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

Regarding the Compact

president.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 203 posts

Re: Regarding the Compact

#141

Post by stogot »

mostlysimilar wrote: post #119
anonymousiam wrote: post #115

Because nobody (including the link from president.mit.edu) included the text of the Compact, I'm linking it here: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/1... After a quick skim, I don't see an issue. Is the opposition to this based upon any rational argument, or is it just "Resist Trump"?

Government forcing institutions to conform to a specific ideology. > Signatories commit themselves to revising governance structures as necessary to create such an environment, including but not limited to transforming or abolishing institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas. > Institutions commit to defining and otherwise interpreting “male,” “female,”…

It’s not an ideology. It was common sense for twenty millennia and only in the last few years has an ideology emerged.

Re: Regarding the Compact

#142

Post by laidoffamazon »

fedsocpuppet wrote: post #122
laidoffamazon wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People that go to elite undergrads think the rest of us are a lower inferior caste. I don’t know how that’s even something you can deny. You’ve clearly expended a lot of effort to segregate yourself from the likes of people like me or people that go to SJSU because we don’t have “merit” or “potential”

I can deny it because it's obvious bullshit lol. I don't think that way and neither does anybody I know from MIT think that way. This is reality versus your imagination. If there's anyone I look down on it's my classmates who could've worked anywhere and still went to palantir... I can't claim 100% aren't assholes, but the vast majority realize the luck and arbitrary nature of it. Are you going to be stuck in decisio…

I've asked people at MIT this repeatedly. They all say they came to MIT for the peer group. Peer group = people that are not _like me_. They shut up quick when I challenge them on that point though, or ask what the difference between them and me is. Even the non-assholes sometimes genuinely don't realize there's an entire parallel world beneath them with zero privilege or respect that made $150k out of undergrad instead of $500k.

Re: Regarding the Compact

#143

Post by laidoffamazon »

dekhn wrote: post #135
laidoffamazon wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People that go to elite undergrads think the rest of us are a lower inferior caste. I don’t know how that’s even something you can deny. You’ve clearly expended a lot of effort to segregate yourself from the likes of people like me or people that go to SJSU because we don’t have “merit” or “potential”

This is not a productive point to make in this thread.

Is it? Seems like the elite schools probably should be knocked down a few pegs but the state schools shouldn't.

Re: Regarding the Compact

#144

Post by laidoffamazon »

Steltek wrote: post #126
laidoffamazon wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They hate the rest of us that didn’t get into elite schools and are permanent members of the upper caste of this country. Graduate school admission is more purely meritocratic on if you can do research but even that isn’t great.

Have you ever met undergrads from these schools? This as far from my experience as you could get.

Yes. I live in a city with two Ivy+ institutions and graduates from many more. They're all the same, except some are better at faking it than others.

And why wouldn't they? Why wouldn't they think people like me are lazy and genetically predisposed to be stupid? I didn't make $500k out of undergrad. HRT or OpenAI isn't going to recruit me anytime soon. My net worth isn't $12m at 29, it's a tenth that.

Whenever I ask what the difference between them and their infinite success and potential is and people like me they never have an answer. They're always so confused.

Re: Regarding the Compact

#145

Post by thaumasiotes »

runako wrote: post #66
kjksf wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> an independent university MIT is taking (lots of) money from federal government. That makes them dependent on the government and government is within its right to attach strings to the money. MIT is free to not do what the government wants but then government is free to stop giving them (our) money. Furthermore, MIT, like any other organization, must obey state and federal laws. For example, there's a law that you…

I mean, you're obviously right about this all. Which is why it's an easy decision. MIT chooses independence and so cannot agree to these terms. Separately, there is the question of whether it is in the best interest of the US to part ways with organizations such as MIT. > MIT is taking (lots of) money from federal government Surely nobody is naive enough to think the federal government is giving money to institutions…

> It is possible to be independent while also accepting grants from the USG. There's no contradiction there. The point of independence is that the Institute gets to determine how it runs its affairs.

That hasn't been true for many decades. Accepting grants means being subject to a host of legal requirements tied to various different pieces of civil rights legislation.

