13 ms·

Who cares about the Ivy League?

55 points by jonas_kgomo 6y ago

A12-B 6y ago
Seems like most of the government and top level executives do. Most people in those positions are from Ivy leagues, and in this world those are the positions it really matters to be in.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jonas_kgomo 6y ago
  Noah seems to digress from the pros of going to an Ivy League. Either these schools have to diversify their admissions or the executive positions in companies have to start hiring from regular Universities. US Digital Service Academy[1] is working to launch a university that would rival Stanford and MIT and funnel tech workers into government work, seems to be overall a good thing for society. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23909604 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23909604
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
pacman2 6y ago
"Everyone seems to care a whole lot about the Ivy League. When a bunch of Ivies (and a few other schools) were found to have sold spots to a few rich kids back in 2019" A rich kid is much more likely to leave an impact on the world and this is what these schools want. I once (10 years ago?) read an article about exactly this. The comparison were some US elite high school that strictly select on IQ and alumni were much less successful than expected (yet, more happy in live). George W went to Yale as far as I remember. I doubt that he scored super high in any IQ test. But he was undoubtedly very successful in live. "Ivies really wanted to promote social justice, they would let in more poor kids" This is not their main priority. As a side note: The Economist MBA rankings 2021 have raised eyebrows because European schools rankings increased so much: https://whichmba.economist.com/ranking/full-time-mba https://whichmba.economist.com/ranking/full-time-mba
- spaetzleesser 6y ago
  "A rich kid is much more likely to leave an impact on the world and this is what these schools want. I once (10 years ago?) read an article about exactly this. The comparison were some US elite high school that strictly select on IQ and alumni were much less successful than expected (yet, more happy in live). George W went to Yale as far as I remember. I doubt that he scored super high in any IQ test. But he was undoubtedly very successful in live. " That's the self fulfilling prophecy that modern democracies are/should be trying to avoid. Otherwise we are on the track of building up a new aristocracy where only the rich and powerful get the opportunity of making a difference.
  - tubesebut 6y ago
    We're well overdue a purge of this new aristocracy. And the remaining old aristocracy, for that matter. When the blood of the rich washes our streets, only then will we be free.
- Moodles 6y ago
  Why do you doubt he had a high IQ? Depends what we mean by "high", but I would think any president (certainly in modern history) must have a pretty high IQ to manage so many people and issues at once. I would wager someone capable of doing that is capable is getting into Yale on merit, especially when they're younger and in their mental prime. Nothing to do with politics anyone might personally agree or disagree with: Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Obama, Trump, Biden. For liberals (not saying you) who think Bush is dumb: is it because his policies disagree with you? Maybe people who come to different conclusions to you aren't dumber, but just have different values. Do we really think all of our political beliefs are based on intellect only? That's very arrogant imo.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- bidirectional 6y ago
  > George W went to Yale as far as I remember. I doubt that he scored super high in any IQ test. What exactly do you base your doubt on? Publicly he can be quite inarticulate, but there's accounts of him being highly intelligent.[1] [1] https://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/ https://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/
viklove 6y ago
> There is no chance that changing the composition of the Ivy League student body will effect anything remotely resembling a broad-based change in American educational inequality, opportunity, or aggregate outcomes. Zero. None. I think this misses the point of going to an ivy league. Would Obama have become president if he didn't have multiple ivy league schools in his pedigree? Maybe, but there's no doubt that the relationships he formed during those years drastically changed the trajectory of his life. OP is arguing that the undergraduate population of ivy league schools is tiny, so even if they admitted 100% minority students, there would still be millions of minority students who are being left out of the "top tier" education that can be received. Sure, that's true, but the fact that 16/45 of our presidents are ivy league alumni can't be ignored. So when a minority student goes to Harvard and ends up becoming president, he/she can end up changing not only policy decisions to improve outcomes for minority constituents, but also changes the narrative when it comes to who can attain political office at the highest level. So I would argue that there is absolutely a chance that changing the composition of ivy league student bodies can have an effect on American education inequality. Because some of those students will end up using that advantage to attain political office and affect change at a macro level.
