Ivy League

[BrainBuff]

No, you come off it.

ALL schools in the Ivy League are great. No one has said that non ivies ,(Stanford, MIT, Duke, UChicago, Virginia for ex) are worse schools. Next time, take the time to read the post, please. You seem to be suffering from a common complex among some ivy leaguers. Afraid of being judged by people that have a misconception about the schools or...a predisposition. If people "assume that you are superior", that is their problem, not yours (unless you were bragging or rubbing it on people faces..)

Personally, I find most U Florida alumni extremely arrogant and unbearable about their alma mater. Many Harvard graduates are always afraid of dropping the H- bomb. That reflects more their insecurities than on anything else, in my opinion.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[LizzyM]

I'm just popping in to talk about a pet peeve of mine: the Ivy League is an athletic conference. There is nothing magical about the Ivy League as opposed to other top notch colleges and universities.

Sorry to be so nitpicky, as I'm sure most people here basically understand this (heck, it may even have been mentioned already; I haven't read most of the thread). I worked as a standardized test tutor/college admissions advisor for a few years, and I definitely had students with some bizarre obsession with the Ivy League. It took some work to dispel this notion that the Ivy League was some stamp of awesomeness. Very good schools are very good schools, no matter what athletic conference they belong to.

And a pet peeve of mine: commenting in a long, long thread without having read the thread. We've been over this.

 

[Tiare208]

And by the way, I think you did a disservice to those you tutored. The Ivy League IS really a stamp of awesomeness. I am amazed at your very "concrete thought process"

I did read your post. Ivy League is no more a stamp of awesomeness than any other school that is just as highly thought of. Such as Stanford. Or MIT. Or a lot of other schools.

 

[BrainBuff]

If you read my post Tiare208, then you have some problems with comprehension. I never said that the ivy league was MORE of a stamp of awesomeness THAN any other school.

Let me be redundant: The Ivy League is REALLY a stamp of awesomeness.

And I am taking LizzyM hint's on this discussion.

 

[atomi]

-

 

[Tiare208]

It's called "implying." The person said before you that Ivy League is not a stamp of awesome over ANY OTHER SCHOOL, so high school students should look at what school is a fit for them, not what athletic league/date of origin. You then said that that person was wrong. At any rate, I'm happy to follow suit on your suggestion.

On another note, it's interesting how people start attacking intelligence/comprehension when they're in debates on these forums. This isn't a BrainBuff-specific comment, and it's certainly not meant as a criticism--it's something I've noticed in general in quite a lot of threads. I wonder if the Internet and the anonymity we think it gives us makes us feel more free to attack each other instead of responding with logic. I don't think that the same people who are so vituperative here would be in person. Thoughts, anyone?

 

[atomi]

-

 

[searun]

Someone has been spending too much time listening to that sage, Rush Limbaugh. But Rush is really just an entertainer, not a serious social commentator.

 

[atomi]

-

 

[tiamat360]

I wonder if the Internet and the anonymity we think it gives us makes us feel more free to attack each other instead of responding with logic. I don't think that the same people who are so vituperative here would be in person. Thoughts, anyone?

Yes.

 

[atomi]

-

 

[atomi]

-

 

[searun]

Seems like there is more than one person here who doesn't know anything about Ayn Rand. Her studies were in history and philosophy. She was a philosopher, but since you cannot earn a living through philosophy, she was a writer by trade and expressed her philosophy (which I by no means agree with 100%) through her novels.

You are saying that is impossible to create a meaningful and philosophically relevant work of fiction, which is an outrageous statement. I could not disagree more.

1. What I am saying is that her novels do not accurately depict American society at any point in its history. Her novels represent her personal critique of American society in the context of her own values. Some people agree with her, many do not.

2.Actually, many people earn a living writing and teaching about philosophy.

3. Ms. Rand's world never existed anywhere but in her own mind and in her fiction, and frankly, she was not a very good writer, but she could be provocative, which got some people's attention. If you want to drink the kool aid and be a true believer, be my guest.

 

[Tiare208]

I think this thread has just jumped the shark given that the word "vituperative" was used in a thread debating the perceived elitism of the Ivy League.

Sorry, I just REALLY like fun words that aren't used to often, especially when they sound like what they mean. Besides, my lowly state-school graduate parents have used that one in front of me...

 

[tiamat360]

I think this thread has just jumped the shark given that the word "vituperative" was used in a thread debating the perceived elitism of the Ivy League.

Yeah, how dare Tiare use a word people who haven't gone to Ivy League schools can't possibly know .

Or maybe he/she, you know, used the word because he/she assumes most people on these forums have a certain vocabulary level that includes the word "vituperative," regardless of where they went for undergrad...

Nope, it's gotta be elitism!!

 

[searun]

Yes, "vituperative" is a wonderful word. Three cheers for "Vituperative!"

 

[slowbutsteady]

And a pet peeve of mine: commenting in a long, long thread without having read the thread. We've been over this.

Our beloved LizzyM is getting feisty.

me likey.

 

[slowbutsteady]

Seems like there is more than one person here who doesn't know anything about Ayn Rand. Her studies were in history and philosophy. She was a philosopher, but since you cannot earn a living through philosophy, she was a writer by trade and expressed her philosophy (which I by no means agree with 100%) through her novels.

You are saying that is impossible to create a meaningful and philosophically relevant work of fiction, which is an outrageous statement. I could not disagree more.

Someone has been playing with "the google" again.

Methinks atomi goes to the University of Wikipedia.

Please, share with us more detail about this "real world utopian society" of which you speak. where was it and who wrecked it?

