19 ms·

How the Ivy League Broke America

69 points by yarapavan 2y ago

matrix87 2y ago
I guess because he has some school from the northeast on his resume, he can write this far too long, hand-wringing blog post where he hyperfocuses on the value of his own credentials This is the problem with the Atlantic: the authors haven't touched grass in a long time and it really shows
aboyko2000 2y ago
Discussed previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42136210 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42136210
proshno 2y ago
[dead]
achow 2y ago
https://archive.is/J7JOs https://archive.is/J7JOs
neilv 2y ago
> “Number one people go to number one schools” is how one lawyer explained her firm’s recruiting principle to Rivera. What a load of number two.
- bell-cot 2y ago
  But there are billions of dollars to be made by convincing people of such things.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    Network effects convey enormous benefits. People with resources mingling with people with resources (internal or external) is likelier to yield a lot more than random groupings.
    - bell-cot 2y ago
      Yes-ish. That line of reasoning could be used to explain why hereditary nobles and royals are the best form of government. And quite a few other counter-factuals. OTOH, arguing that anyway might give you a far better shot at getting your hands on a few of those $billions than I'll ever have. GO FOR IT.
      - lotsofpulp 2y ago
        Not really, the argument would be that most successful group would consist of people with various resources, whether it be innate intelligence, motivation, discipline, or inherited wealth/social network. A group of people whose sole value is social network/wealth is probably not sufficient. Humans have a limited amount of time and energy to work with, so some mechanism of filtering who or what to place bets on would presumably increase desirable results. Not too dissimilar from seeking recommendations for a plumber or electrician or romantic partner from a trusted neighbor or family or friend.
        bell-cot 2y ago
        Back in the day, the royals and nobles had all those other things. Whether within themselves (as their sycophants proclaimed) or right at hand - because the wealth, power, and prestige of their courts could easily attract the best and brightest talents within their realms. As the article somewhat points out, "network effect" is - at most - a means. Not an end. And the narcissistic group-think and badly limited worldview that the article describes at Ivy League schools sounds very much like the worst failings of those old noble and royal courts.
- anon291 2y ago
  Honestly though, I don't think he's wrong. As someone who -- in my view -- squeaked by into an elite school (probably of the second rank as described in the article) despite being raised in a 'natural growth' environment, I think some people are truly at a different level of efficacy and I'm not sure what people are going to do about it. They show sustained ability to dominate fields. Yes, I'm sure this is cultural, but it's still a difference. And there are frankly different behavioral patterns, some of which I did pick up and I think led to major differences in how I view the world, despite still firmly identifying with my more modest upbringing. As a simple example, my parents and family have a much more fatalistic 'fate-guided' view of the world, whereas the people I met in university were extremely motivated to just change what they saw as wrong. Even though my parents nominally supported that attitude, they were never able to actually do it.
  - vjk800 2y ago
    Indeed. I went to what was considered an elite university program in my country. Most of the people even there were borderline normal, although probably in the top 1% of the population in mathematical abilities, but some few people seemed to just do whatever the hell they pleased, and always succeed. I'm not sure what was it that drove those people. Were they just so genetically gifted, or was it just crazy high confidence in themselves combined with the same top 1% mathematical abilities that the rest of us had? Or did they have some behavioral models from home that allowed them to flow the way they did? Or did they just give it way more effort than I did, year after year?
    - anon291 2y ago
      Yes, I truly learned a lot from them. Immediately after school, despite getting a degree in Math / Computer Science, I decided to just go for it like they did, and joined one of the Big 3 strategy consulting firms where I worked for a few months, where I learned even more about these types of people. We need to actually contend with their very real ability before we dismiss them with memes.
      - bilbo0s 2y ago
- lordnacho 2y ago
  What's sad about it is that it's a lawyer. Now I don't mean to poop on lawyers, but the kind of recruiter we are talking about sells a very specific narrative of success, which is that if you're a top kid in school, your natural path is law/consulting/finance. I went to a famous institution, and there were loads of kids who bought into this. If you don't know quite what you want to do, it is very easy to fall into the trap of "oh I'll do this well paid thing for a while and see how it goes". You then get there, and it's a treadmill. Nobody thinks it's a meritocracy either. But everyone looks down on taking a normal, non-elite job.
  - red-iron-pine 2y ago
    > What's sad about it is that it's a lawyer. Now I don't mean to poop on lawyers, but the kind of recruiter we are talking about sells a very specific narrative of success, Can't speak for other countries but in the US there are a glut of lawyers, and if you're not at a Top 14. and in the top half the class, you're not going to make the Big Money -- and the stats generally bare that out. Doesn't mean you can't do well, but the market is packed, tolerable jobs in law are sparse, hours are long, and student loans are large.
  - Woeps 2y ago
    It's the same here in the Netherlands, I didn't go to a elite school but I am from a place where most people do. And it's just bonkers to me this rat-race that they have been placed in because that's the only way to "happiness"/success ... Also question, is consulting considered an elite job? My impression is that even consulting for the big 4* is nothing special. * are they they same everywhere? : Deloitte, EY, KPMG and PwC
    - lordnacho 2y ago
      The Big 4 are indeed the same everywhere. I'd say most people who are near the treadmill would consider Big4 as prestigious, sure. But there are multiple levels of prestige in consulting. The mentioned firms, and then McKinsey/Bain/Boston, which are above that level in the hierarchy.
