5 ms·

As a young man, I would have given nearly anything to attend Stanford or MIT, but I knew I wasn’t quite up to their standards. Now I find their presidents are n

As a young man, I would have given nearly anything to attend Stanford or MIT, but I knew I wasn’t quite up to their standards. Now I find their presidents are not up to mine.

echelon 3y ago
I worked at a fintech that employed both MIT graduates and people that didn't go to college at all. With our hiring and interview process serving as a great filter, it was impossible to tell who fell into which population until they told you.
- maest 3y ago
  What was the interview pass rate for MIT grads and people without a college education?
  - echelon 3y ago
    Is that really the point worth focusing on here?
    - maest 3y ago
      I think those ratios are more telling than the observation that people are indistinguishable _after_ your interviewing filter. Especially in the context of this topic.
  - laidoffamazon 3y ago
    Given that MIT grads are objectively superior to the rest of us that didn't get into any elite schools in basically every dimension I'd wager it's fairly high. With that said, the Square interview process isn't as algorithmic as most tech or finance companies and is instead more collaborative, so the raw IQ most MIT grads would use for their Jane Street interviews probably doesn't apply here.
    - paulcole 3y ago
      > Given that MIT grads are objectively superior to the rest of us that didn't get into any elite schools in basically every dimension I'd wager it's fairly high. Genuflect when you say that fella.
      - laidoffamazon 3y ago
        You jest, but is it not accurate?
        paulcole 3y ago
        Your belief that somebody who got into MIT is “objectively superior” in “basically every dimension” compared to someone who didn’t is one of the cringiest thoughts I’ve seen expressed on HN and that is saying something. I honestly thought (and still hope) that I missed the sarcasm.
        laidoffamazon 3y ago
        I'm not being sarcastic and I don't just mean MIT obviously, any elite school. I didn't get into any and I've met people that have. They're just superior - physically, mentally, in habits, by net worth and income.
        defrost 3y ago
        Rich parents does a lot of lifting there. Stephen Smale scored a Wolf Prize, a Fields Medal, a Sloane Fellowship and a slew of other accolades off the back of mediocre grades at the University of Michigan (a fairly decent public research uni I've heard but not as far as I know an "elite" school). Looking around there's many a high achiever that missed out on a US Ivy League placing.
        laidoffamazon 3y ago
        Don't know if Smale is a good example to use, since he did this 75 years ago! Back then the CUNY schools had similarly impressive graduates due to quotas at the elite schools. And Michigan is also a public ivy, though I'll concede it's more achievable to get into Michigan compared to Princeton (far more egalitarian in this regard). I'll be honest, I'm sure there are some high achievers that missed out, but I haven't met a single one. Most very high achieving people I know that didn't go to top schools at least got into one (and usually multiple). I don't think there's any hope for my class of people.
- ekianjo 3y ago
  Not surprising. Papers have no bearing on ones capabilities especially in an era where knowledge is virtually everywhere
- wolverine876 3y ago
  Here's my anecdote: In extensive exposure to a top-25 global university, and to a top-10 elite one, there was a big difference in the student body and the education. The latter was a different world; the education was innovative, brilliant, demanding at a very high level that I didn't anticipate. The students operated at a different level, world-class talent with shocking intelligence and, for their age, experience, being prepared - in a good way - to be world leaders. Maybe a very simple comparison is between young tennis players that work with a local pro and go to tennis camp, and the super-talented ones working with elite professional coaches, the kind that train world champions. It was clear that there is no way you could teach yourself at anywhere near the level of top-10, nor find that education at most schools. And remember that your peers are part of your education - you won't find that population of peers either. I know some institutions hire only from the elite, top-10 schools. I used to think it was 83% prejudice, but after those experiences I understand why. It's still lazy and unfair, but I also see significant reasons for it, maybe 33% prejudice. (Possibly other top-10 schools aren't as good as the one I have experience with, of course.)
  - laidoffamazon 3y ago
