players. I have no idea why there’s such a disparity in graduation rates. Maybe Georgetown and USC don’t coddle their athletes academically or steer them towards jock majors???</p>

<p>And finally, since you did not dispute that based on the WSJ study of professional school placement, the (ivy) quality of the student bodies at Stanford, Duke and Northwestern are a cut above that at the other hawkette schools, I assume that you agree with me. Thanks a bunch!!</p>

[hawkette]

<p>mg,
There is not much data to go on for comparing these schools. The most broadly used is the Graduation Success Rate data, but the Ivies don’t report it and thus can’t be used for a broad comparison. The next best data point is the APR data. You can choose to ignore if you like, but it is the only broad-based, verifiable, fact-based comparison that I know of. The APR data makes a very clear statement for the high profiency of the student-athletes of the Stanford, Duke et al group. Choose sports in which the Ivies truly compete with these colleges and you’ll find the differences are next to nil. </p>

<p>As for the WSJ’s feeder school analysis (which is now several years old), do you know anything about this? Not one of the 15 grad schools used for this reference point is located south of the Mason Dixon. Should anyone be surprised that southern colleges like Rice, Emory and Vanderbilt don’t compare well?? </p>

<p>And do you know how much of a connection is made by various MBA/Law/Med School admissions committees of what happened in undergraduate anywhere from 3-10 years earlier? I do. Not much for MBA and sometimes not much for Law. Work experience is FAR more important. Once a student has demonstrated sufficient academic aptitude, either thru undergrad transcript or via grad school exam, the vital determination is done based on work activities. The work world is not about grades; it’s about performance in the workplace. </p>

<p>I hope you’re submitting a stronger application argument to the colleges you’re applying to than the declarative bs above.</p>

[meangirl]

<p>

@hawkette

As for the WSJ’s feeder school analysis (which is now several years old), do you know anything about this? Not one of the 15 grad schools used for this reference point is located south of the Mason Dixon. Should anyone be surprised that southern colleges like Rice, Emory and Vanderbilt don’t compare well??

</p>

<p>This doesn’t seem to hurt Duke. Or explain why Notre Dame fares poorly compared to Northwestern. </p>

<p>Again, please stop with the non-sequiturs. I was talking about the hawkette schools and never once brought up Emory.</p>

<p>

@hawkette

And do you know how much of a connection is made by various MBA/Law/Med School admissions committees of what happened in undergraduate anywhere from 3-10 years earlier? I do. Not much for MBA and sometimes not much for Law. Work experience is FAR more important. Once a student has demonstrated sufficient academic aptitude, either thru undergrad transcript or via grad school exam, the vital determination is done based on work activities. The work world is not about grades; it’s about performance in the workplace.

</p>

<p>Maybe then this suggests that Rice, Vanderbilt and Notre Dame grads are not getting good enough work experiences or are not performing as well in the workplace as Stanford, Duke and Northwestern grads. Not to mention, Georgetown grads.</p>

<p>

@hawkette

I hope you’re submitting a stronger application argument to the colleges you’re applying to than the declarative bs above.

</p>

<p>I am an HYP grad, so it’s safe to say that my college application years ago was well received. Where did you go to school, by the way? Based on your posts, I am willing to bet that you couldn’t get into any hawkette school, let alone an ivy.</p>

[hawkette]

<p>No, it likely means that Rice, Vanderbilt and ND grads are going to places closer to them and which aren’t reflected in the WSJ’s study. Include places like UT or ND law/Emory or Vandy med school/Duke or UVA business school and the numbers look a lot different.</p>

[slik_nik]

<p>For some reason, this WSJ feeder report keeps getting thrown around on this thread and on CC as support for arguments. I find this laugable and amusing because it is poor support. First of all, it is outdated; it was done in 2003 and never repeated. WSJ got most of their stats for this report from one graduating class, which is poor statistical analysis (experiments need to be repeated in order to be statistically sound). Secondly, it is not quite scientific for reasons I already stated. Plus, it has professional school bias; the schools with the more “pre-professional environment” (i.e. Duke, Stanford, Harvard, Yale, etc.) have positive bias. I would rather trust USNWR than this outdated ranking that many of you think is legitimate. Before criticizing the arguments of others (especially the arguments of hawkette), make sure your claims are well-supported as well.</p>

<p>And you simply cannot argue that the student bodies at Stanford, Duke, and Northwestern are a cut above Rice’s, Notre Dame’s, Vanderbilt’s, etc. The difference in SAT score ranges and avg. high school GPA is minuscule between all the top 20-25 schools. Northwestern actually had a higher acceptance rate than Rice. Sure, that doesn’t mean Northwestern is inferior to Rice because it is not. My point is they are all peer schools with different atmospheres; one is not going to have a better student body than another. All these schools are going to have intelligent, bright student bodies. As I stated many times on this board, there are many students at Rice, Vanderbilt, WashU,
Emory, and Notre Dame who were admitted to your “worshipped” Ivies, Stanford, Duke, MIT, Caltech, etc. but they chose these schools because they offer the same caliber of education and a better fit for them.</p>

[meangirl]

<p>

@hawkette

Include places like UT or ND law/Emory or Vandy med school/Duke or UVA business school and the numbers look a lot different.