    - 2y ago
Animats 2y ago
There's a much better discussion of college admissions in Malcom Gladwell's new "Revenge of the Tipping Point".
- lordnacho 2y ago
  Can we get a summary?
  - Animats 2y ago
    Legacy admits bad.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
anon291 2y ago
> And yet it’s not obvious that we have produced either a better leadership class or a healthier relationship between our society and its elites Part of the problem is as follows and I see it so often in politics. We have an excellent technocratic leadership class. But being a technocratic leader does not make you a great leader of people, and frankly -- given the way many technocratic fields in the humanities are taught -- getting too deep in them makes you actively unappealing to people. The article derides the various social clubs at Harvard, Princeton, Yale, etc as 'non-academic', but nothing is further from the truth. Humans have an innate draw to beauty, and one thing that is beautiful to basically everyone is a rich culture with traditions, institutions, and members [1]. One way to signal that is by learning the social niceties inside and out. This is no less academic since it doesn't come from a book. The 'grinds', as the article says, didn't get that, and they were shunned not because they focused on books, but because they were unable to have a more expansive view of academics. It is shocking to me when I see pundits today seemingly confused why the masses find appeal in particular candidates despite the pundits being able to list ten technical reasons why he should be disqualified. They don't understand how people perceive things, and it's so painful to watch. I feel as someone who occupies a sort of 'third space' here [2], I am really truly able to see both viewpoints. But it's so difficult to explain to a technocrat the full range of human emotion, and it sometimes appears as if they've been handicapped in their ability to feel it. As an example (and I would recommend Camille Paglia's works), it's fascinating to me how, despite our ever growing technical ability to produce great film, the actual emotional content of the film is ever worse. We have the most scantily clad females of all time but the fully clothed actors and actresses of the past were actually more sexually enticing. We've lost the sense of awe that CS Lewis talks about in the Abolition of Man. We have the greatest visual effects, but the emotional content of the film is so thin that you just don't feel anything. Where these feelings do exist, it's in independent (read: not produced by the Ivy type) films and media, which is why 'alternate' media has suddenly become so popular. I'll also just leave that Donald Trump has an innate understanding of people. People are shocked that he's able to get so many seemingly random, seemingly opposed people behind him. They classify it as a trick. But it's not. People vote and support who they like, not who has the best technocratic solutions. That is neither good nor bad. It just is. It's a tale as old as time, and would be apparent if you studied the actual humanities. Just so no one thinks I think Trump is some singular. Barack Obama is also one of these figures. And even Joe Biden is to some extent [3] I can write a dissertation on this topic. [1] It doesn't matter the culture. All traditional cultures are enthralling [2] I was raised in the 'normal' way, but ended up at a second-tier 'elite' school, and then -- adopting some of the stuff I learned -- moved into strategy consulting at one of the Big 3 where I learned even more about this type. I eventually moved back into tech (and do feel my career is better for having been through these experiences). [3] Completely off-topic, but I also think that if you go to spaces inhabited by the technocrats, you'll notice that 'detachment' philosophies like Stoicism and Buddhism are very popular, whereas the masses go for attachment. It's not a surprise to me that the Kennedy family, being Catholic, the exact opposite of Buddhism in that sense, was always seen as particularly charismatic and alluring amongst political dynasties
sapphicsnail 2y ago
It's very strange to read an article complaining about the homogenization of the cultural elite that name drops the university of every author of a book/article that supports his opinion. David Brooks himself is part of the very same cultural elite that he's complaining about. If someone really wanted to bring about a culture with leaders drawn from different economic strata the first step should be addressing people's material needs. Parents can't help their kids if they're spending all their time working multiple jobs only to live paycheck to paycheck. It's also hard to take risks or cultivate different skills when you're saddled with college debt you can't get rid if, and when healthcare and rent are taking up a large chunk of your income. People voted for Trump because neither side is willing to do anything to actually help people. That's why people don't trust institutions or "the establishment." For all his faults, and least Trump is willing to lie to his base and promise some sort of change.
- onetokeoverthe 2y ago
  Ivy UPENN and YALE, for the incoming pres/vp pairing. And vp's wife is also Yale. Just like the D pres husband wife team in the 90s. Bushes, Yale. Obama, Columbia/Harvard.
  - keiferski 2y ago
    This lines up with the idea of how great social change tends to be merely one group of elites splintering off from another and co-opting social movements, and not actual bottom-up democratic action.
    - onetokeoverthe 2y ago
      Yes, like the aptly named Big Game. Go Bears. or Cardinals.
- rob74 2y ago
  > For all his faults, and least Trump is willing to lie to his base and promise some sort of change So "willing to lie" is his only redeeming trait? Poor America! That said, I think he will bring about some sort of change, but it won't be one that really benefits the people who voted for him...
lordnacho 2y ago
