5 ms·

I feel this is a little harsh. There are plenty of wealthy or politically connected or just very charismatic people in the US that do the same thing. I can thin

by jfoutz 5y ago

I feel this is a little harsh. There are plenty of wealthy or politically connected or just very charismatic people in the US that do the same thing. I can think of 5 peers that followed a similar path. Not at this scale, as far as I know, but slimy. Using one kind of power to gain influence in acadamia. Heck, there are plenty of buildings built to get kids into US institutions. But it cuts both ways, if I recall correctly a Yale couldn't get into the university which bore his name, and wound up going to Saudi Arabia on behalf of standard oil. Proof of education is really hard. Some people can just do the work, Ramanujan or Einstein might be a good example. Some people fake it, and do good work. I don't have a great example for this, but I'd guess 20% of post docs feel like they're in this category. Most people just grind it out. I think academia is in a tough spot. It appears to beat people into submission around academic honesty. That's not great, but at least sorta effective for enforcing the rules. I guess the only takeaway I can offer is, if you have the opportunity to play poker with advanced academics, you should take the chance. They're super smart, and super dangerous. But they've also got some big blind spots, and no interest in fixing them.

samhw 5y ago
> Heck, there are plenty of buildings built to get kids into US institutions. My grandfather used to be an admissions tutor at Cambridge (in the UK), and he always fondly remembered telling various people "thank you very much for donating to build us a new library, and, by the way, your son didn't get in".
- jfoutz 5y ago
  That was probably true in the U.S. even 40 years ago. But that time has passed. Good on your Grandpa! Lots of historical systems only work because the whole system is trustworthy. I imagine it would take some serious courage in any of Cambridge's 800+ years to rub a petite bourgeoisie's nose in their attempted bribe.
  - samhw 5y ago
    Haha, it ran in the family. His brother ran Rio Tinto's operations, I think it was in Africa, and he would constantly be receiving gold watches and other gifts in the post, which he diligently sent back. I think in that day and age, you were raised with this kind of Platonic education in how to use your power responsibly. One downside of increasing social mobility and introducing more of a meritocracy is that we haven't introduced a replacement for the humanistic education which instilled those ideals in people. Edit to add: It does go the other way too. I know of someone whose dad was Rothermere, who owns the Daily Mail and perhaps some other newspapers. He was pulled in by the master of an Oxford college shortly before his son graduated, and told (with a nod and a wink) that he would be wise to continue his funding of various scholarships, since they knew he had another son who was nearing university age.
    - jfoutz 5y ago
      I think it's just hard. a few hundred people will sort themselves out into a structure. Monarchy was unquestionably shitty, but it was a really great path to say, I work for a guy who works for a guy who works for a guy who works for the king, and by Devine right, you have to pay taxes. Some random person has the authority and responsibility to do X. Corporations pretty much work this way with a king (or a queen) and a court of advisors. We haven't quite figured out how to organize 100 million or a billion people. I think the UK made some fantastic improvements. Parliament is a little ridiculous but an improvement over god said The king is anointed by god, so his blood is special and can make decisions by Devine right. I think the US did a little better, requiring less trust. I think our system is fraying, but maybe we can find a patch. Adams was a notorious smuggler, how much corruption can you tolerate when you put that kind of person in power? Corruption is a thing that we live with, I don't think it can be cut out of the hearts of man. Maybe we can set things up in such a way that is survivable even if a random official doesn't have the pride and honor of your grandfather. If it was easy, it wouldn't be a problem. I don't have an answer. If I were you I'd be proud of your family. They sound like the kind of folks that, in their eyes, do their best to do the right thing.
      - tragomaskhalos 5y ago
        "Guns, Germs and Steel" has a very succinct take on the origins of this: while people are hunter-gatherers, everyone contributes to food and decision making, and the entire focus is on the immediate needs of the present. As soon as agriculture is invented, people settle in one place, not everyone now needs to be involved in food production so there is a labour surplus and people can start to specialise in eg crafts (pottery, metallurgy). This is the point at which civilisation can kick in, but it is also the point at which you get kings and priests, who are like the craft specialists in that they are fed by the community, but unlike the craft specialists they don't actually create anything useful in return. In my mind it's a form of parasitism that will inevitably spring up spontaneously once any human society reaches that point.
  - lupire 5y ago
    Huh? Centuries old schools have centuries old buildings named for "legacy" families.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
fourtrees 5y ago
Yup, we share this issue with India and probably most of the world. The rural/urban divide is also something of a global problem. Education was tough to come by before the internet made it into the woods. You're poker comment's right on. I have a bright family. Plenty of doctorates and but most went into industry, not academia. The blind spots are still there.

