5 ms·

Still a good place to study, though.

laidoffamazon 3y ago
I think it would be beneficial if every Stanford admit just went to their state schools. The purpose of these institutions isn't to educate, it's to confer status (in a tax efficient and positive-eugenic way)
- wolverine876 3y ago
  Have you attended any of those institutions? That's not my experience at all. The education was off-the-charts good. In more detail: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38829116 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38829116
  - laidoffamazon 3y ago
    Of course not, I wouldn't get in. But I never said the education is bad. I just said their purpose is not to educate. Morill Act institutions were developed to educate, and by accepting the vast majority of people that apply University of Oklahoma will always exist to educate. The same cannot be said for Brown or Stanford.
    - CoastalCoder 3y ago
      I got master's in CS from Brown. Fwiw, I was really pleased with the instruction.
      - laidoffamazon 3y ago
        Again, never said the education was bad! Just that their purpose isn’t to educate as evidenced by the fact that they don’t let in 95% of those that apply. Maybe Brown MSCS is 94%, I don’t know.
- ken47 3y ago
  These schools can offer harder, accelerated courses under the presumption that the floor of the student body’s ability is higher than average. In that sense, the education can be more rigorous and faster. Is that actually the case in practice? I’ve never gone to a mediocre university so I can’t compare. But I can say that aside from intellect, attendees of top universities are not ethically superior to the average person.
  - laidoffamazon 3y ago
    Berkeley is an objectively lower tier school than Stanford that has a 4-5x higher acceptance rate but Berkeley most definitely has a more "rigorous" CS program for undergraduates. Same applies to the honors classes at other public ivies that are accessible to "good students" without the need to be superhuman like the HYPSM+ admits.
    - ken47 3y ago
      This is why acceptance rates cannot be considered in a vacuum as a measure of universal quality. Informed people generally understand that there is a lot of overlap in the bell curves of the intellectual abilities of Stanford and Berkeley undergrads. Stanford may generally have a higher stature in that it has a stronger association with wealth, but only fools believe it has the monopoly on student intellect in the Bay.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> good place to study I work with a lot of Stanford grads. They’re terrific folk. But the concentration of corruption, delusion and depravity in its graduates, professors and administration begin to make one question if they were great and collected and resisted Stanford’s transformative effect, which increasingly (albeit with low confidence) looks like it may be net negative, or if they were transformed positively by the experience.
- ken47 3y ago
  I’ve personally witnessed schools of Stanford’s stature accepting students on multiple occasions, who were unable to handle AP Calculus AB in high school, or at least without significant assistance. When I mention this to associates from Asia, they are genuinely astonished. Anyone who got into a top university in East Asia will generally have breezed through such subject matter in high school. How can the United States hope to compete with Asia in a century? IMHO it’s going to be very difficult. Hard skills of this nature will rule the world.
  - kasey_junk 3y ago
    Fwiw this refrain was something we heard in the 80s. You’d expect 40 years on to see some of that impact.
    - ken47 3y ago
      We do. Even just recently, US presidents have been cutting off China’s access to US tech out of fear.
      - tptacek 3y ago
        If they're so much better than we are at this stuff, why does it matter? Why do they need access to US tech? Our tech is made by idiots who can't pass AP Calculus AB.
        ken47 3y ago
ekianjo 3y ago
Thats what they want you to believe

I think it would be beneficial if every Stanford admit just went to their state schools. The purpose of these institutions isn't to educate, it's to confer status (in a tax efficient and positive-eugenic way)

wolverine876 3y ago
Have you attended any of those institutions? That's not my experience at all. The education was off-the-charts good. In more detail: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38829116 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38829116
- laidoffamazon 3y ago
  Of course not, I wouldn't get in. But I never said the education is bad. I just said their purpose is not to educate. Morill Act institutions were developed to educate, and by accepting the vast majority of people that apply University of Oklahoma will always exist to educate. The same cannot be said for Brown or Stanford.
  - CoastalCoder 3y ago
    I got master's in CS from Brown. Fwiw, I was really pleased with the instruction.
    - laidoffamazon 3y ago
      Again, never said the education was bad! Just that their purpose isn’t to educate as evidenced by the fact that they don’t let in 95% of those that apply. Maybe Brown MSCS is 94%, I don’t know.
ken47 3y ago
These schools can offer harder, accelerated courses under the presumption that the floor of the student body’s ability is higher than average. In that sense, the education can be more rigorous and faster. Is that actually the case in practice? I’ve never gone to a mediocre university so I can’t compare. But I can say that aside from intellect, attendees of top universities are not ethically superior to the average person.
- laidoffamazon 3y ago
  Berkeley is an objectively lower tier school than Stanford that has a 4-5x higher acceptance rate but Berkeley most definitely has a more "rigorous" CS program for undergraduates. Same applies to the honors classes at other public ivies that are accessible to "good students" without the need to be superhuman like the HYPSM+ admits.
  - ken47 3y ago
    This is why acceptance rates cannot be considered in a vacuum as a measure of universal quality. Informed people generally understand that there is a lot of overlap in the bell curves of the intellectual abilities of Stanford and Berkeley undergrads. Stanford may generally have a higher stature in that it has a stronger association with wealth, but only fools believe it has the monopoly on student intellect in the Bay.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> good place to study I work with a lot of Stanford grads. They’re terrific folk. But the concentration of corruption, delusion and depravity in its graduates, professors and administration begin to make one question if they were great and collected and resisted Stanford’s transformative effect, which increasingly (albeit with low confidence) looks like it may be net negative, or if they were transformed positively by the experience.

ken47 3y ago
I’ve personally witnessed schools of Stanford’s stature accepting students on multiple occasions, who were unable to handle AP Calculus AB in high school, or at least without significant assistance. When I mention this to associates from Asia, they are genuinely astonished. Anyone who got into a top university in East Asia will generally have breezed through such subject matter in high school. How can the United States hope to compete with Asia in a century? IMHO it’s going to be very difficult. Hard skills of this nature will rule the world.
- kasey_junk 3y ago
  Fwiw this refrain was something we heard in the 80s. You’d expect 40 years on to see some of that impact.
  - ken47 3y ago
    We do. Even just recently, US presidents have been cutting off China’s access to US tech out of fear.
    - tptacek 3y ago
      If they're so much better than we are at this stuff, why does it matter? Why do they need access to US tech? Our tech is made by idiots who can't pass AP Calculus AB.
      - ken47 3y ago

ekianjo 3y ago

Thats what they want you to believe