Long essay, but I agree with a lot of what's said. I think a lot of quality time is wasted due to the rat race starting in early childhood. I live in a bit of a bubble in the commuter belt around London (ie not the US), but I observe some of the same obsessions here as well. In particular, I started to notice that my kid's friends suddenly had a lot less time for playdates in the year or two leading up to the 11-plus exam, which is a selective school thing. There are similar exams for the private schools in the area. Of course what was happening was that their parents would hire a tutor to help them pass the tests. The effect of this tutoring is on the whole negative. Obviously, it costs money. It also costs time that your kid would have to do other things. But also, it gives the kids the impression that school is super important, and they will be valued based on the outcome of this test. You end up with a few percent who get into the top selective schools, and everyone else is left with low expectations. Inevitably, it also means that it becomes a game for rich parents. I went to the induction day at the fancy school, and guess what. The parents are a bunch of professionals, virtually nobody doing anything else, and most kids went to private primaries + got tutored. We must have left some poor but capable kids in the wrong school.
- takinola 2y ago
  > The parents are a bunch of professionals, virtually nobody doing anything else, and most kids went to private primaries + got tutored. We must have left some poor but capable kids in the wrong school. The idea that the school you go to matters for your career seems unsupported by evidence (outside of consulting, law, medicine and investment banking). Most people don't go to ivy league schools (by definition). Looking around at senior leaders at most of the tech companies I have worked at, very few of them are Ivy leaguers. The Ivy League has a really great brand but the impact is overblown imho.
  - illiac786 2y ago
    I think you are looking at the wrong metric here. It’s not about “how many successful people out there didn’t go to the Ivy League”, it’s about “how likely is it that _my kid_ will be successful?”. And the Ivy League really has a major impact on the latter metric. (I mean successful in the classic boring way here - completely agree that this is a very debatable goal, but that’s not my point)
Hilift 2y ago
Something missing is deindustrialization following WW2. The US northeast (where "Ivy League" schools are located) shifted a huge amount of industry to other parts of the country, where factories had been established during the war. A few years later, the south had more electoral votes than the northeast and midwest. The votes determine leaders, not educational institutions. Look at the electoral votes from 1956: NY: 45 PA: 32 TX: 24 FL: 10 Today: NY: 28 PA: 19 TX: 40 FL: 30 Texas and Florida doubled their influence.
- 082349872349872 2y ago
  Tangentially, I know someone who used to sell textile machinery to new factories in the southern states, which left the old northern factories vacant, which yielded cheap space near Boston in which to expand for a fresh startup called DEC.
- gsf_emergency 2y ago
  NYers are also still relocating to FL (& less prominently, to TX), according to VizCap https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-the-top-5-states-americans-are-moving-to/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-the-top-5-states-ame...
  - 082349872349872 2y ago
    if it's still true, one reason for high-variance NYers to relocate to FL was that under FL bankruptcy laws, personal homes were exempt — which used to mean that buying something fancy in FL and domiciling there was a way to "lock in" gains for those who suspected their random walks might also hit an absorbing barrier at "zero"...
    - gsf_emergency 2y ago
      In the 1960s already, the culture premium for all ranks (not sure about the property insurance) was famously lower in Miyamifla than in Haarlem? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_Cowboy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_Cowboy
gadders 2y ago
I think if people want to add extra evaluations on top of IQ, then fair enough, but they need to be of high quality and as repeatable as IQ tests, otherwise it will be a case of pseudo-science and ideological capture.
- _1tem 2y ago
  Perhaps the very idea of having standardized evaluations needs to be questioned. Anything that can be measured will be gamed. Nothing “repeatable” can capture the whole value of a human being.
  - gadders 2y ago
    The aim is not to measure the value of an individual, though. A garbage collector is just as valuable as a human being as a brain surgeon. This is about finding a way to identify people who will benefit from the best education
    - _1tem 2y ago
      If it was just about identifying people for education, sure. But Ivy League colleges have become a gateway for all powerful institutions and posts in society, it’s not strictly about the education. The garbage collector might be a better president than the brain surgeon due to traits orthogonal to intelligence.
      - gadders 2y ago
        >>The garbage collector might be a better president than the brain surgeon due to traits orthogonal to intelligence. Yes, I agree with that point. I guess the linkage to break then would be between Ivy League Schools and powerful institutions.
keiferski 2y ago
I think this is fundamentally about the obsession with meritocracy, and not just the Ivy League. The Ivy League is merely the "best" system that subsequently became the obvious choice for a meritocratic filtering process. Which means that this issue will arise in any social structure that is attempting to optimize for merit. There have been many books critiquing this idea, but one that is both old and has stuck in my mind is from T. S. Eliot's Notes Towards a Definition of Culture. His basic point is that in a hyper competitive society driven by tests, evaluations, etc., basically no one is incentivized to preserve cultural practices – unless they somehow help one succeed in the new meritocracy. This functionally is a defense of the aristocracy, or of entrenched power that doesn't need to "earn" its wealth by competing. I'm not sure how much I agree with Eliot, but I think this is a pretty compelling point that, a hundred years later, seems quite obviously to have been accurate, if we look at the loss of knowledge traditional art forms. The problem with my comment here, though, is that is assumes the Ivy Leagues are now, currently meritocratic. It seems pretty obvious to me that they aren't - which makes this an even more complex situation.
IceHegel 2y ago
The idea of building new institutions is basically right. You can’t fix Harvard. But can you really build new institutions without a new civilization? The point of Harvard is the golden ticket to the upper class. The upper class now sucks (imo), so you can’t just have a better school with the same function.
- swed420 2y ago
