The Disadvantages of an Elite Education

Having done my undergrad at an Ivy League institution, I can say without a doubt that everything mentioned in the article is absolutely true. I would even go so far as to say that most of my peers were for the most part semi-competent (on good days), driven individuals with either the skill and nurturing to game the system. The result is a fairly disappointing group of people who care more about a Wall St./Big Consulting job, but honestly, admissions officials care little to change the system, so this is the result. That said, however, many of the undergrads I have TAed for at Berkeley have the same mindset, with the exception that the Wall St. job is now a job at Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, etc.

To a certain extent, we shouldn't care about Ivy League institutions, because in the end, they are just a name, right? What is sad, though, is that there are brilliant professors at these universities having to teach these pathetic students, and not those who actually care and have some skill in a particular subject. What is sad is that parents, employers and institutions themselves proclaim that these students are the best and the brightest and we believe them. What is sad is that the resources of the Ivy League institutions are widening compared to strong public/private universities, but the "elite" institutions are not giving these resources to those who can best take advantage of them (I think what should have been more carefully scrutinized was Harvard President Drew Faust's comments a few months ago that Ivy League institutions will have the best scientific research because they have the most money/best profs, and that other institutions with fewer resources should work on "smaller problems" - the most disgusting thing I have heard in a long time). In short, the whole system is powerful, yet completely broken.

If, by some luck of lottery (at least in my case), you are someone who really cares in this "elite" environment, once you get past the disappointment of not relating to your peers, you have a great opportunity to do research for professors who are not only brilliant, but also very helpful since you are one of very few who care. I just hope that the many others like me who did not win the lottery get the same chances I do. I know at Berkeley, the grad students are given tremendous opportunities with respect to research (with probably only slightly more money concerns than places like Stanford/MIT), but it's very tough for an undergrad to get the same opportunities. I know I wouldn't have survived as an ugrad here, but I'm not sure if other institutions have similar environments.

I agree with most of his criticisms, but disagree strongly with his conclusion. My main beef with the Ivy League is that it neither trains people to be productive nor broadens minds. I don't really don't think it's possible for a government funded institution to broaden minds ( and yes, even the Ivy's have massive amounts of government subsidies). The professors in the humanities and social sciences act much more like an insular priesthood than purveyors of free thought ( which is not surprising considering the origins of the university and the selection process of professors). Comments on news.yc show far more free thought than I found in sections at Yale. I also do not think Joe carpenters' tax dollars should be subsidizing Yalie English literature majors. It's amazing how professors advocate that the government should do more to tax the rich and give to the poor, while never realizing that state funding for higher education is among the most regressive government spending that exists.

The university functions essentially as a gatekeeper to various credentialized professions ( scientist, professor, doctor, lawyer, civil service). As gatekeeper, it really does not need to educate you. Students have been selected for high enough IQ that they will learn what they need in grad school or on the job. The school's main job is to teach you to love the school, that the school is responsible for everything good in your life, and that the school makes you special. That way, when you end up making money, you will be sure to send money back to the school that was responsible for such happy times.

There's a cultural norm at MIT that you should complain about how hard your workload is, but I don't think that really counts as humility. Students are usually too busy to think about their social class.

Nearly by definition a hacker is someone who doesn't aspire to live in compliance.

What strikes me is how much the Ivy League issue bothers HN readers, measured by comment number and intensity. As if there was something unsaid in the lives of each of us, something profoundly disturbing.

I went to a borderline elite school, Notre Dame. Many of the students had this sort of an elitist attitude. However, I noticed that those students who aspired to true greatness - who saw Einstein, Newton etc. as setting the bar - often had a more humble attitude. I think that this is because such an attitude is a hindrance imho, a waste of energy.