8 ms·

HYP (Harvard, Yale and Princeton), and top tier law schools (Harvard, Yale, Stanford), top tier b schools (Harvard and Stanford) still control the whole thing.

HYP (Harvard, Yale and Princeton), and top tier law schools (Harvard, Yale, Stanford), top tier b schools (Harvard and Stanford) still control the whole thing. Sure, if you can ace leetcode like an olympiad, you can become a L7 at FAANG. However, if you are a MBA from San Jose state, you would be working as a financial analyst. However, if you are a Stanford MBA, you would be a SVP. Top tier firms in PE, VC, IC, and top tier consulting companies still go for elite colleges. Why? That is the path to c-level positions (not leetcode). Same thing for big law. Same thing goes for Washington consensus (the cesspool of Beltway), where pedigree matters.

mgh2 5y ago
Is it pedigrees that matter or what these signal? Ethics aside, I rather have a smart person in charge rather than the opposite
- wpietri 5y ago
  What they signal? Like generational wealth and elite connections? [1] I have definitely seen hiring managers lean very hard on pedigree so they didn't have to do the actual work of evaluating candidates. It was basically the same deal with a lot of certifications, like Scrum/Agile and Java certs. I also think that your bucketing people such that Harvard = smart and state school = "the opposite" is a great example of the problem. Personally, I'd always rather work with somebody who has had to work their way up, as they tend to have a more balanced perspective. [1] E.g.: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/07/harvards-freshman-class-is-more-than-one-third-legacy.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/07/harvards-freshman-class-is-m...
  - mgh2 5y ago
    Nobody said anything about state schools - focus on the main argument.
  - mgh2 5y ago
    Nope, intelligence matters at the end if that person works hard too, there is no ceiling unlike the opposite. Intelligence or/and hard work alone can only carry you so far, there are so many other factors that lead to success (ex: luck) As a business, you bet your risks against the person who has been vetted vs. the unproven one.
    - wpietri 5y ago
      I get why on HN saying "intelligence matters" seems like an uncontroversial opinion. Under the right circumstances and ceteris paribus, it can help. But it doesn't always. Indeed, as a person who is officially very smart, that has often been a problem for me. E.g., the way smart people can easily learn to perform smartness rather than doing the long-term smart thing. Or our tendency to value theory over experience and book smarts over street smarts. Early on, being smart also helped me avoid learning discipline and gumption, two things without which smartness may not do a lot of good. And anyway, you're again, not very smartly, ignoring the point that a fancy degree doesn't correlate particularly well with smartness, so the whole intelligence thing is a bit of a sideshow to the actual discussion here.
      - mgh2 5y ago
        Show some proof, otherwise it is just an opinion
        wpietri 5y ago
        I've already showed some proof. Why don't you take a turn?
        mgh2 5y ago
        What you showed is not proof. Simply having 1/3 of Harvard admissions being legacy does not disprove that those who go to Ivy Leagues are not intelligent. On the contrary, studies show that IQ is highly genetic (up to 80%). So it is just reasonable for admission offices to accept students based on family ties [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#cite_note-Bouchard2013W-7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#cite_note-B... There is also a correlation between IQ, general intelligence and SAT scores (a requirement for admissions), despite what the media portrays. FYI: Media is manipulated to create controversy and get views. Scientific studies are not perfect, but has far lower cases due to the peer review process, except for privately funded research [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC6963451/#B1-jintelligence-07-00026 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC6963451/#B...
- honkycat 5y ago
  It signals wealth and an upbringing that meshs with the current c-level staff. this is not controversial to assert. I'm not saying these people are not smart, but they are also definitely rich. My life is great, I am not trying to complain. Elsewhere you asked for proof. There is plenty of proof that income is the best predictor for attending an ivy league school. Here is an article from harvard: https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2020/06/at-home-with-harvard-inequality-in-america https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2020/06/at-home-with-harvard... Harvard has almost as many students from the nation’s top 0.1 percent highest-income families as from the bottom 20 percent.
  - mgh2 5y ago
    I meant that going to an Ivy League has no correlation to intelligence (no other variables), that was the original argument
- raincom 5y ago
  Two intelligent people--one due to his circumstances end up going to UC Merced, another ends up graduating from Harvard. Both excel in excel sheets, financial modeling, the UCMerced graduate would be working as a financial analyst at Cisco, whereas the Harvard one will be doing a similar thing at Goldman Sachs. So, the issue is not one of smartness, as Harvard itself says in its reports, since majority of their applicants are smart anyway. That's how the filtering works for the super elite, and the 'servants' of this super elite--and this 'servant' class also also elite as well. Here, I am not using 'servant' in pejorative sense, but in the sense that one who works for super elite end up making millions a year.
strikelaserclaw 5y ago
I mean for the vast majority of work a day people who just want to work so they can live, college is becoming a waste of their time/resources. The people who want to rise to the top of their field, for them college is very valuable and top schools much more.

