3 ms·

To be most cynical, I think they want to admit just enough middle-class smart kids to create the appearance of academic excellence, while letting rich mediocrit

To be most cynical, I think they want to admit just enough middle-class smart kids to create the appearance of academic excellence, while letting rich mediocrities benefit from the aura effect of being in a place where it's genuinely difficult to get in if you're not rich. The soft ("leadership") component of college admissions and venture capital fill a similar role in the US, which is to launder the connections and parental wealth of the rich and make their advantages appear earned.

jessriedel 13y ago
Well, I think you'll find that the people in positions of power at top universities have rather leftist values. They don't make all that much money in terms of salary, so their satisfaction generally comes from pursuing those values in their own eyes. That doesn't mean they're idealistic; they often make deals with the devil to increase influence, and they are happy to sell their prestige to the highest bidder. But the hypothesis that they are helping rich people as an intrinsic goal doesn't make sense, and it isn't needed to explain their behavior. Also, my impression based on things like twin studies is that rich parents's ability give their kids unfair advantages is much weaker than you think. But that's a whole other discussion.
- FD3SA 13y ago
  > Also, my impression based on things like twin studies is that rich parents's ability give their kids unfair advantages is much weaker than you think. But that's a whole other discussion. We're not saying kids like Spiegel are wholly untalented. They come from excellent genetic stock. But as discussed above, they are nowhere near the true outliers in terms of merit. Think Putnam Fellows, Math Olympiad Champs, etc. Yet the Spiegelites' success is so far above that of these far more talented folk in the startup scene, that one cannot help but suspect that merit appears to be worth far less than class as a determinant of success.
  - jessriedel 13y ago
    You're conflating intelligence with money-making ability. Solid intelligence helps for sure, and it's probably even true that, all things being equal, intelligence is monotonically related to money-making ability. But all other things are not equal, and there are other things necessary for money-making. In particular, colleges will look for kids with unusually high ambition, people skills, conscientiousness, leadership, etc. It can make sense to sacrifice the very far tail of the IQ bell curve in order to fish out still-very-smart people who are strong in those other necessary ways. Again, I suggest you look into twin studies if you want to see the evidence that class per se is not particularly important. But I'm not going to discuss that here.

jessriedel 13y ago

Well, I think you'll find that the people in positions of power at top universities have rather leftist values. They don't make all that much money in terms of salary, so their satisfaction generally comes from pursuing those values in their own eyes. That doesn't mean they're idealistic; they often make deals with the devil to increase influence, and they are happy to sell their prestige to the highest bidder. But the hypothesis that they are helping rich people as an intrinsic goal doesn't make sense, and it isn't needed to explain their behavior. Also, my impression based on things like twin studies is that rich parents's ability give their kids unfair advantages is much weaker than you think. But that's a whole other discussion.

FD3SA 13y ago
> Also, my impression based on things like twin studies is that rich parents's ability give their kids unfair advantages is much weaker than you think. But that's a whole other discussion. We're not saying kids like Spiegel are wholly untalented. They come from excellent genetic stock. But as discussed above, they are nowhere near the true outliers in terms of merit. Think Putnam Fellows, Math Olympiad Champs, etc. Yet the Spiegelites' success is so far above that of these far more talented folk in the startup scene, that one cannot help but suspect that merit appears to be worth far less than class as a determinant of success.
- jessriedel 13y ago
  You're conflating intelligence with money-making ability. Solid intelligence helps for sure, and it's probably even true that, all things being equal, intelligence is monotonically related to money-making ability. But all other things are not equal, and there are other things necessary for money-making. In particular, colleges will look for kids with unusually high ambition, people skills, conscientiousness, leadership, etc. It can make sense to sacrifice the very far tail of the IQ bell curve in order to fish out still-very-smart people who are strong in those other necessary ways. Again, I suggest you look into twin studies if you want to see the evidence that class per se is not particularly important. But I'm not going to discuss that here.