3 ms·

I can only speak to my experience, and experienced just about every major kind of environment (private elite small, public large, community college, regional st

I can only speak to my experience, and experienced just about every major kind of environment (private elite small, public large, community college, regional state schools, elite universities). I’ve met great people everywhere, but in heavily uneven distribution. And in the less great environments, having a culture of either apathy, non-excellence, or simply not having so many great peers does little to motivate oneself, where as having the opposite is like a rocket ship. Videos on the internet are not a replacement for who is around you everyday. Your peers are a well establish major factor in determining your trajectory in life. The uneven distribution will mean that MIT will put out a lot of great candidates, where as a state school will put out few great candidates. The people who went to MIT were in a culture that pushed them the entire time, so they’ll have maximized their talent, where as the state school lacking this culture will reward the same potential talent for less accomplishment. Thus you see this 80/20 rule manifest. Btw the study was about American universities. I’m not sure why you’re being so defensive about Europe. It’s irrelevant to the point at hand. You could do the same study in France or China and I’m sure you’ll see a similar domestic result.

lapcat 4y ago
First: "So why wouldn’t the best and brightest and most motivated and best networked beat everyone else out?" Second: "Your peers are a well establish major factor in determining your trajectory in life." Ok, so can we ditch "best and brightest and most motivated" and just go with "best networked"? > I don’t know why this is a problem The problem is the best networked part.
epolanski 4y ago
I think you are way overblowing this whole idea. Sure, peers matter, and yes, probably competitive people may tend to aggregate in some places but that does not lead to the implications and numbers you drive. It's mostly about bias and network. > people who went to MIT were in a culture that pushed them the entire time, so they’ll have maximized their talent It's funny you mention a university which publishes their own tests. I'd like to see a comparison with similar tests from less prestigious university. Calculus/analysis tests seem quite standard, where's the unusual push? You seem to regurgitate university ads. It's also funny how the article points how prestige...is much less of a factor for STEM than economics or law...maybe because stem needs results besides prestige?
- mod50ack 4y ago
  > Calculus/analysis tests seem quite standard, where's the unusual push? The tests in standard courses aren't really what's at play. It's about people and the ability to "run into" and work with those people gets people into research networks. Not all MIT students do that, of course, and it's not an absolute; many people come from less-prestigious schools, but the networking effects stack things against them coming from undergrad and afford them fewer opportunities to "walk into" those circles, depending on the resources their UGs have.
nextos 4y ago
In many EU countries there is a large group of public universities with roughly the same "prestige" and entry is not too competitive. Some might be incredibly hard once you are in, though.

lapcat 4y ago

First: "So why wouldn’t the best and brightest and most motivated and best networked beat everyone else out?" Second: "Your peers are a well establish major factor in determining your trajectory in life." Ok, so can we ditch "best and brightest and most motivated" and just go with "best networked"? > I don’t know why this is a problem The problem is the best networked part.

epolanski 4y ago

I think you are way overblowing this whole idea. Sure, peers matter, and yes, probably competitive people may tend to aggregate in some places but that does not lead to the implications and numbers you drive. It's mostly about bias and network. > people who went to MIT were in a culture that pushed them the entire time, so they’ll have maximized their talent It's funny you mention a university which publishes their own tests. I'd like to see a comparison with similar tests from less prestigious university. Calculus/analysis tests seem quite standard, where's the unusual push? You seem to regurgitate university ads. It's also funny how the article points how prestige...is much less of a factor for STEM than economics or law...maybe because stem needs results besides prestige?

mod50ack 4y ago
> Calculus/analysis tests seem quite standard, where's the unusual push? The tests in standard courses aren't really what's at play. It's about people and the ability to "run into" and work with those people gets people into research networks. Not all MIT students do that, of course, and it's not an absolute; many people come from less-prestigious schools, but the networking effects stack things against them coming from undergrad and afford them fewer opportunities to "walk into" those circles, depending on the resources their UGs have.

nextos 4y ago

In many EU countries there is a large group of public universities with roughly the same "prestige" and entry is not too competitive. Some might be incredibly hard once you are in, though.