13 ms·

I went to a state school, but I understood that the system in the Ivy League is: The smart kids get to take advantage of the rich kid's money and access, and r

• rqtwteye 2y ago
  That’s the beauty of the system. It’s mutually beneficial.
  • candiddevmike 2y ago
    Is it? It seems like the rich kids are still playing a heads I win tails you lose game with the smart kids.
    • cryptonector 2y ago
      How?
  • zanellato19 2y ago
    If those were the only two kinds of people who existed, sure.
  • mtv43 2y ago
    Never change, HN.
• dclowd9901 2y ago
  This is a fun platitude but what does it actually mean? How does this… relationship play out?
  • cthalupa 2y ago
    Rich kid's tuition and endowments from their families fund the school to a high level allowing them to pay for highly talented individuals and prestigious research. They might not do as well academically, but still get to trade on the name of having gone to the school Smart kids get in on scholarships and grants and help uphold the prestige of the university name while getting access to the highly talented professors. They are able to take advantage of this access, do well in the school, and have prestigious results in the real world, move on to be involved in that prestigious research, etc. You also have the elbow rubbing of the moneyed elite with people that might be very well suited to take that money and help grow it to even larger levels. That's the idea, anyway. Whether or not it's reality, I don't know. I didn't attend an Ivy League (or quasi-Ivy League in Stanford's case) school. They also of course receive significant money from the government via grants as well, so it's not entirely all coming from the pockets of the rich.
    • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Rich kid's tuition and endowments from their families fund the school to a high level allowing them to pay for highly talented individuals and prestigious research Are you predicting donations to Stanford and USC will crater to a level that existentially threatens either institution?
      • BobaFloutist 2y ago
        God don't threaten me with a good time...
      • cthalupa 2y ago
        I'm predicting nothing. I replied to someone who asked for further clarification on how this theory is supposed to work. I haven't put enough thought into it to have strong feelings one way or the other - I'm just aware of the argument being made.
    • mushufasa 2y ago
      yep it pretty much works this way in practice. can confirm.
  • reducesuffering 2y ago
    It's intelligence signal laundering. Take 80% really smart people. Now pay $$$ to throw your rich kid in. Out comes 5 Harvard degrees. Your rich kid looks smart now.
    • csa 2y ago
      > Your rich kid looks smart now. A rich kid doesn’t need to look smart. Their family connections will be why they get access to good work, and many/most of them are aware of this.
      • DiscourseFan 2y ago
        Well, if the majority of Harvard graduates entered the workforce with little to no education, showing up to work hours late and coked out everyday doing diddly-squat, maybe at first nothing would change, but over time all those companies would be overtaken by those run by state school kids, and companies would no longer trust Ivy graduates as good hires.
        • csa 2y ago
          > Well, if the majority of Harvard graduates entered the workforce with little to no education Check. The actual classroom education at Harvard isn’t that good, imho. There are some signature classes that are definitely amazing, the access to resources for self-directed learning are incredible, and the competition and collaboration with one’s peers can push people to perform at new highs, but the base classroom instruction is generally not very good. > showing up to work hours late Maybe > and coked out everyday Stereotype, but maybe. > doing diddly-squat This can happen with anyone anywhere, imho. That said, what you consider “diddly-squat” may have more value than you think. See below. > maybe at first nothing would change, but over time all those companies would be overtaken by those run by state school kids This part of your comment makes me think that you and I see the college and labor markets very differently. 1. There are “worker bees” at elite schools and at state schools. These are the folks that seem to have a tireless ability to complete discrete tasks. The top worker bees at state schools are definitely on par with Ivy worker bees in terms of potential productivity, but not as much on ambition (as a whole). 2. There are “social capital” people at elite schools and at major state schools. These are folks who will rely mostly on their social capital to find work (as an employee or as a company owner). The main differences are that elite schools graduates will more often play for higher stakes often on a national or international level, while the state school folks will more often be playing for relatively smaller stakes on a regional, state, or local level. 3. The social capital people can show up to work late, coked out, and doing what some folks think is diddly squat, as long as they use their social capital to move things forward for their organization. This can be rain making for business deals, connecting the right people for a collaboration, or assembling a team of good worker bees who can do stuff for them. Worker bees tend to see the social capital people as grifters (and some are), but they are often linchpins in certain domains and businesss. Ignore them at your own peril. 4. Last but not least, you get the folks with social capital who are also good worker bees. These folks are pure gold, and they can be found at state schools and elite schools. They are rare. Most are amazing to be around. They frequently do amazing things. 5. Your idea of “state school kids” taking over the world is pure fantasy in my opinion. State school kids simply won’t have the connections or opportunities to do things at a scale that facilitates this. > and companies would no longer trust Ivy graduates as good hires. I don’t think that grads of any university are guaranteed good hires, and thinking so is a recipe for disaster. Ivy grads can be highly productive in a generic corporate context, but only if they are solid worker bees (not every Ivy grad is), and only if you give them and endless number of hoops to jump through with accompanying rewards to get them to mid-career. Most places of employment aren’t really set up like this.
