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

91–100 of 386 posts

Re: Maybe the problem is that Harvard exists

#91

Post by sokoloff »

> What would happen in schools if we lived in a magical dreamworld? I think the answer is: Each kid gets whatever experiences maximize their potential.

That answer sure does sound like the stuff of magical dreamworlds.

Whatever experiences maximize their potential is the province of families, not the stuff of society-paid education. It's not that it couldn't be provided by the latter, but the daunting expense means that it will never be funded to a level that maximizes on an individualized basis.

What would that require? One teacher for every 4 kids, maybe you could stretch it to 6 or 8. On top of that, a multitude of specialists to ensure that any special needs are addressed in an individually customized fashion to maximize the potential of every kid. In many districts, we can't get agreement that we should feed every kid, let alone agreement that there should be roughly one professional adult in total for every 2-3 kids.

> In dreamworld, every kid would follow their own path. There would be no “advanced classes” or “tracks” because those concepts wouldn’t exist.

Those concepts would absolutely exist, just under a different label (and maybe not even that), because kids at the very top of the range would be taking something that would be readily recognizable as the close equivalent of today's advanced classes.

Re: Maybe the problem is that Harvard exists

#92

Post by TheRealPomax »

ryandrake wrote: post #67
fnordpiglet wrote: post #8

I find the Harvard angst interesting. I’ve never once felt someone else going to Harvard impacted my life in any way whatsoever. I’ve advanced further than everyone I know that went to Harvard in my career and not once did someone wink at the Harvard guy and pass me over. I’m sure it happens, and I’m sure there are secret clubs I don’t get invited to (well the Harvard club is pretty nice and I was invited there by a…

The existence of billionaires and millionaires negatively affects everyone else's standard of living via gentrification. Imagine you live in a community of 1000 middle class people, all making, say, $30K/yr to $60K/yr. You make $45K/year so you're about average. You can all afford homes, goods, and so on. Suddenly, 10 millionaires move in. Housing prices start to rise a little bit, grocery stores get a little more up…

Downvotes notwithstanding, if you make $45k but you can afford an actual house, you're pretty much a unicorn at this point in time in the western world (US, Europe, doesn't matter, everywhere's pretty much unaffordable now). Or you gave up on civilization and you bought a property out in the sticks of course.

Either way, you're not going to get 10 millionaires just moving into an area with houses that are so cheap they ignore them as "too cheap" on a realty listing. Even if you're talking about an investment purchase and then they don't move in, themselves. You might have a property developer though, looking to create the next HOA hellscape.

This really isn't a good hypothetical.

Re: Maybe the problem is that Harvard exists

#93

Post by samvher »

blitzar wrote: post #73
samvher wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have worked in an environment where it really did seem to matter. An organization set up by Harvard folks where other Harvard folks seemed to have advantages in (a) getting in and (b) getting ahead. It wasn't ever really addressed explicitly (though "credentialism" was occasionally mentioned by others as well, I wasn't the only one who noticed). It definitely played a role in my leaving that organization. Edit - I…

I live in a non US country so we can for once have the counterfactual, as for us harvard does not exist. I have worked in an environment where {maths degrees} really did seem to matter. An organization set up by people with {maths degrees} where other people with {maths degrees} seemed to have advantages in (a) getting in and (b) getting ahead. It wasn't ever really addressed explicitly (though "credentialism" was oc…

I'm from a non US country, so the concept of a Harvard is foreign to me as well. And yes, I've also worked for selective employers where maths degrees mattered a lot. It never bothered me.

Not sure what you're trying to say. Hiring people based on individual merit and skills is not the same thing as hiring people based on an exclusive network. The Harvard employer favored Harvard folks over others who otherwise had the same (or better) skills.

Re: Maybe the problem is that Harvard exists

#94

Post by culturestate »

ryandrake wrote: post #67
fnordpiglet wrote: post #8

I find the Harvard angst interesting. I’ve never once felt someone else going to Harvard impacted my life in any way whatsoever. I’ve advanced further than everyone I know that went to Harvard in my career and not once did someone wink at the Harvard guy and pass me over. I’m sure it happens, and I’m sure there are secret clubs I don’t get invited to (well the Harvard club is pretty nice and I was invited there by a…

The existence of billionaires and millionaires negatively affects everyone else's standard of living via gentrification. Imagine you live in a community of 1000 middle class people, all making, say, $30K/yr to $60K/yr. You make $45K/year so you're about average. You can all afford homes, goods, and so on. Suddenly, 10 millionaires move in. Housing prices start to rise a little bit, grocery stores get a little more up…

> 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 them simply by existing.