    I'd love for you to tell me, step by step, what someone that didn't get into a top institution of any kind should take away from this comment. Because all I can take away is that people like me are just objectively inferior compared to you, destined to not be a future leader or professional. Is that not what you are attempting to communicate? I just want to be crystal clear. We all know people like you are superhuman. I'm just wondering what it should mean for the rest of us, the 99.99%.
    - networkchad 3y ago
      [dead]
    - theGnuMe 3y ago
      So turns out that someone studied this way back in 1999. I'll let you draw your own conclusions. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1999-10/27/049r-102799-idx.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1999-10/27/049r-...
- ken47 3y ago
  If the kind of work these people do at your company doesn’t pressure test the skills they exhibited to get into MIT, then that stands to reason.
ShamelessC 3y ago
True that. I used to feel bad not being able to get into these schools due to mental health issues. Felt insecure. Now I’ve looked around at the community of the Ivy League, the various so called success stories like Zuckerberg, and of course incidents like this. All I see is the rich fucking over everyone else for power and inflating public perception of their intelligence to try and keep actually intelligent people down.
- dpflan 3y ago
  I recall Paul Krugman discussing the composition of Ivy League college student bodies, and how legacy admissions allow subpar students to matriculate while the schools have the resources to attract the most intelligent / capable students — so the student body let’s say is half legacy, half brilliant outliers (one maybe consider rich legacies as societal outliers too for different aspects). The brilliant students give the schools clout for being intellectual; while, the legacy students support the elite way of life and make that associated with the school — elite lifestyle as an enticing prospect for many brilliant students. A symbiotic relationship is formed, one that may then essentially slowly corrupt the minds of people to aggressively pursue elite-perpetuating actions (so then elite are preserving their position in society, a position that can be challenged by the more intelligent).
  - mgiampapa 3y ago
    People have to have the innovative ideas and skill to make them happen, and others need to know them to fund the venture.
  - beenBoutIT 3y ago
    This is why the objective admission system used by the University of California is so important. Nobody can game their way into a UC and IIRC, being a legacy only DQs you from some financial assistance they offer to 'first in family' to attend.
smugma 3y ago
Why are you grouping MIT into the same group as Stanford?
- whalesalad 3y ago
  They’re all wrought with dishonesty and self preservation.
  - nahsra 3y ago
    Jennifer Doudna [1], who helped characterize* CRISPR, worked at Yale: > Doudna joined Yale's Department of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry as an assistant professor in 1994. ... and now works at UC Berkeley. David Liu [2], who pioneered base editing, a generational improvement on classic CRISPR, works at Broad Institute (which is a collab between Harvard and MIT): > He is the Richard Merkin Professor, Director of the Merkin Institute of Transformative Technologies in Healthcare, and Vice-Chair of the Faculty at the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT I absolutely loathe the current social meta where people are allowed (even celebrated) for thoughtlessly punching upwards, regardless how broad the brush (boxing glove?) seems to be. Are there shitheads in these institutions? Undoubtedly. Are there also a ton of really brilliant people who have good intentions, have integrity, and deserve your utmost respect? Undoubtedly. Are the shitheads more likely to be located in administration? My bet is yes, because the scope of administration is a lot more political, but again -- we have to be careful. Is it anywhere near accurate to say "They’re all wrought with dishonesty and self preservation"? I don't see how this statement could be supported with anything other than personal emotion. Anti-intellectualism is just another form of dangerous prejudice and should be treated as such. You can sign me up for metaphorically stringing up this particular asshole. I also say all this as someone who didn't go to a prestigious school. Happy New Years! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Doudna https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Doudna [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_R._Liu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_R._Liu
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      > Are there shitheads in these institutions? Undoubtedly. Are there also a ton of really brilliant people who have good intentions, have integrity, and deserve your utmost respect? Undoubtedly. Right, that is the nature of every human institution, and every human.
ralph84 3y ago
They are operated by and for the elite. Sociopaths are overrepresented in the elite.

