Maybe the problem is that Harvard exists • Hacker News Board

Re: Maybe the problem is that Harvard exists

#141

Post by gonehome » Thu, Aug 10, 2023, 4:02 PM UTC

lapcat wrote: post #64

glimshe wrote: post #39

This is a typical "let's be all equally poor/bad" argument. Harvard is simply a private institution with excellent reputation and not a single person is required to go there or hire someone from there. Why do Harvard people "drive 20% above the speed limit"? Because selecting good people in a sea of resumes is HARD. Degrees aren't amazing proxies for productivity, but they are decent proxies. I've seen dozens of theo…

> This is a typical "let's be all equally poor/bad" argument. I think you missed the point of the article, which was "Harvard exists to make society less meritocratic, and it does that while subsidized by everyone else." > Because selecting good people in a sea of resumes is HARD. Degrees aren't amazing proxies for productivity, but they are decent proxies. The author discusses this: "The hardest part of Harvard is g…

> “On a personal note, I was accepted to an Ivy League school (though not Harvard) as a high school senior, but my family couldn't afford to send me there, so I had to go to a state school instead. My classmate and friend was accepted to MIT but also had to go to a state school because of money.”

This does fit my hypothesis that the outliers at state schools are likely undervalued in the market by recruiters. The averages at selective schools are a lot higher (work a few career fairs where you ask basic technical questions and this is obvious), but everyone is competing over them and the outliers at state schools are people like you with extenuating circumstances. Since the actual education product isn’t that different (though there is some difference), there’s probably opportunity in trying to recruit the best students from state schools companies tend to ignore.

Re: Maybe the problem is that Harvard exists

#142

Post by blitzar » Thu, Aug 10, 2023, 4:03 PM UTC

samvher wrote: post #93

blitzar wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in a non US country so we can for once have the counterfactual, as for us harvard does not exist. I have worked in an environment where {maths degrees} really did seem to matter. An organization set up by people with {maths degrees} where other people with {maths degrees} seemed to have advantages in (a) getting in and (b) getting ahead. It wasn't ever really addressed explicitly (though "credentialism" was oc…

I'm from a non US country, so the concept of a Harvard is foreign to me as well. And yes, I've also worked for selective employers where maths degrees mattered a lot. It never bothered me. Not sure what you're trying to say. Hiring people based on individual merit and skills is not the same thing as hiring people based on an exclusive network. The Harvard employer favored Harvard folks over others who otherwise had t…

I doubt anyone anywhere ever has been the "best" hire - even / especially the greatest hires of all time, there was someone who had the same (or better) skills.

There are ~8 billion others, rounded to the nearest meaningful number ~8 billion people never saw the job ad or applied for it or were eligable because of the exclusive network of "countries".

Unless there is an epidemic of Harvard Art Majors being made Head of Brain Surgery upon graduation on the back of their credentials, their merit and skill is still contributing something.

Re: Maybe the problem is that Harvard exists

#143

Post by gonehome » Thu, Aug 10, 2023, 4:04 PM UTC

RugnirViking wrote: post #133

gonehome wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a similar problem to the scientific journals that extort scientists. The elite universities are not primarily selling education they’re selling prestige. In academia it’s worse because prestige is the metric for getting grants and status since the pay is bad. It’s also not great in private companies since institutional prestige is used to filter inbound interest, but it’s better because at least there are other…

do you have a link to the "admissions content that came out in the affirmative action SCOTUS case"? That sounds very interesting. I found a report on the entire case but its near 300 pages long

This substack quotes some of the relevant bits: https://colemanhughes.substack.com/p/10-notes-on-the-end-of-...

Copying here actual conversation (revealed in the lawsuit) between admissions officers at UNC:

“I just opened a brown girl who’s an 810 [SAT].”

“If its brown and above a 1300 [SAT] put them in for [the] merit/Excel [scholarship].”

“Still yes, give these brown babies a shot at these merit $$.”

“I am reading an Am. Ind.”

“[W]ith these [URM] kids, I’m trying to at least give them the chance to compete even if the [extracurriculars] and essays are just average.”

“I don’t think I can admit or defer this brown girl.”