  • csa 2y ago
    That’s a great question. Here is a good example: A friend of mine from a humble background in Michigan decided he wanted to go to NYC and make it in finance. He eventually did. After paying his dues in lower-ranked jobs in finance, some of his professional acquaintances were starting a hedge fund, and a key part of their strategy had to do with parts suppliers to Detroit car manufacturers. They immediately realized that they needed a “local” to be their boots on the ground there. Northeast corridor (NEC) elites may have high social standing in the NEC, but they come across as pompous city slickers outside of the NEC. People were reluctant to share information with them due to lack of trust. My friend was able to develop that trust, so he was basically a go between for the Michigan parts suppliers and the NYC financiers. That symbiotic/parasitic relationship netted him an 8-figure exit and an early retirement in his 40s, with a comparable bump for his NEC-born partners.
• paxys 2y ago
  California does not have any Ivy League universities.
  • slater 2y ago
    Stanford?
    • nilespotter 2y ago
      California does not have any Ivy League universities.
    • tacticalturtle 2y ago
      The Ivy League is a northeastern athletic conference: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_League https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_League
  • vectorhacker 2y ago
    Stanford was setup by people who came from that tradition.
  • karaterobot 2y ago
    True, but that was not their point, and correcting it does not affect their point.
  • ransom1538 2y ago
    Why are you downvoted? California does not have any Ivy League universities.
    • thebytefairy 2y ago
      Probably because it misses the point of the argument completely.
• whimsicalism 2y ago
  unfortunately for this narrative, there are lots of smart rich people, for obvious reasons
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • contagiousflow 2y ago
    Well then they shouldn't be affected by this changed.
    • whimsicalism 2y ago
      sure. all i’m saying is this is not the “system” at these schools
• ayakang31415 2y ago
  The problem with this approach is that the private universities still get benefits of federal funding through student aids and research grants. If no federal money was used for the undergraduate students, I would have no problem with this. Private university can do whatever they want with their admission as long as no public money is spent on the admission process and the admitted students.
  • throwup238 2y ago
    The funding and grants mostly benefit the students and researchers though. The bigger problem is their endowments and tax exempt status. The amount of wealth going through top universities is insane, with schools like Stanford and Harvard becoming appendages to giant hedge funds.
    • odo1242 2y ago
      To add, a lot of universities will reimburse education/administrative/maintenance fees on top of research contracts, so about 30% of the money they get for research actually doesn’t go towards research. While this is old, there was a 1988 event where a Stanford administrator bought a yacht from research funds.
    • ayakang31415 2y ago
      I don't care how the money is spent as long as it is their money. But the federal funding is not; it is tax payer's money. Tax money should be allocated based on decision made by the congress, which is the will of the people in the country. but to me it looks like the tax money the private universities get is spent on their terms, not the citizen.
      • drawkward 2y ago
        Well, life sucks. Here in Ohio our tax dollars fund vouchers that can be used to pay tuition at religious schools.
