7 ms·

"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

"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/
- muh_gradle 6y ago
  I was about to say. Bush is a bad public speaker, and you can disagree with all of his politics, but his professors found him intelligent. That being said, legacy admissions is still completely irresponsible, and people should be way more outraged by that.
  - pc86 6y ago
    Irresponsible by what measure? Genetics and family wealth still have a huge influence on "future impact," and that's what these schools are selecting for. It sounds like legacy admissions are doing exactly what they're intended to do.
    - solosoyokaze 6y ago
      > Genetics and family wealth still have a huge influence on "future impact," In what way would genetics have a huge influence on future impact? That sounds like eugenics.
      - tharne 6y ago
        How is it "like eugenics" to state that children inherit genes from their parents, and are often similar in many ways to their parents? That just sounds like biology. It's not helpful to trivialize terms like "eugenics".
        solosoyokaze 6y ago
        Genetics have no predictive power on future impact to society. Take one of those wealthy children and put them in an orphanage, see if they do the same as their siblings.
yTh0 6y ago
> A rich kid is much more likely to leave an impact on the world A rich person is subsidized by society. Why should we optimize fiscal policy to enable them and let them leave an outsized impact on the world? Especially when the outsized impact of the rich is inequality, anti-democratic political norms, and environmental destruction? They have no skills, or information advantage. Just a network effect advantage through monopoly of a shared value store. I see little difference with this system compared to monarchy or theology rule, which were also hierarchical, with ones power based on closeness to power, and monopoly of value store and public time economy. To clarify, I mean wealthy non-doers. Hedge funds, old wealth, etc. Doctors, engineers, etc., sure let us give them our ear. Unskilled rich are a drain on public agency.
- bidirectional 6y ago
  > To clarify, I mean wealthy non-doers. Hedge funds, old wealth, etc. What does this mean? How are hedge funds unskilled or non-doers in the manner that heirs are? I'd say the average hedge fund analyst is probably as accomplished/skilled/hard working as the average doctor or engineer.
  - pc86 6y ago
    Certainly more-so than the average [software] engineer. There's no 6-week bootcamp for hedge funds and there's no "typing JavaScript into a computer" equivalent. We can argue all day about whether hedge funds are good, bad, or useful, and reasonable people will disagree on the answer, but you'd be hard-pressed to make a cogent argument that the average software engineer works even nearly as hard as the average hedge fund analyst.
  - yTh0 6y ago
    The value they claim to unlock is completely made up. People need logistics to move materials to enable people to do stuff. Not speculative emotional guidance on ephemeral value stores. Most of them are, or are funded by, inherited wealth to service fiscal policy memes.
  - randycupertino 6y ago
cwwc 6y ago
Hmm.. regarding the economist rankings —- wasn’t this solely because so many top US schools refused to participate, so they just excluded entirely?
dtnewman 6y ago
> 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 Notably this list is missing most top-tier MBA schools like Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, Wharton, Northwestern, U of Chicago, MIT, UC and others. If you want to say some of these schools are overrated, fine, but if none of them made the top 90 you've got a weird rankings methodology that isn't gonna be useful to most people.
- rodiger 6y ago
  Many of these lists aggressively weight cost meaning any substantially expensive school self-eliminates regardless of quality of education.
- abduhl 6y ago
  Most (all?) of the schools you list declined to participate (or were ineligible) in the Economist's ranking system this year it seems. Note that the last time they did participate, many of them were top tier. Harvard (2 in 2019), Stanford (8 in 2019), Columbia (15 in 2019), Wharton (5 in 2019), NW (4 in 2019), Chicago (1 in 2019), etc. etc. https://whichmba.economist.com/ranking/full-time-mba/2021/methodology https://whichmba.economist.com/ranking/full-time-mba/2021/me...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jhap 6y ago
> "Ivies really wanted to promote social justice, they would let in more poor kids" > This is not their main priority. I think you're right to say that this is not their main priority, but I think they actually do quite good letting in more more poor kids (at least better than most people expect). https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/09/the-years-that-matter-most-how-college-makes-or-breaks-us.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/09/th...
tubesebut 6y ago
> 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. Depends how you define success. He caused an immense amount of death and suffering. And in a just world, he would be executed like Mussolini was. Also, preferably with his entire family wiped out too, as a lesson to future warmongers.
csa 6y ago
> The Economist MBA rankings 2021 have raised eyebrows because European schools rankings increased so much Many schools did not participate: - Harvard - Wharton - Yale - Columbia - Chicago - Berkeley - Stanford These ratings have limited utility if you leave out the top schools.
- angrais 6y ago
  Those are 7 American universities. Am sure hundreds of other non-American universities also didn't participate. Either way, those 7 would make minor difference to the list.
  - csa 6y ago
    Maybe. Those were just 7 examples. I will go out on a limb and say that those seven would be at or near the top of the rankings and would set the rating curve. I personally think it would make a big difference in this list.
walshemj 6y ago
And IVY (Oxbridge and ENA as well) Grads are massively massively over represented in high status and positions of power. I dont think that article is written in good faith its more like it has been written to keep the poor's and the "enthics" in their place
TheCoelacanth 6y ago
Right, Ivies may only have 0.5% of students, but 30% of all US Presidents had a degree from one. Of the past six, only one hasn't had an Ivy League degree. Of nine Supreme Court justices, only one didn't go to Harvard or Yale. They are only a tiny portion of students, but they have a huge impact on who holds power in society.
- akhilcacharya 6y ago
  Correct, and that should end. One of the many reasons I was overjoyed to vote for a non-Ivy ticket last November.