“perfect 2400 SAT All 5 on AP one B in 11th”

“Brown?!”

“Heck no. Asian.”

“Of course. Still impressive.”

“I just read a blk girl who is an MC and Park nominee.”....

“Stellar academics for a Native Amer/African Amer kid.”....

“I’m going through this trouble because this is a bi-racial (black/white) male.”

Re: Maybe the problem is that Harvard exists

#144

Post by BearOso » Thu, Aug 10, 2023, 4:04 PM UTC

commandlinefan wrote: post #72

glimshe wrote: post #39

This is a typical "let's be all equally poor/bad" argument. Harvard is simply a private institution with excellent reputation and not a single person is required to go there or hire someone from there. Why do Harvard people "drive 20% above the speed limit"? Because selecting good people in a sea of resumes is HARD. Degrees aren't amazing proxies for productivity, but they are decent proxies. I've seen dozens of theo…

> "lets all be poor" As the parent of two exceptionally-achieving children who were rejected from the "elite" colleges - I've become a lot more sympathetic to the mindset behind this line of thinking. My kids literally couldn't have done more or tried harder - since kindergarten - than they did. They both graduated valedictorian with perfect GPAs, scored in the top 99% of the SAT, did sports, did clubs, volunteered,…

I totally agree that the legacy and nepotism needs to be dropped. But there's some caveats to consider:

* It's partly about where your kids graduated valedictorian with perfect GPAs, etc. I was considered "gifted" in my district, but I would be below average in the greater scheme of things.

* Top 99% of SAT is nothing. I read somewhere that 60% of Ivy applicants have perfect scores.

* It depends on the major they intend to pursue. If it's a popular one, there would be many fewer open slots.

And I agree with you, there's schools just as good, if not better, than the Ivies. You just have to shop around looking for the field you're interested in. For instance, UIUC is a top choice for computer science and engineering, and it's a state-funded school.

Re: Maybe the problem is that Harvard exists

#145

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Aug 10, 2023, 4:04 PM UTC

komali2 wrote: post #86

user3939382 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The top schools can be pretty darn great I've seen research suggesting that the schools aren't necessarily great, the students are. They were already great which is how they passed the admissions criteria, and their career success can be attributed to the qualities that they arrived at e.g. Harvard with. They would have been as successful regardless of where they attended. I'm sure the truth is somewhere in the mid…

Given the argument that the wait-list students that didn't get to actually attend did worse in life than wait-list students that did get to attend, how does your implication that the "students were already good and that's why they did well in life" hold up?

[deleted]

Re: Maybe the problem is that Harvard exists

#146

Post by PaulDavisThe1st » Thu, Aug 10, 2023, 4:05 PM UTC

torstenvl wrote: post #132

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's pretty likely Harvard has had an impact on your life in a lot of ways because a lot of people who govern you went there. And, in addition, because at least presently, anyone who didn't do Ivy+ is essentially never going to be a SCOTUS judge. The obvious objection is that given there are only 9 justices at a time, essentially nobody is ever going to be a SCOTUS judge anyway. But that misses the important gating…

What law schools are admitting 18yos? I don't know if it's intentional but you're conflating mutually exclusive lines of thought. The argument that such decisions should be made at age 22 instead of age 18 doesn't support — in fact contradicts — your argument that trajectories toward SCOTUS should not be related to law school admissions (which do indeed happen at age 22 instead of age 18).

The argument is not about Harvard Law, it's about Harvard.

Yes, 8 of the 9 went to Harvard or Yale Law.

But 6 of the nine went to Harvard, Yale or Princeton as undergrads.

Re: Maybe the problem is that Harvard exists

#147

Post by EA-3167 » Thu, Aug 10, 2023, 4:05 PM UTC

komali2 wrote: post #113

karaterobot wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's a counter-example at a reasonable scale? By reasonable scale, I mean millions of people.

I never understood why the "at reasonable scale" is presumed. What happens if I reject that presumption? Why do we assume "millions of people" operating in the same social order is a good thing? Because iphones? Is that reason enough? Do we presume that having millions of people under the same social order is required to make advancements in medicine? It didn't take millions to build Linux or wikipedia, just a couple…

> What happens if I reject that presumption?