As a young man, I would have given nearly anything to attend Stanford or MIT, but I knew I wasn’t quite up to their standards. Now I find their presidents are not up to mine.

echelon 3y ago

I worked at a fintech that employed both MIT graduates and people that didn't go to college at all. With our hiring and interview process serving as a great filter, it was impossible to tell who fell into which population until they told you.

maest 3y ago
What was the interview pass rate for MIT grads and people without a college education?
- echelon 3y ago
  Is that really the point worth focusing on here?
  - maest 3y ago
    I think those ratios are more telling than the observation that people are indistinguishable _after_ your interviewing filter. Especially in the context of this topic.
- laidoffamazon 3y ago
  Given that MIT grads are objectively superior to the rest of us that didn't get into any elite schools in basically every dimension I'd wager it's fairly high. With that said, the Square interview process isn't as algorithmic as most tech or finance companies and is instead more collaborative, so the raw IQ most MIT grads would use for their Jane Street interviews probably doesn't apply here.
  - paulcole 3y ago
    > Given that MIT grads are objectively superior to the rest of us that didn't get into any elite schools in basically every dimension I'd wager it's fairly high. Genuflect when you say that fella.
    - laidoffamazon 3y ago
      You jest, but is it not accurate?
      - paulcole 3y ago
        Your belief that somebody who got into MIT is “objectively superior” in “basically every dimension” compared to someone who didn’t is one of the cringiest thoughts I’ve seen expressed on HN and that is saying something. I honestly thought (and still hope) that I missed the sarcasm.
        laidoffamazon 3y ago
        I'm not being sarcastic and I don't just mean MIT obviously, any elite school. I didn't get into any and I've met people that have. They're just superior - physically, mentally, in habits, by net worth and income.
        defrost 3y ago
        Rich parents does a lot of lifting there. Stephen Smale scored a Wolf Prize, a Fields Medal, a Sloane Fellowship and a slew of other accolades off the back of mediocre grades at the University of Michigan (a fairly decent public research uni I've heard but not as far as I know an "elite" school). Looking around there's many a high achiever that missed out on a US Ivy League placing.
        laidoffamazon 3y ago
        Don't know if Smale is a good example to use, since he did this 75 years ago! Back then the CUNY schools had similarly impressive graduates due to quotas at the elite schools. And Michigan is also a public ivy, though I'll concede it's more achievable to get into Michigan compared to Princeton (far more egalitarian in this regard). I'll be honest, I'm sure there are some high achievers that missed out, but I haven't met a single one. Most very high achieving people I know that didn't go to top schools at least got into one (and usually multiple). I don't think there's any hope for my class of people.
ekianjo 3y ago
Not surprising. Papers have no bearing on ones capabilities especially in an era where knowledge is virtually everywhere
wolverine876 3y ago
Here's my anecdote: In extensive exposure to a top-25 global university, and to a top-10 elite one, there was a big difference in the student body and the education. The latter was a different world; the education was innovative, brilliant, demanding at a very high level that I didn't anticipate. The students operated at a different level, world-class talent with shocking intelligence and, for their age, experience, being prepared - in a good way - to be world leaders. Maybe a very simple comparison is between young tennis players that work with a local pro and go to tennis camp, and the super-talented ones working with elite professional coaches, the kind that train world champions. It was clear that there is no way you could teach yourself at anywhere near the level of top-10, nor find that education at most schools. And remember that your peers are part of your education - you won't find that population of peers either. I know some institutions hire only from the elite, top-10 schools. I used to think it was 83% prejudice, but after those experiences I understand why. It's still lazy and unfair, but I also see significant reasons for it, maybe 33% prejudice. (Possibly other top-10 schools aren't as good as the one I have experience with, of course.)
- laidoffamazon 3y ago
  I'd love for you to tell me, step by step, what someone that didn't get into a top institution of any kind should take away from this comment. Because all I can take away is that people like me are just objectively inferior compared to you, destined to not be a future leader or professional. Is that not what you are attempting to communicate? I just want to be crystal clear. We all know people like you are superhuman. I'm just wondering what it should mean for the rest of us, the 99.99%.
  - networkchad 3y ago
    [dead]
  - theGnuMe 3y ago
    So turns out that someone studied this way back in 1999. I'll let you draw your own conclusions. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1999-10/27/049r-102799-idx.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1999-10/27/049r-...
ken47 3y ago
If the kind of work these people do at your company doesn’t pressure test the skills they exhibited to get into MIT, then that stands to reason.

