Live data from Hacker News

On Elitism

stanford.edu

21–30 of 116 posts

Re: On Elitism

#21
I'm sorry but this isn't a new one for sociology...

I've observed that some of the people who display the greatest degrees of elitism and snobbery are those who are technically skilled in their given area of expertise but who do not necessarily have the most reputable externally-recognizable marks of status.

Indeed. Those who need to display elitism are those who aren't automatically accepted as elite. Similarly, those who are naturally accepted as elite, don't need make as much of an effort to display their eliteness. This is so established that the act of not attempting to show one's eliteness is often subtler a mark of greater eliteness. And this is the basic conundrum of elitism: how the 'old guard' defends itself against the arriviste etc.

I'd suggest a reading of De Tocqueville, Veblen and modern signalling theory.

Re: On Elitism

#22
What's the motivation for writing the article?

To me, there's always some way to feel superior by pointing fingers. I think he's driving his own brand of elitism.

(Somebody please accuse me of the same thing, and let's see if we can recursively create a singularity)

Re: On Elitism

#23
post #13
post #7

> "The smartest kids in the class had reputable externally-recognizable marks of status --- their top-ranked grades on exams and homeworks --- and thus did not need to assert their intelligence." Having the top grades on exams and homework doesn't in any way demonstrate that those kids are the smartest in the class. Grades are correlated with intelligence to some degree, but much more strongly correlated with work-et…

If think you replace "smartest" with "most successful", the point he's trying to make does not change.

Which is still a ridiculous point: A/A+ students are not necessarily smarter, more successful, more intelligent, whatever-you-want-to-call-it than B+/A- students. His sole defense of that assertion is

if you're so damn smart, wouldn't it take you just slightly more effort to get an A

which I cannot characterize as anything else but a total lack of any sense of what someone may want to do with his time, other than obtain high grades, combined with the unfounded accusation that they all consider themselves capable of doing better.

He completely rules out the possibility that out of numbers 5 through 15 out of a 100, five may rather want to spend their time, let's say, starting a company, practicing a sport or contributing code to some open source project.

That's when the real problem shows it's ugly head: they are made to feel like they have to excuse themselves for their grades, as anything below 'perfect' is always questioned, as the article did: "why don't you get higher grades?"

For me, the answer really was exactly as he says: because I have a fucking life out of school. However, the intention of that answer wasn't to play down the grades of others or to assert my intelligence. I won't deny they usually also have a life out of school. The intention was purely and solely: to answer the question that everyone keeps asking. I've given that answer so many times I can only think of it shouted with the expletive in it. And then grade-obsessed nitwits like this guy throw a hissy fit because they think I'm trying to trump them. No, I don't bloody care about trumping you. If I cared, I would spend my time trying to score higher grades, so I'd get into that prestigious university. I'm not sure I would succeed, but the point is: I'm not even trying to best you. God, guys like this still piss me off. They don't want to accept the fact that there may have been guys that could outdo them, but didn't bother.

Re: On Elitism

#24
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If think you replace "smartest" with "most successful", the point he's trying to make does not change.

Which is still a ridiculous point: A/A+ students are not necessarily smarter, more successful, more intelligent, whatever-you-want-to-call-it than B+/A- students. His sole defense of that assertion is if you're so damn smart, wouldn't it take you just slightly more effort to get an A which I cannot characterize as anything else but a total lack of any sense of what someone may want to do with his time, other than obt…

A/A+ students are, by definition, more successful at school than B+/A- students. That's the only sense of the phrase I meant it in.

Re: On Elitism

#25
I think the author is in error to assume that all people attend elite schools for the same reasons. Some people are honestly the best in their field and will gravitate to the best schools, others simply desire the best pedigree, and some people simply want to go to the best school they can.

I don't think that Ivy alumni are hesitant to name drop their school. Some are smug; most aren't. As I have gotten further from college the conversations generally swing toward what you are doing, rather than where you went.

The generalization about 2nd tier students is also too broad. My CS degree is from a 2nd tier school (RIT 01), and when talking with others from similar schools it seems like there is occasionally an elitist; but it isn't that common.