  Agreed. > But can you really build new institutions without a new civilization? If enough people replace the pet idpol/culture war issue obsessions, which were designed to keep us divided and distracted from root class issues, instead with a unified vision of what benefits the ordinary person, then there is hope for diverging from this hellscape trajectory. Here's a starting point with some ideas: https://jacobin.com/2019/03/sam-gindin-socialist-planning-models https://jacobin.com/2019/03/sam-gindin-socialist-planning-mo...
_zagj 2y ago
As a great counterpoint to this thinkpiece (which argues the meritocracy is working as intended but having unintended consequences for society and thus fails to make any mention of quotas or the college admissions scandal from 5 years ago), consider this one: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/ https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-myth-of-american... The author found evidence of widespread quotas restricting the admission of Asians (no surprise, at least not anymore), but more scandalously, also evidence of affirmative action benefiting Jews. (The author is himself Jewish, and at least back then, probably couldn't have gotten away with writing it had that not been the case.) Brook's premise--that we did away with a nepotistic aristocracy (the "evil" WASP will-o'-the-wisp) and replaced it with a meritocracy--is false.
_1tem 2y ago
Any educational “system” strongly selects for conformity. A student can’t question the system or they’ll be sidelined early on and failed for giving the “wrong” answer. Geniuses are almost by definition weirdos who question the status quo. Yet most would get eliminated by the current educational system and it’s by-product of elites. That’s why true geniuses like Elon Musk somewhat ironically choose to rally the uneducated, not because he is intellectually aligned with them, but only because they allow much greater freedom to not conform. The truly intelligent shun intelligentsia.
corimaith 2y ago
The biggest problem I feel with "meritocracy" is that we're incurring huge costs on society all to pick up the best and brightest, but with very little returns in terms of societal benefits. I don't care about the guy who is higher up in the ladder than me, what I care about is the guy who builds more ladders, shorter ladders, elevators or such. And I think that most of our elites don't or can't do that. The birthrate crisis, the competition crisis, the housing crisis, etc, I don't think these people have the capability to solve them.
- anon291 2y ago
  > The birthrate crisis, The cause of the birthrate crisis is ultimately a lack of having fallen in love with humanity. This should be the point of the 'humanities', but if you look at the subjects included in that today, they're either 'science of human management' or a shell of their former glory. It's no surprise that the technocratic class they produce is unable to inspire people to have children and seems perpetually confused how to make that happen.
FooBarBizBazz 2y ago
I'm really sympathetic to the impulse that led to this article, but I think it's missing something central: The structure of the economy. The word "inequality" ("inequalities", actually) appears only twice, in one short paragraph, and it's to unfocus the emphasis, away from just wealth, to also include respect. Then the article, which bemoans an overemphasis on IQ and on the individual, suggests a variety of alternative measures by which we can determine which individuals get a slice of the decaying pie. There's something self-contradictory about this. We are witnessing a terrible arms race all throughout society, so that a smaller and smaller number of people can have a larger and larger share of desirable things. We're fighting over who gets to extract value. Meanwhile, so much else is left to be undesirable. To be truly a bit shit. The largest firms are getting larger and larger, and you have to get into them if you want to get anywhere. Inequality between firms is way up. A handful of East India Companies is conquering all. This "Tiger Mom" phenomenon is just the prisoner's best-response to the situation. The solution has to be a more broad-based cultural and material plenty. We have to have enough to go around, and we have to have nice things. People wouldn't be gouging each others' eyes out if they didn't think their peers were just competitors for scarce resources.
harvardTest1 2y ago
Throwaway here with a side question: Turns out, we have money. My spouse's side did very well. We should have about 55M by time our kids get to college. As long as my kids don't do something stupid, the money will outgrow them. Like, they have 'made it', by all my definitions, at least. So, my question: Do I bother with this rat race for my kids? I was part of it, I hated it, but it did turn out well enough for me (minus marrying well). We have access now to the best tutors and can more than afford great schools and programs and the like. Not a worry at all now. So, do I bother to do it?
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  > Do I bother with this rat race for my kids? No. Raise your kids to find what it is that they want to do without the shackles of it having to be something that will also bring in a lot of money (it might, it might not). They can look at college as a means to get educated rather than as job prep. They have the freedom to discover what it is that makes them happy or in what ways they want to contribute to society and a better world for their children. Lots of money doesn't buy happiness, but in today's world having enough money to free your kids from that pressure, is a gift. The problem though that many people with that money don't use it to relieve pressure on their kids but rather to increase the pressure. "I got into Harvard, and your neighbor's getting into Harvard, so you have to get into Harvard too."
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  If I were you, I would focus on three things: 1. Raise your kids to be decent people - to have ethics, empathy, and compassion. ("We can buy anything" is likely to negatively impact this.) 2. Raise your kids to not blow it. They aren't going to have more money than they can possibly spend; they could still end up broke. Raise them to be responsible with what they have. 3. You are in the privileged position of being able to raise your kids to find out what they really want to do, and to pursue that. This means giving them a lot of things they can try early, and seeing which one floats their boat. (It also means not forcing them into forever pursuing what they liked when they were five.) Yes, I am aware that 1 and 3 kind of contradict each other. You could argue that raising them to be people who can make their own way without the money - that is, who can earn a decent income on their own - is part of 1, or 2, or both.