- redux-xplatform 6y ago
  Forget the Ivy League—judging from elections from 2000 on, one is incredibly unlikely to become a major party candidate for President, let alone win, without having attended some kind of private college prep school, rather than a public high school. As I recall, Hillary is the only candidate who didn't. Sure, little Timmy, you can be anything you want, even President. Your parents are rich, right? No? Oh, uh, never mind.
- xhkkffbf 6y ago
  Will changing the composition matter? Maybe, but I think the schools are puffing up their roles and society is going along with them. Consider Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg. Did going to the Ivy League help them? They dropped out. A big reason they succeeded is because they came from stable families that supported their once crazy dreams. I'm afraid the Ivy League is going to find out that their adjunct teachers aren't any better than the adjuncts at other schools. In 20-30 years, the great successes will come from other schools-- something that's already much more true today than it was 50 years ago.
cwwc 6y ago
I recall a Supreme Court justice saying that the best law clerks they ever got were NOT from the Ivy schools – but regardless, because the Ivy schools tended to weed out incompetent clerks (helping ease the screening process and provide a veritable "double check" on someone's competence) they would only pick Ivy credentialed clerks in the future. Stakes were to high not to. I wonder if the same can generally be said for employers and gov (it's just easier to screen from a pool that has be whittled down to a more manageable size already). Unfair? Probably. Rational? I think so.
- hntrader 6y ago
  This is why it's a good idea for people from non-top tier colleges to run away from prestige. You'll never be able to compete on merit at a place like McKinsey, a top law firm or an IB. You'll be undervalued due to lack of pedigree. Better pick something more meritocratic and less focused on signalling value of your CV. I know this is an ideal that doesn't truly exist anywhere, but there's certainly degrees to which it's true and that varies between industries.
  - throwaway5752 6y ago
    No, you earn your way in. Nobody asks where the CTO of an acquired company went to school (or didn't). Elite school degrees are just a shortcut for signal various attributes for young people. It means less and less the further you get from college. And you can "credential" yourself via other accomplishments. Witness Perelman and arxiv, or Bill Gates, noted Harvard dropout.
    - hntrader 6y ago
      Right, but a lack of pedigree is more of a handicap at McKinsey than it is at Facebook, and it's more of a handicap at Facebook than your own startup. It's possible to earn your way in to McKinsey after going to a tier-3 college, but it's just way harder all else equal (and why would anyone bother without the boost of pedigree at a place that highly values it, we will be at a disadvantage from day one).
throwaway5752 6y ago
I literally couldn't finish the article. It is garbage and unresearched, and plays on lazy stereotypes and resentment. It's an athletic league, first. I know it has a common language meaning, but it's just an athletic league like the PAC 12 or SEC. And scandals aside, they are highly competitive for teachers and students. There is a network effect here at undergrad through faculty recruitment, and it's inevitable: the best students want to go where the best teachers are. The best graduate students want to go where the best research is. The best researchers want to go where the best facilities and chance at grants are. Currently it is the Ivy League, but if that disappeared something like it would reappear. Stratification is a fact of the human condition, and where stratification exists concentration will occur. It's the obligation of society limit things it can, like ensuring social mobility and equitable access and distribution of wealth. edit: The reason people so rightfully annoyed at admission scandals (particularly alumni/students) is because it's a free rider scenario. Ultra-wealthy cheat to get their students into elite schools because they free ride the reputation of the rest of kids that sacrifice part of their youths to rack up the accomplishments necessary for admission. You can see this, because it isn't just Ivies; the last scandal included Stanford.
- amznthrwaway 6y ago
  The implicit deal with ivies is that there will be a mix of smart kids and rich kids; and that this creates long-term value for both cohorts.
