4 ms·

Between the Kennedy School and the law school, it seems like everyone I hear about coming out of Harvard these days is stupid and/or evil in some profound way.

by xxpor 7y ago

Nasrudith 7y ago
That seems to be a common disease of old money institutions - caring about self perpetuating themselves with illusion of merit instead who is actually the best fit for the job. See the goalposts on rails of the Ivy League to try to keep out "model minorities" like their physicals, analogies specifically designed to not be in the high school literature canon but among New England old money, the extraciruculars requirements, and more. The game is all about blending the wheat and their chaff.
- coffeemug 7y ago
  EDIT: THE FOLLOWING DATA IS WRONG. (I foolishly misread a chart. Leaving this up for continuity, but the numbers are completely off.) --- Less than a third of Harvard students come from a household with income greater than $100,000/year. Almost half the students come from households with income between $30,000 and $75,000/year. One in six students comes from a poor family. Harvard is firmly middle class. The data simply doesn’t support the argument that Harvard admissions is some old money New England conspiracy.
  - Sebguer 7y ago
    And way more than 1/6th of America is part of a 'poor family'. Old money is vastly over-represented in Harvard, and even more vastly over-represented in the backbone of the institution.
    - coffeemug 7y ago
      EDIT: THE FOLLOWING DATA IS WRONG. (I foolishly misread a chart. Leaving this up for continuity, but the numbers are completely off.) --- No. Only 25% of households in the US have annual income between $35,000 and $75,000. About one in five families in the US is below the poverty line. So middle class students are over represented at Harvard. Students from poor families are only slightly underrepresented, and considering that household income and academic achievement are correlated, it’s actually a testament to their efforts to have socially conscious admissions. The facts do not support your argument. On this you are simply wrong.
  - whyenot 7y ago
    I'm a little curious where your data comes from, because: "The median family income for Harvard undergraduates is $168,800—more than three times the national median, according to a recent study." https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/1/25/harvard-income-percentile/ https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/1/25/harvard-income-...
    - coffeemug 7y ago
      Oh shit. You’re right. I googled “Harvard demographics” and got a nice chart from US department of education. I just looked at it again, and it looks like it’s data for _all_ students in the U.S. Sorry to the OP. I was wrong. I’ll edit my posts in a minute.
      - Ericson2314 7y ago
        Also check out the portion of white students who are legacy admits. There is the non-elite "meritocracy" and elite finishing school, side by side. Which are the suckers propping up the other? You tell me.
        divbzero 7y ago
        > the portion of white students who are legacy admits I’m curious to learn more about this. Do you have a good source for this data?
        Ericson2314 7y ago
        https://qz.com/1713033/at-harvard-43-percent-of-white-students-are-legacies-or-athletes/ https://qz.com/1713033/at-harvard-43-percent-of-white-studen...
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      Isn't that practically poverty level on HN? That's like one person making $100K and a spouse making $68K. Don't entry level SWEs make as much by themselves these days? Plus stock options. And ping pong tables.
  - Nasrudith 7y ago
    Their purpose wouldn't be a monopoly but maintaining their disproportionate influence niche from family status. It is to get the legacies in. Regardless of the rightness of my assessment it wouldn't be a conspiracy as it isn't illegal. It is legal to influence the instituions themselves with money as they have ownership of all resources involved. The admissions scandal demonstrated the difference quite well. Of course the admission has other unspoken reasons for wanting them - contacts for tbeir network and their own pride and flatrery about "cultural worth". Stupid human social trick stuff of skewed priorties.
baybal2 7y ago
I read O'Sullivan reports and some of her works in my student years. First, I have no idea how she got her scholarly titles when her writing is so incoherent, and devoid of line of though. Some times she outright descends into polsci technobabble, and I loose her. She is not a scholar, but a person who went to school and bullshited her way to the degree with every mean and way, in hope to get a cushy government job. Second, for a portion of her writing making sense, her vision of reality is a laconic polsci101 recital, and carbon copy of her mentors views, without a iota of extra thought. The reality of politics is that shit happens, the reality of war is that you don't improve global stability by starting one. Her works state that it can be otherwise. My criteria for a politician who knows his onions, is caution. Above all is caution, and an understanding that whatever he or she does returns threefold if made in error. Anybody claiming a clear, logical, rational picture of the world has never worked a day in job where his life depends on it. I repeat my opinion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23051520 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23051520 > People must stop decrying types like McNamara, Kisinger, Dulles as some kind of "smart calculating types." They were top idiots at the apex of power, and their coming was a prelude to what America got itself in now. Every big name "strategist" USA had since the WW2 I can name was a big joke, and such types will keep coming unless people will start calling things their real names. The "geopolitical technobabblers" should not allowed to sit in high posts. In this case, I think there can't be a better way than to pull her early works, and her academic writing for everybody to see.
- zapttt 7y ago
  it's funny how easily we see BS jobs all around us, but how the American civil religion blinds us in those cases.