69 points by yarapavan 2y ago

I guess because he has some school from the northeast on his resume, he can write this far too long, hand-wringing blog post where he hyperfocuses on the value of his own credentials This is the problem with the Atlantic: the authors haven't touched grass in a long time and it really shows

aboyko2000 2y ago

Discussed previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42136210 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42136210

proshno 2y ago

[dead]

achow 2y ago

https://archive.is/J7JOs https://archive.is/J7JOs

neilv 2y ago

> “Number one people go to number one schools” is how one lawyer explained her firm’s recruiting principle to Rivera. What a load of number two.

bell-cot 2y ago
But there are billions of dollars to be made by convincing people of such things.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  Network effects convey enormous benefits. People with resources mingling with people with resources (internal or external) is likelier to yield a lot more than random groupings.
  - bell-cot 2y ago
    Yes-ish. That line of reasoning could be used to explain why hereditary nobles and royals are the best form of government. And quite a few other counter-factuals. OTOH, arguing that anyway might give you a far better shot at getting your hands on a few of those $billions than I'll ever have. GO FOR IT.
    - lotsofpulp 2y ago
      Not really, the argument would be that most successful group would consist of people with various resources, whether it be innate intelligence, motivation, discipline, or inherited wealth/social network. A group of people whose sole value is social network/wealth is probably not sufficient. Humans have a limited amount of time and energy to work with, so some mechanism of filtering who or what to place bets on would presumably increase desirable results. Not too dissimilar from seeking recommendations for a plumber or electrician or romantic partner from a trusted neighbor or family or friend.
      - bell-cot 2y ago
        Back in the day, the royals and nobles had all those other things. Whether within themselves (as their sycophants proclaimed) or right at hand - because the wealth, power, and prestige of their courts could easily attract the best and brightest talents within their realms. As the article somewhat points out, "network effect" is - at most - a means. Not an end. And the narcissistic group-think and badly limited worldview that the article describes at Ivy League schools sounds very much like the worst failings of those old noble and royal courts.
anon291 2y ago
Honestly though, I don't think he's wrong. As someone who -- in my view -- squeaked by into an elite school (probably of the second rank as described in the article) despite being raised in a 'natural growth' environment, I think some people are truly at a different level of efficacy and I'm not sure what people are going to do about it. They show sustained ability to dominate fields. Yes, I'm sure this is cultural, but it's still a difference. And there are frankly different behavioral patterns, some of which I did pick up and I think led to major differences in how I view the world, despite still firmly identifying with my more modest upbringing. As a simple example, my parents and family have a much more fatalistic 'fate-guided' view of the world, whereas the people I met in university were extremely motivated to just change what they saw as wrong. Even though my parents nominally supported that attitude, they were never able to actually do it.
- vjk800 2y ago
  Indeed. I went to what was considered an elite university program in my country. Most of the people even there were borderline normal, although probably in the top 1% of the population in mathematical abilities, but some few people seemed to just do whatever the hell they pleased, and always succeed. I'm not sure what was it that drove those people. Were they just so genetically gifted, or was it just crazy high confidence in themselves combined with the same top 1% mathematical abilities that the rest of us had? Or did they have some behavioral models from home that allowed them to flow the way they did? Or did they just give it way more effort than I did, year after year?
  - anon291 2y ago
    Yes, I truly learned a lot from them. Immediately after school, despite getting a degree in Math / Computer Science, I decided to just go for it like they did, and joined one of the Big 3 strategy consulting firms where I worked for a few months, where I learned even more about these types of people. We need to actually contend with their very real ability before we dismiss them with memes.
    - bilbo0s 2y ago
lordnacho 2y ago
What's sad about it is that it's a lawyer. Now I don't mean to poop on lawyers, but the kind of recruiter we are talking about sells a very specific narrative of success, which is that if you're a top kid in school, your natural path is law/consulting/finance. I went to a famous institution, and there were loads of kids who bought into this. If you don't know quite what you want to do, it is very easy to fall into the trap of "oh I'll do this well paid thing for a while and see how it goes". You then get there, and it's a treadmill. Nobody thinks it's a meritocracy either. But everyone looks down on taking a normal, non-elite job.
- red-iron-pine 2y ago
  > What's sad about it is that it's a lawyer. Now I don't mean to poop on lawyers, but the kind of recruiter we are talking about sells a very specific narrative of success, Can't speak for other countries but in the US there are a glut of lawyers, and if you're not at a Top 14. and in the top half the class, you're not going to make the Big Money -- and the stats generally bare that out. Doesn't mean you can't do well, but the market is packed, tolerable jobs in law are sparse, hours are long, and student loans are large.
- Woeps 2y ago
  It's the same here in the Netherlands, I didn't go to a elite school but I am from a place where most people do. And it's just bonkers to me this rat-race that they have been placed in because that's the only way to "happiness"/success ... Also question, is consulting considered an elite job? My impression is that even consulting for the big 4* is nothing special. * are they they same everywhere? : Deloitte, EY, KPMG and PwC
  - lordnacho 2y ago
    The Big 4 are indeed the same everywhere. I'd say most people who are near the treadmill would consider Big4 as prestigious, sure. But there are multiple levels of prestige in consulting. The mentioned firms, and then McKinsey/Bain/Boston, which are above that level in the hierarchy.
  - 2y ago

