Live data from Hacker News

Maybe the problem is that Harvard exists

dynomight.net

351–360 of 386 posts

Re: Maybe the problem is that Harvard exists

#351
post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Imagine you live in a community of 1000 middle class people … Suddenly, 10 millionaires move in. I’m not an economist and there are countless reasons for that, but I can’t imagine that 10 millionaires in a community of 1,000 people would materially change life for the other 990 in the way that you’re suggesting. Gentrification and unbalanced income strata are real things and real problems, but the 1% aren’t causing…

Gentrification and unbalanced income strata are real things and real problems, but the 1% aren’t causing them simply by existing. This hits the nail on the head. It's tautological to say "the problem of inequality is caused by there being rich people that cause inequality". It pins the blame on individuals rather than the system they exist within.

Not wanting a class of wealth to exist speaks more about the system than the people.

99% of people who hate billionaires wouldn’t care about a specific person as long as that billionaire wasn’t actively trying to screw over the rest of us in their attempt to win more points.

Re: Maybe the problem is that Harvard exists

#352
post #37

> There’s a reasonable argument for putting the top professors together in one school, sure, and maybe even PhD students. Who's "putting" the professors there? The entire thing seemingly hinges on the idea that Harvard's role in society is somehow intentional and planned, as opposed to emergent and organic. I just don't buy it. The institution's stated objective may be the creation "citizen-leaders", but the influenc…

> The entire thing seemingly hinges on the idea that Harvard's role in society is somehow intentional and planned

At some point it doesn’t matter. It’s a self-reinforcing systemic effect now.

almost all of the political class having gone to these Ivys means Ivys have vastly more representation than anyone else.

Re: Maybe the problem is that Harvard exists

#353

> 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 fr…

At what point is freedom mainly about ignoring inheritance taxes?

That’s a highly political view of “freedom”.

Re: Maybe the problem is that Harvard exists

#354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe this is veering off-topic, but as someone outside of that industry who understands the basic ideas around repackaging loans, etc., I’m very curious to hear which aspects you think are inaccurate!

The big short basically painted it as a naked cash grab by cackling Wall Street traders. My experience was it was fairly prosaic at the banks, essentially trying to construct products our customers wanted to buy. There was a lot of stuff that was going wrong, a lot of it was at: At the micro level: * local and regional banks stuffing mortgage pipelines with garbage, colluding with appraisers and others to make outrag…

So, I think I agree with everything you said except the first sentence! My takeaway from the movie was pretty much what you wrote in the bullets. Specifically, that the set of folks who ultimately profited from betting against the mortgages were the only ones not asleep at the wheel. Moreover, if more people had correctly clocked the risk earlier on (especially the rating agencies), we wouldn’t have ended up in that situation in the first place.

I thought the movie mostly portrayed the bankers sympathetically, e.g. the scene with Brad Pitt: “Just... Stop f**in' dancing.”

Re: Maybe the problem is that Harvard exists

#355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The purpose of a system is what it does"

OK. But the problem here is that people disagree on what Harvard does. That has to be established before we can even work backwards to a purpose, assuming this framework you suggest is even valid, which I separately doubt. My a priori assumption of the purpose of a car is to transport people. Cars kill thousands of people each year. Is the purpose of a car then to kill people?

The 6 comments before accepted for discussion's sake at least a view on what Harvard does. Why stop now?

The dominant purpose of a car is to use a system of car centered infrastructure. Why did some places replace car centered infrastructure with other systems and some not?

Re: Maybe the problem is that Harvard exists

#356
post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Looking back, that's not a bad life lesson to get into your system early. I think it's also important for those to not place too much of their worth in college and realize that there are many "Stanford qualified" students who don't get into Stanford for one reason or another.

Re: Maybe the problem is that Harvard exists

#357
post #353

> 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 fr…

At what point is freedom mainly about ignoring inheritance taxes? That’s a highly political view of “freedom”.

By "give their wealth to their children", Pinker doesn't mean "when they die".

He's referring to the more general observation that parents want to take care of their kids as well as they can. But they do that in a strictly unfair way: they prioritize their kids over all other kids simply because they happened to have spawned them, a property the kid has zero control over.

Re: Maybe the problem is that Harvard exists

#358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK. But the problem here is that people disagree on what Harvard does. That has to be established before we can even work backwards to a purpose, assuming this framework you suggest is even valid, which I separately doubt. My a priori assumption of the purpose of a car is to transport people. Cars kill thousands of people each year. Is the purpose of a car then to kill people?

The 6 comments before accepted for discussion's sake at least a view on what Harvard does. Why stop now? The dominant purpose of a car is to use a system of car centered infrastructure. Why did some places replace car centered infrastructure with other systems and some not?