ShamelessC 3y ago

True that. I used to feel bad not being able to get into these schools due to mental health issues. Felt insecure. Now I’ve looked around at the community of the Ivy League, the various so called success stories like Zuckerberg, and of course incidents like this. All I see is the rich fucking over everyone else for power and inflating public perception of their intelligence to try and keep actually intelligent people down.

dpflan 3y ago
I recall Paul Krugman discussing the composition of Ivy League college student bodies, and how legacy admissions allow subpar students to matriculate while the schools have the resources to attract the most intelligent / capable students — so the student body let’s say is half legacy, half brilliant outliers (one maybe consider rich legacies as societal outliers too for different aspects). The brilliant students give the schools clout for being intellectual; while, the legacy students support the elite way of life and make that associated with the school — elite lifestyle as an enticing prospect for many brilliant students. A symbiotic relationship is formed, one that may then essentially slowly corrupt the minds of people to aggressively pursue elite-perpetuating actions (so then elite are preserving their position in society, a position that can be challenged by the more intelligent).
- mgiampapa 3y ago
  People have to have the innovative ideas and skill to make them happen, and others need to know them to fund the venture.
- beenBoutIT 3y ago
  This is why the objective admission system used by the University of California is so important. Nobody can game their way into a UC and IIRC, being a legacy only DQs you from some financial assistance they offer to 'first in family' to attend.

smugma 3y ago

Why are you grouping MIT into the same group as Stanford?

whalesalad 3y ago
They’re all wrought with dishonesty and self preservation.
- nahsra 3y ago
  Jennifer Doudna [1], who helped characterize* CRISPR, worked at Yale: > Doudna joined Yale's Department of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry as an assistant professor in 1994. ... and now works at UC Berkeley. David Liu [2], who pioneered base editing, a generational improvement on classic CRISPR, works at Broad Institute (which is a collab between Harvard and MIT): > He is the Richard Merkin Professor, Director of the Merkin Institute of Transformative Technologies in Healthcare, and Vice-Chair of the Faculty at the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT I absolutely loathe the current social meta where people are allowed (even celebrated) for thoughtlessly punching upwards, regardless how broad the brush (boxing glove?) seems to be. Are there shitheads in these institutions? Undoubtedly. Are there also a ton of really brilliant people who have good intentions, have integrity, and deserve your utmost respect? Undoubtedly. Are the shitheads more likely to be located in administration? My bet is yes, because the scope of administration is a lot more political, but again -- we have to be careful. Is it anywhere near accurate to say "They’re all wrought with dishonesty and self preservation"? I don't see how this statement could be supported with anything other than personal emotion. Anti-intellectualism is just another form of dangerous prejudice and should be treated as such. You can sign me up for metaphorically stringing up this particular asshole. I also say all this as someone who didn't go to a prestigious school. Happy New Years! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Doudna https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Doudna [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_R._Liu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_R._Liu
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > Are there shitheads in these institutions? Undoubtedly. Are there also a ton of really brilliant people who have good intentions, have integrity, and deserve your utmost respect? Undoubtedly. Right, that is the nature of every human institution, and every human.

ralph84 3y ago

They are operated by and for the elite. Sociopaths are overrepresented in the elite.