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

Blockbuster Alzheimer's paper retracted by former Stanford president

stanforddaily.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 143 posts

Re: Blockbuster Alzheimer's paper retracted by former Stanford president

#21

Post by mgiampapa »

dpflan wrote: post #16
ShamelessC wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

People have to have the innovative ideas and skill to make them happen, and others need to know them to fund the venture.

Re: Blockbuster Alzheimer's paper retracted by former Stanford president

#22

Post by laidoffamazon »

maest wrote: post #11
echelon wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Given that MIT grads are objectively superior to the rest of us that didn't get into any elite schools in basically every dimension I'd wager it's fairly high.

With that said, the Square interview process isn't as algorithmic as most tech or finance companies and is instead more collaborative, so the raw IQ most MIT grads would use for their Jane Street interviews probably doesn't apply here.

Re: Blockbuster Alzheimer's paper retracted by former Stanford president

#23

Post by WillPostForFood »

smugma wrote: post #9
nonrepeating wrote: post #5

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?

In a positive sense, they are the two top tech oriented universities, west coast and east coast counterparts.

In the negative, you have this story at Stanford. With MIT you have the Jeffery Epstein connection, some high profile retractions, and the president part of the three Uni Presidents who flubbed the anti-semitism question in the congressional hearing.

Re: Blockbuster Alzheimer's paper retracted by former Stanford president

#24

Post by VHRanger »

wand3r wrote: post #10

> 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?

The replication crisis and data colada showed there's tons of dubious science. About half of papers results don't hold up to replication.

Re: Blockbuster Alzheimer's paper retracted by former Stanford president

#26

Post by nahsra »

whalesalad wrote: post #13
smugma wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you grouping MIT into the same group as Stanford?

They’re all wrought with dishonesty and self preservation.

Jennifer Doudna [1], who helped characterize* CRISPR, worked at Yale:

> Doudna joined Yale's Department of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry as an assistant professor in 1994.

... and now works at UC Berkeley.

David Liu [2], who pioneered base editing, a generational improvement on classic CRISPR, works at Broad Institute (which is a collab between Harvard and MIT):

> He is the Richard Merkin Professor, Director of the Merkin Institute of Transformative Technologies in Healthcare, and Vice-Chair of the Faculty at the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT

I absolutely loathe the current social meta where people are allowed (even celebrated) for thoughtlessly punching upwards, regardless how broad the brush (boxing glove?) seems to be. Are there shitheads in these institutions? Undoubtedly. Are there also a ton of really brilliant people who have good intentions, have integrity, and deserve your utmost respect? Undoubtedly. Are the shitheads more likely to be located in administration? My bet is yes, because the scope of administration is a lot more political, but again -- we have to be careful.

Is it anywhere near accurate to say "They’re all wrought with dishonesty and self preservation"? I don't see how this statement could be supported with anything other than personal emotion. Anti-intellectualism is just another form of dangerous prejudice and should be treated as such. You can sign me up for metaphorically stringing up this particular asshole.

I also say all this as someone who didn't go to a prestigious school.

Happy New Years!

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Doudna [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_R._Liu

Re: Blockbuster Alzheimer's paper retracted by former Stanford president

#28

Post by ekianjo »

echelon wrote: post #8
nonrepeating wrote: post #5

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.

Not surprising. Papers have no bearing on ones capabilities especially in an era where knowledge is virtually everywhere

Re: Blockbuster Alzheimer's paper retracted by former Stanford president

#29

Post by aaronbrethorst »

smugma wrote: post #9
nonrepeating wrote: post #5

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?

"Smug MA"?
Post reply on HN