3 ms·

> “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.

by neilv 2y ago

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

> “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.

by 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