3 ms·

The problem with this is it creates a caste system that gets locked in based on how you did on math tests when you were 14. There is certainly predictive power,

The problem with this is it creates a caste system that gets locked in based on how you did on math tests when you were 14. There is certainly predictive power, but people get into these schools for all sorts of reasons. Also, there are unforeseen consequences. Take venture capital, its actually relatively easy for a harvard grad to raise money, the reason being: - everyone is trying to get an early piece of a company from the next bill gates/mark zuckerberg - they fund every harvard grad since returns on a win like that are 10,000X. -> consequence is almost all early stage capital gets allocated to ivy grads -> most companies owned by ivy grads -> caste system the hope is that ai eliminates this vetting process by giving leverage to everyone

hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
> it creates a caste system that gets locked in based on how you did on math tests when you were 14. I agree, but then again, if you look at areas like sports and the arts, the vast majority of people who are stars were also standouts when they were 14 (or often younger). It doesn't do any good to pretend that someone who was coding since elementary school wouldn't have a huge (and warranted) advantage over someone who didn't pick it up until their 20s. I also agree people get into top colleges for lots of different reasons, but (at least in my experience), graduating from a top school just got your foot in the door, but you still had to go through the same judgement gauntlet as everyone else after that.
- mikert89 1y ago
  This isnt the correct comparison, since most people getting into the top schools are completely undifferentiated, all have maxed out GPAs and near perfect/perfect SATs. There are for more people with the profile to get into harvard, than there are admits. The breakdown is a composition of: 1. legacy admits 2. athletic admits 3. dei admits 4. actual brilliances admits but even in the 4th bucket, they are allocating those spots based on alot of non performative criteria. with sports, its more like, "who ran 40 meters the fastest" I live in NYC, I meet the ivy types all the time. I have gotten very cynical about it
atmavatar 1y ago
It has at least as much to do with how wealthy your family is as it does with how well you do on standardized testing. I was accepted to MIT, but my family wasn't poor enough to receive need-based aid, and we certainly weren't wealthy enough for me to go without aid (especially because it would have been out-of-state tuition), so I ultimately went elsewhere. I expect a fair number of others here have similar stories. A big part of the reason ivy-league and other elite schools are selected for is that they are a strong signal for family wealth.
- hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
  > especially because it would have been out-of-state tuition I'm calling bullshit on this story because MIT is not a public school - there is no in-state vs. out-of-state tuition, and as someone who did a ton of cost comparisons on the private vs. public schools where I was accepted, I have difficulty believing someone who was accepted to MIT would confuse this fact.
  - atmavatar 1y ago
    This was 25-ish years ago, so apologies if I got that detail wrong. In vs. out-of-state tuition was a big deal for nearly every school I was looking at, but I no longer remember them on a case by case basis. What I do remember was that MIT was so incredibly expensive that I didn't have to give it much thought -- it was never a viable option due to cost and lack of financial aid possibilities.

hn_throwaway_99 1y ago

> it creates a caste system that gets locked in based on how you did on math tests when you were 14. I agree, but then again, if you look at areas like sports and the arts, the vast majority of people who are stars were also standouts when they were 14 (or often younger). It doesn't do any good to pretend that someone who was coding since elementary school wouldn't have a huge (and warranted) advantage over someone who didn't pick it up until their 20s. I also agree people get into top colleges for lots of different reasons, but (at least in my experience), graduating from a top school just got your foot in the door, but you still had to go through the same judgement gauntlet as everyone else after that.

mikert89 1y ago
This isnt the correct comparison, since most people getting into the top schools are completely undifferentiated, all have maxed out GPAs and near perfect/perfect SATs. There are for more people with the profile to get into harvard, than there are admits. The breakdown is a composition of: 1. legacy admits 2. athletic admits 3. dei admits 4. actual brilliances admits but even in the 4th bucket, they are allocating those spots based on alot of non performative criteria. with sports, its more like, "who ran 40 meters the fastest" I live in NYC, I meet the ivy types all the time. I have gotten very cynical about it

atmavatar 1y ago

It has at least as much to do with how wealthy your family is as it does with how well you do on standardized testing. I was accepted to MIT, but my family wasn't poor enough to receive need-based aid, and we certainly weren't wealthy enough for me to go without aid (especially because it would have been out-of-state tuition), so I ultimately went elsewhere. I expect a fair number of others here have similar stories. A big part of the reason ivy-league and other elite schools are selected for is that they are a strong signal for family wealth.

hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
> especially because it would have been out-of-state tuition I'm calling bullshit on this story because MIT is not a public school - there is no in-state vs. out-of-state tuition, and as someone who did a ton of cost comparisons on the private vs. public schools where I was accepted, I have difficulty believing someone who was accepted to MIT would confuse this fact.
- atmavatar 1y ago
  This was 25-ish years ago, so apologies if I got that detail wrong. In vs. out-of-state tuition was a big deal for nearly every school I was looking at, but I no longer remember them on a case by case basis. What I do remember was that MIT was so incredibly expensive that I didn't have to give it much thought -- it was never a viable option due to cost and lack of financial aid possibilities.