colinmhayes 6y ago
A huge amount of ivies power comes from being full of rich students. The most important thing you get from college is networking opportunities unless you're studying stem. The best people to network with are generally the most powerful. The most powerful are generally rich, or got their power by networking with the rich. People generally network with the communities they're familiar with. This all leads to surrounding yourself with rich people being the most important factor you can control when it comes to obtaining power which is why ivies admit so many rich people. It makes the school better for all the students.
luxuryballs 6y ago
My opinion is that it seems counterintuitive for an elite school to care about social equity. Just run your school, stop being so meta about it, let other schools fill in the gaps. It’s OK to have a school for elites.
- fortran77 6y ago
  This is exactly my feeling. I didn't go to an Ivy League school. But it doesn't bother me at all that children of rich people go to elite schools, get degrees in Russian Literature, Art History, Political Science, play lacrosse, get jobs in white-shoe law firms, sit on boards, etc. It doesn't affect me or hurt me at all. Let them have their club. So what?
  - csa 6y ago
    > that children of rich people go to elite schools, get degrees in Russian Literature, Art History, Political Science, play lacrosse, get jobs in white-shoe law firms, sit on boards, etc. I’ve got news for you. Children of rich people who don’t go to Ivies do this, too. The common thread isn’t “went to Ivy”, rather “children of rich people”. Their network is their value.
  - thaufeki 6y ago
    Only if that club has an outsized impact on your world, a club you are completely excluded from. As an above commenter mentioned, it can be akin to an aristocracy.
petermcneeley 6y ago
Peter Thiel covers this question deeply here: https://youtu.be/IXG2F0a6I28?t=996 https://youtu.be/IXG2F0a6I28?t=996
- ghgdynb1 6y ago
  I don’t see why you should be downvoted for linking to the thoughts of an undeniably brilliant, if controversial, public figure and leader in technology.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
searine 6y ago
Ivy Leagues aren't special in what they teach or that they have the most exceptional students, and others have none. I've taught across the spectrum, from community colleges to an Ivy League school. The difference is that there is a much higher concentration of smart and motivated students at a private Ivy-League class school compared to State U. Put simply, the centralization of talent/resources due to a harder acceptance filter creates all sorts of opportunities. A lot of 'luck' is simply being in the right room at the right time. An elite university makes it a lot easier to put yourself in the right room.
master_yoda_1 6y ago
I think this Ivy league mindset was started by MBA programs which uses marketing to lure students into paying for useless MBA degree. MBA is a total fraud IMO, in 2 year you can't learn any skill which help you in running a whole company. It's surprising to see people follow the same ivy league mindset for tech. Its really frustrating to see anybody having Stanford degree getting priority in hiring etc. I don't want to comment but look around.
TrackerFF 6y ago
I think for the most part, these days it boils down to branding, filtering, and networking. It's easier to sell consultants (and similar) to clients, if you can show off their credentials. Prestigious companies that get tens of thousands of applicants can easily filter out most, by simply keeping students from top 20 schools. At that point, you're going be left with a lot of fantastic candidates. Remember, not every HYPS student lands a job at Goldman Sachs or McKinsey, most don't make the cut. But it's easier to pick from the pool of those HYPS candidates, than from 500 different colleges and universities. So, in short, companies can offload a lot of preliminary screening and due-diligence work onto the schools. If a candidate is good enough for Harvard, they're probably good enough to take a look at... And then there's the networking aspect. Like it or not, a lot of powerful people in both business and politics have gone to the same few prestigious schools, and being in the same "club" makes networking easier. For some people, it's a big deal - for others, it's a triviality - but it doesn't really hurt. Networks go a long way, both for individuals and companies.
fangpenlin 6y ago
