4 ms·

It's relevant because, quite frankly, there aren't that many brilliant students at low-tier schools compared to the top ones. The only evidence you've given for

by ceras 14y ago

It's relevant because, quite frankly, there aren't that many brilliant students at low-tier schools compared to the top ones. The only evidence you've given for your argument is that there are lots of top tier people in Silicon Valley, but this is a flawed application of conditional probability. What the study I linked suggests is that if the brilliant student was capable of getting into MIT, regardless of whether or not they did get accepted, they are likely to have a similar outcome to the ones who ended up going to MIT.

timr 14y ago
You're trying to argue that the reason that there are so many top-tier grads in positions of power is that top-tier schools are disproportionately graduating talented people. But then you say this: "What the study I linked suggests is that if the brilliant student was capable of getting into MIT, regardless of whether or not they did get accepted, they are likely to have a similar outcome to the ones who ended up going to MIT." If this is true, then it implies that the top schools are simply very good at monopolizing the world's intellectual talent. So which seems more likely to you: that the top-tier universities monopolize the world's intellectual talent, or that we've set up a system that systematically rewards the kind of people who get to go to top-tier schools? Given your previous caveats about minorities and middle-class kids, I think you generally agree with my premise, and now you're arguing just to argue.
eli_gottlieb 14y ago
It's relevant because, quite frankly, there aren't that many brilliant students at low-tier schools compared to the top ones. But we're not comparing low-tier to high-tier. We're comparing top 4 or top 5 versus top 20 or top 50. There's plenty of probability that a brilliant student might end up at a top-20 or top-50 institution rather than a top-5 one.

by ceras 14y ago

timr 14y ago

You're trying to argue that the reason that there are so many top-tier grads in positions of power is that top-tier schools are disproportionately graduating talented people. But then you say this: "What the study I linked suggests is that if the brilliant student was capable of getting into MIT, regardless of whether or not they did get accepted, they are likely to have a similar outcome to the ones who ended up going to MIT." If this is true, then it implies that the top schools are simply very good at monopolizing the world's intellectual talent. So which seems more likely to you: that the top-tier universities monopolize the world's intellectual talent, or that we've set up a system that systematically rewards the kind of people who get to go to top-tier schools? Given your previous caveats about minorities and middle-class kids, I think you generally agree with my premise, and now you're arguing just to argue.

eli_gottlieb 14y ago

It's relevant because, quite frankly, there aren't that many brilliant students at low-tier schools compared to the top ones. But we're not comparing low-tier to high-tier. We're comparing top 4 or top 5 versus top 20 or top 50. There's plenty of probability that a brilliant student might end up at a top-20 or top-50 institution rather than a top-5 one.