As a young man, I would have given nearly anything to attend Stanford or MIT, but I knew I wasn’t quite up to their standards. Now I find their presidents are not up to mine.
I worked at a fintech that employed both MIT graduates and people that didn't go to college at all. With our hiring and interview process serving as a great filter, it was impossible to tell who fell into which population until they told you.
What was the interview pass rate for MIT grads and people without a college education?
Fun fact: Theo Baker, the student journalist for the Stanford Daily who broke (and continues to break) major portions of this Marc Tessier-Lavigne scandal, is the son of Peter Baker, chief White House correspondent for the NY Times.
As a young man, I would have given nearly anything to attend Stanford or MIT, but I knew I wasn’t quite up to their standards. Now I find their presidents are not up to mine.
Why are you grouping MIT into the same group as Stanford?
They’re all wrought with dishonesty and self preservation.
> Retractions remain exceedingly rare for scientific papers: Just eight out of every 10,000 are retracted, according to a Retraction Watch database. This to me is a crucial statistic. Is this number much less than it should be? Or are many more papers dubious in their methodology?
What's the rejection rate? Maybe it's low because peer review tends to block them from being published
As a young man, I would have given nearly anything to attend Stanford or MIT, but I knew I wasn’t quite up to their standards. Now I find their presidents are not up to mine.
True that. I used to feel bad not being able to get into these schools due to mental health issues. Felt insecure. Now I’ve looked around at the community of the Ivy League, the various so called success stories like Zuckerberg, and of course incidents like this. All I see is the rich fucking over everyone else for power and inflating public perception of their intelligence to try and keep actually intelligent people…
I recall Paul Krugman discussing the composition of Ivy League college student bodies, and how legacy admissions allow subpar students to matriculate while the schools have the resources to attract the most intelligent / capable students — so the student body let’s say is half legacy, half brilliant outliers (one maybe consider rich legacies as societal outliers too for different aspects). The brilliant students give the schools clout for being intellectual; while, the legacy students support the elite way of life and make that associated with the school — elite lifestyle as an enticing prospect for many brilliant students. A symbiotic relationship is formed, one that may then essentially slowly corrupt the minds of people to aggressively pursue elite-perpetuating actions (so then elite are preserving their position in society, a position that can be challenged by the more intelligent).
Fun fact: Theo Baker, the student journalist for the Stanford Daily who broke (and continues to break) major portions of this Marc Tessier-Lavigne scandal, is the son of Peter Baker, chief White House correspondent for the NY Times.
And his mom is Susan Glasser, who was assistant managing editor at The Washington Post, the editor-in-chief of Foreign Policy magazine, the founding editor of Politico Magazine, and a global affairs analyst for CNN.
As a young man, I would have given nearly anything to attend Stanford or MIT, but I knew I wasn’t quite up to their standards. Now I find their presidents are not up to mine.
Why are you grouping MIT into the same group as Stanford?
They are both elite institutions with sub 8% acceptance rates, it's a valid categorization
I worked at a fintech that employed both MIT graduates and people that didn't go to college at all. With our hiring and interview process serving as a great filter, it was impossible to tell who fell into which population until they told you.
What was the interview pass rate for MIT grads and people without a college education?