I've seen way too many people in the tech said that they would only hire Ivy League, or even if they don't say it, based on who they hire it's not hard to find out that's what they do. During CVOID, you see students need to study from home, but yet the price of Ivy League school never drops a cent. It's pretty much like GUCCI or Chanel would rather destroy the products don't sell than selling them cheaply to destroy the artificial scarcity. The problem is never why we shouldn't get more people into Ivy League, nor why don't we get more poor kids into Ivy League, or even just bring them into college. The problem is, in the era you can learn literally pretty much almost anything online, the cost of learning is very cheap, and yet people are arguing education is human right, so government should just wipe out student loans? I think the real solution is to look at how education works now and solve the problem with new technology. However, it would be very hard to do and may take very long time, given the Ivy League folks are pretty much the same group of people in power, none of them would like to make their degree looks cheap, and the irony is they often claim that they support social justice. If people truly care about social justice, it's time for people to think about the college requirement for a job and Ivy League only hiring policy.
- throwaway5752 6y ago
  That is a lazy explanation. It is incumbent on a few expensive colleges to fix a society-wide problem of equitable access to education, nutrition, experiences, and so on? Elite universities are the tip of a massive iceberg and they already have programs to offer full free rides to otherwise eligible students that can't afford it. The problem starts based on leisure time to parents when their kid is 1 year old and being able to read to them (and having access/time to get to libraries or buy books). It then comes in from having money to buy houses in places with good school districts (which are usually funded by property taxes, so those are inextricably linked in the current setup). Then it comes paying for extracurriculars, summer programs, test prep, and in some cases private schools with better academics and student:teacher ratios. After 20 years that adds up and you see inequity (across the board, to be clear, at private college levels, not just the ivies) at college admission levels. You can't throw a bandaid at the top of the problem and wipe your hands of it, and a microscopic manifestation of the problem can only do so much to fix it. Ivy Leagues don't sit around worrying about their brand, they already have the best students in the whole world applying and they only admit a few percent of them. And you can easily pay more for a degree: https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/the-50-most-expensive-colleges-in-america/45/ https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/the-50-most-expensive-colle... so it's not an issue of cost.
happyjack 6y ago
We all apparently care, because we're commenting and talking about it. The purpose of Ivy league schools is to keep the institution alive. Self preservation. There is nothing fair or even sensible about who gets in and why. It's supposed to be a mystery; a dream you can either achieve through insanely hard work or get in with the right social status or deep pockets. How is this different than anything else in life, or throughout the history of time? If someone's dad can donate a new library and to their jerk off son in, why wouldn't an institution do that? They're private! Their success lies in a combination of insanely smart students, alumni admissions, "rich kids," and that applicant who's uncle had an affair with so and so and is a personal favor. Education isn't about being "fair" or discourse or any of that. It's to buy a career, into a network (Ivies have large private equity / money ties), or to get a license that is regulated (engineering, nursing, teaching, etc.) I went to engineering school. I did summer school at my hometown college ("better") than my Alma mater. And guess what? They were both ABET accredited. Same in difficulty. The only difference was the zip code. People went to the prestigious school to get a better job and into a better alumni network, better job placement, etc. That's why you go to Stanford instead of State U Engineering School. We have to stop kidding ourselves that education is about actually learning. If it was, then we would get rid of college football teams and send everyone and their mother to community college or a trade program. The point of college (in the USA) is to in-debt 18 year olds, dangle carrots in front of them (new houses, cars) and make them slave 9-5 for the rest of eternity.
- akhilcacharya 6y ago
  Tell me, what's a poor sap like me who couldn't get into a good school to do if these conversations ultimately devolve into how hopeless it is if you don't get into a top institution? It either matters enough that I'm screwed for life, or it doesn't really matter all that much in the grand scheme of things. Which is it?
  - happyjack 6y ago
    It's not hopeless. I went to a no name state school and have a tremendous life. An institution doesn't brand you. You make your own luck in this life.
ForHackernews 6y ago
> Ask yourself if changing the composition of that half percent is going to change educational outcomes for the vast majority of Americans. For sure, because what, >70% of our lawmakers are going to come from 0.5% of undergraduates when they grow up.

