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

Maybe the problem is that Harvard exists

dynomight.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 386 posts

Re: Maybe the problem is that Harvard exists

#341

Post by jwie »

The problem is not that elites exist.

The problem is that the current elites hate the people they rule over, and conspire with capital to rob everyone.

The dreamworld is not a classless society. But rather one where the leaders love those they lead and work for their betterment.

That being said, I’ve met enough Harvard and ivy types to have a low opinion. They’re no smarter than anyone else. These networks are powerful though. They will eventually collapse due to the crushing weight of their own incompetence and greed, but such corrections to the natural order take generational time.

Re: Maybe the problem is that Harvard exists

#342

Post by gonehome »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #316
gonehome wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My observation from doing hundreds of interviews at career fairs was the fancy schools (Stanford) had students that were way better at basic questions. This isn’t a perfect metric, but it’s signal. If your peers in undergrad were your friends, you were probably selecting a non-representative group (smart people you liked) and your job as a TA shows you a more random sample (or even skewed negative, poor students grub…

I agree and have noticed this too. Even the median kid from Stanford, Harvard, etc., has a level of elevator pitching skills that are unmatched by anyone below the 90th to 95th percentile at 'lower ranked' schools. In terms of raw smarts I wouldn't make so bold a claim, but in terms of what folks can realistically assess in a single minute of interaction...

It wasn’t just basic social skills, I was asking some simple CS/data structure questions.

Re: Maybe the problem is that Harvard exists

#343

Post by q1w2 »

gnopgnip wrote: post #149
lapcat wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The issue is that about 15% of every incoming class at Stanford is there through nepotism, not merit.

Re: Maybe the problem is that Harvard exists

#344

Post by r00fus »

nineplay wrote: post #213
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,…

My kid is only in middle school and I recently been readjusting my opinion towards 'elite' colleges. Being from the Bay Area we have friends and family who graduated from Stanford and Cal and up until recently I thought those were good schools for my kid to set their sights on. What I've seen in the last year or so is making me reconsider. I see the profiles of the top graduating seniors in our newsletters and they r…

Helps that Germany offers free college for everyone.

https://www.study.eu/article/study-in-germany-for-free-what-...

Re: Maybe the problem is that Harvard exists

#345

Post by q1w2 »

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 worked at Stanford admissions many years ago. Over 15% of every incoming class are students admitted due to nepotism.

At Harvard, that nepotism number is closer to 50%, according to my colleagues at the time.

The remainder are chosen from those with strong academics, nearly at random, with a very strong bias against students who don't visual demonstrate diversity on campus.

Re: Maybe the problem is that Harvard exists

#346

Post by munificent »

> I think the answer is: Each kid gets whatever experiences maximize their potential. That’s not controversial, is it? Ideally, they’d learn whatever subjects, in whatever style would best help them flourish into rich, happy, successful adults.

Actually, that isn't what people want.

If your ideal is "what each child receives is what that child deserves" then the only inputs that determine what the kid receives are from the kid themselves. What is missing from that equation? Parents. One of the fundamental goals of almost all parents is help my kid. They want to increase the opportunity and resources their kid has regardless of that kids' potential relative to others or whether the kid deserves those extra resources in any general or moral sense.

This is just another way to think of Pinker's trilemma, which is one of the most insightful things I've ever read about human society:

"No society can be simultaneously fair, free, and equal. If it is fair, people who work harder can accumulate more. If it is free, people will give their wealth to their children. But then it cannot be equal, for some people will inherit wealth they did not earn."

Re: Maybe the problem is that Harvard exists

#347

Post by HDThoreaun »

bboylen wrote: post #266
jgeada wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's simple: Ivy schools are mostly for $$$ to schmooze with other $$$, with a thin veneer of actually talented kids that had to pass insurmountable odds to get in. The talented kids are there to make the $$$ think they're also talented and had to pass the same rigorous criteria. Smoke and mirrors all of it.

People parrot this point a lot but it doesn't make any sense. The average SAT/ACT at the Ivy's are near perfect, the number of mediocre rich kids paying their way in is a small fraction of the student body. And yes test scores aren't the best metric for "talent" but it is one of the better signals you get in a college application.

All the schools lie about their average test scores to boost their rankings(source, president of northwestern when I took his econ class). We have no idea what the ivies averages are.

Re: Maybe the problem is that Harvard exists

#348

Post by yencabulator »

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,…

To a Northern European, this is all very weird. Especially once you bundle in the sports business..

What I grew up with:

- Universities are tax funded

- there's no tuition (there's an option to pay something like $500/year for being a member of the student organization, which gets you meal discounts, social events, etc; strictly not related to your studies)

- approval process is a direct function of high school grades and entrance exam, top N pass (exchange students were separate, and closer to scholarships, but still the criteria was scoring well in some test)

To someone who grew up in a different setting, many American systems can be summarized as institutionalized corruption.

Re: Maybe the problem is that Harvard exists

#349

Post by onetimeusename »

tristor wrote: post #117
ta8645 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would Ivy schools pass your children over?

Nobody ever openly talks about it, but the East Coast Ivies are still heavily WASPy, and it's largely due to things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Register Basically, if your family name isn't in that list, you have a massive reduction in your probability of being accepted, regardless of merit. If your name is in that list, then you likely will be accepted regardless of merit.

>but the East Coast Ivies are still heavily WASPy,

>and it's largely due to things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Register

These are very likely not true especially the second part but since specific ethnicity is not tracked it's much harder to disprove. But I would wager this is is not true at all.

Re: Maybe the problem is that Harvard exists

#350

Post by r00fus »

Tactician_mark wrote: post #229
okaram wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ivies have about a 5% admission rate, and they probably have a much higher percentage of valedictorians than the general population. They probably reject way more than 50% of the valedictorian/800 SAT applicants they have. Unless you are super-special, you need to be at that level and be lucky

There's a great Veritasium video about this. The idea is that if there are far more applicants than positions, then even if luck plays a small role - say, 5% of the outcome - successful applicants are overwhelmingly likely to be extremely lucky as well as highly qualified. Since so many people are close to that 95% competence factor, only the luckiest - by whatever metric of "luck" you like - can succeed.

Sounds like the hiring policy of one of my VPs from a job long ago (during a recession)

(As he dumps half of the hundreds of résumés into the recycle bin)

“Unlucky people don’t work here”

Post reply on HN