KJH Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > “A lot of the kids may be rich, or even spoiled, > but they are still outperformers and far more > intelligent and capable than your average joe at a > top ranked university.” > > I couldn’t disagree more! Must be nice to have > mommy and daddy buy your way through life. Both of you are making gross generalizations. let’s say a rich parent wants to pay a lot of tuition for jr to go to a good prep school. he can either work hard or not. to call him an outperformer just b/c he’s there is just like assuming he isn’t for the same reason.
mlh97 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Both of you are making gross generalizations. > let’s say a rich parent wants to pay a lot of > tuition for jr to go to a good prep school. he can > either work hard or not. to call him an > outperformer just b/c he’s there is just like > assuming he isn’t for the same reason. Well said.
numi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Danteshek, every post wherein you express your > extreme (and unfounded, in my opinion) disdain for > the top academic institutions and the people who > graduated from them only makes them look better > than their competitors, not worse… You often misinterpret my posts. As a former D-1 athlete, you must have an appreciation for the kind of individual places like Harvard and Stanford sometimes admit to play sports. You may be very intelligent and probably could have gotten in without having been recruited. That doesn’t change the fact that there are some pretty stupid people on some of the athletic teams. Case in point: my father’s teammate on the Harvard football team in 1968, the guy who caught the “winning” 2-point conversion against Yale in the famous 29-29 tie when Harvard scored 16 points in the final 42 seconds, had 800 on his SATs. Combined. It might not be that bad in this day and age, but schools still have a tendency to admit a fairly large % of people who don’t really belong there. My fraternity at Wesleyan also had a huge number of idiots. One guy wrote at a 4th grade level. Now he builds roads in Connecticut.
>I have observed that certain prep schools outdo even the most prestigious colleges in >terms of consistently producing quality graduates. Even Harvard has a huge % of morons >(legacy, athletes, whatever). This is much less so at some of the top prep schools. Could not be more wrong. I went to one of these top prep schools for high school and there were many morons who were bought in by their parents or through sports. My graduating class had less than 100 people but our basketball team was one of the best in the state because we recruited athletes from the ‘hood who otherwise couldn’t read. I’m pretty sure Harvard has some sort of literacy requirement in this department. Many more in my graduating class ended up going to the local, no-admission standards required state school and then going back home to become VPs of their parents’ businesses. I personally got into my school because my parents were friends with one of the headmaster’s friends; not that I needed that connection (I was straight A student in elementary/middle school) but my school had a long wait list of people wanting to get in and knowing someone pushed me to the head of the line. In conclusion, like numi said every time you open your mouth about something like this you stick a humongous Bruno Magli-clad foot in it. Please don’t even try.
“As a former D-1 athlete, you must have an appreciation for the kind of individual places like Harvard and Stanford admit to play sports.” how can you compare harvard and stanford sports? it isn’t even close. if harvard really was all about bringing in dummies for their sports teams, you’d hear about them every once in awhile. but you don’t. when was the last time harvard played in a halfway decent bowl game or make the ncaa tourney as a decent seed? maybe you could make that argument in 1968, but its a lot harder to do that now.
Sure, Stanford is obviously better than Harvard at sports (with a few exceptions probably), but that isn’t the point. At most prestigious colleges, at least 10% of the student body doesn’t belong in college, let alone at a prestigious one. Places like Andover (except for the post grads) and Harvard-Westlake (where I went) simply don’t have this problem. 100% or 99% of the students are well prepared for college.
You habitual preoccupation w/ namedropping and general elitism makes make you come off as being defensive bc you did not “live up” to your family’s legacy and attend a Ivy. Legacy, sports, and family $ are influential in prep school admissions too, so get over yourself. The keyword in all of this is “sometimes.” Your problem is you turn it into a “fact”. I played water polo vs Bear, Harvard and Princeton and confirm none of them were there for their athletic skills ; )
akanska Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You habitual preoccupation w/ namedropping and > general elitism makes make you come off as being > defensive bc you did not “live up” to your > family’s legacy and attend a Ivy. Legacy, sports, > and family $ are influential in prep school > admissions too, so get over yourself. > > The keyword in all of this is “sometimes.” Your > problem is you turn it into a “fact”. I played > water polo vs Bear, Harvard and Princeton and > confirm none of them were there for their athletic > skills ; ) Well said. BTW, do you have pictures to prove you played water polo?
farley013 … but it would be such a shame to ruin all your colorful fantasies 
Not ruin…confirm.
akanska Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You habitual preoccupation w/ namedropping and > general elitism makes make you come off as being > defensive bc you did not “live up” to your > family’s legacy and attend a Ivy. Legacy, sports, > and family $ are influential in prep school > admissions too, so get over yourself. You may think I am conceited, but that is not the case. I got a great education at Wesleyan, something I think would have been more difficult for me to receive at a larger school, given where I was maturity-wise at the time. I chose to apply early decision to Wes and withdrew all my other applications, including the one to Harvard. The feeling was that Harvard had cut my brother a break and that they were unlikely to do it again, despite my credentials being similar. My parents and college counselor also thought I was too immature to attend a large school and that would do better in a small school environment. You are right though about wanting to live up to my family’s legacy. It is extremely important to me. But that has nothing to do with where they went to school. It is more related to the impact some of them had on the world. I am just telling it how I think it is. I state my opinions in a direct manner, but they are just opinions.