55 points by jonas_kgomo 6y ago

Seems like most of the government and top level executives do. Most people in those positions are from Ivy leagues, and in this world those are the positions it really matters to be in.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jonas_kgomo 6y ago
Noah seems to digress from the pros of going to an Ivy League. Either these schools have to diversify their admissions or the executive positions in companies have to start hiring from regular Universities. US Digital Service Academy[1] is working to launch a university that would rival Stanford and MIT and funnel tech workers into government work, seems to be overall a good thing for society. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23909604 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23909604

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

pacman2 6y ago

"Everyone seems to care a whole lot about the Ivy League. When a bunch of Ivies (and a few other schools) were found to have sold spots to a few rich kids back in 2019" A rich kid is much more likely to leave an impact on the world and this is what these schools want. I once (10 years ago?) read an article about exactly this. The comparison were some US elite high school that strictly select on IQ and alumni were much less successful than expected (yet, more happy in live). George W went to Yale as far as I remember. I doubt that he scored super high in any IQ test. But he was undoubtedly very successful in live. "Ivies really wanted to promote social justice, they would let in more poor kids" This is not their main priority. As a side note: The Economist MBA rankings 2021 have raised eyebrows because European schools rankings increased so much: https://whichmba.economist.com/ranking/full-time-mba https://whichmba.economist.com/ranking/full-time-mba

spaetzleesser 6y ago
"A rich kid is much more likely to leave an impact on the world and this is what these schools want. I once (10 years ago?) read an article about exactly this. The comparison were some US elite high school that strictly select on IQ and alumni were much less successful than expected (yet, more happy in live). George W went to Yale as far as I remember. I doubt that he scored super high in any IQ test. But he was undoubtedly very successful in live. " That's the self fulfilling prophecy that modern democracies are/should be trying to avoid. Otherwise we are on the track of building up a new aristocracy where only the rich and powerful get the opportunity of making a difference.
- tubesebut 6y ago
  We're well overdue a purge of this new aristocracy. And the remaining old aristocracy, for that matter. When the blood of the rich washes our streets, only then will we be free.
Moodles 6y ago
Why do you doubt he had a high IQ? Depends what we mean by "high", but I would think any president (certainly in modern history) must have a pretty high IQ to manage so many people and issues at once. I would wager someone capable of doing that is capable is getting into Yale on merit, especially when they're younger and in their mental prime. Nothing to do with politics anyone might personally agree or disagree with: Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Obama, Trump, Biden. For liberals (not saying you) who think Bush is dumb: is it because his policies disagree with you? Maybe people who come to different conclusions to you aren't dumber, but just have different values. Do we really think all of our political beliefs are based on intellect only? That's very arrogant imo.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
bidirectional 6y ago
> George W went to Yale as far as I remember. I doubt that he scored super high in any IQ test. What exactly do you base your doubt on? Publicly he can be quite inarticulate, but there's accounts of him being highly intelligent.[1] [1] https://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/ https://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/

viklove 6y ago

> There is no chance that changing the composition of the Ivy League student body will effect anything remotely resembling a broad-based change in American educational inequality, opportunity, or aggregate outcomes. Zero. None. I think this misses the point of going to an ivy league. Would Obama have become president if he didn't have multiple ivy league schools in his pedigree? Maybe, but there's no doubt that the relationships he formed during those years drastically changed the trajectory of his life. OP is arguing that the undergraduate population of ivy league schools is tiny, so even if they admitted 100% minority students, there would still be millions of minority students who are being left out of the "top tier" education that can be received. Sure, that's true, but the fact that 16/45 of our presidents are ivy league alumni can't be ignored. So when a minority student goes to Harvard and ends up becoming president, he/she can end up changing not only policy decisions to improve outcomes for minority constituents, but also changes the narrative when it comes to who can attain political office at the highest level. So I would argue that there is absolutely a chance that changing the composition of ivy league student bodies can have an effect on American education inequality. Because some of those students will end up using that advantage to attain political office and affect change at a macro level.