mgh2 5y ago

Is it pedigrees that matter or what these signal? Ethics aside, I rather have a smart person in charge rather than the opposite

wpietri 5y ago
What they signal? Like generational wealth and elite connections? [1] I have definitely seen hiring managers lean very hard on pedigree so they didn't have to do the actual work of evaluating candidates. It was basically the same deal with a lot of certifications, like Scrum/Agile and Java certs. I also think that your bucketing people such that Harvard = smart and state school = "the opposite" is a great example of the problem. Personally, I'd always rather work with somebody who has had to work their way up, as they tend to have a more balanced perspective. [1] E.g.: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/07/harvards-freshman-class-is-more-than-one-third-legacy.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/07/harvards-freshman-class-is-m...
- mgh2 5y ago
  Nobody said anything about state schools - focus on the main argument.
- mgh2 5y ago
  Nope, intelligence matters at the end if that person works hard too, there is no ceiling unlike the opposite. Intelligence or/and hard work alone can only carry you so far, there are so many other factors that lead to success (ex: luck) As a business, you bet your risks against the person who has been vetted vs. the unproven one.
  - wpietri 5y ago
    I get why on HN saying "intelligence matters" seems like an uncontroversial opinion. Under the right circumstances and ceteris paribus, it can help. But it doesn't always. Indeed, as a person who is officially very smart, that has often been a problem for me. E.g., the way smart people can easily learn to perform smartness rather than doing the long-term smart thing. Or our tendency to value theory over experience and book smarts over street smarts. Early on, being smart also helped me avoid learning discipline and gumption, two things without which smartness may not do a lot of good. And anyway, you're again, not very smartly, ignoring the point that a fancy degree doesn't correlate particularly well with smartness, so the whole intelligence thing is a bit of a sideshow to the actual discussion here.
    - mgh2 5y ago
      Show some proof, otherwise it is just an opinion
      - wpietri 5y ago
        I've already showed some proof. Why don't you take a turn?
        mgh2 5y ago
        What you showed is not proof. Simply having 1/3 of Harvard admissions being legacy does not disprove that those who go to Ivy Leagues are not intelligent. On the contrary, studies show that IQ is highly genetic (up to 80%). So it is just reasonable for admission offices to accept students based on family ties [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#cite_note-Bouchard2013W-7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#cite_note-B... There is also a correlation between IQ, general intelligence and SAT scores (a requirement for admissions), despite what the media portrays. FYI: Media is manipulated to create controversy and get views. Scientific studies are not perfect, but has far lower cases due to the peer review process, except for privately funded research [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC6963451/#B1-jintelligence-07-00026 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC6963451/#B...
honkycat 5y ago
It signals wealth and an upbringing that meshs with the current c-level staff. this is not controversial to assert. I'm not saying these people are not smart, but they are also definitely rich. My life is great, I am not trying to complain. Elsewhere you asked for proof. There is plenty of proof that income is the best predictor for attending an ivy league school. Here is an article from harvard: https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2020/06/at-home-with-harvard-inequality-in-america https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2020/06/at-home-with-harvard... Harvard has almost as many students from the nation’s top 0.1 percent highest-income families as from the bottom 20 percent.
- mgh2 5y ago
  I meant that going to an Ivy League has no correlation to intelligence (no other variables), that was the original argument
raincom 5y ago
Two intelligent people--one due to his circumstances end up going to UC Merced, another ends up graduating from Harvard. Both excel in excel sheets, financial modeling, the UCMerced graduate would be working as a financial analyst at Cisco, whereas the Harvard one will be doing a similar thing at Goldman Sachs. So, the issue is not one of smartness, as Harvard itself says in its reports, since majority of their applicants are smart anyway. That's how the filtering works for the super elite, and the 'servants' of this super elite--and this 'servant' class also also elite as well. Here, I am not using 'servant' in pejorative sense, but in the sense that one who works for super elite end up making millions a year.

strikelaserclaw 5y ago

I mean for the vast majority of work a day people who just want to work so they can live, college is becoming a waste of their time/resources. The people who want to rise to the top of their field, for them college is very valuable and top schools much more.