21–30 of 386 posts
Every tech company I’ve worked at has been run by Ivy people but all the actual code is written by Cal State graduates and high school dropouts.
I.e. there get-shit-done areas, and there are showing-off areas, with very different ruling classes in them, different problems too.
There is always a ruling class. It's an emergent phenomenon which always reasserts itself after any upset. Basically a law of nature.
If I grew up in this ideal, I'd be a bum. I was a lazy and arrogant teenager; my ideal path was to go "oh, sh*t, I need to work hard or I won't get into a good school"
I'm not saying our system is perfect (or even good). But it's easy to critique a system when you acknowledge exactly 0 of its benefits.
There is always a ruling class. It's an emergent phenomenon which always reasserts itself after any upset. Basically a law of nature.
So, if anything, I'd say the one law of nature is that there are no laws of nature. Thus, no, there isn't always a ruling class. It doesn't have to be that way.
This article misses the simple fact that the type of fellow students you have will impact how well you do as a student. Humans are social creatures and will influence each other's behavior. That's not even getting into negative pressure from things like bullying. edit: Also their point on the curriculum being similar misses the fact that the standard for doing well differs. Barely learning some material is different…
Doesn't that enhance the effect of the gate rather than detract from it? If, ceteris paribus, being around the shiniest of gold stars helps you shimmer a little brighter, that seems likely to make the gating-function effect more pronounced, not less. My criticism of the article is that there's no alternative solution given. You want to abolish all admissions? That's cool. What do we replace it with? A lottery seems l…
Every tech company I’ve worked at has been run by Ivy people but all the actual code is written by Cal State graduates and high school dropouts.
There is always a ruling class. It's an emergent phenomenon which always reasserts itself after any upset. Basically a law of nature.
Isn't pre-agricultural society supposed to have been fairly egalitarian in comparison?
This article misses the simple fact that the type of fellow students you have will impact how well you do as a student. Humans are social creatures and will influence each other's behavior. That's not even getting into negative pressure from things like bullying. edit: Also their point on the curriculum being similar misses the fact that the standard for doing well differs. Barely learning some material is different…
Isn't this what is suggested below the second picture? > Really, it’s harder than this picture suggests, because many experiences are based on other students. If I want you as my project partner but you want to forget I exist, then something has to give.
I benefited greatly getting this program, but would have never bothered to apply by taking GRE first (in my 30s, if I may add) otherwise.