</p>

<p>None of these professional schools are elite (top 5) institutions, which is the whole point of the WSJ study. </p>

<p>This still does not explain why Duke > Rice=Vanderbilt or Northwestern > Notre Dame. Despite what you say is an East Coast and Midwestern “bias,” Stanford did fine too, especially since Stanford Law and Business schools, both of which are top 5, were not included in the survey.</p>

<p>Again what undergraduate institution and/or professional school did you attend? Based on my 3.85 gpa at an HYP undergrad and a 174 LSAT score, I am assured of at least an acceptance by Columbia, Chicago or NYU Law (when I apply in a couple of years). I even have a decent shot at HYS Law.</p>

[meangirl]

<p>

@slik nik

For some reason, this WSJ feeder report keeps getting thrown around on this thread and on CC as support for arguments. I find this laugable and amusing because it is poor support. First of all, it is outdated; it was done in 2003 and never repeated. WSJ got most of their stats for this report from one graduating class, which is poor statistical analysis (experiments need to be repeated in order to be statistically sound). Secondly, it is not quite scientific for reasons I already stated. Plus, it has professional school bias; the schools with the more “pre-professional environment” (i.e. Duke, Stanford, Harvard, Yale, etc.) have positive bias. I would rather trust USNWR than this outdated ranking that many of you think is legitimate. Before criticizing the arguments of others (especially the arguments of hawkette), make sure your claims are well-supported as well.

</p>

<p>Sorry if Rice did not do well in the WSJ feeder report. Not my fault. I like the school and you can get a good education there. (But at the end of the day, it does not have true national let alone international appeal. It’s a nice regional school with half of its applicants from its home state and a yield rate of approximately one-third. But it’s no HYPS or even Duke.)</p>

<p>And if you’re so keen on long-term statistical analysis. Look at the historical cross-admit rates between Rice vs. Duke, Stanford, Harvard, Yale, etc. They are truly “laughable” and “amusing,” especially considering that Rice has cheaper tuition and begs fully one-third of its admits to go there with merit $$$. (Stanford, Harvard, Yale, etc. do not even offer merit aid and Duke doesn’t just give it out to anyone.)</p>

<p>More proof that Duke > Rice. In the Duke forums, there exists NO thread that asks: “Is Duke as respected as Rice”? Duke students KNOW their school is better than Rice. Rice students aren’t so sure their school is as good as Duke:</p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/rice-university/136350-rice-respected-duke.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/rice-university/136350-rice-respected-duke.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[hawkette]

<p>Elite to you is not elite to me. If I want to be in Dallas or any other major SE/SW city, I’d be thrilled to have gone to UT Law School. Who the heck needs to go to the schools that the WSJ sampled (Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Chicago, Michigan). Similar arguments can be made about the med and business schools. </p>

<p>What you are missing is that there are MANY excellent colleges and grad schools across the USA. And there are even more excellent student bodies spread out around the USA where the quality is every bit as high as what is found in the historical elites. </p>

<p>For someone who scored well in the classroom, you’ve got an awful lot to learn outside of it. Come back and talk to me after 5-7 years in the workplace.</p>

[meangirl]

<p>

@hawkette

Elite to you is not elite to me.

</p>

<p>Sorry you never experienced truly ELITE institutions from an educational point of view. </p>

<p>But have fun at their sporting events. Anyone who buys a ticket can go. Remember to bring your pom-poms.</p>

<p>

@hawkette

What you are missing is that there are MANY excellent colleges and grad schools across the USA.

</p>

<p>I never disputed this. But what YOU are missing is that some colleges and grad schools are MORE excellent than others. Besides, you’re the one who’s always making trivial distinctions between schools and bashing what are otherwise “excellent” schools (especially Cal and Michigan). Not me.</p>

<p>

@hawkette

For someone who scored well in the classroom, you’ve got an awful lot to learn outside of it. Come back and talk to me after 5-7 years in the workplace.

</p>

<p>In 5-7 years, I could be your boss.</p>