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/

muh_gradle 6y ago
I was about to say. Bush is a bad public speaker, and you can disagree with all of his politics, but his professors found him intelligent. That being said, legacy admissions is still completely irresponsible, and people should be way more outraged by that.
- pc86 6y ago
  Irresponsible by what measure? Genetics and family wealth still have a huge influence on "future impact," and that's what these schools are selecting for. It sounds like legacy admissions are doing exactly what they're intended to do.
  - solosoyokaze 6y ago
    > Genetics and family wealth still have a huge influence on "future impact," In what way would genetics have a huge influence on future impact? That sounds like eugenics.
    - tharne 6y ago
      How is it "like eugenics" to state that children inherit genes from their parents, and are often similar in many ways to their parents? That just sounds like biology. It's not helpful to trivialize terms like "eugenics".
      - solosoyokaze 6y ago
        Genetics have no predictive power on future impact to society. Take one of those wealthy children and put them in an orphanage, see if they do the same as their siblings.

yTh0 6y ago

> A rich kid is much more likely to leave an impact on the world A rich person is subsidized by society. Why should we optimize fiscal policy to enable them and let them leave an outsized impact on the world? Especially when the outsized impact of the rich is inequality, anti-democratic political norms, and environmental destruction? They have no skills, or information advantage. Just a network effect advantage through monopoly of a shared value store. I see little difference with this system compared to monarchy or theology rule, which were also hierarchical, with ones power based on closeness to power, and monopoly of value store and public time economy. To clarify, I mean wealthy non-doers. Hedge funds, old wealth, etc. Doctors, engineers, etc., sure let us give them our ear. Unskilled rich are a drain on public agency.

bidirectional 6y ago
> To clarify, I mean wealthy non-doers. Hedge funds, old wealth, etc. What does this mean? How are hedge funds unskilled or non-doers in the manner that heirs are? I'd say the average hedge fund analyst is probably as accomplished/skilled/hard working as the average doctor or engineer.
- pc86 6y ago
  Certainly more-so than the average [software] engineer. There's no 6-week bootcamp for hedge funds and there's no "typing JavaScript into a computer" equivalent. We can argue all day about whether hedge funds are good, bad, or useful, and reasonable people will disagree on the answer, but you'd be hard-pressed to make a cogent argument that the average software engineer works even nearly as hard as the average hedge fund analyst.
- yTh0 6y ago
  The value they claim to unlock is completely made up. People need logistics to move materials to enable people to do stuff. Not speculative emotional guidance on ephemeral value stores. Most of them are, or are funded by, inherited wealth to service fiscal policy memes.
- randycupertino 6y ago

cwwc 6y ago

Hmm.. regarding the economist rankings —- wasn’t this solely because so many top US schools refused to participate, so they just excluded entirely?

dtnewman 6y ago

> 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 Notably this list is missing most top-tier MBA schools like Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, Wharton, Northwestern, U of Chicago, MIT, UC and others. If you want to say some of these schools are overrated, fine, but if none of them made the top 90 you've got a weird rankings methodology that isn't gonna be useful to most people.

rodiger 6y ago
Many of these lists aggressively weight cost meaning any substantially expensive school self-eliminates regardless of quality of education.
abduhl 6y ago
Most (all?) of the schools you list declined to participate (or were ineligible) in the Economist's ranking system this year it seems. Note that the last time they did participate, many of them were top tier. Harvard (2 in 2019), Stanford (8 in 2019), Columbia (15 in 2019), Wharton (5 in 2019), NW (4 in 2019), Chicago (1 in 2019), etc. etc. https://whichmba.economist.com/ranking/full-time-mba/2021/methodology https://whichmba.economist.com/ranking/full-time-mba/2021/me...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

jhap 6y ago

> "Ivies really wanted to promote social justice, they would let in more poor kids" > This is not their main priority. I think you're right to say that this is not their main priority, but I think they actually do quite good letting in more more poor kids (at least better than most people expect). https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/09/the-years-that-matter-most-how-college-makes-or-breaks-us.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/09/th...

tubesebut 6y ago

> 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. Depends how you define success. He caused an immense amount of death and suffering. And in a just world, he would be executed like Mussolini was. Also, preferably with his entire family wiped out too, as a lesson to future warmongers.

csa 6y ago

> The Economist MBA rankings 2021 have raised eyebrows because European schools rankings increased so much Many schools did not participate: - Harvard - Wharton - Yale - Columbia - Chicago - Berkeley - Stanford These ratings have limited utility if you leave out the top schools.

angrais 6y ago
Those are 7 American universities. Am sure hundreds of other non-American universities also didn't participate. Either way, those 7 would make minor difference to the list.
- csa 6y ago
  Maybe. Those were just 7 examples. I will go out on a limb and say that those seven would be at or near the top of the rankings and would set the rating curve. I personally think it would make a big difference in this list.

walshemj 6y ago

And IVY (Oxbridge and ENA as well) Grads are massively massively over represented in high status and positions of power. I dont think that article is written in good faith its more like it has been written to keep the poor's and the "enthics" in their place

TheCoelacanth 6y ago

Right, Ivies may only have 0.5% of students, but 30% of all US Presidents had a degree from one. Of the past six, only one hasn't had an Ivy League degree. Of nine Supreme Court justices, only one didn't go to Harvard or Yale. They are only a tiny portion of students, but they have a huge impact on who holds power in society.

akhilcacharya 6y ago
Correct, and that should end. One of the many reasons I was overjoyed to vote for a non-Ivy ticket last November.