71–80 of 178 posts
that, or that they think it'll look good on their tinder bio (college applicants are teens after all).
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…
Only a few colleges matter. A degree from the others is “actually a dunce cap” according to Peter Thiel.
Absolutely everything happens in only a few cities, which of course have developed completely ludicrous property prices. Nothing happens anywhere else, so if you want a good career you have to at least spend time in one of these.
Markets are winner take all with one or maybe a few companies taking each vertical.
I have asked older people about this, especially the urban elitism of only a few cities matter. Most of them have confirmed what I have observed (I am 45) namely that these trends massively accelerated roughly after the year 2000.
It could be due to the Internet, historically low interest rates redistributing wealth to those that can easily net investment or cheap corporate debt, or some other factor, but I do think it’s real. I also suspect it’s a hidden driver of our political hyper polarization.
The urban elitism seems to have been dented a little by telework and COVID, and we seem to be entering an unbundling phase with social media. Maybe the trend is reversing.
I can't speak for other industries but I know in tech, the college you went to is basically irrelevant 1-2 years into your career. Even if say you have someone that went to MIT and then went to work for Google, as a hiring manager I would want to know more about what they did at Google than at MIT. I can really only think of two professions where your school matters: law and medicine. With Law I think it's the most i…
>I can't speak for other industries but I know in tech, the college you went to is basically irrelevant 1-2 years into your career. I would like this to be true, but I think it varies a lot. I have seen execs be very excited by name-brand degrees well past that point. And then do the same thing with name-brand companies, without inquiring much as to what a given developer did at, say, one of the FAANGs. When I've ask…
We make it all about smarts, but smarts aren't everything in the corporate grind.
Hollywood cares, for one. I think almost every movie (or book) I read that involves a smart person with good credentials involves Harvard or mit or sometimes Stanford. It’s getting old. Be more creative, people
You don't have time in a movie to explain everything, so they fall back on tropes we all know. Like "MIT super hacker" or "Harvard miracle lawyer".
Books have all the time in the world to make up convoluted background stories that explain character details and quirks in more creative ways.
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 a lot of people, myself included, want to believe this. It's nice to think that all humans have great potential inside of them!
Unfortunately, reality might not respect our perfectly reasonable sensibilities. After having a child, I began to research the things I could do to enrich her environment, maximize her intelligence, etc. One depressing thing I learned is that intelligence is more-or-less a purely genetic trait. Your intelligence is highly correlated with your biological parents' intelligence, to the same degree as something like height.
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…
And let's not even pretend race doesn't factor into this. The reason so many Asian students excel is that they're the children of (reasonably) high status immigrants. Even if the wealth in the country of origin doesn't directly translate, the social status still carries over. Likewise the reason so many Black students underperform or only gain access via Affirmative Action is that they largely originate in families o…
That's not true. For instance, in NYC Asians have the highest rate of poverty. And yet they also have the highest rate of advanced placement in schools. [1] And many of these kids are from these poor families. It's because their culture values this and Asian students tend to put more effort into school. Many Asian cultures believe in the connection between effort and achievement and it shows. [2]
The first explanation suggests that Asian-American youth’s academic advantage can be attributed to advantages in socio-demographic factors. Relative to whites, their parents tend to be better educated, and they are more likely to live in stable, two-parent families with higher incomes (5). This explanation, however, is insufficient because advantages in socio-demographic factors only partially explain the achievement gap (2, 3, 5). Moreover, Asian Americans are not uniformly advantaged in terms of family socioeconomic background. For example, the poverty rates of Chinese and Vietnamese are higher than they are for whites (5). However, the disadvantaged children of Chinese and Vietnamese immigrant families routinely surpass the educational attainment of their native-born, middle-class white peers (6, 7).
[1] http://www.roosevelthouse.hunter.cuny.edu/?forum-post=resear....
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…
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…
For the other 1-(1/N), it's more like the "last" of the leading indicators – i.e. their last shot at a significant step change in career outcomes before beginning a career.
The ability to get a great technical education is more a function of who your parents are and how involved they want to be in your education than anything else, me thinks. "Top N schools" at any stage from pre-K to college is a lagging indicator of that.
What do you think the forest is?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess if learning a trade could guarantee the kids a future (or at least make it look like guaranteed) I bet many people would go that way without any need for extra nudges. Picking up the trade of your parents was earlier a pretty fine plan in life. But today we are where we are and political influence seems like the only safe bet... "bet" because learning to gamble it is.
This is from a German perspective but learning a trade in Germany can be a ticket to good income and good life. There's unfortunately the perception that trades are worth less than academics in Germany from a societal standpoint. I suspect it's somewhat similar in the US. That's part of the reason why we have a massive shortage of any skilled tradesperson in Germany. If you're an electrician or plumber you can basica…
The true purpose of the Ivy League isn't necessarily to train elites to do better at these roles. Everybody sucks at these roles, regardless of how much training you've had. Executives make boneheaded company-destroying and job-destroying decisions all the time, finance people make bad investments, politicians make bad laws. This is because the complexity of understanding and directing thousands to millions of people is more than any one person could conceivably do, regardless of how much training they've had. In fact, one of the reasons liberal democracies have generally done better than communism or fascism or feudalism is because they try to devolve as many of these decisions as possible to non-human systems like markets, elections, and algorithms. But having some selection filter for the people who will occupy these roles, whether it's the Ivy League or imperial China's civil service exam, seems to result in less braindead decisions than having absolutely no filter.
More importantly, the Ivy League also functions as a way to take potential counter-elites and assimilate them into the existing system so that they can take roles that preserve it rather than destroy it. The most dangerous thing for a socioeconomic system is a leader who can convince a majority of people that the existing system needs to be cast down and replaced with a competing one. Ivy League universities work like an escape valve, trying to identify people that may be poor but smart and give them the connections and education (indoctrination?) to believe that they can make themselves less poor within the existing system without having to destroy it.