(You do know, I assume, that "real" and "utopian" are contradictory concepts?)

 

[atomi]

-

 

[slowbutsteady]

I mean, I think it's a cool word too, just not something you hear every day (I've never heard that word spoken, ever).

Here's the obscure word test:

1. Type word into Google and hit enter
2. If at least 5 of the first 10 results deal with the definition of that word, nobody will know WTF you're talking about if you use it in your speech.

I rest my case.

 

[atomi]

-

 

[atomi]

-

 

[atomi]

-

 

[slowbutsteady]

I never once said anything about a "real world utopian society." And like I said, I have actually read her books all the way through, which I'm not really sure you have. If you knew anything about Rand, you would know she writes about dystopias, not utopias.

If you're referring to the great society I am talking about, I am talking about the United States of America from the early 1800s to the early 1900s. I figured this should be easy enough to conjure. During this time, this United States was for the most part Laissez-faire, with more and more government intervention up until the Great Depression. During this time, slavery was abolished for the first time in the civilized world (most Western Europe too - even though some kingdoms were still around), and no matter who you were, you had the chance to rise as high as your mind and ambition would take you. There was no government stealing your income, there were little regulations and taxes to punish the success of your business, and there were certainly no handouts for those who felt it wasn't 'fair' for the able-minded to get rich while the weak-minded and lazy had to live in poverty. During this time, the industrial revolution occurred, and society progressed a thousand times more in that one hundred years than it had in the past thousand. It was because of this time that America grew to become a superpower. It was because of the freedom that America allowed that this growth happened.

Now, I don't go as far as Rand does and say that allout Laissez-faire is the ideal system. I think there should be a few additional protections and levies by the government, as the early 1900s demonstrated abuse of labor. But I do agree with her on income tax.

Now, are you going to continue trying to make me look like an idiot without any original thoughts who can only come up with things to say using google? Maybe you are saying that because that is what you are doing - running to Google to figure out what I'm talking about then realizing you don't really have a retort except an ad hominem.

You are a perfect example of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

I haven't heard anyone seriously argue that society was "great" during the Industrial Revolution in a very long time -- perhaps never.

--child labor (10 year olds working 80 hour weeks for pennies)

--unsafe working conditions (profit-driven employers cutting corners resulting in countless death and injuries in the workplace)

--no minimum wage ("freedom of contract" run amok; the only "freedom" was that of the employers ripping of the workers)

--etc

--etc.

--etc

Well, you're right, it was "great" for those "captains of industry." sucks for them that they can't maximize THEIR profits at the expense of the worker anymore. though they love to try.

Ever read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair? give it a glance and get back to me.

Or maybe you prefer the vision of history found in novels. Those fantasy writers can make that crap sound pretty cool.

 

[45408]

Someone has been spending too much time listening to that sage, Rush Limbaugh. But Rush is really just an entertainer, not a serious social commentator.

This is right behind Godwin's Law and Burnett's Law in the list of inevitable comments in a political thread.

 

[scarletgirl777]

lol at the idea of returning to pre-Industrial Revolution.

 

[slowbutsteady]

Retorts:

#1: Her works are fiction. This would be a valid point if she were writing non-fiction. She has made up characters and events to demonstrate her philosophy (which, like I said, can of course be done with fiction). The fact is, people get angry when they read her books because her stark theme of individualism makes them feel insecure (i.e., there really are people out there who are in full control of their own lives and don't succumb to societal influences???).

#2: Ms. Rand was, in fact, one of these people. However, nobody paid her to philosophize because their product needed philosophy. She had to make a living with philosophy indirectly through writing and lectures.

#3: This is a blatant ad hominem criticism. Additionally, for English not being her first language, I think she was a very good writer.

Confused: Are our so-called "ad hominem" attacks on Ayn Rand or you? I think she's dead, so her feelings won't be hurt.

 

[tiamat360]

ad hominem

I'm sorry, that word's too big for me. Can we go back to basic vocab, like "vituperative"? Thanks.

 

[RoadRunner17]

You are a perfect example of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

I haven't heard anyone seriously argue that society was "great" during the Industrial Revolution in a very long time -- perhaps never.

--child labor (10 year olds working 80 hour weeks for pennies)

--unsafe working conditions (profit-driven employers cutting corners resulting in countless death and injuries in the workplace)

--no minimum wage ("freedom of contract" run amok; the only "freedom" was that of the employers ripping of the workers)

--etc

--etc.

--etc

Well, you're right, it was "great" for those "captains of industry." sucks for them that they can't maximize THEIR profits at the expense of the worker anymore. though they love to try.

Ever read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair? give it a glance and get back to me.

Or maybe you prefer the vision of history found in novels. Those fantasy writers can make that crap sound pretty cool.

If you want to get a little bit more of an idea of what the quoted poster is talking about, read A Peoples' History of the United States by Howard Zinn. Based on primary sources and discusses history from the labor side of things. Indeed, it was a great time for the robber barons but not so much for the people who worked for them.

 

[slowbutsteady]

If you want to get a little bit more of an idea of what the quoted poster is talking about, read A Peoples' History of the United States by Howard Zinn. Based on primary sources and discusses history from the labor side of things. Indeed, it was a great time for the robber barons but not so much for the people who worked for them.

I think our good friend, atomi, imagines himself in his fictional world as a captain of industry, not a sweat shop worker with no minimum wage or maximum hours laws.

if he just works hard enough, and is good enough and smart enough -- he will attain his dreams.

i guess all those sweat shop workers were stupid or lazy or both -- otherwise, they inevitably would have been running things and living in the house on the hill.

it is inevitable.