Re: Regarding the Compact

#146

Post by baubino »

kjksf wrote: post #61
runako wrote: post #18

In a way, the overreach in the compact made this an obvious (though not easy) decision. Obviously, an independent university cannot agree to government-mandated pricing or censorship of faculty members. Similarly, government intrusion into grading practices and proactively threatening to use "lawful force" against minors are immediately off the table. That's all aside from the practicality of ongoing assessment, whic…

> an independent university MIT is taking (lots of) money from federal government. That makes them dependent on the government and government is within its right to attach strings to the money. MIT is free to not do what the government wants but then government is free to stop giving them (our) money. Furthermore, MIT, like any other organization, must obey state and federal laws. For example, there's a law that you…

Government grants are competitive, not gifts. MIT competes (along with private companies and individuals) for grants and if the grant is won, a very lengthy and detailed contract is signed that outlines the terms of the grant. This isn’t free money that’s being handed out willy nilly. If MIT (or anyone else) violates the terms of a contract, the government should seek to nullify that specific contract. That would be the normal (and legal) thing to do.

Re: Regarding the Compact

#147

Post by pastel8739 »

justin66 wrote: post #120
TheCondor wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very favorable interpretation. It looks an awful lot like a sampling designed to identify who the "enemies" are.

I was thinking it was a rare display of caution on the part of otherwise careless idiots. (or maybe we just got lucky) They aren't fucking with any of the universities responsible for managing national laboratories.

MIT has Lincoln Lab which, while not a DoE national lab, serves a pretty similar purpose for DoD.

Re: Regarding the Compact

#148

Post by BallsInIt »

stogot wrote: post #141
mostlysimilar wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Government forcing institutions to conform to a specific ideology. > Signatories commit themselves to revising governance structures as necessary to create such an environment, including but not limited to transforming or abolishing institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas. > Institutions commit to defining and otherwise interpreting “male,” “female,”…

It’s not an ideology. It was common sense for twenty millennia and only in the last few years has an ideology emerged.

[flagged]

Re: Regarding the Compact

#149

Post by pastel8739 »

laidoffamazon wrote: post #142
fedsocpuppet wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can deny it because it's obvious bullshit lol. I don't think that way and neither does anybody I know from MIT think that way. This is reality versus your imagination. If there's anyone I look down on it's my classmates who could've worked anywhere and still went to palantir... I can't claim 100% aren't assholes, but the vast majority realize the luck and arbitrary nature of it. Are you going to be stuck in decisio…

I've asked people at MIT this repeatedly. They all say they came to MIT for the peer group. Peer group = people that are not _like me_. They shut up quick when I challenge them on that point though, or ask what the difference between them and me is. Even the non-assholes sometimes genuinely don't realize there's an entire parallel world beneath them with zero privilege or respect that made $150k out of undergrad inst…

I am nearly sure that you are not arguing in good faith, but just the fact that you think all elite school grads make $500k shows that you have not talked to a nearly representative sample. I went to an elite school and have friends that make much less even than $150k. Are you aware that there is an entire parallel world beneath you with zero privilege or respect that make $40k instead of $150k?

I’m not sure why you think anyone is targeting you specifically. The vast majority of students at elite schools, in my experience, know that we got lucky in addition to all the other things that we did well to get admitted.

A couple people in this thread now have told you that they don’t match your description of “every” and “all” graduates of elite schools, and the nice thing about using such strong descriptors is that a single counterexample disproves them.

Re: Regarding the Compact

#150

Post by p4ul »

robotresearcher wrote: post #125
kjksf wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> an independent university MIT is taking (lots of) money from federal government. That makes them dependent on the government and government is within its right to attach strings to the money. MIT is free to not do what the government wants but then government is free to stop giving them (our) money. Furthermore, MIT, like any other organization, must obey state and federal laws. For example, there's a law that you…

> MIT is taking (lots of) money from federal government. The People of the United States are getting some of their research business done by MIT, yes. MIT competes for that business. It is not a gift, subsidy or favor to MIT. Of course grants and contracts have terms. I hope the government can come to terms with MIT because I want the best researchers doing our work.

I wish this was better understood more broadly. Grants aren't no-strings-attached gifts—far from it; they are contracts.

When a researcher at a university gets a grant, that's the federal government hiring that researcher and their team to complete a specific research project. The research team has a particular research question that the federal government has deemed important enough that U.S. tax payers would benefit from getting an answer.

Post reply on HN