4 ms·

The problem I see it is the bar is so high that the only way to get into elite schools is to spend your childhood practicing standardized tests and doing prescr

by rb808 8y ago

The problem I see it is the bar is so high that the only way to get into elite schools is to spend your childhood practicing standardized tests and doing prescribed extra-curricular activities. As a result I suspect these days the elite universities must be filled with really dull people who wont achieve the same "success" as previous generations at those institutions.

sct202 8y ago
Judging by the alma maters of a lot of tech startup founders, the grads of the elite schools seem to be doing just fine still.
- adamnemecek 8y ago
  It's undeniable that these schools are attended by people who materially benefit from the current economic system. Then the question is, did the startup founders get successful thanks to their status (which also helped them get to "elite" schools) or was it thanks to the school.
  - mcguire 8y ago
    It's not necessarily a binary choice.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
ajkjk 8y ago
It's definitely not true that everyone at elite schools had to grind standardized tests to get in. Lots of kids are naturally talented at (or just really in to) the things schools like.
throwawaymath 8y ago
> As a result I suspect these days the elite universities must be filled with really dull people who wont achieve the same "success" as previous generations at those institutions. Trading your conjecture for a bit of anecdata here: this has not been my experience. The most interesting (and kindest!) person I ever met went to Harvard after placing in their national speech and debate tournament. I don't think any meaningful conclusion about the personalities of elite college attendees could be drawn from standardized tests and extracurriculars.
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  I gotta agree here, all but one of the smartest and most interesting coworkers I've had, hands down, came from Stanford, Harvard, and MIT. The only one who didn't was a guy who worked at a research center with me who was a national interest waiver. That guy was wicked smart, only drawback with him was he kept getting into trouble with the cops everywhere because he was a motorcycle enthusiast. But yeah, other than him, all the top guys were from elite American universities. All smart, hard working, and deeply interesting in a way that you really don't see very often these days.
  - mywittyname 8y ago
    Turns out, intelligent, competitive, & driven people end up doing interesting things.
GauntletWizard 8y ago
This is just Goodhart's law: "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure" - the tests and grades and community service hours were all good correlations for good performance, but once optimized for, you're getting the people who optimized for those traits, not the people who found those traits useful towards further goals. The people who took on community service hours because it helped them understand the less fortunate and taught them skills and the value of hard work will succeed. The people who took on community service hours because they were a requirement on a resume will not. (Of course, for some definition of success - most of both groups will likely be successful at life, but I'll bet that the median, mean, and mode happiness for the latter group are higher)
- astazangasta 8y ago
  I took on community service hours because it was a requirement on a resume. Looking back at my younger self I'm disgusted that I did that, and disgusted that I was a part of a culture that encouraged that sort of calculated, self-serving motivation for public service. However, I still did the community service hours, and it exposed me to places and things I wouldn't have known or seen otherwise. Similarly with standardized testing - I was very into studying for standardized testing because my parents put it into my blood that this is what I ought to do. So I took the tests, got perfect scores, got into an elite school. But I also learned a ton of math and science as a result of that study. So, while it's true that getting into an elite school means playing a certain game, the game is not entirely without value.
  - GauntletWizard 8y ago
    You've got a really good point - you can learn something from those experiences even if you do them for the wrong reasons. I don't think your case is the common one, but nor is it rare. I guess, colleges want people who could have learned those lessons. Exposure is a requirement. Unfortunately, they've not been really good at telling whether the lessons are learned.
brewdad 8y ago
I see as more of a lottery, unless legacy or a huge donor etc. My HS child has sights set on MIT or Stanford. They might get in, and are way ahead of where I was at that age, but I've told my child to be sure and have a solid backup plan. Students can do everything right and still have a 5% chance of getting in.
WhompingWindows 8y ago
Your post is rather presumptuous. Do you consider playing classical piano, debating important issues, and helping the community as "really dull"? Because that's what I did that was "prescribed extra-curricular activity." And yet, I loved it all and got accepted to multiple "elite" schools. I didn't grind test prep either, acing my schools' coursework had prepared me over many years. The real issue with these modern elite school graduates is that either they are massively indebted or that they come from an increasingly insulated wealthy class, not that they are dull.
- seattle_spring 8y ago
  Mm yes, shallow and pedantic.
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  >The real issue with these modern elite school graduates is that either they are massively indebted or that they come from an increasingly insulated wealthy class... This issue actually can't be overstated. It's a real problem not only with elite schools, but even with a lot of non-elite graduates as well. Not sure what a good solution for that is though?
  - WhompingWindows 8y ago
    It may be the most boring solution of all: education. Without someone telling our 16-18 year olds the idea of VALUE in education, they will end up over-spending. See the story below for my own analysis of myself: When I compare my skill-set and knowledge-set now to 12 years ago, when I was 18, I am remarkably astounded by the huge amount of $$ I casually dropped on an elite education. Even with $20k paid by merit scholarships and research grants, I was dropping $40k yearly for an education that was maybe 10-15% better than what I could've gotten for $5k yearly at a local school. If I took that $35k yearly and invested it into the stock market, I'd probably be about $200k richer today. Is that 10% of a difference really worth $200k to me now? Is a slightly deeper/broader knowledge better than half a home, in my MCOL area? Is it better than a Tesla and a yearly $10k vacation to expand my horizons? I doubt it...