Re: Maybe the problem is that Harvard exists

#96

Post by ta8645 »

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,…

Why would Ivy schools pass your children over?

Re: Maybe the problem is that Harvard exists

#97

Post by triceratops »

ryandrake wrote: post #67
fnordpiglet wrote: post #8

I find the Harvard angst interesting. I’ve never once felt someone else going to Harvard impacted my life in any way whatsoever. I’ve advanced further than everyone I know that went to Harvard in my career and not once did someone wink at the Harvard guy and pass me over. I’m sure it happens, and I’m sure there are secret clubs I don’t get invited to (well the Harvard club is pretty nice and I was invited there by a…

The existence of billionaires and millionaires negatively affects everyone else's standard of living via gentrification. Imagine you live in a community of 1000 middle class people, all making, say, $30K/yr to $60K/yr. You make $45K/year so you're about average. You can all afford homes, goods, and so on. Suddenly, 10 millionaires move in. Housing prices start to rise a little bit, grocery stores get a little more up…

> Now scale that up country-wide or world-wide. The more wealthy people there are, the higher the average cost of everything.

The average income and wealth is higher too.

> The existence of billionaires and millionaires negatively affects everyone else's standard of living via gentrification

Gentrification benefits property owners and is bad for renters. Believe it or not, bad neighborhoods have homeowners too and most of them would love for their bad neighborhood to become better. So it's not like the effects are uniformly negative. Even renters who are able to afford higher rents, or have rent-controlled housing, benefit from living in a safer, cleaner, more prosperous area. Their children's schools will have more involved parents, more funding.

The real issue with wealth inequality is the disproportionate amount of political influence the wealthy have. I have no problem with people being disgustingly rich as long as they don't use their money to influence laws.

Re: Maybe the problem is that Harvard exists

#98

Post by endisneigh »

this article had so many terrible takes I don't know where to begin. the simplest refutation of the entire thing is the extensive evidence that people who are accepted to top schools, but do not attend have similar achieves as those who go.

this lends credence to the idea that the top schools are simplest triaging the successful and do not create them, in general. Of course there are specific exceptions to this, such as Supreme Court Justices, but in general it seems to be true.

The paper (https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/C...) is ultimately flawed because it doesn't (and cannot) evaluate the simplest thing: look at people who are accepted to the top schools who do not attend. The problem with using waitlist and is that waitlist is ultimately as arbitrary as rejection and not some arbiter of a "marginal acceptance". The entire premise of their argument is flawed to begin with.

Furthermore it goes into jobs held after selection and are highly fixated on "social" jobs, e.g. politicians and supreme court justices, which are inherently scarce and highly likely to be stratified in such a way that is perpetuated by elitism, irrespective of "elite colleges".

In the end the authors (who are from the very schools they think are perpetuating issues ironically) miss the point. Definitionally elite colleges want elite results. Their call to diversify the background of their students and thus the future leaders is inherently at odds with this unless those diversity people already had a propensity to be elite, by definition.

the stratification of society is an emergent phenomenon.

Re: Maybe the problem is that Harvard exists

#99

Post by programmarchy »

kneebonian wrote: post #81
programmarchy wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like you've got your rose tinted glasses on. The first universities were established by religious leaders to organize/control priestly power. Basically the same as today.

Seems like your off. The first universities were the Acadamy of Plato and the rehtorical schools of the ancient Greeks. During the middle ages the universities were associated with the monastaries because those were the few places where literate people congregated. Plus there were only 5 areas of study in the early university. - Theology - Law - Medicine - Natural Scene - And mathematics (I think) So you're wrong, li…

I take it you haven't read Plato's Republic...

Re: Maybe the problem is that Harvard exists

#100

Post by fallingknife »

aidenn0 wrote: post #65
fallingknife wrote: post #16

I have no issue with Harvard existing. However, it should be taxed on its endowment and it should not receive taxpayer support like student loans unless it commits to being a purely meritocratic institution.

That fails to address the main thrust of TFA: even if Harvard were to be purely objective in its admissions, it would be anti-meritocratic because of the boost of the credentials and the imperfections in any gating function.

I disagree that imperfect gatekeeping is worse than no gatekeeping.

I also disagree with his point that gatekeeping should come as late as possible. That's how you get graduate students loaded down with debt who can't get a job in the field. Gatekeeping should come as soon as possible to allow the people who don't pass the gate the best opportunity to find some other path to succeed in.

Post reply on HN