Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why do Ivy League students self-sabotage?

movingthelimit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 145 posts

Re: Why do Ivy League students self-sabotage?

#111

Post by candiodari »

meindnoch wrote: post #94
Gareth321 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While true, the estimated average IQ at Harvard is 142. IQ is highly associated with self-control and discipline.

Estimated average IQ from SAT score . So it's bullshit. They just cram SAT prep non-stop with private tutors.

And this explains the question pose as well. They don't self-sabotage. They just "jump through academic hoops" ... but not through their own effort, or only with great assistance. This help they get just really breaks for most in the university years.

They don't self-sabotage, they just lose their advantage.

Re: Why do Ivy League students self-sabotage?

#112

Post by 411111111111111 »

Gareth321 wrote: post #107
411111111111111 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think anyone would argue otherwise, the controversy is that IQ test results can be increased significantly by training. But that discussion ultimately boils down to what intelligence really is... You either subscribe to the believe that it's essentially something you're born with or something that can be improved by training. IQ tests fundamentally cannot measure for the former definition, but I does a decent…

The user I replied to is clearly arguing that SATs do not provide any correlation with IQ. They called the proposition “bullshit.” As for your question, g is very difficult to improve through training. Almost impossible in adulthood. The only studies I am aware of which indicate an ability to improve IQ score over time are those which allow participants to repeatedly take similar IQ tests. This enables the respondent…

They are BS under the first definition.

And I think we've gotten quiet far from the context their statement was made in.

The premise was that intelligence increases self control/delayed gratification. From this, we've extrapolated that havard students will have on average a higher self control, because they've had the the privilege of a much better education, which caused their IQ scores to be quiet high.

Personally, I'd agree that this extrapolation is flawed, because both factors are only correlated with no causal link.

Re: Why do Ivy League students self-sabotage?

#113

Post by TrackerFF »

If you actually manage to get accepted to some Ivy, chances are you were at the very top of you class in HS. Excellent grades, excellent test, lots of extracurriculars, and all that.

The majority can't accomplish those things by just coasting through HS, and living a "normal" teenage life. Rather, it means dedicating lots and lots of your time to studying, extracurriculars, etc.

And it doesn't stop when you get accepted. So to me, it makes complete sense that some students get disillusioned - and start exploring other areas in life. It's not like the grind is going to stop when you start working - many of these ivy league grads go directly to the banking/consulting/law grinder that demands 60-100 hour work weeks.

Re: Why do Ivy League students self-sabotage?

#114

Post by Gareth321 »

411111111111111 wrote: post #112
Gareth321 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The user I replied to is clearly arguing that SATs do not provide any correlation with IQ. They called the proposition “bullshit.” As for your question, g is very difficult to improve through training. Almost impossible in adulthood. The only studies I am aware of which indicate an ability to improve IQ score over time are those which allow participants to repeatedly take similar IQ tests. This enables the respondent…

They are BS under the first definition. And I think we've gotten quiet far from the context their statement was made in. The premise was that intelligence increases self control/delayed gratification. From this, we've extrapolated that havard students will have on average a higher self control, because they've had the the privilege of a much better education, which caused their IQ scores to be quiet high. Personally,…

> They are BS under the first definition.

I provided a study which shows high correlation. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

I don’t agree with your summary of the premise. It doesn’t follow that more training means higher IQ scores, but I acknowledge it could mean higher SAT scores for individuals. Just not in aggregate.

Re: Why do Ivy League students self-sabotage?

#115

Post by TrackerFF »

ldjkfkdsjnv wrote: post #13

A bunch of Harvard grads I know have ridden that name for a decade. A small example, one was slacking off in a tech company, got laid off. They raised 1M to "do AI", with no technical skills at all. They hired a dev, six months later with no product raised a 5M seed round at a 25M valuation. No product released.

Pretty normal in the world of startups. Just take a look at the "team" page on a presentation / pitch, and you'll often see big top 10 school logos - especially if their work experience isn't all that, compared to their academic pedigree.

Re: Why do Ivy League students self-sabotage?

