Live data from Hacker News

How the Ivy League Broke America

theatlantic.com

21–30 of 99 posts

Re: How the Ivy League Broke America

#21
post #15
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I truly learned a lot from them. Immediately after school, despite getting a degree in Math / Computer Science, I decided to just go for it like they did, and joined one of the Big 3 strategy consulting firms where I worked for a few months, where I learned even more about these types of people. We need to actually contend with their very real ability before we dismiss them with memes.

One of the big issues is that the people making the memes, never actually met any of the people we're all talking about. It's easy to dismiss if it's not real for you. If you've been moving between say, Cambridge and Sommerville, you understand. If you haven't, you think you can do anything that top .01% of the top 1% can do. How do you convince someone that there are people out there so gifted at everything that the…

Well I make a lot of memes, so I'm not sure I agree with your first statement haha. I think you'd be surprised at the educational backgrounds of the people that actually make the memes (vs the ones just spreading them).

I think my basic thesis is that, if you come from a normal background, and go through these institutions, this is a major selection factor for some level of charisma. You understand the game and you understand the normal person. This is why the first 'round' of purely meritocratic admits worked. The graduates were inevitably going to be so irresistibly charming, they'd have no problem dealing with the world.

However, as time went on and they had their own children, who did not experience the normal childhood, they are at a disadvantage. They have the educational background, but not the ability to connect with people.

For example, since it's all fresh in our minds. I remember people saying that Vance was going to appear weird at the debate and Walz normal. As evidence, they used the fact that Vance was rich and thus out of touch. At the time I thought differently, simple because Vance had been to Yale and then through the Silicon Valley VC landscape and -- from what I understand -- came out successful. Thus, in my mind, he was the perfect test to my thesis.

And I think that's what we saw, not only did he come across as amazingly likeable, he even seemed to make Tim Walz like him at times. And the general consensus was that he won [1]. Normal people don't make it through these institutions without the ability to -- at least temporarily, maybe even disingenuously depending on your politics -- come across as irresistibly charming.

> How do you convince someone that there are people out there so gifted at everything that they make MIT and Stanford alums look like village idiots? You likely can't.

That's correct, as demonstrated by the people that accuse them of cheating to get where they are. Or of cheating because they worked less hard than someone else who worked very hard at the wrong thing.

[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/02/vance-walz-who-won-... . Doesn't matter your politics, he clearly was very effective, even if you think he was disingenuous -- like I said, you don't go through Yale and VC without being able to charm.

Re: How the Ivy League Broke America

#22
post #19
post #12

> And yet it’s not obvious that we have produced either a better leadership class or a healthier relationship between our society and its elites Part of the problem is as follows and I see it so often in politics. We have an excellent technocratic leadership class. But being a technocratic leader does not make you a great leader of people, and frankly -- given the way many technocratic fields in the humanities are ta…

People are surprised over Trump, because of what it applies about conservative peoples hypocrisy. Conservativism is typically approached with massive amount of naivety and undeserved trust. They lie, they complain about things they don't mind, then they state their plans out loud and pundit class is still "they cant be as bad as they say". Trump and the people he is choosing winning three times clearly show who these…

> People are surprised over Trump, because of what it applies[do you mean implies?] about conservative peoples hypocrisy.

Technocrats talk about hypocrits. Lovers of the humanities talk about people.

People don't operate on principles. They operate on human emotion, which is a very real force. It is no less real than facts, figure, logic, or rationality. Trump's shooting, his McDonald's stunt, his garbage vest/truck, and his ability to exude his brand are actual skills, and signs of a different kind of intelligence. Until people get that, they will be perpetually confused.

A lot of pollsters around the issue of the economy for example threw their hands in the air this election. The numbers looked good, they said, so how come people feel that it's not working? They blamed 'the vibe'. But 'the vibe' is a very real force, that one must contend with when you study human behavior and emotion.

