What Oxford taught me about posh people • Hacker News Board

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#331

Post by agent008t » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 2:04 PM UTC

thorin wrote: post #290

agent008t wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't help but think that for every student more into drugs/sex/drinking/clubbing, there is a kid out there who was genuinely interested in studying from the top academics that probably didn't even bother applying because they thought they wouldn't be able to get in (or won't be able to afford it). I am also surprised that the culture you describe seems to be tolerated at best and even encouraged at worst. Sure, it…

I spent some time with students in Russia and they were even worse! Most of Europe is similar to an extent, but sure there are people who are obsessed with studying and learning, but there are a lot more who are keen to get away from their parents, spend money on beer and find girls/boys. Most Asian students I met who had come over to Europe were pretty serious. Anecdotally some friends from Wales who went on a study…

Out of interest, what was your experience with students in Russia? Would be interesting to compare with my experience.

I suspect there is a big difference in Russia between top science universities and everywhere else. In my opinion, humanities education is of very poor quality in Russia so I could well imagine a party culture there. But the curriculum in top science programmes tends to be so intense and passing requirements strict enough that I doubt there is too much partying going on. However, a lot of the coursework I suspect is also still too outdated and often irrelevant.

There is also likely a big difference between students living at home and living in dorms. Who knows what happens in dorms, but the commuting students in my opinion don't tend to get too wild.

Finally, the social scene is just structured very differently. There are fewer elected subjects, and most of the social life happens during/between classes - the whole year just spends a lot of time with each other naturally and bonds over common struggles. There is a culture of trying to involve everyone in some sort of social life. You don't have to sign up for anything - it happens by default. Although I think international students would be treated differently and actually perhaps excluded. Instead of clubbing or going to bars, social drinking revolves more around drinking in someone's kitchen and engaging in pseudo-philosophical conversations.

Of course, my account is from a long time ago so things may be very different now.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#332

Post by vletal » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 2:15 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #146

TchoBeer wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds rather defeatist. Is it impossible to make work, life, or social structure more fair? I doubt you think that.

Now that you mention it, the USSR did make many things more fair. They did it by hammering everyone down to the bottom.

Anti-social argument ad USSR is usually considered to be a fallacy common in the USA.

For example, Swiss are very social people. Up until recently they did not even have a minimal wage defined in some of the cantons, yet even the worst jobs are usually extremely well payed. I.e. a python developer has just like 2x more than a garbage man. Anything a human touches is expensive.

In European countries, even some of the Eastern ones, there is usually a top-notch single payer health care system. That's social.

You can also have a high quality state funded education systems. A social aspect of politics does not require you to go all dictatorial suppressing basic rights. Please stop using it. It's ridiculous.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#333

Post by notahacker » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 2:16 PM UTC

makomk wrote: post #318

notahacker wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Jeff Bezos does not buy anything with every incremental thousand dollars. In some important sense, it's not even money that can be spent. Luckily, nobody in the discussion has claimed this. What they have claimed is that it is possible a hungry person who died of starvation may have needed an incremental dollar more than someone who spent $42 million of their incremental dollars on a project to build a clock with n…

The problem with that argument is that $42 million is a lot, lot less than $200 billion dollars, especially when divided across even just the population of the USA. Not even enough for a dollar per person - in fact, when you consider that's over something like a decade, it's probably more like a cent per person per year. By comparison, the National Endowment for the Arts apparently has a budget of $162 million per ye…

The problem is that again you are attacking an argument I did not make. At no point have I suggested "maybe we should shut that down and give the money to them" or that we could feed the entire population of the world using Bezos' clock budget, never mind enthused about US arts funding. At no point in this thread have I made any public policy recommendations at all.

I simply observed that it seems unreasonable to argue that a person saved from starvation by a marginal dollar doesn't feel more benefit from that marginal dollar than someone who wouldn't stoop to pick one off the street feels from marginal dollars that accrue to their bank accounts anyway. So some, but not all, redistribution can be positive sum.

Acknowledging the marginal utility of a [disposable] dollar to Bezos might be lower than that of someone earning less than subsistence seems both fairly obvious and not at all close to communism as the user I originally responded to suggests (Funnily enough, denying the validity of any sort of interpersonal utility comparison whatsoever actually does makes it impossible to make inefficiency arguments against communism or any other sort of government waste. Obviously millions of people behind the former Iron Curtain are wealthier today, but who's to say the Politburo members losing control over resources didn't suffer more?! I mean, that's silly, but so's arguing Bezos cares about loose change at least as much as the average poor person). Arguments against the idea that public might need education less than the wealthy needed to keep those dollars were pretty critical to there being a viable market and workforce for the Amazons of this world too.

