The IvyGate Index: Hollywood
The following episode of the IvyGate Index® has been rated WTF for strong language and a graphic depiction of a complete lack of Ivy dominance.
Welcome to the third (and probably final) installment of the IvyGate Index®, our hyperscientific gauge of Ivy influence in arbitrarily chosen fields. This time: Hollywood! Are you ready for your close-up?
To measure Ivy dominance of the film industry, we sicced our in-house team of Nobel number crunchers on the 78th Annual Academy Awards. We knew it was a gamble: Hollywood is not the Ivy slumber party that, for example, the media and the executive branch are. But how bad could it be? Movies are important … and nothing’s more important than the Ivies … so we should totally own these jokers, right?
Not so much. For the top 12 Oscar categories, a grand total of one (1) bona fide Ivy League diploma walked trophy-ward across the Kodak Theatre stage.
Why, it’s … it’s almost as if an Ivy diploma is overvalued in this context! Sean Penn, auto mechanics major at Santa Monica College? Say it ain’t so! We cry a single tear as we inform you that Hollywood’s IGIQ (IvyGate Index Quotient) is a box office bust at exactly 12 percent domination. Slap me Pappy, it’s pie chart time:
Verdict: What have you won for us lately, Natalie Portman?
Soldier on past the jump, if you’re able, for notes on methodology; disinfect all surfaces after handling raw data.
Methodology: 1.) Given the barnyard beating that the Ivy League was taking at the hands of the civilians, we chose not to count each member of the “It’s Hard Out Here for a Pimp” trio as a separate winner. 2.) Reese Witherspoon was arbitrarily deemed a “legacy” Ivy Leaguer; see raw data above. 3.) Though tempting, no points were bestowed for Rachel Weisz’s (Best Supporting Actress, “The Constant Gardener”) Cambridge degree; suck it, England.
7 Comments | 
| 
Print This Post
Read more: hollywood, IvyGate Index, movies
Email – 
Search
About
Follow us on Twitter
Report a bug
Archives
RSS Feed
November 21st, 2006 at 2:50 pm
Ok guys, correction.
Reese, Whither Spoon? (yes, i think i will!)
is not 50% princeton, as you would proudly like to believe.
i will accept your idea of including her as a “legacy” ivy leaguer…the percentage at which you have her pegged is highly embellished.
john witherspoon, born 1723.
assuming a per generation average of 30 years.
1753, john fathers a child
1783, his child has a child
1813, bla bla bla…you get the picture…
if you include john witherspoon himself…there were roughly 9 generations of witherspoons from 1723 to the year reese was born, 1977.
with that she is in fact NOT 50% princeton, but rather 10% – 12%.
this rough estimate of mine does NOT take into consideration any “dilution” of the genes that had occured.
November 21st, 2006 at 3:40 pm
On behalf of Larry McMurtry, I take issue. Anyone from Texas can tell you that Rice is “the Harvard of the South.”
November 21st, 2006 at 6:10 pm
I thought Duke was the Harvard of the South. Which would make Rice the Harvard of Texas. Which is kind’ve like saying that you’re the only one on the short bus bright enough not to shit your pants… and then roll in it.
November 21st, 2006 at 11:18 pm
the final ivygate index? you haven’t even done corporate america or nobel laureates or foreign heads of state. come on, i want more ego-boostings-by-association.
November 22nd, 2006 at 12:42 am
james from nyc, why oh why?
your terribly important post illustrates exactly what people hate about ivy kids.
November 22nd, 2006 at 12:43 am
i agree with anon. give us some more, ivygate.
March 5th, 2010 at 2:42 am
Yeah i great post. I totally agree with you here. Do you know the eyes movie? I recently saw it at a pre screening and its pretty unknown. You can checkt out the trailer here.