The problem is that -- instead of studying literature, philosophy, religion, art, music, dance, etc, i.e., the real humanities -- the 'humanities' PhDs, the sociologists, the pollsters, etc, all studied statistics for human management essentially. We've lost so much by not focusing on the actual humanities

> Moderate republicans cant admit it either to themselves.

Moderate republicans -- if you mean the lincoln project crowd -- are the worst perpetrators of the problems addressed in the article

> But, we want to believe in good of the massive amount of people. We do not want to believe that conservative Christians will do anything just to get control over women back. Or that they actually want to destroy the democracy.

oof... read and believe too much of the Ivy League output I see. You know it's a grift for them too right? Just look at President Biden (a graduate of the Ivies if I'm not mistaken) being all smiles after the man he called Hitler came to the white house to take over.

Re: How the Ivy League Broke America

#23
post #11
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly though, I don't think he's wrong. As someone who -- in my view -- squeaked by into an elite school (probably of the second rank as described in the article) despite being raised in a 'natural growth' environment, I think some people are truly at a different level of efficacy and I'm not sure what people are going to do about it. They show sustained ability to dominate fields. Yes, I'm sure this is cultural,…

Indeed. I went to what was considered an elite university program in my country. Most of the people even there were borderline normal, although probably in the top 1% of the population in mathematical abilities, but some few people seemed to just do whatever the hell they pleased, and always succeed. I'm not sure what was it that drove those people. Were they just so genetically gifted, or was it just crazy high conf…

If you had to make a guess about these behavioral models, what would it be?

Re: How the Ivy League Broke America

#24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Network effects convey enormous benefits. People with resources mingling with people with resources (internal or external) is likelier to yield a lot more than random groupings.

Yes- ish . That line of reasoning could be used to explain why hereditary nobles and royals are the best form of government. And quite a few other counter-factuals. OTOH, arguing that anyway might give you a far better shot at getting your hands on a few of those $billions than I'll ever have. GO FOR IT.

Not really, the argument would be that most successful group would consist of people with various resources, whether it be innate intelligence, motivation, discipline, or inherited wealth/social network.

A group of people whose sole value is social network/wealth is probably not sufficient.

Humans have a limited amount of time and energy to work with, so some mechanism of filtering who or what to place bets on would presumably increase desirable results.

Not too dissimilar from seeking recommendations for a plumber or electrician or romantic partner from a trusted neighbor or family or friend.

Re: How the Ivy League Broke America

#25

It's very strange to read an article complaining about the homogenization of the cultural elite that name drops the university of every author of a book/article that supports his opinion. David Brooks himself is part of the very same cultural elite that he's complaining about. If someone really wanted to bring about a culture with leaders drawn from different economic strata the first step should be addressing people…

> For all his faults, and least Trump is willing to lie to his base and promise some sort of change

So "willing to lie" is his only redeeming trait? Poor America! That said, I think he will bring about some sort of change, but it won't be one that really benefits the people who voted for him...

Re: How the Ivy League Broke America

#26
Long essay, but I agree with a lot of what's said.

I think a lot of quality time is wasted due to the rat race starting in early childhood.

I live in a bit of a bubble in the commuter belt around London (ie not the US), but I observe some of the same obsessions here as well. In particular, I started to notice that my kid's friends suddenly had a lot less time for playdates in the year or two leading up to the 11-plus exam, which is a selective school thing. There are similar exams for the private schools in the area. Of course what was happening was that their parents would hire a tutor to help them pass the tests.

The effect of this tutoring is on the whole negative. Obviously, it costs money. It also costs time that your kid would have to do other things. But also, it gives the kids the impression that school is super important, and they will be valued based on the outcome of this test. You end up with a few percent who get into the top selective schools, and everyone else is left with low expectations.

Inevitably, it also means that it becomes a game for rich parents. I went to the induction day at the fancy school, and guess what. The parents are a bunch of professionals, virtually nobody doing anything else, and most kids went to private primaries + got tutored. We must have left some poor but capable kids in the wrong school.