> Why did some places replace car centered infrastructure with other systems and some not?

Are we really gonna do this? My point was that intentions can be, and often are, different from outcomes. You don’t throw out babies with bathwater.

Re: Maybe the problem is that Harvard exists

#359
The OP (original post) describes what we might call problems, issues, or challenges in US formal, academic education, say, K through 4 year college. Here is a theme of a rough solution, necessarily "rough" if only because US education and the problems are not precisely stated or understood.

(1) Learning, Knowledge, Understanding. Yup, for doing well in life, learning, ... is usually (being "rough" here) from somewhat useful to crucial. Some of the knowledge is explicitly taught in the education, some is taught outside that education, and still more an individual has to pick up, ..., discover, on their own. E.g., on my own I had to learn the fast Fourier transform and discover office politics.

(2) US Academics. The US K through college emphasizes learning. In an old joke the teacher has a full pitcher of knowledge, pours it into the student's empty pitcher, on tests has the student pour back what they have learned, and determines the grade from the fraction that comes back.

From this "emphasis" and "process", there can be a LOT of struggle, strain, lost sleep, hard work, anxiety, etc. for a student and their family.

(3) Surprise. After 4 year college, US academics no longer much cares what the student has learned and, instead, cares almost only about what the student can DO, especially in delivering new research results. For more, do well in such research and all the student did in education will be forgiven, forgotten, ignored, etc.

So, if want a degree from a famous research university, get a graduate degree, Master's and/or Ph.D. Generally admission to such university's graduate school is much easier than to their 4 year college -- also much cheaper. For such admission, doing well on the GRE (graduate record exam) can help. Having done well in an early career can help. Some research can help a lot more, really close the deal, giving the student admission, no tuition, and maybe some money for doing some ugrad teaching, work on some prof's research project, etc.

Summary: For a degree from a famous research university, go for a graduate degree and there emphasize research.

Or, what US research universities care about, more than nearly everything else, is in just one word research.

In my case, while in grad school, I picked a problem, for two weeks did some research, and found a solution, clearly publishable (later did publish the solution). Presto, bingo, magic, I was regarded as a star student in the department, and everything else about my work was irrelevant. I went ahead and did some dissertation research, also clearly publishable, while doing that work was beyond any criticism, had a shiny halo, was untouchable, got my Ph.D., and with great joy LEFT.

The OP mentions Harvard; I got into Princeton and Cornell but never applied to Harvard. Sure, going to any such university for any degree can involve more than just "research", but might want to critically evaluate the "more".

One more point: Research that finds mathematical solutions, mathematizes the subject, is relatively highly regarded. For that approach, a big issue is learning the math, but in grad school beware of advanced math courses: Commonly the teaching is poor and the hidden agenda is to set up a competition to filter the students. But if mostly know the math before the course, then can be 10 yards from the finish line in a 2 mile race, be by a wide margin the best student in the class, and greatly reduce the chances of being filtered. Yes, doing so well can cause some of the profs to resent you and become hostile.

With math, doing the learning before the class is relatively easy: Just get some of the best books, usually from famous authors, study the theorems and proofs, work the exercises, try to find intuitive views of the material, reasons for the particular definitions and theorems, and examples.

Beyond calculus, I'd suggest: Abstract algebra, linear algebra, ordinary differential equations, measure theory, Fourier theory, differential forms, the Gauss, Green, and Stokes theorems, differential geometry, probability based on measure theory, and statistics based on that probability. Some good authors include Halmos, Nering, Coddington, Rudin, Royden, Breiman, Neveu, Cinlar. To boil it down to just two books to study carefully I'd recommend Halmos for linear algebra (Finite Dimensional Vector Spaces) and Breiman for probability.

Re: Maybe the problem is that Harvard exists

#360
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There’s definitely a Marxist undertone to the whole thing Because it argues for meritocratic rewards in society? Because it pointed out that capital is a gatekeeper? What makes it seem "Marxist" to you? > Why not build more “Ivy+” and attempt to lift others up rather than flip the table? I think the argument against subsidizing anti-meritocratic institutions such as Harvard is exactly this. The money is better spen…

It’s the same folk-interpretation of Marxism that always goes around. Now that Marxism is dead and can’t defend itself, it’s whatever anyone wants it to be. States that were far closer to Marxism, like the PRC during the Cultural Revolution, decimated their universities and dispersed their faculties over the countryside, or to labor camps. This article is not on the same planet as that madness.

Now I'm seriously confused - a major criticism, by communists, of the Cultural Revolution was the blow back against all intellectuals and the destruction of the education system in the PRC. In what was was that Marxist? I mean, I know the arguments the red guard made, but there were other Marxists that disagreed. Are you just saying the red guard interpretation was the correct one?
Post reply on HN