3 ms·

Class and wealth pretending to be worthy of merit.

nnfy 9y ago
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 need to be technically brilliant. This is gradually normalizing viewpoint is toxic to society, because our obsession with rich white people is nothing but anti-intellectualism and scapegoating disguised as a seemingly justified class welfare. Does it make it easier to be wealthy? Yes. Does it give imply that no one born into wealth is capable of being meritful? Absolutely not. And bear in mind that these are the people that build society, and the kind of people I would guess frequent other intellectual bastions like hackernews, where you can experience their brilliance daily and first hand.
- respiratory 9y ago
  I can't quite tell if this is a satirical comment. It's almost too peak HN to be taken seriously.
  - 18nleung 9y ago
    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.
    - 34090doood9 9y ago
      I've worked with lots of people from different backgrounds, including individuals from elite schools (hell, I guess I'm married to one), and what frustrates me isn't the wealth (although there is always that story lurking in the background among those I know--they're never wealthy themselves, but they tell stories of legacy students everywhere). 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.
      - nnfy 9y ago
        You have difficult accepting the generalization and judging individuals by it; however, statistically speaking, you are more likely to find intrinsic merit and accomplishment in those from ivy league schools; which is why when an assessment of an individual needs to be made, ivy league heritage is a useful heuristic. There is also the age old question of nature vs nurture, and I suspect that we disagree in that those of a certain superior nature+nurture tend to congregate in prestigious and productive institutions. I would love to know why my original post low quality, but I suspect people are once again absuing downvotes to shame me into avoiding taboo.
  - nnfy 9y ago
    For what reason would you interpret my comment as satire?
screye 9y ago
I can confirm that this is not true in the case of IITs. Admissions are purely through a your score in a common examination and nothing else. 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.

nnfy 9y ago

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 need to be technically brilliant. This is gradually normalizing viewpoint is toxic to society, because our obsession with rich white people is nothing but anti-intellectualism and scapegoating disguised as a seemingly justified class welfare. Does it make it easier to be wealthy? Yes. Does it give imply that no one born into wealth is capable of being meritful? Absolutely not. And bear in mind that these are the people that build society, and the kind of people I would guess frequent other intellectual bastions like hackernews, where you can experience their brilliance daily and first hand.

respiratory 9y ago
I can't quite tell if this is a satirical comment. It's almost too peak HN to be taken seriously.
- 18nleung 9y ago
  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.
  - 34090doood9 9y ago
    I've worked with lots of people from different backgrounds, including individuals from elite schools (hell, I guess I'm married to one), and what frustrates me isn't the wealth (although there is always that story lurking in the background among those I know--they're never wealthy themselves, but they tell stories of legacy students everywhere). 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.
    - nnfy 9y ago
      You have difficult accepting the generalization and judging individuals by it; however, statistically speaking, you are more likely to find intrinsic merit and accomplishment in those from ivy league schools; which is why when an assessment of an individual needs to be made, ivy league heritage is a useful heuristic. There is also the age old question of nature vs nurture, and I suspect that we disagree in that those of a certain superior nature+nurture tend to congregate in prestigious and productive institutions. I would love to know why my original post low quality, but I suspect people are once again absuing downvotes to shame me into avoiding taboo.
- nnfy 9y ago
  For what reason would you interpret my comment as satire?

screye 9y ago

I can confirm that this is not true in the case of IITs. Admissions are purely through a your score in a common examination and nothing else. 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.