You get a commune that has no real power, off in the middle of nowhere, which dies out when the original generation involved does. It can't be hard to understand that systems which work for a few hundred struggle to work with billions?

> Anyway, there are many counter examples of egalitarian and fluid societies throughout our many thousands of years of being speaking humans. David Graber's final book, I believe "Origin of everything," explores some of these. No, they didn't have iphones, but some of them lived so well that early American colonials would abandon everything they know to join the alien cultures. Must have been doing something right!

I read that book, and just a nitpick, it's David Graeber and David Wengrow. I'd also add that those societies described in the book weren't just pre-industrial or pre-iPhone, they were in the literal stone age.

Re: Maybe the problem is that Harvard exists

#148

Post by JohnBooty » Thu, Aug 10, 2023, 4:06 PM UTC

endisneigh wrote: post #109

commandlinefan wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "lets all be poor" As the parent of two exceptionally-achieving children who were rejected from the "elite" colleges - I've become a lot more sympathetic to the mindset behind this line of thinking. My kids literally couldn't have done more or tried harder - since kindergarten - than they did. They both graduated valedictorian with perfect GPAs, scored in the top 99% of the SAT, did sports, did clubs, volunteered,…

Why does it matter if your kids go to "elite" colleges or not? They're probably going to be successful in their own way anyway with those stats. shouldn't your concern be the objective success they achieve, not their attendance of an "elite" institution? I know people who want to say University of Virginia who have had better outcomes than some folks I know who went to Harvard College - just to cherry pick a single s…

Follow the discussion. It probably shouldn't matter, but it does. Very much so.

Re: Maybe the problem is that Harvard exists

#149

Post by gnopgnip » Thu, Aug 10, 2023, 4:07 PM UTC

lapcat wrote: post #64

glimshe wrote: post #39

This is a typical "let's be all equally poor/bad" argument. Harvard is simply a private institution with excellent reputation and not a single person is required to go there or hire someone from there. Why do Harvard people "drive 20% above the speed limit"? Because selecting good people in a sea of resumes is HARD. Degrees aren't amazing proxies for productivity, but they are decent proxies. I've seen dozens of theo…

> This is a typical "let's be all equally poor/bad" argument. I think you missed the point of the article, which was "Harvard exists to make society less meritocratic, and it does that while subsidized by everyone else." > Because selecting good people in a sea of resumes is HARD. Degrees aren't amazing proxies for productivity, but they are decent proxies. The author discusses this: "The hardest part of Harvard is g…

The Ivy League schools have extensive financial aid now. Stanford for instance will have zero cost for people from families making $150k or less, no need for student loans.

Re: Maybe the problem is that Harvard exists

#150

Post by endisneigh » Thu, Aug 10, 2023, 4:07 PM UTC

JohnBooty wrote: post #148

endisneigh wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it matter if your kids go to "elite" colleges or not? They're probably going to be successful in their own way anyway with those stats. shouldn't your concern be the objective success they achieve, not their attendance of an "elite" institution? I know people who want to say University of Virginia who have had better outcomes than some folks I know who went to Harvard College - just to cherry pick a single s…

Follow the discussion. It probably shouldn't matter, but it does. Very much so.

But it doesn't. The paper (https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/C...) is ultimately flawed because it doesn't (and cannot) evaluate the simplest thing:

look at people who are accepted to the top schools who do not attend. The problem with using waitlist and is that waitlist is ultimately as arbitrary as rejection and not some arbiter of a "marginal acceptance". The entire premise of their argument is flawed to begin with.

Furthermore it goes into jobs held after selection and are highly fixated on "social" jobs, e.g. politicians and supreme court justices, which are inherently scarce and highly likely to be stratified in such a way that is perpetuated by elitism, irrespective of "elite colleges".

In the end the authors (who are from the very schools they think are perpetuating issues ironically) miss the point. Definitionally elite colleges want elite results. Their call to diversify the background of their students and thus the future leaders is inherently at odds with this unless those diversity people already had a propensity to be elite, by definition.