51–60 of 178 posts
I think the point about college mobility rates was an interesting one. But then the author lost me a bit: > what is the economic rationale for having a bunch of educational resources and top students concentrated in a few small elite schools? ... the country’s most talented people into the country’s most important jobs I don't think that's it at all. I believe nearly anyone could be among "the country's most talented…
I think the point about college mobility rates was an interesting one. But then the author lost me a bit: > what is the economic rationale for having a bunch of educational resources and top students concentrated in a few small elite schools? ... the country’s most talented people into the country’s most important jobs I don't think that's it at all. I believe nearly anyone could be among "the country's most talented…
That must be part of the answer, but it can’t be the whole answer, or close to the whole. There’s huge variation in educational outcomes among those who get the access that you describe. What explains why some people in this group have such good outcomes, while most have relatively lackluster outcomes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
University affiliation is a lagging indicator. At least in my friend group (mostly White, Asian, and Latiné who attended the Top 50 ranked US News schools), most of us already knew each other via competitive high school extracurriculars (eg. Debate, Sports, DECA, MUN, Science Olympiads, Quiz Bowl, SAT Bootcamp, Intel Science Fair, Cyberpatriot, etc) and because we all attended the same 200-300 high schools nationally…
You already knew your friend group because you attended the same "2-300" high schools? Flagship Public Schools have long been limited elite. Hence the concept of the "Public Ivies". Ivy does STEM, but STEM isn't the point of going Ivy. Public Schools will continue to be fine institutions for technical workers, who were and will never considered to be elite in the class sense. Real elites tend toward history and art m…
It is.
Cornell, Princeton, and Columbia are all Top 10 CS programs.
For natural sciences, all the Ivies top the charts.
For med school, same story.
> Real elites tend toward history and art majors.
Some children of HNWI do major in history and art. Others will gladly major in STEM. Look at people like Bill Gates or half my hs.
This isn't the 80s or 90s anymore. Post-2008, top public schools have gotten as selective as Ivies were in the 2000s (7-15% acceptance rate [actually around 15-25% as BlackJack below points out]) while Ivies and Ivy Adjacent private schools (eg. UChicago, CMC, etc.) have dropped to the 1-6% acceptance rate.
Also, "elite" industries like PE, IB, Management Consulting, and VC all bias hiring in favor of STEM majors, which automatically prioritizes selective public schools like Cal, Mich, UCLA, etc.
> You already knew your friend group because you attended the same "2-300" high schools?
Pretty much. I had 2nd degree connects at just about every top university and I myself attended a top uni.
We all ended up working in the same handful of industries (Government, Media, Finance, Tech, Management Consulting, Politics) in the same handful of cities (SF, NYC, Seattle, Boston, DC) which further enhances the general alumni network as there are only a handful of top employers in each of those.
I think the point about college mobility rates was an interesting one. But then the author lost me a bit: > what is the economic rationale for having a bunch of educational resources and top students concentrated in a few small elite schools? ... the country’s most talented people into the country’s most important jobs I don't think that's it at all. I believe nearly anyone could be among "the country's most talented…
FWIW, most Ivy League and other top schools (MIT, Stanford) offer extreme discounts on tuition for students with household income under around $150K. Often times they'll pay somewhere between 0-10% of the actual tuition. If your family makes less than $75k, I think you can go to most or all of these schools for free (in tuition at least, not sure about room/board/food).
I went to a very privileged high school. There were so many eyeballs on my class' test scores, recommendations, personal essays...of course we were going to succeed. Most of us got into our top choice schools. You often need a lot more than money to get into these schools.
The author has a point about broad access to education and its effects on mobility, but overlooks something vital: to be in the ruling class, entry into these schools is very important. All but one of the members of the current Supreme Court went Ivy (and nearly all in the 20th century before), and while Congress is more diverse when it comes to undergrad (it would be very interesting to see grad school data), 5 of t…
I would invoke "chicken and egg" here: are the leaders of this country in the Ivy League because they're from ruling families, or are they ruling because they went to Ivy League? I suspect it's much more of the former than the latter. It's not that you have to go to an Ivy League school to run the country. Instead, the people born into the families that run the country have no reason not to go to Ivy League schools.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I would want to know more about what they did at Google than at MIT. Yes but for many the reason they were at Google was because of the MIT degree. So not only do you get a great education, but then you go on to do solid work (hopefully) and get good experience. It's acceleration on ROI of the degree.
Exactly this. I now work in a team with a bunch of Ivy League UK equivalents (Oxford/Cambridge), but I'm about 5 years older working at a similar grade/comp ratio. I had to hop around 4 different teams at 2 companies, and build a pretty extensive portfolio of work, before I got a foot in the door they did straight out of university.
I think the point about college mobility rates was an interesting one. But then the author lost me a bit: > what is the economic rationale for having a bunch of educational resources and top students concentrated in a few small elite schools? ... the country’s most talented people into the country’s most important jobs I don't think that's it at all. I believe nearly anyone could be among "the country's most talented…
[flagged]
I think the point about college mobility rates was an interesting one. But then the author lost me a bit: > what is the economic rationale for having a bunch of educational resources and top students concentrated in a few small elite schools? ... the country’s most talented people into the country’s most important jobs I don't think that's it at all. I believe nearly anyone could be among "the country's most talented…
> Most Ivy League students weren't born smart. They're exceptional because they were given access to what they needed to succeed. That must be part of the answer, but it can’t be the whole answer, or close to the whole. There’s huge variation in educational outcomes among those who get the access that you describe. What explains why some people in this group have such good outcomes, while most have relatively lacklus…
I think the point about college mobility rates was an interesting one. But then the author lost me a bit: > what is the economic rationale for having a bunch of educational resources and top students concentrated in a few small elite schools? ... the country’s most talented people into the country’s most important jobs I don't think that's it at all. I believe nearly anyone could be among "the country's most talented…
> Most Ivy League students weren't born smart. They're exceptional because they were given access to what they needed to succeed. That must be part of the answer, but it can’t be the whole answer, or close to the whole. There’s huge variation in educational outcomes among those who get the access that you describe. What explains why some people in this group have such good outcomes, while most have relatively lacklus…
A lot of people don't really care about doing much more than the minimum. Even talented people are like this. I'm sure a lot of us know (or, let's be honest, are the) people who busted their ass when they were younger, only to hit their 30s-40s and coast.
Who says these people would have kept busting their ass out for so long if they had a pot of gold waiting for them right after college?
And then, as others have mentioned, they have spread a false culture of using those credentials as a lifelong door-pass into anything someone might want to do, when this is deeply untrue for anyone who hasn't gone to the Ivy League. For most people, a bachelor's gets them past a resume filter for their first job; from there, future employers only care about the value they created at the last job.