Animats 2y ago

There's a much better discussion of college admissions in Malcom Gladwell's new "Revenge of the Tipping Point".

lordnacho 2y ago
Can we get a summary?
- Animats 2y ago
  Legacy admits bad.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

anon291 2y ago

> And yet it’s not obvious that we have produced either a better leadership class or a healthier relationship between our society and its elites Part of the problem is as follows and I see it so often in politics. We have an excellent technocratic leadership class. But being a technocratic leader does not make you a great leader of people, and frankly -- given the way many technocratic fields in the humanities are taught -- getting too deep in them makes you actively unappealing to people. The article derides the various social clubs at Harvard, Princeton, Yale, etc as 'non-academic', but nothing is further from the truth. Humans have an innate draw to beauty, and one thing that is beautiful to basically everyone is a rich culture with traditions, institutions, and members [1]. One way to signal that is by learning the social niceties inside and out. This is no less academic since it doesn't come from a book. The 'grinds', as the article says, didn't get that, and they were shunned not because they focused on books, but because they were unable to have a more expansive view of academics. It is shocking to me when I see pundits today seemingly confused why the masses find appeal in particular candidates despite the pundits being able to list ten technical reasons why he should be disqualified. They don't understand how people perceive things, and it's so painful to watch. I feel as someone who occupies a sort of 'third space' here [2], I am really truly able to see both viewpoints. But it's so difficult to explain to a technocrat the full range of human emotion, and it sometimes appears as if they've been handicapped in their ability to feel it. As an example (and I would recommend Camille Paglia's works), it's fascinating to me how, despite our ever growing technical ability to produce great film, the actual emotional content of the film is ever worse. We have the most scantily clad females of all time but the fully clothed actors and actresses of the past were actually more sexually enticing. We've lost the sense of awe that CS Lewis talks about in the Abolition of Man. We have the greatest visual effects, but the emotional content of the film is so thin that you just don't feel anything. Where these feelings do exist, it's in independent (read: not produced by the Ivy type) films and media, which is why 'alternate' media has suddenly become so popular. I'll also just leave that Donald Trump has an innate understanding of people. People are shocked that he's able to get so many seemingly random, seemingly opposed people behind him. They classify it as a trick. But it's not. People vote and support who they like, not who has the best technocratic solutions. That is neither good nor bad. It just is. It's a tale as old as time, and would be apparent if you studied the actual humanities. Just so no one thinks I think Trump is some singular. Barack Obama is also one of these figures. And even Joe Biden is to some extent [3] I can write a dissertation on this topic. [1] It doesn't matter the culture. All traditional cultures are enthralling [2] I was raised in the 'normal' way, but ended up at a second-tier 'elite' school, and then -- adopting some of the stuff I learned -- moved into strategy consulting at one of the Big 3 where I learned even more about this type. I eventually moved back into tech (and do feel my career is better for having been through these experiences). [3] Completely off-topic, but I also think that if you go to spaces inhabited by the technocrats, you'll notice that 'detachment' philosophies like Stoicism and Buddhism are very popular, whereas the masses go for attachment. It's not a surprise to me that the Kennedy family, being Catholic, the exact opposite of Buddhism in that sense, was always seen as particularly charismatic and alluring amongst political dynasties

sapphicsnail 2y ago

It's very strange to read an article complaining about the homogenization of the cultural elite that name drops the university of every author of a book/article that supports his opinion. David Brooks himself is part of the very same cultural elite that he's complaining about. If someone really wanted to bring about a culture with leaders drawn from different economic strata the first step should be addressing people's material needs. Parents can't help their kids if they're spending all their time working multiple jobs only to live paycheck to paycheck. It's also hard to take risks or cultivate different skills when you're saddled with college debt you can't get rid if, and when healthcare and rent are taking up a large chunk of your income. People voted for Trump because neither side is willing to do anything to actually help people. That's why people don't trust institutions or "the establishment." For all his faults, and least Trump is willing to lie to his base and promise some sort of change.

onetokeoverthe 2y ago
Ivy UPENN and YALE, for the incoming pres/vp pairing. And vp's wife is also Yale. Just like the D pres husband wife team in the 90s. Bushes, Yale. Obama, Columbia/Harvard.
- keiferski 2y ago
  This lines up with the idea of how great social change tends to be merely one group of elites splintering off from another and co-opting social movements, and not actual bottom-up democratic action.
  - onetokeoverthe 2y ago
    Yes, like the aptly named Big Game. Go Bears. or Cardinals.
rob74 2y ago
> For all his faults, and least Trump is willing to lie to his base and promise some sort of change So "willing to lie" is his only redeeming trait? Poor America! That said, I think he will bring about some sort of change, but it won't be one that really benefits the people who voted for him...