Re: How the Ivy League Broke America

#27
post #9
post #5

> “Number one people go to number one schools” is how one lawyer explained her firm’s recruiting principle to Rivera. What a load of number two.

Honestly though, I don't think he's wrong. As someone who -- in my view -- squeaked by into an elite school (probably of the second rank as described in the article) despite being raised in a 'natural growth' environment, I think some people are truly at a different level of efficacy and I'm not sure what people are going to do about it. They show sustained ability to dominate fields. Yes, I'm sure this is cultural,…

In your second paragraph you're essentially pointing towards what social & developmental psychologist Carol Dweck [0] describes as the 'Growth Mindset' vs 'Fixed Mindset' modes of thinking.

To be fair, there is some controversy as to the validity of Dweck's model. However, you may find it interesting, even at the risk of falling into confirmation bias (given that you appear to be primed to agree with it). I myself have no strong opinion as to the validity of the model's explanatory power, but at the very least I do believe it is personally a better choice to aim for a Growth Mindset.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Dweck

Re: How the Ivy League Broke America

#28
Something missing is deindustrialization following WW2. The US northeast (where "Ivy League" schools are located) shifted a huge amount of industry to other parts of the country, where factories had been established during the war. A few years later, the south had more electoral votes than the northeast and midwest. The votes determine leaders, not educational institutions.

Look at the electoral votes from 1956:

NY: 45 PA: 32 TX: 24 FL: 10

Today:

NY: 28 PA: 19 TX: 40 FL: 30

Texas and Florida doubled their influence.

Re: How the Ivy League Broke America

#29

Long essay, but I agree with a lot of what's said. I think a lot of quality time is wasted due to the rat race starting in early childhood. I live in a bit of a bubble in the commuter belt around London (ie not the US), but I observe some of the same obsessions here as well. In particular, I started to notice that my kid's friends suddenly had a lot less time for playdates in the year or two leading up to the 11-plus…

>it gives the kids the impression that school is super important

>We must have left some poor but capable kids in the wrong school.

Both of those things cannot be true at the same time. Either school is important, in which case both the parents pushing their children and the children pushing themselves are doing the right thing to improve their chances of later success, or it is NOT important, in which case it doesn't matter anyway which school the other children end up in.

Re: How the Ivy League Broke America

#30
post #23
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. I went to what was considered an elite university program in my country. Most of the people even there were borderline normal, although probably in the top 1% of the population in mathematical abilities, but some few people seemed to just do whatever the hell they pleased, and always succeed. I'm not sure what was it that drove those people. Were they just so genetically gifted, or was it just crazy high conf…

If you had to make a guess about these behavioral models, what would it be?

Not the one you responded to, but the guy above him.

I would say a few things:

1. Less social anxiety / confidence -- simply realizing that the worst thing that happens is you fail. It does help to have daddy's money for this though.

2. More calculating -- One trait I absolutely noticed in all these people was that they had planned out their entire life. This did not mean the plan always happened as expected, but the goal was clear, and always worked towards. They made lists, they met criteria, they executed extremely well. For example, they knew they needed to publish a paper. That can mean you either dazzle with a brilliant paper, which most 'normies' would say is the route you should go down. But that's not necessarily the 'elite' position. Sure, a handful might be truly smart. The rest would just crank out work and submit to as many journals as possible until they found one that matched their criteria.

3. When they get together they talk about ideas -- this one is a trait I picked up on, and it led to some strife with my own family when I went back home. It's a hard one to explain, but with Thanksgiving coming up, really pay attention to what's talked about. Is it celebrities? The current election even? I guarantee you somewhere out there, some elites are discussing the next great invention / policy / etc. It's why so many 'normies' get blind-sided by new ideas, whereas for the elites, it's normal. For example, conspiracists on Twitter believe that AI is the result of alien technology, because they are so far removed from the actual development of the thing that to them it must truly seem like magic.

Post reply on HN