Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

People from elite backgrounds increasingly dominate academia, data shows

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 334 posts

Re: People from elite backgrounds increasingly dominate academia, data shows

#111

Post by ascar »

thrown_22 wrote: post #86
brutusborn wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not exactly like that, but close. As % of people with college degrees approaches 100%, all students will have parents with a college degree, so it will approach 5/5. The logic in the parent comment still stands.

What you care about is how much more likely a person with parents who had degrees is to have a degree over one who doesn't. In 1970 4% of people had degrees and 20% of degree holders had parents with degrees. That means that children of degree holders got 5 times as many degrees as children of non-degree holders. In 2020 14% of people have degrees and 66% of degree holders have parents with degrees. That means that c…

> That means that children of degree holders got 4.7 times as many degrees as children of non-degree holders.

That doesn't follow at all? You can't just divide the two percentages and get that conclusion?

In 2020 children of degree holders got twice as many degrees as children from non-degree holders; 66 vs 34. In 1970 children of degree holders got 1/4 as many degrees as children of non-degree holders; 20 vs 80.

Edit: removed math based on wrong assumption

Re: People from elite backgrounds increasingly dominate academia, data shows

#112

Post by brutusborn »

aj7 wrote: post #94

Academia does not equal economics, a field where a Nobel Prize winner ran a multibillion dollar hedge fund into the ground, and economists can’t agree on whether a person deserves healthcare.

The company in question if anyone is as interested as I was: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/longtermcapital.asp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-Term_Capital_Management

Interestingly the Nobel Prize winners' advice was ignored in some cases: "As a result, LTCM began investing in emerging-market debt and foreign currencies. Some of the major partners, particularly Myron Scholes, had their doubts about these new investments. For example, when LTCM took a major position in the Norwegian kroner, Scholes warned that they had no "informational advantage" in this area"

Re: People from elite backgrounds increasingly dominate academia, data shows

#113

Post by brutusborn »

lordnacho wrote: post #110
brutusborn wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your first point seems paradoxical but I might be misunderstanding. When you said 'dons were jealously guarding their right to decide, on their own, who would get in', are you inferring that although the right to decide is owned by the dons, they are 'ordinary' so there is less selection pressure for people from powerful backgrounds?

Basically I got the impression that the Dons/profs would not like if the college master tapped them on the shoulder and said "Little Johnny's dad gave us some money, please let him into your tutorial group". If you look at how admissions work, it seems reasonably fair: most courses have some sort of entrance test, and then a grilling by the don. There's not a lot of soft questions in those interviews: what's e, let's…

Ah I get it, the dons are the gatekeepers and they aren't incentivized by donations so meritocracy prevails. Thanks for the detailed reply.

Re: People from elite backgrounds increasingly dominate academia, data shows

#115

Post by wenc »

DocTomoe wrote: post #90
wenc wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Guess who private sector loves to promote to executive positions like VP and SVP? Harvard and ivy grads. Even in engineering, where it's supposed to be more of an meritocracy, you can see this at every bigco. No. This has not been my experience working at bigcos -- the opposite is true. This isn't even hard to disprove -- just take a look at any large company (outside of those with Ivy funnels like management consu…

Given that many managers/executives are horrid when it comes to people, I think the Peter Principle explains that a lot better: People who can do (and won't get promoted because their productivity is needed where they are). People who can't will get promoted out of the way.

I think this take is too cynical. Many executives are by definition good with people -- politics included. There are negative forms of this, but there are also positive forms. I've had really good managers who could work across orgs and manage expectations and drive results. Tech ICs typically don't have this aptitude. Andy Grove's book "High Output Management" explains how good middle management ought to be, and I've experienced it first hand.

The Peter Principle is widely known and modern orgs are designed to account for it (American management is constantly evolving) -- for instance, promotions today are based on personnel already performing at the next level rather than them just showing good results at their current level.

Re: People from elite backgrounds increasingly dominate academia, data shows

#116

Post by thrown_22 »

ascar wrote: post #111
thrown_22 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you care about is how much more likely a person with parents who had degrees is to have a degree over one who doesn't. In 1970 4% of people had degrees and 20% of degree holders had parents with degrees. That means that children of degree holders got 5 times as many degrees as children of non-degree holders. In 2020 14% of people have degrees and 66% of degree holders have parents with degrees. That means that c…

> That means that children of degree holders got 4.7 times as many degrees as children of non-degree holders. That doesn't follow at all? You can't just divide the two percentages and get that conclusion? In 2020 children of degree holders got twice as many degrees as children from non-degree holders; 66 vs 34. In 1970 children of degree holders got 1/4 as many degrees as children of non-degree holders; 20 vs 80. Edi…

>If you put it in absolute numbers. In 1970 among 1000 people 40 had degrees and of those 40 20% so 8 people had parents with degrees. On the other side you have 32 degree holders to 960 non degree holder parents, so just 3.3% of their kids got degrees.