lordnacho 2y ago

Long essay, but I agree with a lot of what's said. I think a lot of quality time is wasted due to the rat race starting in early childhood. I live in a bit of a bubble in the commuter belt around London (ie not the US), but I observe some of the same obsessions here as well. In particular, I started to notice that my kid's friends suddenly had a lot less time for playdates in the year or two leading up to the 11-plus exam, which is a selective school thing. There are similar exams for the private schools in the area. Of course what was happening was that their parents would hire a tutor to help them pass the tests. The effect of this tutoring is on the whole negative. Obviously, it costs money. It also costs time that your kid would have to do other things. But also, it gives the kids the impression that school is super important, and they will be valued based on the outcome of this test. You end up with a few percent who get into the top selective schools, and everyone else is left with low expectations. Inevitably, it also means that it becomes a game for rich parents. I went to the induction day at the fancy school, and guess what. The parents are a bunch of professionals, virtually nobody doing anything else, and most kids went to private primaries + got tutored. We must have left some poor but capable kids in the wrong school.

takinola 2y ago
> The parents are a bunch of professionals, virtually nobody doing anything else, and most kids went to private primaries + got tutored. We must have left some poor but capable kids in the wrong school. The idea that the school you go to matters for your career seems unsupported by evidence (outside of consulting, law, medicine and investment banking). Most people don't go to ivy league schools (by definition). Looking around at senior leaders at most of the tech companies I have worked at, very few of them are Ivy leaguers. The Ivy League has a really great brand but the impact is overblown imho.
- illiac786 2y ago
  I think you are looking at the wrong metric here. It’s not about “how many successful people out there didn’t go to the Ivy League”, it’s about “how likely is it that _my kid_ will be successful?”. And the Ivy League really has a major impact on the latter metric. (I mean successful in the classic boring way here - completely agree that this is a very debatable goal, but that’s not my point)

Hilift 2y ago

Something missing is deindustrialization following WW2. The US northeast (where "Ivy League" schools are located) shifted a huge amount of industry to other parts of the country, where factories had been established during the war. A few years later, the south had more electoral votes than the northeast and midwest. The votes determine leaders, not educational institutions. Look at the electoral votes from 1956: NY: 45 PA: 32 TX: 24 FL: 10 Today: NY: 28 PA: 19 TX: 40 FL: 30 Texas and Florida doubled their influence.

082349872349872 2y ago
Tangentially, I know someone who used to sell textile machinery to new factories in the southern states, which left the old northern factories vacant, which yielded cheap space near Boston in which to expand for a fresh startup called DEC.
gsf_emergency 2y ago
NYers are also still relocating to FL (& less prominently, to TX), according to VizCap https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-the-top-5-states-americans-are-moving-to/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-the-top-5-states-ame...
- 082349872349872 2y ago
  if it's still true, one reason for high-variance NYers to relocate to FL was that under FL bankruptcy laws, personal homes were exempt — which used to mean that buying something fancy in FL and domiciling there was a way to "lock in" gains for those who suspected their random walks might also hit an absorbing barrier at "zero"...
  - gsf_emergency 2y ago
    In the 1960s already, the culture premium for all ranks (not sure about the property insurance) was famously lower in Miyamifla than in Haarlem? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_Cowboy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_Cowboy

gadders 2y ago

I think if people want to add extra evaluations on top of IQ, then fair enough, but they need to be of high quality and as repeatable as IQ tests, otherwise it will be a case of pseudo-science and ideological capture.

_1tem 2y ago
Perhaps the very idea of having standardized evaluations needs to be questioned. Anything that can be measured will be gamed. Nothing “repeatable” can capture the whole value of a human being.
- gadders 2y ago
  The aim is not to measure the value of an individual, though. A garbage collector is just as valuable as a human being as a brain surgeon. This is about finding a way to identify people who will benefit from the best education
  - _1tem 2y ago
    If it was just about identifying people for education, sure. But Ivy League colleges have become a gateway for all powerful institutions and posts in society, it’s not strictly about the education. The garbage collector might be a better president than the brain surgeon due to traits orthogonal to intelligence.
    - gadders 2y ago
      >>The garbage collector might be a better president than the brain surgeon due to traits orthogonal to intelligence. Yes, I agree with that point. I guess the linkage to break then would be between Ivy League Schools and powerful institutions.

keiferski 2y ago

I think this is fundamentally about the obsession with meritocracy, and not just the Ivy League. The Ivy League is merely the "best" system that subsequently became the obvious choice for a meritocratic filtering process. Which means that this issue will arise in any social structure that is attempting to optimize for merit. There have been many books critiquing this idea, but one that is both old and has stuck in my mind is from T. S. Eliot's Notes Towards a Definition of Culture. His basic point is that in a hyper competitive society driven by tests, evaluations, etc., basically no one is incentivized to preserve cultural practices – unless they somehow help one succeed in the new meritocracy. This functionally is a defense of the aristocracy, or of entrenched power that doesn't need to "earn" its wealth by competing. I'm not sure how much I agree with Eliot, but I think this is a pretty compelling point that, a hundred years later, seems quite obviously to have been accurate, if we look at the loss of knowledge traditional art forms. The problem with my comment here, though, is that is assumes the Ivy Leagues are now, currently meritocratic. It seems pretty obvious to me that they aren't - which makes this an even more complex situation.

IceHegel 2y ago

The idea of building new institutions is basically right. You can’t fix Harvard. But can you really build new institutions without a new civilization? The point of Harvard is the golden ticket to the upper class. The upper class now sucks (imo), so you can’t just have a better school with the same function.

swed420 2y ago
Agreed. > But can you really build new institutions without a new civilization? If enough people replace the pet idpol/culture war issue obsessions, which were designed to keep us divided and distracted from root class issues, instead with a unified vision of what benefits the ordinary person, then there is hope for diverging from this hellscape trajectory. Here's a starting point with some ideas: https://jacobin.com/2019/03/sam-gindin-socialist-planning-models https://jacobin.com/2019/03/sam-gindin-socialist-planning-mo...