If we actually want to discuss the efficiency and inefficiency of different forms of government and private [non]intervention it's much easier to do so without the unsupported and vaguely feudal assumption that no improvement on a status quo can be observed.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#334

Post by brundolf » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 2:23 PM UTC

agent008t wrote: post #191

I expected Oxford undergraduates to be the best from all over the world, intensely passionate about their subjects. What I found were kids more passionate about drinking and clubbing and gossiping than studying. There seemed to be some weird hierarchy about who sits where in the dining hall that was completely bizarre. 'Default' social activities organized by the various committees all involved brain-dead clubbing an…

"But doing CS, there were few opportunities to socialize with people in your degree - you see them in the lectures, then you go back to your college."

One thing I loved about my program (Baylor) is that they had a dedicated dorm building for engineering/CS students. I think it's because their program wasn't very prolific and they were trying to attract people (though I had no real complaints about it), but it created this awesome environment where the average person on your floor probably had a gaming desktop to show off, or would love to talk about a project idea you had, or might have an idea of how to recover the linux install you've just borked, or might be hosting a Minecraft LAN you could join. Not to mention the study-group opportunities, etc. It was a really great way to spend my first two years.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#335

Post by collyw » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 2:48 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #264

collyw wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nordic countries are capitalist

Proposing adopting their policies in the US gets decried as socialist, though.

That seems like a circular argument. It's socialist because it gets described as socialist.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#336

Post by thinkingemote » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 2:59 PM UTC

fyhhvff wrote: post #308

madaxe_again wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In U.K. collegiate universities, like Oxbridge and Durham, there is a huge cultural divide between colleges and courses. I went to Durham. I was - I am - a posh kid - albeit one who’s acutely and painfully aware of his advantage. The college I was in was stacked to the rafters with posh kids. Everything orbited the social life - the balls, the ents, who was where in the pecking order of committees and executives. I m…

What is an "ent"?

Entertainment I think, or perhaps, entertainment officer, organiser of stuff to do therefore gaining high status.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#337

Post by kowlo » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 3:02 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #260

kowlo wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This contributed to my departure from academia (UK professor). The majority of students didn't care, the staff cared even less, and senior management just wanted bums on seats. Gaining a position in academia is something that takes a lot of time, so the disappointment is still with me.

May I ask in what field you were working and what your occupation is now? I'm curious if you can be a professor after the old model, before structured academia, find those willing to learn and do research and continue your passion without the encumbrances (and benefits) of a Uni. That probably depends on your subject area.

Sure - Computer Science, and now a consultant!

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#338

Post by jfk13 » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 3:06 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #210

jfk13 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the past, a lot of (non-slave) people immigrated to the USA precisely because they were impoverished -- for example, Irish fleeing the Great Famine, among many others. > "Give me your tired, your poor, / Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, / The wretched refuse of your teeming shore." Whether those words are as appropriate today may be another matter, of course.

Something like 100,000 people per month are flooding into America via the southern border. What are they fleeing from?

I'm curious if that's a figure for the number who enter and remain long-term, or does it include those who are quickly detained and expelled? I.e. does the Mexican border account for a million-plus annual increase in overall US population?

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#339

Post by ynfnehf » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 3:10 PM UTC

jseban wrote: post #324

ynfnehf wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is your explanation for Denmark and Finland then?

Similar situation. And any time you use the nordic countries as an example, you have to realise that the middle class takes a huge hit for financing the equality. Sweden has implemented a LOT of trickle down economy tax breaks for the wealthy people during the 2000s, such as completely getting rid of property tax, wealth tax, inheritance tax. Just to keep money in the country. At the same time, the working people of…

> I'm still sceptical if there even exists a successful welfare state that does not rely on natural resources, or the aftermath of some war.

I was referring to this. Both Denmark and Finland were to a large extent involved in WW2, and neither have natural resources of the same kind as Norway.

Or is your opinion that they are not successful welfare states?

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#340

Post by pbhjpbhj » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 3:16 PM UTC

kowlo wrote: post #337

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

May I ask in what field you were working and what your occupation is now? I'm curious if you can be a professor after the old model, before structured academia, find those willing to learn and do research and continue your passion without the encumbrances (and benefits) of a Uni. That probably depends on your subject area.

Sure - Computer Science, and now a consultant!

So, do you get your fix of mentoring/teaching/research through that; it perhaps through FOSS involvement or ...? Not suggesting you have to, just your comment suggested that was/is your passion.