3 ms·

I don't think anyone would argue that parents shouldn't be able to send their kids to top universities. However, despite top universities accepting significant

by gfody 10y ago

I don't think anyone would argue that parents shouldn't be able to send their kids to top universities. However, despite top universities accepting significant quantities of low-income and minority students, those students remain under-represented among the top earners; implying that it's your parents money and not your elite education that ultimately determined your earning potential. I think a less contentious interpretation is that this data simply supports the theory that intelligence is mostly hereditary. And that a predisposition for intelligence can account for both the parents' as well as their offspring's high earning potential.

cookiecaper 10y ago
>I don't think anyone would argue that parents shouldn't be able to send their kids to top universities. I would argue that. The university's time has come and gone. It's not valuable anymore. >However, despite top universities accepting significant quantities of low-income and minority students, those students remain under-represented among the top earners; implying that it's your parents money and not your elite education that ultimately determined your earning potential. That's far too simplistic an explanation. I think the fact is that at the point, a lifetime of non-quantifiable variables have piled up, and anyone who thinks they can suss out a general cause in an objective way is kidding themselves. That's a case of "Schrodinger's stats"; one can take any factor and contrive some semi-feasible background story by which it's among the principal causes, and anyone else who takes any other factor can do the same thing. >I think a less contentious interpretation is that this data simply supports the theory that intelligence is mostly hereditary. And that a predisposition for intelligence can account for both the parents' as well as their offspring's high earning potential. In many cases, I think that's a good theory. I would extend it to say it's not limited exclusively to intelligence, but also that more successful people are more likely to have characteristics that are useful for generating success, and thus are more likely to pass those some characteristics down to their kids. I think overall, the issue is that many people are too insistent on a world that conforms tightly to their existing perceptions of fairness. They have not been taught to survive in the chaos and randomness that is the physical world, but rather they've been misled to believe in a pristine, curated world where anything they find distasteful or annoying is condemned and shut down. IMO, that is a sign of too much prosperity and not enough reality.
candiodari 10y ago
> I think a less contentious interpretation is that this data simply supports the theory that intelligence is mostly hereditary. And that a predisposition for intelligence can account for both the parents' as well as their offspring's high earning potential. As someone with kids in kindergarden and grade school, it's rather visible that 99% of the advantage 1% parents give kids is simply the will to do anything at all. In most kids, there is no such impulse present at all, and it is painfully obvious what the results will be, barring huge behavioral changes. Or at least this is rather obvious in kids whose parents are doctors or lawyers, something along those lines. Less so for kids with manager parents, but still, I do think I see a difference in attitude. It's not intelligence that's hereditary, it's the 1% more effort (usually more like 100% more effort), that when sustained over 10 years will completely overwhelm any innate intelligence advantage that may be present. Yes rich parents also give kids more means to accomplish things and that certainly also helps. No student debt, maybe even a house to live in ... certainly helps (frankly, a way to opt out of our financial "services" industry is what makes the difference). But this advantage is useless unless the extra effort is also present.
mcguire 10y ago
This is indeed the best of all possible worlds.
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
>However, despite top universities accepting significant quantities of low-income and minority students I don't think that's in evidence. The top universities are almost devoid of low-income students, however many "minorities" they pick up through international admissions.[1] [1] -- https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/09/no-point-in-applying-why-poor-students-are-missing-at-top-colleges/279699/ https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/09/no-poi...

by gfody 10y ago

cookiecaper 10y ago

>I don't think anyone would argue that parents shouldn't be able to send their kids to top universities. I would argue that. The university's time has come and gone. It's not valuable anymore. >However, despite top universities accepting significant quantities of low-income and minority students, those students remain under-represented among the top earners; implying that it's your parents money and not your elite education that ultimately determined your earning potential. That's far too simplistic an explanation. I think the fact is that at the point, a lifetime of non-quantifiable variables have piled up, and anyone who thinks they can suss out a general cause in an objective way is kidding themselves. That's a case of "Schrodinger's stats"; one can take any factor and contrive some semi-feasible background story by which it's among the principal causes, and anyone else who takes any other factor can do the same thing. >I think a less contentious interpretation is that this data simply supports the theory that intelligence is mostly hereditary. And that a predisposition for intelligence can account for both the parents' as well as their offspring's high earning potential. In many cases, I think that's a good theory. I would extend it to say it's not limited exclusively to intelligence, but also that more successful people are more likely to have characteristics that are useful for generating success, and thus are more likely to pass those some characteristics down to their kids. I think overall, the issue is that many people are too insistent on a world that conforms tightly to their existing perceptions of fairness. They have not been taught to survive in the chaos and randomness that is the physical world, but rather they've been misled to believe in a pristine, curated world where anything they find distasteful or annoying is condemned and shut down. IMO, that is a sign of too much prosperity and not enough reality.

candiodari 10y ago

> I think a less contentious interpretation is that this data simply supports the theory that intelligence is mostly hereditary. And that a predisposition for intelligence can account for both the parents' as well as their offspring's high earning potential. As someone with kids in kindergarden and grade school, it's rather visible that 99% of the advantage 1% parents give kids is simply the will to do anything at all. In most kids, there is no such impulse present at all, and it is painfully obvious what the results will be, barring huge behavioral changes. Or at least this is rather obvious in kids whose parents are doctors or lawyers, something along those lines. Less so for kids with manager parents, but still, I do think I see a difference in attitude. It's not intelligence that's hereditary, it's the 1% more effort (usually more like 100% more effort), that when sustained over 10 years will completely overwhelm any innate intelligence advantage that may be present. Yes rich parents also give kids more means to accomplish things and that certainly also helps. No student debt, maybe even a house to live in ... certainly helps (frankly, a way to opt out of our financial "services" industry is what makes the difference). But this advantage is useless unless the extra effort is also present.

mcguire 10y ago

This is indeed the best of all possible worlds.

eli_gottlieb 10y ago

>However, despite top universities accepting significant quantities of low-income and minority students I don't think that's in evidence. The top universities are almost devoid of low-income students, however many "minorities" they pick up through international admissions.[1] [1] -- https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/09/no-point-in-applying-why-poor-students-are-missing-at-top-colleges/279699/ https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/09/no-poi...