>In 2020 among 1000 people 200 had degrees and of those 200 66% so 132 people had parents with degrees. On the other side you have 68 degree holders to 800 non degree holder parents, so just 8.5% of their kids got degrees.

You're confusing the total number of people who have degrees with new graduates. The only thing we can calculate with the numbers given is the ratio of new graduates who have parents with degrees to those who have parents without degrees.

Re: People from elite backgrounds increasingly dominate academia, data shows

#117

Post by wenc »

metadat wrote: post #78
wenc wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Guess who private sector loves to promote to executive positions like VP and SVP? Harvard and ivy grads. Even in engineering, where it's supposed to be more of an meritocracy, you can see this at every bigco. No. This has not been my experience working at bigcos -- the opposite is true. This isn't even hard to disprove -- just take a look at any large company (outside of those with Ivy funnels like management consu…

My experience has been in tech, so I don't have information handy for other sectors.

Even in tech, the majority of executives don't have Ivy League degrees. Some of them might have MBAs from good schools, but many went to ordinary colleges. I work in tech and in my entire reporting line, there is exactly 1 Ivy league graduate. Tim Cook went to Auburn (MBA at Duke). Satya Nadella went to Manipal Institute of Technology (then UW-Milwaukee, and later an MBA at UChicago Booth).

Re: People from elite backgrounds increasingly dominate academia, data shows

#118

Post by nostromo »

They’re defining having an elite background as having a parent with a post-graduate degree… which seems like a stretch to me.

Post graduate degrees are not that special anymore and they often don’t earn you much additional money, let alone power.

Re: People from elite backgrounds increasingly dominate academia, data shows

#119

Post by tintedfireglass »

brutusborn wrote: post #105
Hydraulix989 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Harvard went away, I would be VERY happy. Schools like Tsinghua, IIT, and C9 are much more meritocratic. Oxford / Cambridge are also very "exclusive" in the worst way possible, and given the history of the early US, it's not surprising that this insular Victorian / London culture of poshness also permeated into 17th / 18th century Ivy League schools in the Puritanical US. I'm amazed at what abject conditions Easte…

What does the entrance process for Tsinghua, IIT, and C9 look like? I'm just wondering how they are more meritocratic, do they just have less side-door admissions?

IIT is pseudo-meritocratic. It's a very rigorous exam and the person who can spend their whole high school time studying phy, Chem and maths and who can spend the most money joining the best coaching institutions and best mentors bacially get the admission. Doesn't matter if someone has an IQ of 200 or India's best football player or coding genius unless they get the highest marks in physics chemistry in maths they aren't allowed. It's technically meritocratic but it is a really flawed system that rewards rigorous practice over skill, interest and other aspects of a student.

Re: People from elite backgrounds increasingly dominate academia, data shows

#120

Post by ascar »

thrown_22 wrote: post #116
ascar wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That means that children of degree holders got 4.7 times as many degrees as children of non-degree holders. That doesn't follow at all? You can't just divide the two percentages and get that conclusion? In 2020 children of degree holders got twice as many degrees as children from non-degree holders; 66 vs 34. In 1970 children of degree holders got 1/4 as many degrees as children of non-degree holders; 20 vs 80. Edi…

>If you put it in absolute numbers. In 1970 among 1000 people 40 had degrees and of those 40 20% so 8 people had parents with degrees. On the other side you have 32 degree holders to 960 non degree holder parents, so just 3.3% of their kids got degrees. >In 2020 among 1000 people 200 had degrees and of those 200 66% so 132 people had parents with degrees. On the other side you have 68 degree holders to 800 non degree…

> You're confusing the total number of people who have degrees with new graduates.

Yes you're right. The original data said new graduates. I got sidetracked by the formulation in your comment. I removed the false calculation.

> The only thing we can calculate with the numbers given is the ratio of new graduates who have parents with degrees to those who have parents without degrees.

Yea that ratio is 2 and 1/4 respectively? I don't even know how to put in words what we get by dividing the percentage of new grads with degree holding parents by the percentage of degree holders with college age children among the general population. Nothing useful?

Post reply on HN