1. I have the utmost respect for Harvard. It IS number 1. But you must understand that Yale and Princeton do make up what is referred to in the League as “The Big Three.” We in the League all know it. But as an obvious non-Ivy Leaguer, you don’t. And you know who else believe that Yale is a member of “The Big Three”? THE LAST THREE PRESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES!

2. The need scholarships are given to students who are primarily from underprivileged backgrounds who qualify academically for admission. These need scholarships are not the type of athletic scholarships given to Division I athletes. Some admission standards may be bent for our Division II athletes but not to the extent that they are in Division I.

3. I am not denying that “OU” leads the nation in the number of National Merit Scholars attending the university. But COME ON, it is an attempt to gain respect from other schools. I bet you are an excellent statistician. Check out the University of Oklahoma’s overall rankings and other comments fromn The Princeton Review and U.S. News. It is NOT an elite academic powerhouse.

4. True that Oklahoma has better athletes than the Ivies. But check out that school’s graduation rates of its football team. Then compare them to similar Ivy statistics. And if you find out what “OU” jocks are doing 20 years after they have used up their NCAA eligibility, let all of us know. I bet they can’t compare to the Ivies that are currently RUNNING THE WORLD!

1. The Yalies and the little Tigers of Princeton are the only schools that promulagate the concept that there is a “triumvirate” in the Ivy League. Everybody knows (or at least anoyone that counts) that Harvard is in a league by itself.
2. The Ivy League does offer athletic scholarships. They are called (euphemistically) ”Need” scholarships and they are based on HS grades, ranking, SAT scores—but most importantly athletic ability. I know from experience.
3. Check your facts on the National Merit Scholars. OU is #1.
4. I think the Ivy League would let OU compete in Football—IF OU ran a single-wing offense and was force to play only athletes that ran the 40 yard dash in 6 seconds or higher. That would level the playing field.

Bulldogs, Bulldogs, Bow-Wow Wow…Eli Yale. Gimme a break, my little Yalie friend.

Check it out — much thoughtful considerations being given there.

As for Mitt Romney, I think, unfortunately, that a Mormon (and thus a polytheist) would have a hard time selling himself to the Evangelical domination of the Republican party. Religion is VERY important to them (obviously), and I think those beliefs would be a hard pill for them to swallow once these beliefs become public–which I am sure you KNOW that they will. Would make great press. Hey, a Catholic had to steal an election 40+ years ago, and a Jew has NEVER been elected. And one one Southern Baptist. A Mormon?–that’s a stretch.

I used to work with a guy that was collegiate-minded and was almost obsessed with who went where to school. I’ve been out for almost three decades and that subject just isn’t part of my normal realm of thought, except for what I perceive as an overwhelming Leftist bias in higher education in general, especially in the Universities. I saw it happening in the early 70s, and it is absolutely pathetic today.

Thanks for hangin’ out here in the SoCal Okie Zone. You can see that I foster dialogue on this blog, even when I’m the target.

BTW — maybe the next pres. will have come from BYU? ‘Course he does also have 2 degrees from Harvard, and was valedictorian of his graduating class at Harvard Law School. Oh well, still a “leaguer”.

“OU” would never be INVITED to join the Ivy League. You just don’t “care to join.” And Yale is proud to play in a conference that offers NO athletic scholarships and treats football as basically a glorified club sport. Remember, Okie, all players graduate and, someday, will join the Bushes and Clinton as notable alumni making their marks on this earth. And, most likely, will be directly or indirectly SIGNING YOUR PAYCHECKS! So, you SHOULD CARE!

PS I’m really getting to like your site!

You must be real proud of the 43rd Pres., his being from Yale and all, but I doubt it.

As far as the Ivy League, I don’t care! Means nothing to me. I doubt that OU would care to join. Maybe Yale would like to play OU every year in football. That would be fun to watch! Toodles … (db)

1) Okie: Thanks for clarifying the involvement in the Wall Street Journal in all of this. I don’t have the time for all this type of research as I am out in the real world making REAL MONEY as a self-prclaimed and PROUD Ivy Leaguer elitist. And as for the therapy comment, based upon my reading of the summaries of your personal background, I think I am not the only one who needs therapy, OKIE!

2) JForce: Yale costs in excess of $40,000 a year, not the $30,000 that you mentioned. And Harvard is not reagarded as simply THE school in the Ivy League. A true Ivy knows that the BIG THREE are Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Harvard has the largest endowment, but Yale is the school who has a graduate on every one of the last SEVEN winning U.S. presidential tickets. Not all are liberals, but the Yale elite RUNS THIS COUNTRY politically, and those “in the know” know this. And as for the University of Oklahoma and its National Merit scholars–you have GOT to be kidding me! That statistic may be true, but I think that is a reflection of the manipulative mentality of that school’s administration. Boy, we Ivies should think about adding Oklahoma to the League, huh? WHAT A JOKE!

1. Harvard is THE school in the Ivy League. All the others seven are mere academic and endowment dwarfs.
2. The University of Oklahoma has more National Merit Scholars than any other USA University—including Harvard and the seven dwarfs.
3. The only distinction that Yale has over OU is that it costs $30,000 per year and its football team is categorically atrocious.

Vade in pace, my little Bulldog friend.

“Too bad you don’t pay attention, [Brian]. The NYT and the LAT were the papers that did the digging and wrote their articles based on “leaked-classified” information. Only after the administration was made aware that both papers were going to release the story did they go to the WSJ and discuss it with them.”
Patterico says it much better than I.

Some commenters and bloggers have suggested that the Wall Street Journal is equally culpable as the New York Times and Los Angeles Times for leaking classified information about a successful anti-terror program. Now that I have had a chance to read the full Wall Street Journal piece, I disagree.
Based on my reading of the relevant articles, the responsible parties here are only the New York Times and the L.A. Times. The Wall Street Journal simply printed a story using on-the-record interviews with named government officials who knew the East and West Coast Timeses were going to print the story anyway.
The key questions are: 1) which papers were conducting an investigation by speaking with anonymous officials about classified information? and 2) which papers were asked by the government not to print the stories? The answer to both questions, based upon reading the stories, is: the New York Times and the L.A. Times — not the Wall Street Journal.

“LIBERAL IVY LEAGUE university” Not much of a clue dude — they’re all Liberal in the Ivy League!

Yeah, get therapy and be normal like Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, Al Frankin, Dick Durban, or Nancy Pelosi — Uh, tryin’ to cut back! Oh, and thanks for noticin’ my bias — I do try so hard to show it off . . . (db)

Maybe some therapy is in order for you. Life setbacks can be dealt with in a professional therapeutic situation and not in a blog. Think about it.

PS Go Elis!! (If you know what that is. Hint: The mascot from a LIBERAL IVY LEAGUE university. O NO!!)

I suppose it�s part of �the people�s right to know�. Surely it wouldn�t be a �payback� for the trouble the Times got from the public for publishing classified documents about the war and TROOP MOVEMENTS. [yes I�m being sarcastic]
Looks like Bob Kell…