redux-xplatform 6y ago
Forget the Ivy League—judging from elections from 2000 on, one is incredibly unlikely to become a major party candidate for President, let alone win, without having attended some kind of private college prep school, rather than a public high school. As I recall, Hillary is the only candidate who didn't. Sure, little Timmy, you can be anything you want, even President. Your parents are rich, right? No? Oh, uh, never mind.
xhkkffbf 6y ago
Will changing the composition matter? Maybe, but I think the schools are puffing up their roles and society is going along with them. Consider Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg. Did going to the Ivy League help them? They dropped out. A big reason they succeeded is because they came from stable families that supported their once crazy dreams. I'm afraid the Ivy League is going to find out that their adjunct teachers aren't any better than the adjuncts at other schools. In 20-30 years, the great successes will come from other schools-- something that's already much more true today than it was 50 years ago.

cwwc 6y ago

I recall a Supreme Court justice saying that the best law clerks they ever got were NOT from the Ivy schools – but regardless, because the Ivy schools tended to weed out incompetent clerks (helping ease the screening process and provide a veritable "double check" on someone's competence) they would only pick Ivy credentialed clerks in the future. Stakes were to high not to. I wonder if the same can generally be said for employers and gov (it's just easier to screen from a pool that has be whittled down to a more manageable size already). Unfair? Probably. Rational? I think so.

hntrader 6y ago
This is why it's a good idea for people from non-top tier colleges to run away from prestige. You'll never be able to compete on merit at a place like McKinsey, a top law firm or an IB. You'll be undervalued due to lack of pedigree. Better pick something more meritocratic and less focused on signalling value of your CV. I know this is an ideal that doesn't truly exist anywhere, but there's certainly degrees to which it's true and that varies between industries.
- throwaway5752 6y ago
  No, you earn your way in. Nobody asks where the CTO of an acquired company went to school (or didn't). Elite school degrees are just a shortcut for signal various attributes for young people. It means less and less the further you get from college. And you can "credential" yourself via other accomplishments. Witness Perelman and arxiv, or Bill Gates, noted Harvard dropout.
  - hntrader 6y ago
    Right, but a lack of pedigree is more of a handicap at McKinsey than it is at Facebook, and it's more of a handicap at Facebook than your own startup. It's possible to earn your way in to McKinsey after going to a tier-3 college, but it's just way harder all else equal (and why would anyone bother without the boost of pedigree at a place that highly values it, we will be at a disadvantage from day one).

throwaway5752 6y ago

I literally couldn't finish the article. It is garbage and unresearched, and plays on lazy stereotypes and resentment. It's an athletic league, first. I know it has a common language meaning, but it's just an athletic league like the PAC 12 or SEC. And scandals aside, they are highly competitive for teachers and students. There is a network effect here at undergrad through faculty recruitment, and it's inevitable: the best students want to go where the best teachers are. The best graduate students want to go where the best research is. The best researchers want to go where the best facilities and chance at grants are. Currently it is the Ivy League, but if that disappeared something like it would reappear. Stratification is a fact of the human condition, and where stratification exists concentration will occur. It's the obligation of society limit things it can, like ensuring social mobility and equitable access and distribution of wealth. edit: The reason people so rightfully annoyed at admission scandals (particularly alumni/students) is because it's a free rider scenario. Ultra-wealthy cheat to get their students into elite schools because they free ride the reputation of the rest of kids that sacrifice part of their youths to rack up the accomplishments necessary for admission. You can see this, because it isn't just Ivies; the last scandal included Stanford.

amznthrwaway 6y ago
The implicit deal with ivies is that there will be a mix of smart kids and rich kids; and that this creates long-term value for both cohorts.