by rb808 8y ago

sct202 8y ago

Judging by the alma maters of a lot of tech startup founders, the grads of the elite schools seem to be doing just fine still.

adamnemecek 8y ago
It's undeniable that these schools are attended by people who materially benefit from the current economic system. Then the question is, did the startup founders get successful thanks to their status (which also helped them get to "elite" schools) or was it thanks to the school.
- mcguire 8y ago
  It's not necessarily a binary choice.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

ajkjk 8y ago

It's definitely not true that everyone at elite schools had to grind standardized tests to get in. Lots of kids are naturally talented at (or just really in to) the things schools like.

throwawaymath 8y ago

> As a result I suspect these days the elite universities must be filled with really dull people who wont achieve the same "success" as previous generations at those institutions. Trading your conjecture for a bit of anecdata here: this has not been my experience. The most interesting (and kindest!) person I ever met went to Harvard after placing in their national speech and debate tournament. I don't think any meaningful conclusion about the personalities of elite college attendees could be drawn from standardized tests and extracurriculars.

bilbo0s 8y ago
I gotta agree here, all but one of the smartest and most interesting coworkers I've had, hands down, came from Stanford, Harvard, and MIT. The only one who didn't was a guy who worked at a research center with me who was a national interest waiver. That guy was wicked smart, only drawback with him was he kept getting into trouble with the cops everywhere because he was a motorcycle enthusiast. But yeah, other than him, all the top guys were from elite American universities. All smart, hard working, and deeply interesting in a way that you really don't see very often these days.
- mywittyname 8y ago
  Turns out, intelligent, competitive, & driven people end up doing interesting things.

GauntletWizard 8y ago

This is just Goodhart's law: "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure" - the tests and grades and community service hours were all good correlations for good performance, but once optimized for, you're getting the people who optimized for those traits, not the people who found those traits useful towards further goals. The people who took on community service hours because it helped them understand the less fortunate and taught them skills and the value of hard work will succeed. The people who took on community service hours because they were a requirement on a resume will not. (Of course, for some definition of success - most of both groups will likely be successful at life, but I'll bet that the median, mean, and mode happiness for the latter group are higher)

astazangasta 8y ago
I took on community service hours because it was a requirement on a resume. Looking back at my younger self I'm disgusted that I did that, and disgusted that I was a part of a culture that encouraged that sort of calculated, self-serving motivation for public service. However, I still did the community service hours, and it exposed me to places and things I wouldn't have known or seen otherwise. Similarly with standardized testing - I was very into studying for standardized testing because my parents put it into my blood that this is what I ought to do. So I took the tests, got perfect scores, got into an elite school. But I also learned a ton of math and science as a result of that study. So, while it's true that getting into an elite school means playing a certain game, the game is not entirely without value.
- GauntletWizard 8y ago
  You've got a really good point - you can learn something from those experiences even if you do them for the wrong reasons. I don't think your case is the common one, but nor is it rare. I guess, colleges want people who could have learned those lessons. Exposure is a requirement. Unfortunately, they've not been really good at telling whether the lessons are learned.

brewdad 8y ago

I see as more of a lottery, unless legacy or a huge donor etc. My HS child has sights set on MIT or Stanford. They might get in, and are way ahead of where I was at that age, but I've told my child to be sure and have a solid backup plan. Students can do everything right and still have a 5% chance of getting in.

WhompingWindows 8y ago

Your post is rather presumptuous. Do you consider playing classical piano, debating important issues, and helping the community as "really dull"? Because that's what I did that was "prescribed extra-curricular activity." And yet, I loved it all and got accepted to multiple "elite" schools. I didn't grind test prep either, acing my schools' coursework had prepared me over many years. The real issue with these modern elite school graduates is that either they are massively indebted or that they come from an increasingly insulated wealthy class, not that they are dull.

seattle_spring 8y ago
Mm yes, shallow and pedantic.
bilbo0s 8y ago
>The real issue with these modern elite school graduates is that either they are massively indebted or that they come from an increasingly insulated wealthy class... This issue actually can't be overstated. It's a real problem not only with elite schools, but even with a lot of non-elite graduates as well. Not sure what a good solution for that is though?
- WhompingWindows 8y ago
  It may be the most boring solution of all: education. Without someone telling our 16-18 year olds the idea of VALUE in education, they will end up over-spending. See the story below for my own analysis of myself: When I compare my skill-set and knowledge-set now to 12 years ago, when I was 18, I am remarkably astounded by the huge amount of $$ I casually dropped on an elite education. Even with $20k paid by merit scholarships and research grants, I was dropping $40k yearly for an education that was maybe 10-15% better than what I could've gotten for $5k yearly at a local school. If I took that $35k yearly and invested it into the stock market, I'd probably be about $200k richer today. Is that 10% of a difference really worth $200k to me now? Is a slightly deeper/broader knowledge better than half a home, in my MCOL area? Is it better than a Tesla and a yearly $10k vacation to expand my horizons? I doubt it...