by jfoutz 5y ago

samhw 5y ago

> Heck, there are plenty of buildings built to get kids into US institutions. My grandfather used to be an admissions tutor at Cambridge (in the UK), and he always fondly remembered telling various people "thank you very much for donating to build us a new library, and, by the way, your son didn't get in".

jfoutz 5y ago
That was probably true in the U.S. even 40 years ago. But that time has passed. Good on your Grandpa! Lots of historical systems only work because the whole system is trustworthy. I imagine it would take some serious courage in any of Cambridge's 800+ years to rub a petite bourgeoisie's nose in their attempted bribe.
- samhw 5y ago
  Haha, it ran in the family. His brother ran Rio Tinto's operations, I think it was in Africa, and he would constantly be receiving gold watches and other gifts in the post, which he diligently sent back. I think in that day and age, you were raised with this kind of Platonic education in how to use your power responsibly. One downside of increasing social mobility and introducing more of a meritocracy is that we haven't introduced a replacement for the humanistic education which instilled those ideals in people. Edit to add: It does go the other way too. I know of someone whose dad was Rothermere, who owns the Daily Mail and perhaps some other newspapers. He was pulled in by the master of an Oxford college shortly before his son graduated, and told (with a nod and a wink) that he would be wise to continue his funding of various scholarships, since they knew he had another son who was nearing university age.
  - jfoutz 5y ago
    I think it's just hard. a few hundred people will sort themselves out into a structure. Monarchy was unquestionably shitty, but it was a really great path to say, I work for a guy who works for a guy who works for a guy who works for the king, and by Devine right, you have to pay taxes. Some random person has the authority and responsibility to do X. Corporations pretty much work this way with a king (or a queen) and a court of advisors. We haven't quite figured out how to organize 100 million or a billion people. I think the UK made some fantastic improvements. Parliament is a little ridiculous but an improvement over god said The king is anointed by god, so his blood is special and can make decisions by Devine right. I think the US did a little better, requiring less trust. I think our system is fraying, but maybe we can find a patch. Adams was a notorious smuggler, how much corruption can you tolerate when you put that kind of person in power? Corruption is a thing that we live with, I don't think it can be cut out of the hearts of man. Maybe we can set things up in such a way that is survivable even if a random official doesn't have the pride and honor of your grandfather. If it was easy, it wouldn't be a problem. I don't have an answer. If I were you I'd be proud of your family. They sound like the kind of folks that, in their eyes, do their best to do the right thing.
    - tragomaskhalos 5y ago
      "Guns, Germs and Steel" has a very succinct take on the origins of this: while people are hunter-gatherers, everyone contributes to food and decision making, and the entire focus is on the immediate needs of the present. As soon as agriculture is invented, people settle in one place, not everyone now needs to be involved in food production so there is a labour surplus and people can start to specialise in eg crafts (pottery, metallurgy). This is the point at which civilisation can kick in, but it is also the point at which you get kings and priests, who are like the craft specialists in that they are fed by the community, but unlike the craft specialists they don't actually create anything useful in return. In my mind it's a form of parasitism that will inevitably spring up spontaneously once any human society reaches that point.
- lupire 5y ago
  Huh? Centuries old schools have centuries old buildings named for "legacy" families.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

fourtrees 5y ago

Yup, we share this issue with India and probably most of the world. The rural/urban divide is also something of a global problem. Education was tough to come by before the internet made it into the woods. You're poker comment's right on. I have a bright family. Plenty of doctorates and but most went into industry, not academia. The blind spots are still there.