Thanks for the nice read. I'd like to throw out a couple of other ideas as well regarding peer group popularity, if I may.
To begin with, perhaps academic achievement isn't the only expression of a person's intelligence. A great deal of research has been done recently on socialization skills of animals, especially primates, and the rather large proportion of brain mass that seems to be dedicated to developing these social skills. If you accept the basic premise that "social intelligence" is indeed a valuable and necessary survival skill, then the popularity of certain individuals in junior high and high school (athletes, cheerleaders, etc) simply reflects something quite natural among primate groups; popularity is simply a reflection of an individual's ability to navigate and survive in the treacherous waters of peer group politics and the world at large. In the wild, or theoretical "natural state" of man, this form of social selection may have been crucial to picking charismatic leaders who would in turn guarantee inter-cooperation and the survival of the entire group.
This atavistic form of social selection, we can argue, remains with us today and still selects for the same type of individuals. The typical high school quaterback may not be academically intelligent, but he obviously has been endowed with enough social skills/social intelligence to give him a competitive advantage over others in leading other physically fit males and finding suitable mating partners
As we see in the example of G.W. Bush, academic intelligence often takes a back seat to social intelligence and someone who has been gifted with the ability to make friends and influence people obviously presents a desirable and attractive leader and mate. OTOH, a bright academic mind who can't find his way through a faculty cocktail hour can be described as socially dumb and represents perhaps as serious a genetic liability as mild mental retardation (i.e. both a socially dumb individual and mentally dumb individual will find it difficult to find a suitable mating partner and pass on his/her genes).
Another issue that we could look at would be relative maturity rates among individuals in junior h.s. and h.s. It could be possible that the relative popularity of individuals within peer groups may be partly dependent on their differing sexual and physical maturity rates. If you look at most typical "nerds" or "geeks", they often appear much more adolescent/young than their more popular classmates. In a typical classroom environment where there is often fierce jostling for the slightest competitive advantage (more often than not, as reflected in one's popularity with members of the opposite sex), acting or looking more sexually mature would be an important, if not decisive variable in the popularity sweepstakes.
Again, physical attractiveness and athletic prowess are usually good signs of healthy genes and it makes sense that guys/girls would be sexually attracted to individuals who exhibit these traits.
As one gets older, nerds/geeks may gain more of a competitive advantage as other variables such as education level and income potential begin to influence a possible mate's decision making.
the guys d*ck can't be more then a ½ inch 