There are plenty of people who are elitist because they have something to prove. They may have gone to a great school, or no school at all. In the end it doesn't matter; they are simply annoying.

Re: On Elitism

#26

The blogger doth protest too much, methinks. We learn all about his academic credentials almost as soon as the blog post begins, but don't hear anything about his real-world accomplishments beyond attending great schools. What does everyone think of the blogger's academics page? http://www.stanford.edu/~pgbovine/academic.htm Disclaimer: I don't know the blogger, and as far as I know I don't know any of his profession…

Its an interesting topic. Not sure the blog post really proved his point, but a bit of "arrogance in the large" (on the internet), doesn't bug me. I don't expect to be able to decide if his stated credentials mean anything; just that he is stating they do and establishes how he feels relative to the other statement he's making.

I can be arrogant at times, both in public posts and with people that know me well. For the public assertions, I don't expect people to buy my assertions. Simply asserting them may set a tone I find, at the moment, to be useful. The reader can decide for themselves how to take it.

Re: On Elitism

#27
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is still a ridiculous point: A/A+ students are not necessarily smarter, more successful, more intelligent, whatever-you-want-to-call-it than B+/A- students. His sole defense of that assertion is if you're so damn smart, wouldn't it take you just slightly more effort to get an A which I cannot characterize as anything else but a total lack of any sense of what someone may want to do with his time, other than obt…

A/A+ students are, by definition, more successful at school than B+/A- students. That's the only sense of the phrase I meant it in.

Not by definition, because the definition of success at school isn't "getting high grades". School is not the end, it's only a means. If I had to give a single metric for success at school it would be 'education'; those who learn more are more successful at school. This isn't necessarily reflected by test scores.

Re: On Elitism

#28
post #3

The blogger doth protest too much, methinks. We learn all about his academic credentials almost as soon as the blog post begins, but don't hear anything about his real-world accomplishments beyond attending great schools. What does everyone think of the blogger's academics page? http://www.stanford.edu/~pgbovine/academic.htm Disclaimer: I don't know the blogger, and as far as I know I don't know any of his profession…

That is unfortunately true. There is this old joke: Q: How do you know someone is from MIT {Stanford, Havard, ...}? A: He tells you.

The refined version for those from Harvard is:

Q: Where did you go to school?

A: Boston.

Q: uhh, where in Boston?

A: Harvard.

They make you draw it out of them. I have found at least three types of people that respond in this manner:

1 - The person that was raised elite since birth and really doesn't care at all what you think about him. So him dragging it out is him avoiding the question and hoping you'll learn not to pry.

2 - The person that is tired of being identified with this standard questioning. So him dragging it out is somewhere in the middle. He can use it to his advantage when needed but for the most part doesn't want to be identified in this way.

3 - The snob.

Re: On Elitism

#29

The blogger doth protest too much, methinks. We learn all about his academic credentials almost as soon as the blog post begins, but don't hear anything about his real-world accomplishments beyond attending great schools. What does everyone think of the blogger's academics page? http://www.stanford.edu/~pgbovine/academic.htm Disclaimer: I don't know the blogger, and as far as I know I don't know any of his profession…

This is pretty impressive: 2009 ACM SIGSOFT Distinguished Paper Award for HAMPI: A Solver for String Constraints, an ISSTA 2009 paper with Kiezun (lead author), Ganesh, Hooimeijer, and Ernst The rest is mediocre-impressive. Nothing to laugh at, but nothing to distinguish him from the other MIT/Stanford students either. I think he has a good point.

Wow I've been looking for a library like HAMPI for a long time.

Serendipity at its finest.

Re: On Elitism

#30

The blogger doth protest too much, methinks. We learn all about his academic credentials almost as soon as the blog post begins, but don't hear anything about his real-world accomplishments beyond attending great schools. What does everyone think of the blogger's academics page? http://www.stanford.edu/~pgbovine/academic.htm Disclaimer: I don't know the blogger, and as far as I know I don't know any of his profession…

ad hominem arguments detract from this discussion, i think :)

plus, the blogger is still a student, so of course he's not going to have much in terms of real-world accomplishments.

Post reply on HN