51–60 of 68 posts
IIT grads get funded to study using taxpayers money in India and they migrate to the US. There is no use for the country funding them with high quality education. We should stop funding IITs with tax payers money which is of no benefit to the people or the country. India's brain drain.
The article stops just short of implying a causal connection between what school you go to and whether you're going to "found a unicorn" but come on! Maybe, just maybe , could it be that this deserves a little deeper look? Perhaps people who have the opportunity to go to one of these top schools have that opportunity because of some other structural advantage that also provides them the opportunity to found a unicorn…
Obviously. I think the biggest benefit this group has is the safety to fail. I worked 40+ hours and was doing 12+ credits for my undergrad. When I graduated, I had massive loans and bills to pay. I wonder what I could have done if I had two years with no bills to work on something and zero debt looming.
IIT grads get funded to study using taxpayers money in India and they migrate to the US. There is no use for the country funding them with high quality education. We should stop funding IITs with tax payers money which is of no benefit to the people or the country. India's brain drain.
Broadly speaking and if it can be done effectively, funding education on a higher municipal level makes more sense as it's less likely recipients will take their education elsewhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is so frustrating to see this inane sour grapes mentality. The idea that there is nothing exceptional about attendees at ivy league schools is wholly absurd and betrays a personal ignorance. The schools are extremely selective and offer lucrative scholarships to minorities (and, let's not forget, poor whites as well) such that you do not need to be wealthy or connected to get into something like MIT, but you do ne…
I can't quite tell if this is a satirical comment. It's almost too peak HN to be taken seriously.
The article stops just short of implying a causal connection between what school you go to and whether you're going to "found a unicorn" but come on! Maybe, just maybe , could it be that this deserves a little deeper look? Perhaps people who have the opportunity to go to one of these top schools have that opportunity because of some other structural advantage that also provides them the opportunity to found a unicorn…
Existing family wealth and connections? Maybe. But what about skill, ability, creativity, ambition, determination? Do the people doing this work deserve no credit?
Of course they deserve credit. The question is, what about the people with "skill, ability, creativity, ambition, determination" but no family wealth and connections? Do they deserve even more credit if they succeed?
What if a lack of wealth and connections proves too much of a limiting factor (i.e. nothing to show other than a serious attempt)? Do they still deserve credit? Of course, credit for failure is a bit of an oxymoron so maybe those with the necessary wealth and connections will only ever be the ones to get credit. Is that not a problem?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Furthermore, their qualifications after graduation from these school are more respected regardless of the quality of the education described by the degree.
Top tier schools are almost like a noble title on the East coast. Out West it's less extreme but it still matters. I've lived in both places.
It pissed me off, frankly, because the ad was not framed in terms of actual accomplishments or credentials or skills, but in terms of whether or not you attended an elite school. As in it literally stated that they were looking for people from "top 10 schools" or some such thing.
They made it abundantly clear they did not care about someone's actual abilities or skills, only what their pedigree was.
What makes me so angry is that this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy at that point. This article is a natural extension of that process.
I loathe recent political trends in the US, but I'm not surprised at all to see the populism that's arisen. Society is dripping with nepotism of various forms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't quite tell if this is a satirical comment. It's almost too peak HN to be taken seriously.
I think there's merit to both arguments - but I agree with the grandparent comment in that too often nowadays we tend to dismiss people in Ivy League colleges as simply products of a wealthy background. As a current public high school student, I can assure you that the ivies are more selective than ever and kids who are being accepted nowadays are truly exceptional.
What frustrates me is the assumption that because an elite school is so selective, the inherent abilities of someone admitted there are that much greater than someone who was not. In my experience, as the admission selectivity is raised, the signals being paid attention to are that much more random, for lack of a way of putting it.
It's kind of like Japanese fruit. Is it good? Sure, but is it best? Does that perfectly round melon mean that it's better than, say, that wonderful rare heirloom melon you bought from a farmer at that farmer's market, that was a little blemished on one side?
You have to have the stars align in just the right way to have the right application, plus a bit of luck. Does that mean that person isn't talented? Definitely not--they almost certainly are.
The thing that's much more pernicious, to me, is the assumption that that person is necessarily any different from someone who, say, went to a state school and graduated with top honors.
The most talented people I've worked with were not necessarily from elite private schools; the latter were talented, but not any more so than many of the other people I've met and respected.
But I do think that they were often given the benefit of the doubt, or kind of revered or something, based on their degree, rather than what they had accomplished. It's as if the person from the state school had to work harder to gain the same respect, even though their actual accomplishments said otherwise.
Class and wealth pretending to be worthy of merit.
Getting into CS/ECE in an IIT (especially the ones of repute) needs you to be in the top 0.01% (or top 1000 among a million) that give the exam every year.
It is almost a certainty that every student that ends up getting a top 1000 rank for IITs has slogged his ass off for the 2 years of their life simply to get in.
IIT grads get funded to study using taxpayers money in India and they migrate to the US. There is no use for the country funding them with high quality education. We should stop funding IITs with tax payers money which is of no benefit to the people or the country. India's brain drain.
The proportion of IIT graduates leaving India has significantly decreased over the years. Last year just 200 went abroad. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/indias-brain-...
The majority that head out go for graduate education. The statistic doesn't take them into consideration.
The 200 is absolutely bogus.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Better? It is just much easier for them to get funding. More funding -> More successes. Source: I know a ton of people who went to Stanford and who had zero trouble getting near unlimited funding. Also the purpose of this article is to appeal to the Indian reader base that is qz.com. They are writing articles to appease their demographics.
From what I see from QZ fb feed, they also post articles that portrays India in a negative light. Definitely their focus is their India, but assumption that they want to appease the Indian demographic may not be enitirely true.