#116

Post by TrackerFF »

throwawayadvsec wrote: post #108
compiler-guy wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn’t go to an Ivy League school, but I did go to Stanford. I assure you there are many of my classmates who failed at life, don’t have good jobs, and are otherwise don’t fit that description. An elite education is like a golden ticket, to be sure, but it doesn’t guarantee anything at all. Plenty of folks screw it up. Twenty-plus years now after my degree and no one cares at all about where I graduated. If I don’t…

The problem is that going to Stanford is skewing your definition of what "failing at life" is and of what a "good job" is.

For sure. When the majority if your (elite school) class "meet expectation" by going to the same elite jobs, getting a normal job can seem like a failure in life - even though that job would be pretty sweet for the majority of the nation.

When I went to business school, a bunch of the grads went to investment banks, consulting firms, hedge funds, private equity, PM roles at tech firms, and the likes. At the same time, some of my classmates felt deeply unsatisfied that they "only" got offers from big 4 firms.

Re: Why do Ivy League students self-sabotage?

#117

Post by naveen99 »

complex_exp wrote: post #96
lordnacho wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you can still find the admission rates for Oxbridge online. Keep in mind you can only apply to one or the other when comparing. It varies a lot depending on course, but here is Oxford: https://www.ox.ac.uk/about/facts-and-figures/admissions-stat... For undergrad it's 14%. Harvard: https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/admissions-statistics 3% That's quite some difference, especially if we consider that Harva…

I've always had a problem with admission rates, since they obviously depend on self-selection (and supply of schools). Germany is a good example here, they have a wide spectrum of schools starting already past primary education (around 10 years old). Many of those schools, those of the "mid" and especially "lower" rank do not bash into children's heads that they absolutely must go to a good university or they will be…

Just go with national / global pool for the denominator. There are about 4 million high school graduation age children in the usa. Probably about 80-100 million world wide. About 20000 ivy league spots per year. So you need to be about one of 5 in a 1000 in the usa. Maybe 1 in a 1000 globally after adding global equivalents of us Ivy League schools. basically top 0.1 to 0.5 %.

Re: Why do Ivy League students self-sabotage?

#118

Post by hiq »

TMWNN wrote: post #91
blackbear_ wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation needed?

The facts are straightforward. Oxbridge's admissions rates are not the lowest in the UK; schools no one outside the UK has heard of, like Warwick, have the lowest, and their admissions rates are still two to three times higher than the Ivies'. In many countries, universities admit all applicants that meet the qualifications. An example is Switzerland, where ETH Zurich—by every measure, among the world's finest univer…

People do get kicked out of ETH, the selection is after admission, not before (as opposed to e.g. most US universities), at least when you enter right after high school. So it's not comparable. Granted it's still easier to "get into", but that won't get you much if you can't graduate.

Another thing to consider is that the pool of applicants might be different between universities. 1% admission rate tells you a very different story whether 100% or 10% were decent applicants in the first place.

Re: Why do Ivy League students self-sabotage?

#119

Post by credit_guy »

badrequest wrote: post #61
searealist wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You honestly believe that people who get into Harvard don't have more self-discipline on average that those who don't?

Not the GP, but emphatically and obviously yes. There's the "reads a new book once per week" type of discipline that the average ivy leaguer tends to have, and there's the "wakes up at 4AM to go to the job they don't like despite how much their back hurts" discipline that the working class are obligated to develop.

So you're saying the sweat of a coal miner is equivalent to the sweat of an Einstein ("genius is one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration")?

Re: Why do Ivy League students self-sabotage?

#120

Post by hiq »

lordnacho wrote: post #89
blackbear_ wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation needed?

I think you can still find the admission rates for Oxbridge online. Keep in mind you can only apply to one or the other when comparing. It varies a lot depending on course, but here is Oxford: https://www.ox.ac.uk/about/facts-and-figures/admissions-stat... For undergrad it's 14%. Harvard: https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/admissions-statistics 3% That's quite some difference, especially if we consider that Harva…

The admission rate alone doesn't tell you if, as a candidate, I have more chances of getting into this or that university, because it doesn't say anything about who applies. There might big differences between the pools of applicants.
Post reply on HN