colinmhayes 6y ago

A huge amount of ivies power comes from being full of rich students. The most important thing you get from college is networking opportunities unless you're studying stem. The best people to network with are generally the most powerful. The most powerful are generally rich, or got their power by networking with the rich. People generally network with the communities they're familiar with. This all leads to surrounding yourself with rich people being the most important factor you can control when it comes to obtaining power which is why ivies admit so many rich people. It makes the school better for all the students.

luxuryballs 6y ago

My opinion is that it seems counterintuitive for an elite school to care about social equity. Just run your school, stop being so meta about it, let other schools fill in the gaps. It’s OK to have a school for elites.

fortran77 6y ago
This is exactly my feeling. I didn't go to an Ivy League school. But it doesn't bother me at all that children of rich people go to elite schools, get degrees in Russian Literature, Art History, Political Science, play lacrosse, get jobs in white-shoe law firms, sit on boards, etc. It doesn't affect me or hurt me at all. Let them have their club. So what?
- csa 6y ago
  > that children of rich people go to elite schools, get degrees in Russian Literature, Art History, Political Science, play lacrosse, get jobs in white-shoe law firms, sit on boards, etc. I’ve got news for you. Children of rich people who don’t go to Ivies do this, too. The common thread isn’t “went to Ivy”, rather “children of rich people”. Their network is their value.
- thaufeki 6y ago
  Only if that club has an outsized impact on your world, a club you are completely excluded from. As an above commenter mentioned, it can be akin to an aristocracy.

petermcneeley 6y ago

Peter Thiel covers this question deeply here: https://youtu.be/IXG2F0a6I28?t=996 https://youtu.be/IXG2F0a6I28?t=996

ghgdynb1 6y ago
I don’t see why you should be downvoted for linking to the thoughts of an undeniably brilliant, if controversial, public figure and leader in technology.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

searine 6y ago

Ivy Leagues aren't special in what they teach or that they have the most exceptional students, and others have none. I've taught across the spectrum, from community colleges to an Ivy League school. The difference is that there is a much higher concentration of smart and motivated students at a private Ivy-League class school compared to State U. Put simply, the centralization of talent/resources due to a harder acceptance filter creates all sorts of opportunities. A lot of 'luck' is simply being in the right room at the right time. An elite university makes it a lot easier to put yourself in the right room.

master_yoda_1 6y ago

I think this Ivy league mindset was started by MBA programs which uses marketing to lure students into paying for useless MBA degree. MBA is a total fraud IMO, in 2 year you can't learn any skill which help you in running a whole company. It's surprising to see people follow the same ivy league mindset for tech. Its really frustrating to see anybody having Stanford degree getting priority in hiring etc. I don't want to comment but look around.

TrackerFF 6y ago

I think for the most part, these days it boils down to branding, filtering, and networking. It's easier to sell consultants (and similar) to clients, if you can show off their credentials. Prestigious companies that get tens of thousands of applicants can easily filter out most, by simply keeping students from top 20 schools. At that point, you're going be left with a lot of fantastic candidates. Remember, not every HYPS student lands a job at Goldman Sachs or McKinsey, most don't make the cut. But it's easier to pick from the pool of those HYPS candidates, than from 500 different colleges and universities. So, in short, companies can offload a lot of preliminary screening and due-diligence work onto the schools. If a candidate is good enough for Harvard, they're probably good enough to take a look at... And then there's the networking aspect. Like it or not, a lot of powerful people in both business and politics have gone to the same few prestigious schools, and being in the same "club" makes networking easier. For some people, it's a big deal - for others, it's a triviality - but it doesn't really hurt. Networks go a long way, both for individuals and companies.

