Hacker News Reader

Comment by pacman2 | Hacker News Reader

"Everyone seems to care a whole lot about the Ivy League. When a bunch of Ivies (and a few other schools) were found to have sold spots to a few rich kids back in 2019"

A rich kid is much more likely to leave an impact on the world and this is what these schools want. I once (10 years ago?) read an article about exactly this. The comparison were some US elite high school that strictly select on IQ and alumni were much less successful than expected (yet, more happy in live). George W went to Yale as far as I remember. I doubt that he scored super high in any IQ test. But he was undoubtedly very successful in live.

"Ivies really wanted to promote social justice, they would let in more poor kids"

This is not their main priority.

As a side note: The Economist MBA rankings 2021 have raised eyebrows because European schools rankings increased so much: https://whichmba.economist.com/ranking/full-time-mba

View on HN

"A rich kid is much more likely to leave an impact on the world and this is what these schools want. I once (10 years ago?) read an article about exactly this. The comparison were some US elite high school that strictly select on IQ and alumni were much less successful than expected (yet, more happy in live). George W went to Yale as far as I remember. I doubt that he scored super high in any IQ test. But he was undoubtedly very successful in live. "

That's the self fulfilling prophecy that modern democracies are/should be trying to avoid. Otherwise we are on the track of building up a new aristocracy where only the rich and powerful get the opportunity of making a difference.

> As a side note: The Economist MBA rankings 2021 have raised eyebrows because European schools rankings increased so much: https://whichmba.economist.com/ranking/full-time-mba

Notably this list is missing most top-tier MBA schools like Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, Wharton, Northwestern, U of Chicago, MIT, UC and others.

If you want to say some of these schools are overrated, fine, but if none of them made the top 90 you've got a weird rankings methodology that isn't gonna be useful to most people.

Many of these lists aggressively weight cost meaning any substantially expensive school self-eliminates regardless of quality of education.

Most (all?) of the schools you list declined to participate (or were ineligible) in the Economist's ranking system this year it seems. Note that the last time they did participate, many of them were top tier. Harvard (2 in 2019), Stanford (8 in 2019), Columbia (15 in 2019), Wharton (5 in 2019), NW (4 in 2019), Chicago (1 in 2019), etc. etc.

https://whichmba.economist.com/ranking/full-time-mba/2021/me...

> George W went to Yale as far as I remember. I doubt that he scored super high in any IQ test.

What exactly do you base your doubt on? Publicly he can be quite inarticulate, but there's accounts of him being highly intelligent.[1]

[1] https://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/

I was about to say. Bush is a bad public speaker, and you can disagree with all of his politics, but his professors found him intelligent. That being said, legacy admissions is still completely irresponsible, and people should be way more outraged by that.

Irresponsible by what measure? Genetics and family wealth still have a huge influence on "future impact," and that's what these schools are selecting for. It sounds like legacy admissions are doing exactly what they're intended to do.

> Genetics and family wealth still have a huge influence on "future impact,"

In what way would genetics have a huge influence on future impact? That sounds like eugenics.

How is it "like eugenics" to state that children inherit genes from their parents, and are often similar in many ways to their parents? That just sounds like biology.

It's not helpful to trivialize terms like "eugenics".

Genetics have no predictive power on future impact to society. Take one of those wealthy children and put them in an orphanage, see if they do the same as their siblings.

> Genetics and family wealth

I suspect by "genetics" here you really mean something like "network you are born into", no?

I'm pretty sure they mean that if two parents are of above average intelligence then they're more likely to produce children of above average intelligence.

Really I just meant "who your parents happen to be" which is closer to the GP's point but admittedly I worded it awkwardly.

Agree that has far more predictive power than anything passed on genetically.

Irresponsible to society is what people are saying. You're making an "is" argument - the ivies optimizing for this "future impact" metric - where others are making an "ought" argument, that ivies ought to be focused on a different more societally beneficial metric.

Because it's a terrible measure that is short sighted? It goes against everything affirmative action stands for? If we're going to pretend like diversity matters, then why try to justify legacy.