Danteshek Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > numi Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Danteshek, every post wherein you express your > > extreme (and unfounded, in my opinion) disdain > for > > the top academic institutions and the people > who > > graduated from them only makes them look better > > than their competitors, not worse… > > You often misinterpret my posts. As a former D-1 > athlete, you must have an appreciation for the > kind of individual places like Harvard and > Stanford sometimes admit to play sports. You may > be very intelligent and probably could have gotten > in without having been recruited. That doesn’t > change the fact that there are some pretty stupid > people on some of the athletic teams. Case in > point: my father’s teammate on the Harvard > football team in 1968, the guy who caught the > “winning” 2-point conversion against Yale in the > famous 29-29 tie when Harvard scored 16 points in > the final 42 seconds, had 800 on his SATs. > Combined. It might not be that bad in this day > and age, but schools still have a tendency to > admit a fairly large % of people who don’t really > belong there. My fraternity at Wesleyan also had > a huge number of idiots. One guy wrote at a 4th > grade level. Now he builds roads in Connecticut. OK, I see what you’re saying. That’s really pretty much true of most schools though – there are going to be students that are “above the curve” so to speak as well as those below, but who are able to contribute to the scholastic community in other ways (such as sports, for example). My high school academic credentials compared very favorably to even non-athletes, but that doesn’t make me think less of my teammates who may not have been as academically accomplished. By that same token, hopefully those students that were more academically gifted than I was don’t look down upon me either. Importantly, what I really respect about my classmates and colleagues is that we generally don’t get preoccupied with making excuses for ourselves or thinking about the “what if’s” in life (e.g. how my life would have been different if I went to another school, and constantly having to prove to others that I could have done it “if I really wanted to”). Speaking for myself, I’m well aware of my strengths and weaknesses, and I don’t do “fancy talk.” I let my results speak for themselves. Also, the fact remains that all classes of society have some quantity of smart and hard-working individuals as well as some quantity of unfocused and lazy individuals, with the proportions being greater or lesser depending on the social class. It might make for a good “underdog” story for the top prep school kid to demonstrate more intellectual horsepower than a graduate from a top university, or even a similar peer from a public high school. However, while there may be “slackers” or mediocre performers at the top academic institutions, there are certainly even more of them elsewhere, including prep schools (I know because I went to one). As such, your selected anecdotes about success and failure may be entertaining, but are essentially just hand-picked to prove a point that isn’t actually substantiated by the broad base of academic or professional data. Anyway, if you believe me to have misunderstood what you were saying, then my only response is that there have been too many generalizations flying around on this board and sometimes it’s hard to tell what people really mean when they’re making such broad statements. My only point is that I’m not in the business of judging or disrespecting people based on where they came from – I’m only really interested in what people do today and tomorrow. If someone came from a privileged background and are better positioned to succeed, more power to them – people should learn maximize every strength and advantage they have. However, if I’m looking at the academic, athletic, or professional performance of someone, I really couldn’t care less what socioeconomic background people came from as long as they work hard and produce good results. Reputations are made or broken based on results. Hopefully that clearly explains my point of view. You and I probably just have very different opinions about the merits and demerits of certain social or academic backgrounds, and how much they really matter as compared to being able to generate the results themselves. If this is the case, we may just need to agree to disagree.
>You may think I am conceited I don’t mean this to be a personal attack, but with your very modest background and achievements no one is mistaking you for conceited. A Harvard MBA with a 7-figure hedge fund job can be conceited. You’re more accurately described as misguided or resentful.
farley013 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > >You may think I am conceited > > I don’t mean this to be a personal attack, but > with your very modest background and achievements > no one is mistaking you for conceited. A Harvard > MBA with a 7-figure hedge fund job can be > conceited. You’re more accurately described as > misguided or resentful. We see the world very differently you and I. You idea of success may be the 7-figure hedge fund income, but it is certainly not mine. My sense of self is not rooted in how much money I make.
>We see the world very differently you and I. You idea of success may be the 7-figure >hedge fund income, but it is certainly not mine. My sense of self is not rooted in how >much money I make. You’re probably right since I don’t see anything in your background or experience (schools, jobs, income, personal achievements, etc.) that would indicate a history of success to me. Again, not meant to be a personal attack but as you said that’s just the way I look at things, and to me, you calling yourself conceited is like a midget calling Shaquille O’Neal a freak for being 7 feet tall.
Everything you have said to me on this board has been a personal attack, including that last post. Sometimes they are veiled, sometimes not. Regardless, and I don’t mean this as a personal attack, you are the midget. You don’t understand the value of liberal education and speak only one language. You are a provincial nincompoop.
You can call me names all you want but I’m not going to bite. In the grand scheme of things my income taxes pay for your liberal, no-valued-added-to-society education and lifestyle. Your attitude is similar to the street bums and housing project thugs who look at successful Wall Street people with disdain when in reality we’re the ones paying for their welfare checks and food stamps.
bump - excellent gmat post On a side note, it is a shame Farley is no longer with us.
ditch, if I ever meet you, I’m going to buy you a beer
XSellSide Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Right now my goal is to get a GMAT date on the > calendar and then apply for a fall of '09 start. > I’m also trying to squeeze in the CFP. I’ve been > perusing gmatclub.com and already have CFP study > materials. Family commitments have prevented me > from starting any serious CFP studying yet (late > August and beyond gets easier). The main thing for > me is to just get the GMAT on the calendar so I’m > forced to study and take it. August and beyond got HARDER, not easier! LOL. I bailed on the CFP mostly because I don’t think it’ll add value in my longer-term situation. The situation I’m working towards already has CFP holders there. I might circle back to it some day. The MBA is on hold because I’m hoarding cash and keeping a clean balance sheet for… “opportunities”.