511–517 of 517 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You kidding? Did you not know working class kids who actually needed a job?
And had to wake up at 6:30 or earlier to go to school? No.
So why dismiss other people's lives just because they are different than yours? What's the point of lying about waking up early?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I’ve known a lot of Ivy League graduates and they were all very smart. Most of them were very good people, too. A lot of them came from backgrounds that didn’t include wealth or social connections. Again, the fact that entry to the class system can be meritocratic is entirely disconnected from the fact of it operating as a class system. When I worked at Big tech I remember recruiters (US-based) talking about hiring…
I was responding to this part of your post: > rather than a symbol of educational attainment. Your original argument appeared to imply that it was a system designed to separate people by class, not by merit or educational attainment. In my experience the people who are that selective about university pedigree are either doing it out of laziness (outsourcing selection process to the university filtering mechanism) or…
I guess my core point is that those people you note (and I've met loads of them too) would have been equally smart and educated if they'd gone to a less prestigious university, but conditional on their ability, they'll do better at getting higher status jobs because they went to an Ivy League.
> In my experience the people who are that selective about university pedigree are either doing it out of laziness (outsourcing selection process to the university filtering mechanism)
This was a HR level policy at a really fast growing tech company (Facebook, back in 2013). I remember it because I was so shocked that this was a thing (not being an Ivy League graduate myself).
When you force high school kids to work days that are significantly longer than a normal adult to achieve a good GPA and get into a good college, you can expect that they are going to throttle back once they're away from home with way more free time than is normal. From my kid's experience: she was up at 6:30am, in AP classes by 7:30am (three more to go during the day). Classes were done by 3:00, then sports practice…
> When you force high school kids to work days that are significantly longer than a normal adult to achieve a good GPA and get into a good college, My neighborhood and social circle have a number of high school age children, some aiming for high ranking universities. None of them have these grueling 15 hour day schedules you’re describing. I don’t even know of a high school around me that starts at 7:30AM. What unive…
When you force high school kids to work days that are significantly longer than a normal adult to achieve a good GPA and get into a good college, you can expect that they are going to throttle back once they're away from home with way more free time than is normal. From my kid's experience: she was up at 6:30am, in AP classes by 7:30am (three more to go during the day). Classes were done by 3:00, then sports practice…
> sports practice until 5:00. Gotta have that activity on your college application, not counting other volunteering and clubs in the open spaces. Still baffles me why is that even a thing that's considered at the colleges. I thought it was just a relic of Soviet past but no, apparently it exists in the US and other first world countries as well for some strange reason.
You have 100 places on the course next year. You have 10,000 applications with straight A's. You need to put ~9,000 in the bin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The catch is that it is harder to brute force being truly exceptional in one thing. That often requires talent and predisposition. That’s true for sports, music, and academics, but I think “grinding” exceptional leadership can be a thing. It’s very learnable, and effort often times makes the difference. Some simple examples I’ve seen in various forms: - starting a meaningful business or non-profit - starting a mean…
Still seems like a much more risky and challenging strategy with low chance of success. What is the chance that a mediocre or talentless student can grind Regional success? What is the chance that mediocre and talentless parents can support that? Grinding grades and academics is absolutely a path the top tier universities like Berkeley or UCLA, even if you won't get in the S tier private schools. I've seen several ES…
Yeah. We are talking about different types of schools.
For one, Cal and UCLA both admit a lot of students. It’s just not as competitive. Additionally, it’s fairly easy for a decent grinder student to go to a feeder JuCo and transfer to either of these schools (which would be a fine outcome for the “ESL immigrant parents” you gave as an example).
Second, while Cal and UCLA are top-tier public schools (along with schools like UMich, UVa, and UTexas), I don’t consider them elite in terms of undergrad programs [1]. Any resident of California who gets into Stanford or an Ivy would be able to get into either of those (excepting anomalies like unusually high departmental requirements at some UC schools like Cal).
So sure, if the goal (esp. for California residents) is to get into a UC school, going the grinder route is fine — overkill in most cases, but fine. This will be less than ideal if they are also considering elite schools like Stanford or Ivies.
[1] What makes an undergrad program elite? The short answer is drive and the ability to get things done.
If you take the top 1000 admits from Stanford and compare them to the top 1000 admits at Cal, you may not see much difference in terms of raw intellect — plenty of super smart people in both groups. But the Stanford students will be more ambitious, they will push each other much harder (and in most cases learn more), and they will achieve more than the Cal students. Note that this isn’t a knock on Cal students — it’s just a different way of approaching school and life that is quite apparent when you interact with enough folks from each group.
Stanford, an elite school, can and does select for these traits. Cal just can’t be as picky due to the large number of admits and certain state policies.
The University of Michigan has around a 15% acceptance rate. How is it possible that they’re letting in kids who aren’t ready to do college level work? What are they selecting for?
The University I went to has like an 80% acceptance rate so it's not comparable, but I was surprised when I got into 400-level CS classes and there were people who didn't know how to program at all. Our professor assigned us to write a fast fourier transform, and when we had class next week apparently everyone claimed that it was too difficult so he changed the assignment to "find an implementation online and write a…