        • 2y ago
• throw4847285 2y ago
  Luckily, one of the greatest movies of the 21st century is about this very dynamic. It's called The Social Network. It has very little to do with the real historical personage of Mark Zuckerberg but it totally captures the toxic parasitic relationship between the upwardly mobile regular rich kids and the aristocracy at an institution like Harvard. It doesn't end well for anybody.
  • ralph84 2y ago
    It ended spectacularly well for all of the people who got Facebook equity.
  • beepbooptheory 2y ago
    I don't understand, wouldn't the narrative of that move be somewhat of a negative example, or a kind of "exception proves the rule" kind of thing? Namely, the relationship importantly (to the story) does not go well, and Zuck's redemption is being able to overcome the fraught relationship with his old-money investors.
    • throw4847285 2y ago
      As somebody who went to Harvard told me, the Finals Clubs are not cool. They are exclusive, but you would have to be deeply self-hating to not be a Boston Brahmin and want to get into one because you're so ambitious that it has erased every other facet of your personality so you can be an automaton whose only programmed purpose is to amass power and wealth. In the world of the movie (which again, is not real life), the cost is that Mark Zuckerberg will never be happy. I'll admit, it's convenient to believe that the billionaire seems to have achieved what he wanted but at the cost of everything that actually matters to living a meaningful human life. And yet it may have a grain of truth.
      • TheKarateKid 2y ago
        Part of the movie's point is that Mark wanted to be accepted and "cool" so badly, that he was willing to do whatever it took in his own way to achieve that. Even at the expense of things most others wouldn't give for it, as you mentioned. To many others, that social status is achievable in different ways -- athletics, personality, appearance, or is even inherited (name, money, etc.). So many, dare I say most, people joining the Finals Clubs don't have to make the kind of sacrifices Mark did because they just naturally fit in. And as a result, membership of those clubs is less of a "big deal" because they didn't have the mountain to climb to get in it. In Mark's case, he didn't have any of the above to achieve that. But he found out he did have a really unique and "cool" way to socialize -- the social network. The popularity and notoriety from the things he did contributed to his "cool" status on campus. And as we all know, the money and power he got from it cemented his status as a "cool" kid with status.
• shemtay 2y ago
  Also, the presence of multigenerational participants in an institution help it to develop unique traditions and culture that improve it in ways that are hard to articulate and measure, which I will artlessly describe as the opposite of the feeling you get from going to the DMV to renew your driver's license.
  • 7thpower 2y ago
    Do you have any examples? I look see cultural artifacts resulting from multiple generations attending an institution as a negative. I want educational institutions to be merit based, but when I read this comment I just think of family names being thrown around.
    • zmgsabst 2y ago
      If you think your society is better than average, you want to continue its culture. If you shred cultural continuity mechanisms, eg legacy admissions forming a persistent community, you erode the very thing that made your society better than average.
    • shemtay 2y ago
      Tautologically, each student at a university who is a blood relative of a graduate of said university has a social network that shares a node with the university's formal network. "Social capital" is a term of art in sociology meaning "the network of relationships within a particular society", in this case a university. Robert Putnam has written extensively about the empirical benefits of high social capital, which include efficient allocation of resources, lower stress, and prosocial behavior. A newly admitted student whose social network shares 0 nodes with the university's formal network makes no initial contribution to the university's social connectedness within the universe of people formally affiliated with the university. Whereas the legacy student is already socially connected at the moment of admission.
• bko 2y ago
  Legacy kids are pretty smart. The median SAT score for legacy Princeton admissions is between 1525-1585 (the average is 1535 for Princeton overall). GPA is similarly very high. https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2023/07/princeton-legacy-senior-survey-frosh-survey-gpa-sat-act-career https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2023/07/princeton-...
• hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
  Yep. It's a cliche that the token scholarship students are paid to do the homework of and take the tests for the rich kids. Large public research universities (in STEM) skew to far more rigorous than Ivies because they're always clamoring for prestige and ranking because of their inherent insecurities about not being said Ivy. Little/no grade inflation and less homework and test trafficking. TLDR: Generally, people who put in the work and get things done went to state schools; while people who earn MBAs and found companies like Theranos and FTX go to big name private schools.