_zagj 2y ago

As a great counterpoint to this thinkpiece (which argues the meritocracy is working as intended but having unintended consequences for society and thus fails to make any mention of quotas or the college admissions scandal from 5 years ago), consider this one: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/ https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-myth-of-american... The author found evidence of widespread quotas restricting the admission of Asians (no surprise, at least not anymore), but more scandalously, also evidence of affirmative action benefiting Jews. (The author is himself Jewish, and at least back then, probably couldn't have gotten away with writing it had that not been the case.) Brook's premise--that we did away with a nepotistic aristocracy (the "evil" WASP will-o'-the-wisp) and replaced it with a meritocracy--is false.

_1tem 2y ago

Any educational “system” strongly selects for conformity. A student can’t question the system or they’ll be sidelined early on and failed for giving the “wrong” answer. Geniuses are almost by definition weirdos who question the status quo. Yet most would get eliminated by the current educational system and it’s by-product of elites. That’s why true geniuses like Elon Musk somewhat ironically choose to rally the uneducated, not because he is intellectually aligned with them, but only because they allow much greater freedom to not conform. The truly intelligent shun intelligentsia.

corimaith 2y ago

The biggest problem I feel with "meritocracy" is that we're incurring huge costs on society all to pick up the best and brightest, but with very little returns in terms of societal benefits. I don't care about the guy who is higher up in the ladder than me, what I care about is the guy who builds more ladders, shorter ladders, elevators or such. And I think that most of our elites don't or can't do that. The birthrate crisis, the competition crisis, the housing crisis, etc, I don't think these people have the capability to solve them.

anon291 2y ago
> The birthrate crisis, The cause of the birthrate crisis is ultimately a lack of having fallen in love with humanity. This should be the point of the 'humanities', but if you look at the subjects included in that today, they're either 'science of human management' or a shell of their former glory. It's no surprise that the technocratic class they produce is unable to inspire people to have children and seems perpetually confused how to make that happen.

FooBarBizBazz 2y ago

I'm really sympathetic to the impulse that led to this article, but I think it's missing something central: The structure of the economy. The word "inequality" ("inequalities", actually) appears only twice, in one short paragraph, and it's to unfocus the emphasis, away from just wealth, to also include respect. Then the article, which bemoans an overemphasis on IQ and on the individual, suggests a variety of alternative measures by which we can determine which individuals get a slice of the decaying pie. There's something self-contradictory about this. We are witnessing a terrible arms race all throughout society, so that a smaller and smaller number of people can have a larger and larger share of desirable things. We're fighting over who gets to extract value. Meanwhile, so much else is left to be undesirable. To be truly a bit shit. The largest firms are getting larger and larger, and you have to get into them if you want to get anywhere. Inequality between firms is way up. A handful of East India Companies is conquering all. This "Tiger Mom" phenomenon is just the prisoner's best-response to the situation. The solution has to be a more broad-based cultural and material plenty. We have to have enough to go around, and we have to have nice things. People wouldn't be gouging each others' eyes out if they didn't think their peers were just competitors for scarce resources.

harvardTest1 2y ago

Throwaway here with a side question: Turns out, we have money. My spouse's side did very well. We should have about 55M by time our kids get to college. As long as my kids don't do something stupid, the money will outgrow them. Like, they have 'made it', by all my definitions, at least. So, my question: Do I bother with this rat race for my kids? I was part of it, I hated it, but it did turn out well enough for me (minus marrying well). We have access now to the best tutors and can more than afford great schools and programs and the like. Not a worry at all now. So, do I bother to do it?

insane_dreamer 2y ago
> Do I bother with this rat race for my kids? No. Raise your kids to find what it is that they want to do without the shackles of it having to be something that will also bring in a lot of money (it might, it might not). They can look at college as a means to get educated rather than as job prep. They have the freedom to discover what it is that makes them happy or in what ways they want to contribute to society and a better world for their children. Lots of money doesn't buy happiness, but in today's world having enough money to free your kids from that pressure, is a gift. The problem though that many people with that money don't use it to relieve pressure on their kids but rather to increase the pressure. "I got into Harvard, and your neighbor's getting into Harvard, so you have to get into Harvard too."
AnimalMuppet 2y ago
If I were you, I would focus on three things: 1. Raise your kids to be decent people - to have ethics, empathy, and compassion. ("We can buy anything" is likely to negatively impact this.) 2. Raise your kids to not blow it. They aren't going to have more money than they can possibly spend; they could still end up broke. Raise them to be responsible with what they have. 3. You are in the privileged position of being able to raise your kids to find out what they really want to do, and to pursue that. This means giving them a lot of things they can try early, and seeing which one floats their boat. (It also means not forcing them into forever pursuing what they liked when they were five.) Yes, I am aware that 1 and 3 kind of contradict each other. You could argue that raising them to be people who can make their own way without the money - that is, who can earn a decent income on their own - is part of 1, or 2, or both.