I went to Stanford for one year undergraduate and then got depressed and went back home to recover. I eventually finished out my undergraduate schooling at a second rate (not even a first rate by the rankings) public school. To my surprise, I found that there were plenty of smart, interesting people there. Also, I found that in many classes I couldn’t just skate through; I did have to study hard and apply myself. (The honors society/junior achievement crowd I hung out with in high school all thought poorly about the local state school I ended up graduating from, incidentally.)

Ivy Leagues are centered around LSATs (or SATs in the case of undergraduates). My SATs were slightly lower than average for white males like myself–I suspect in part I got in to Stanford because of geographical diversity. I’m not sure if I feel as you do on this matter because I’m feeling sour grapes over not doing as well as some of the people I met there or if there is a more legitimate reason that is motivating me.

Perhaps it’s self-serving, but I do feel as if there are some legitimate reasons which rise above my axe to grind over SAT scores. There is a political side to law, and as in the case of politics per se, no one represents your interests better than yourself. It’s very unlikely that smart people can represent the interests of everyone as well as people who are from the various socioeconomic groups they claim to represent.

In fact, it’s very likely that smart people are in fact representing their best interests best. Take, for example, the sexual revolution as instantiated by the sex saturated movie and TV industry. Who benefits from the sexual revolution?

Smart people, for whatever reason, seem to be able to step around or over many of the land mines associated with the sexual revolution. But smart people can be very promiscuous, you say. They have affairs and get divorces like everyone else. Yes, true enough. But smart people don’t have five children from different fathers despite not being able to support any of them and having to give them all up to foster care. I work as a manager of an economy motel, and I’ve seen this situation. When I cut paychecks I’ve seen who has to pay child support (and for how many kids). Did the sexual revolution work for the housekeepers in this situation I’ve gotten to know?

But their lives might have turned out messed up and difficult, regardless. Might have been, yes. But might not have been had marriage been much more normative and living together and shacking up something not as socially acceptable as it is now.

The Supreme Court didn’t cause this, but they have protected the “rights” of pornographers and resisted attempts to legislate morals on the internet and elsewhere.

If we built a “user-friendly” world for people who weren’t the brightest of the bright, our world might look very different from how it is now. But groups almost always vote for what’s best for the group. Individuals can be exceptions to this rule, but with groups, almost never.