7 ms·
> And, in addition, because at least presently, anyone who didn't do Ivy+ is essentially never going to be a SCOTUS judge. For your example, you need to do a p
by Kon-Peki 3y ago
> And, in addition, because at least presently, anyone who didn't do Ivy+ is essentially never going to be a SCOTUS judge.
For your example, you need to do a post-graduate degree (law) from the Ivy+. This article is talking about the gating functions of the undergraduate admissions departments.
The graduate school admissions officers are far more likely to consider strong candidates from "normal" universities than their undergraduate admissions colleagues are to consider strong candidates from "normal" public high schools.
Also, consider Harvard Extension. People shit on it constantly and call it the backdoor, not-so-honest way to get associated with Harvard. But in reality, it is more of a front door into a "make of it what you will" program. A significant number of the people that actually graduate use it to get into high-quality PhD programs that would have otherwise completely ignored them based on their past and their lack of "proper" pedigree.
In my mind, the undergraduate portions of these universities are pretty much lost causes. But their graduate schools are far more meritocratic and, much more importantly, fixable without burning everything to the ground. Because if you want to burn it all down and start over you are going to have to fight against all the rich and powerful people, and probably aren't going to win.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago> For your example, you need to do a post-graduate degree (law) from the Ivy+. This article is talking about the gating functions of the undergraduate admissions departments. 6 of the 9 nine current justices did undergrad at Harvard, Yale or Princeton.
- Kon-Peki 3y ago25% of the current Ivy+ SCOTUS judges did not go to an Ivy+ for undergrad? With additional reforms of the graduate programs would you expect that future numbers would increase or decrease? EDIT - for some reason it will not allow me to reply to your reply... There are 8 current judges from Ivy+ law schools and 6 of them went to Ivy+ undergrad programs. That's how I got to 25%. I guess I question why increasing the number of judges on the Supreme Court would change the percentage of (non-Ivy+ undergrad --> Ivy+ JD) justices. I would think that the only way to do that is to increase the number of non-Ivy+ undergrads admitted to the Ivy+ JD programs. I mean, increasing the number of balls you randomly draw from a bag of balls increases the odds of getting one of the rare balls. But increasing the proportion of rare balls in the bag such that they aren't rare anymore increases the probability more, with the added benefit for every formerly rare ball that wasn't selected for the bench.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y agoI would expect changing the size of the court to have more impact. And BTW, 3 of 9 is 33%.
- 8note 3y ago> People shit on it constantly and call it the backdoor, not-so-honest way to get associated with Harvard. This sounds like it's not actually going to Harvard, and you'd only get the slimy Harvard benefits by pretending you did a different program at harvard
- Kon-Peki 3y agoI appreciate your statement in support of my argument :)
- dublinben 3y agoThe Bachelors program via the extension school very much is "going to Harvard" college, and taking the same classes alongside students who were admitted the traditional way. What you're describing is a more appropriate critique of the 'professional certificates' that they sell people to brandish their resumes and LinkedIn profiles.
- whelp_24 3y agoIs the work at Harvard Extension not as hard? Or is the complaint about prestige (class)?