| Topic Name: |
Ivy vs. Non |
| Message Name: |
What is intellect? |
| Date Posted: |
02/08/2001 |
| In Reply To: |
OK you wrote a book I suppose that deserves a reply.
I partially agree with your somewhat marxist apologetic argument that success at the elite, means...for the most part... acting like and being raised in the elite.
In fact I had the same viewpoint when I was an undergrad at Dartmouth, LL Bean capital of the world, as I believe you put it.
But that is not the only explaining variable. Since leaving Dartmouth and entering the real world, I realized people are, on absolute terms, much smarter at Dartmouth than anywhere else I go, not just a wee bit more clever but a different league all together. I am talking NFL vs. XFL (good analogy actually). Even the prep school bone heads at Dartmouth are higher than the mean when I enter the professional world.
Intellect is not a socially constructed entity, although one can argue standards to measure the ability to articulate are cultural... to some degree...but not completely.
But just because ivy league kids are smarter does not mean that top end state school kids are not just as smart. And just because some state school kids are sometimes more hungry, does not mean there are a few ivy leaguers who are just as hungry. Bill Gates I would call hungry, for example, if he counts.
Jeez, all this flaming. There are no absolutes. Fun though... |
| Message: |
Thanks for the well thought out response. I agree with many of your points. I think everyone has different experiences when it comes to encounters with the "mythical" Ivy League grads. I won't dispute the validity of your observation that Darthmouth people are, as a whole, more intelligent than the average person. I would say that in general, I too have noticed that students from "top" schools are generally more competent than the average person.
However, I would deconstruct that further and ask why. Again, I believe the room cause is cultural rather than the quality of education. If you examine the values espoused by the culture in which those students were raised, intellectualism is high on that list. They are unlikely to talk about Britney Spears or Jerry Springer and are far more likely to discuss literature or what they are learning in school. I don't believe this is a manifestation of intelligence, rather a manifestation of interests.
An excellent example of that is my sister. I'm considered by many to be an "intellectual", as I discuss ideas or events rather than people. My sister, on the other hand, is an underachiever in school. Her grades are relatively poor and she likely won't gain admittence into the same calibur school from which I gradauted. However, she has an uncanny ability to instantly memorize songs as soon as she hears them. She need only hear a song once, and she can memorize 90%+ of it. I can't even come close. She can also remember names and phone numbers instantly and I can not. So who is more intelligent and what makes that determination? I would argue that intelligence is very much a social construct, and there is no solid or consistent definition of intelligence.
Dartmouth and other Ivy League alums I know are what I consider wise - they know many facts and are willing to share those facts. I consider my sister to be intelligent, because she is able to take in information, categorize and process it innately with no effort. The manifestation of that intelligence is different because she wasn't raised in a culture where being cerebral is valued, so she channeled her intellect into different avenues (e.g. memorizing Jay-Z songs). Your definition of intelligence might be quite different. That difference is created by social constructs of what defines intelligence.
With that said, it is incumbent upon a good school to deconstruct her social avarice towards scholarly and intellectual pursuits and channel her intellect in a more productive manner. That, to me, is what makes a school truly excellent. Ivy league schools are simply retainers, because it's giving people who already know how to channel their abilities an outlet for four years. Most of them aren't much smarter at the end...they just have more facts. To me, it doesn't prepare them for much. If those resources were devoted to my sister, it may yet challenge her to become better - and fit for a Big Five firm. It's environmental.
With that said, firms should definitely spend more time understanding the root of intellect, and recruit accordingly - not based on knowledge, but based on demonstrated ability that coincides with the tools a good consultant needs. I have it, and I'm not an Ivy League grad. With work, my sister could too. It's a shame that it may never be realized, and I blame the elitist, caste-oriented educational system for that.
|
|
