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

81–90 of 143 posts

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

#81

Post by theGnuMe »

laidoffamazon wrote: post #66
wolverine876 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's my anecdote: In extensive exposure to a top-25 global university, and to a top-10 elite one, there was a big difference in the student body and the education. The latter was a different world; the education was innovative, brilliant, demanding at a very high level that I didn't anticipate. The students operated at a different level, world-class talent with shocking intelligence and, for their age, experience,…

I'd love for you to tell me, step by step, what someone that didn't get into a top institution of any kind should take away from this comment. Because all I can take away is that people like me are just objectively inferior compared to you, destined to not be a future leader or professional. Is that not what you are attempting to communicate? I just want to be crystal clear. We all know people like you are superhuman…

So turns out that someone studied this way back in 1999. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1999-10/27/049r-...

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

#82

Post by laidoffamazon »

theGnuMe wrote: post #81
laidoffamazon wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love for you to tell me, step by step, what someone that didn't get into a top institution of any kind should take away from this comment. Because all I can take away is that people like me are just objectively inferior compared to you, destined to not be a future leader or professional. Is that not what you are attempting to communicate? I just want to be crystal clear. We all know people like you are superhuman…

So turns out that someone studied this way back in 1999. I'll let you draw your own conclusions. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1999-10/27/049r-...

Unless I'm missing something obvious Dale & Kruger says people that get into top schools get the premium, which is exactly what I alluded to. What can the rest of us even do?

Makes me think my class of people are just considered garbage humans by everyone.

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

#83

Post by theGnuMe »

laidoffamazon wrote: post #82
theGnuMe wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So turns out that someone studied this way back in 1999. I'll let you draw your own conclusions. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1999-10/27/049r-...

Unless I'm missing something obvious Dale & Kruger says people that get into top schools get the premium, which is exactly what I alluded to. What can the rest of us even do? Makes me think my class of people are just considered garbage humans by everyone.

You are indeed missing something obvious.

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

#84

Post by laidoffamazon »

theGnuMe wrote: post #83
laidoffamazon wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless I'm missing something obvious Dale & Kruger says people that get into top schools get the premium, which is exactly what I alluded to. What can the rest of us even do? Makes me think my class of people are just considered garbage humans by everyone.

You are indeed missing something obvious.

Help me out here, what am I missing?

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

#86

Post by ken47 »

wolverine876 wrote: post #57
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.

Here's my anecdote: In extensive exposure to a top-25 global university, and to a top-10 elite one, there was a big difference in the student body and the education. The latter was a different world; the education was innovative, brilliant, demanding at a very high level that I didn't anticipate. The students operated at a different level, world-class talent with shocking intelligence and, for their age, experience,…

Throwing out numbers like 83% and 33% seems like a handwavy attempt at precision and diminishes your argument. The real world is not like university, unless you live in the very small subset of the world that makes its living off research. Formal education / book smarts !== leadership.

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

#87

Post by ken47 »

laidoffamazon wrote: post #82
theGnuMe wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So turns out that someone studied this way back in 1999. I'll let you draw your own conclusions. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1999-10/27/049r-...

Unless I'm missing something obvious Dale & Kruger says people that get into top schools get the premium, which is exactly what I alluded to. What can the rest of us even do? Makes me think my class of people are just considered garbage humans by everyone.

What is your class of people? The 99.99% that you alluded to in another comment? Can that be called a class of people?

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

#88

Post by ken47 »

laidoffamazon wrote: post #76
defrost wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rich parents does a lot of lifting there. Stephen Smale scored a Wolf Prize, a Fields Medal, a Sloane Fellowship and a slew of other accolades off the back of mediocre grades at the University of Michigan (a fairly decent public research uni I've heard but not as far as I know an "elite" school). Looking around there's many a high achiever that missed out on a US Ivy League placing.

Don't know if Smale is a good example to use, since he did this 75 years ago! Back then the CUNY schools had similarly impressive graduates due to quotas at the elite schools. And Michigan is also a public ivy, though I'll concede it's more achievable to get into Michigan compared to Princeton (far more egalitarian in this regard). I'll be honest, I'm sure there are some high achievers that missed out, but I haven't…

You mean like Steve Jobs who, by your definition, didn’t go to a top school, but is more highly regarded than 99.99% of graduates of top schools?

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

#89

Post by laidoffamazon »

ken47 wrote: post #87
laidoffamazon wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless I'm missing something obvious Dale & Kruger says people that get into top schools get the premium, which is exactly what I alluded to. What can the rest of us even do? Makes me think my class of people are just considered garbage humans by everyone.

What is your class of people? The 99.99% that you alluded to in another comment? Can that be called a class of people?

Correct, those of us that didn't get into any elite institution (and most likely aren't considered "qualified").

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

#90

Post by laidoffamazon »

theGnuMe wrote: post #85
laidoffamazon wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Help me out here, what am I missing?

Maybe read the article?

It seems like my takeaway is identical to the article's takeaway, that getting in matters more than going. Unless you're thinking of something else.

The whole "matters less multiple years into career" bit is a cope if it's just a measure of how inherently good you are if you can get in. There seems to be a clear separation between the people that get in and the people that don't!

Post reply on HN