Between the Kennedy School and the law school, it seems like everyone I hear about coming out of Harvard these days is stupid and/or evil in some profound way.

by xxpor 7y ago

Between the Kennedy School and the law school, it seems like everyone I hear about coming out of Harvard these days is stupid and/or evil in some profound way.

Nasrudith 7y ago

That seems to be a common disease of old money institutions - caring about self perpetuating themselves with illusion of merit instead who is actually the best fit for the job. See the goalposts on rails of the Ivy League to try to keep out "model minorities" like their physicals, analogies specifically designed to not be in the high school literature canon but among New England old money, the extraciruculars requirements, and more. The game is all about blending the wheat and their chaff.

coffeemug 7y ago
EDIT: THE FOLLOWING DATA IS WRONG. (I foolishly misread a chart. Leaving this up for continuity, but the numbers are completely off.) --- Less than a third of Harvard students come from a household with income greater than $100,000/year. Almost half the students come from households with income between $30,000 and $75,000/year. One in six students comes from a poor family. Harvard is firmly middle class. The data simply doesn’t support the argument that Harvard admissions is some old money New England conspiracy.
- Sebguer 7y ago
  And way more than 1/6th of America is part of a 'poor family'. Old money is vastly over-represented in Harvard, and even more vastly over-represented in the backbone of the institution.
  - coffeemug 7y ago
    EDIT: THE FOLLOWING DATA IS WRONG. (I foolishly misread a chart. Leaving this up for continuity, but the numbers are completely off.) --- No. Only 25% of households in the US have annual income between $35,000 and $75,000. About one in five families in the US is below the poverty line. So middle class students are over represented at Harvard. Students from poor families are only slightly underrepresented, and considering that household income and academic achievement are correlated, it’s actually a testament to their efforts to have socially conscious admissions. The facts do not support your argument. On this you are simply wrong.
- whyenot 7y ago
  I'm a little curious where your data comes from, because: "The median family income for Harvard undergraduates is $168,800—more than three times the national median, according to a recent study." https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/1/25/harvard-income-percentile/ https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/1/25/harvard-income-...
  - coffeemug 7y ago
    Oh shit. You’re right. I googled “Harvard demographics” and got a nice chart from US department of education. I just looked at it again, and it looks like it’s data for _all_ students in the U.S. Sorry to the OP. I was wrong. I’ll edit my posts in a minute.
    - Ericson2314 7y ago
      Also check out the portion of white students who are legacy admits. There is the non-elite "meritocracy" and elite finishing school, side by side. Which are the suckers propping up the other? You tell me.
      - divbzero 7y ago
        > the portion of white students who are legacy admits I’m curious to learn more about this. Do you have a good source for this data?
        Ericson2314 7y ago
        https://qz.com/1713033/at-harvard-43-percent-of-white-students-are-legacies-or-athletes/ https://qz.com/1713033/at-harvard-43-percent-of-white-studen...
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    Isn't that practically poverty level on HN? That's like one person making $100K and a spouse making $68K. Don't entry level SWEs make as much by themselves these days? Plus stock options. And ping pong tables.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  Their purpose wouldn't be a monopoly but maintaining their disproportionate influence niche from family status. It is to get the legacies in. Regardless of the rightness of my assessment it wouldn't be a conspiracy as it isn't illegal. It is legal to influence the instituions themselves with money as they have ownership of all resources involved. The admissions scandal demonstrated the difference quite well. Of course the admission has other unspoken reasons for wanting them - contacts for tbeir network and their own pride and flatrery about "cultural worth". Stupid human social trick stuff of skewed priorties.

baybal2 7y ago

I read O'Sullivan reports and some of her works in my student years. First, I have no idea how she got her scholarly titles when her writing is so incoherent, and devoid of line of though. Some times she outright descends into polsci technobabble, and I loose her. She is not a scholar, but a person who went to school and bullshited her way to the degree with every mean and way, in hope to get a cushy government job. Second, for a portion of her writing making sense, her vision of reality is a laconic polsci101 recital, and carbon copy of her mentors views, without a iota of extra thought. The reality of politics is that shit happens, the reality of war is that you don't improve global stability by starting one. Her works state that it can be otherwise. My criteria for a politician who knows his onions, is caution. Above all is caution, and an understanding that whatever he or she does returns threefold if made in error. Anybody claiming a clear, logical, rational picture of the world has never worked a day in job where his life depends on it. I repeat my opinion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23051520 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23051520 > People must stop decrying types like McNamara, Kisinger, Dulles as some kind of "smart calculating types." They were top idiots at the apex of power, and their coming was a prelude to what America got itself in now. Every big name "strategist" USA had since the WW2 I can name was a big joke, and such types will keep coming unless people will start calling things their real names. The "geopolitical technobabblers" should not allowed to sit in high posts. In this case, I think there can't be a better way than to pull her early works, and her academic writing for everybody to see.

zapttt 7y ago
it's funny how easily we see BS jobs all around us, but how the American civil religion blinds us in those cases.