On Elitism • Hacker News Board

Re: On Elitism

#41

Post by rdr » Sun, Sep 27, 2009, 9:29 PM UTC

numair wrote: post #40

psyklic wrote: post #35

The author writes about himself, "Coming from two universities with world-renowned Computer Science departments (MIT and Stanford) and having worked at a top-tier software company (Google) as well as at several less high-profile companies ..." Meaning, of course, that he is not elitist -- he just had to share these crucial facts about himself.

I think the tide has really turned against name-brand institutions, leaving people such as the author in a position where they feel they have to defend themselves and their "prestige." This manifests itself in some peculiar ways, as we can see from this piece...

agreed, university reputation matters a lot less nowadays than it did in the previous generation ... nowadays anyone with a good idea can start up a tech company and get rich. nobody cares about ur college name

Re: On Elitism

#42

Post by zackattack » Sun, Sep 27, 2009, 9:40 PM UTC

daveying99 wrote: post #36

I think the guy has some smart points. But the fact that he has the MIT dome picture on his blog counters the point that if you're a high achiever from a top-tiered university, you don't need to show external signs of achievement...

I imagine that when you go to a place like MIT where life is like "getting kicked in the balls repeatedly", your alma mater becomes an important part of your identity.

Re: On Elitism

#43

Post by zackattack » Sun, Sep 27, 2009, 9:41 PM UTC

joe_the_user wrote: post #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, th…

Can you recommend a good book on modern signalling theory?

Re: On Elitism

#44

Post by zackattack » Sun, Sep 27, 2009, 9:51 PM UTC

fogus wrote: post #8

Unfortunately where I went to middle/high school there was very little elitism built around GPA and test scores. However, everyone just instinctively knew that the most dangerous bullies were not the most popular kids, but instead the kids just below them in the social heirarchy. The top tier were generally secure in themselves, but those below were always looking for an edge to get into the pantheon.

Indeed, pg addresses this in his essay on why nerds are unpopular in school.

Here's my question: does bullying ever give an edge into the pantheon?

Re: On Elitism

#45

Post by dill_day » Sun, Sep 27, 2009, 10:10 PM UTC

  When you are content to be simply yourself
  and don't compare or compete,
  everybody will respect you.

-- Lao Tzu

Re: On Elitism

#46

Post by codexon » Sun, Sep 27, 2009, 10:18 PM UTC

scott_s wrote: post #39

codexon wrote: post #15

It is probably true that people who scholastic reputation will try to make up for it in other ways. However the problem is that there may be too much authority placed in these usual standards of achievements. Philip forgets that people with academic credentials like himself are being smug when they complain about others. If your academic credentials represent you so well, why should it bother you if someone is simply…

I don't think hiding you went to a prestigious school has to be disingenuous. I can be, but it doesn't have to be. I have a purple belt in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. This is a mid-level rank, but it's also the point where a competitor is considered advanced. In tournaments that don't use belt level but Novice, Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced, I compete Advanced. If I talk to a stranger about BJJ, I never start out with "I…

What you are saying is completely different from someone asking you "What college did you go to", and responding vaguely "Boston" when most people just say the name of the school.

Re: On Elitism

#47

Post by ghshephard » Sun, Sep 27, 2009, 10:23 PM UTC

omgsean wrote: post #34

scott_s wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"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." More successful in school. There is very little value in getting high grades until the later years of high school. Working hard in middle school is a waste of time. The smartest kids would do the minimum amount of work to pass their classes and ensure they have a solid understanding of…

Really? Walk through the curriculum starting around the 3rd grade onwards - It basically sets up a foundation for future learning in all disciplines. Reading, Writing, Arithmetic - I remember the precise instant (3rd grade) that I was introduced to the concept of a negative number. It blew my mind. And science classes theory in seventh and eights grade were awesome - if I hadn't been grinding I probably would have never learned about umbra's and penumbras, angle of reflection, etc... as well I did.

I think you get out of any experience (Sports, School, Start Ups) what you put into it. And I have to agree - the entire point of the article, that people who haven't been able to demonstrate "success" in school, do tend to be a bit more defensive than those who have. I don't know if this applies to other fields (Sports, Startups) - but it's certainly seen in schools with regards to academic achievement. (BTW, We can all agree to hate the valedectorian who not only graduated with a perfect 4.0 GPA, but also spent close to 30% of her final two years of high school traveling Europe, preparing for the winter olympics, and participating in the debate club)

Re: On Elitism

#48

Post by elblanco » Sun, Sep 27, 2009, 10:28 PM UTC

elblanco wrote: post #37

timwiseman wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but they hold something that is generally recognized as a mark of intelligence. Whether or not it is actually a mark of intelligence is irrelevant to his point.

And for being duped into believing this little lie, Mr. Guo has singularly proven that Stanford folks are not as smart as their reputation makes them out to be.

Downvoted obviously from a Stanford grad.

Re: On Elitism

#49

Post by mnemonicsloth » Sun, Sep 27, 2009, 10:37 PM UTC

scott_s wrote: post #33

gizmo wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's the metric that is used to judge academic success. Really, all of this is besides the point that the author was trying to make. You're getting caught up in his example, but ignoring his point. Grades are a metric of a kind of success. I agree that education is more important than grades, but that's not what the example was about.

I'm not trying to score rhetorical points here, but it seems like you're trying to change the subject after having one of your unconscious assumptions brought to your attention.

Everybody has them, and, er... by definition... nobody is aware of them. Most people try and forget all about them when they do become visible, but is that the ideal reaction?

Re: On Elitism

#50

Post by jgrant27 » Sun, Sep 27, 2009, 10:54 PM UTC

Grades are a sign of intelligence ?

This could simply be a student's willingness to parrot whatever answers or theory a teacher would like to hear. Ever notice that often when a student outdoes his teacher or his teacher's favorite 'pets' then he is down-graded ?

The world's best scientists, mathematicians, physicists have all experienced this especially when their thinking was about to improve on and/or replace the old theories that their professors used for large grant money.

Maybe there was a good reason that it was a crime in Socrates day for teachers to accept money from students. Does financial incentive corrupt education outright ?

"Prestigious" schools also deny those that need tuition most when the whole point of attending is to gain something(knowledge etc.) that they do not already possess. These schools also pride themselves on cultural diversity but what about the classicism that defines their admissions ? Why should a decent degree run a student into 100-200k of debt after graduation ? Less wealthy countries provide comparable and even better education for free. Why ?