fangpenlin 6y ago

I've seen way too many people in the tech said that they would only hire Ivy League, or even if they don't say it, based on who they hire it's not hard to find out that's what they do. During CVOID, you see students need to study from home, but yet the price of Ivy League school never drops a cent. It's pretty much like GUCCI or Chanel would rather destroy the products don't sell than selling them cheaply to destroy the artificial scarcity. The problem is never why we shouldn't get more people into Ivy League, nor why don't we get more poor kids into Ivy League, or even just bring them into college. The problem is, in the era you can learn literally pretty much almost anything online, the cost of learning is very cheap, and yet people are arguing education is human right, so government should just wipe out student loans? I think the real solution is to look at how education works now and solve the problem with new technology. However, it would be very hard to do and may take very long time, given the Ivy League folks are pretty much the same group of people in power, none of them would like to make their degree looks cheap, and the irony is they often claim that they support social justice. If people truly care about social justice, it's time for people to think about the college requirement for a job and Ivy League only hiring policy.

throwaway5752 6y ago
That is a lazy explanation. It is incumbent on a few expensive colleges to fix a society-wide problem of equitable access to education, nutrition, experiences, and so on? Elite universities are the tip of a massive iceberg and they already have programs to offer full free rides to otherwise eligible students that can't afford it. The problem starts based on leisure time to parents when their kid is 1 year old and being able to read to them (and having access/time to get to libraries or buy books). It then comes in from having money to buy houses in places with good school districts (which are usually funded by property taxes, so those are inextricably linked in the current setup). Then it comes paying for extracurriculars, summer programs, test prep, and in some cases private schools with better academics and student:teacher ratios. After 20 years that adds up and you see inequity (across the board, to be clear, at private college levels, not just the ivies) at college admission levels. You can't throw a bandaid at the top of the problem and wipe your hands of it, and a microscopic manifestation of the problem can only do so much to fix it. Ivy Leagues don't sit around worrying about their brand, they already have the best students in the whole world applying and they only admit a few percent of them. And you can easily pay more for a degree: https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/the-50-most-expensive-colleges-in-america/45/ https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/the-50-most-expensive-colle... so it's not an issue of cost.

happyjack 6y ago

We all apparently care, because we're commenting and talking about it. The purpose of Ivy league schools is to keep the institution alive. Self preservation. There is nothing fair or even sensible about who gets in and why. It's supposed to be a mystery; a dream you can either achieve through insanely hard work or get in with the right social status or deep pockets. How is this different than anything else in life, or throughout the history of time? If someone's dad can donate a new library and to their jerk off son in, why wouldn't an institution do that? They're private! Their success lies in a combination of insanely smart students, alumni admissions, "rich kids," and that applicant who's uncle had an affair with so and so and is a personal favor. Education isn't about being "fair" or discourse or any of that. It's to buy a career, into a network (Ivies have large private equity / money ties), or to get a license that is regulated (engineering, nursing, teaching, etc.) I went to engineering school. I did summer school at my hometown college ("better") than my Alma mater. And guess what? They were both ABET accredited. Same in difficulty. The only difference was the zip code. People went to the prestigious school to get a better job and into a better alumni network, better job placement, etc. That's why you go to Stanford instead of State U Engineering School. We have to stop kidding ourselves that education is about actually learning. If it was, then we would get rid of college football teams and send everyone and their mother to community college or a trade program. The point of college (in the USA) is to in-debt 18 year olds, dangle carrots in front of them (new houses, cars) and make them slave 9-5 for the rest of eternity.

akhilcacharya 6y ago
Tell me, what's a poor sap like me who couldn't get into a good school to do if these conversations ultimately devolve into how hopeless it is if you don't get into a top institution? It either matters enough that I'm screwed for life, or it doesn't really matter all that much in the grand scheme of things. Which is it?
- happyjack 6y ago
  It's not hopeless. I went to a no name state school and have a tremendous life. An institution doesn't brand you. You make your own luck in this life.

ForHackernews 6y ago

> Ask yourself if changing the composition of that half percent is going to change educational outcomes for the vast majority of Americans. For sure, because what, >70% of our lawmakers are going to come from 0.5% of undergraduates when they grow up.