> his professors found him intelligent

He had a 77% average in college, which made him a C student. He even characterized himself as an average student, which is accurate. The idea that he was a secret genius is patently ludicrous and is only proffered by political hacks.

What's more, is that a "C" at most ivies is equivalent to an "F" at any other school. You don't get big donations by failing out the mediocre children of presidents and senators.

I don't think that's exclusive to the Ivy League. People are paying money for college everywhere, and a lot of them can barely afford it. Thus, professors are hesitant to outright fail students. I say this as a former lecturer and teaching assistant at a non-Ivy.

Good point, I do suppose that's a growing issue everywhere, not just in the Ivy League.

Fair enough. I don't know Bush's GPA. But the idea that he was objectively unintelligent and the average critic is smarter and more qualified to be president always rubs me the wrong way.

IQ is what you measure in a test. It does not measure creativity, ambition, empathy etc. In fact I have met people that were extraordinary good in university tests but this seemed to be their only ability. Even applying this knowledge in a laboratory or project was difficult for them. Also if you have attention deficit or something it will kill you in a test.

But take kim kardashian or Paris Hilton. Without envy you have to agree that they are very successful entrepreneurs. Yet they likely were not top 5% in SAT scores.

Cannot comment on Kim Kardashian, but as far as I remember from watching a bunch of random documentaries and such, Paris Hilton's "dumb blonde" public persona is just an act, and she indeed scored pretty high on SAT.

Cannot find any sources at the moment other than tabloids and blog posts, but I recommend checking out a fairly recent documentary on Netflix (either 2020 or 2019, I forgot) that talks about "influencers" and such. Paris Hilton got a giant segment dedicated to her on it, and she indeed was extremely articulate in her description of that whole "dumb blonde" public persona schtick. After watching it, I had zero doubt that she was indeed a very intelligent person, despite me having zero interest in her as an entertainer or a public persona.

Why are legacy admissions irresponsible? The author points out the schools have every incentive to maximize profit centers, and legacy admissions are a great way to do that. You admit four of five generations of a family, you'd better believe that they're going to pony up every year come donation time.

Ivy League Universities have always existed to provide a finishing school for the elite, rather than providing some sort of public good. While I don't think that's a particularly noble endeavor, it's not an especially malicious one either given the abundance of top-notch (and lower cost) public universities in the U.S.

If some rich parent wants to spend an order of magnitude more money on an ivy league school to give their kid more or less the same education they could have gotten at a state school, what's the big deal?

Then just end affirmative action. If that's the logic that's being used, these two things are pretty much mutually exclusive.

Why should people be enraged at legacy admissions? Especially to a private school?

Googeled it. Not very impressive http://www.insidepolitics.org/heard/heard32300.html

Yale University/Typical SAT scores 2019–20 Reading and Writing 720-770, Math 740-800

Of cause there could be an inflation.

and

"Bush had scored only 25 percent on a "pilot aptitude" test, the lowest acceptable grade. But his father was then a congressman from Houston, and the commanders of the Texas Guard clearly had an appreciation of politics."

Why do you doubt he had a high IQ? Depends what we mean by "high", but I would think any president (certainly in modern history) must have a pretty high IQ to manage so many people and issues at once. I would wager someone capable of doing that is capable is getting into Yale on merit, especially when they're younger and in their mental prime. Nothing to do with politics anyone might personally agree or disagree with: Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Obama, Trump, Biden.

For liberals (not saying you) who think Bush is dumb: is it because his policies disagree with you? Maybe people who come to different conclusions to you aren't dumber, but just have different values. Do we really think all of our political beliefs are based on intellect only? That's very arrogant imo.

Right, Ivies may only have 0.5% of students, but 30% of all US Presidents had a degree from one. Of the past six, only one hasn't had an Ivy League degree.

Of nine Supreme Court justices, only one didn't go to Harvard or Yale.

They are only a tiny portion of students, but they have a huge impact on who holds power in society.

Correct, and that should end. One of the many reasons I was overjoyed to vote for a non-Ivy ticket last November.

> "Ivies really wanted to promote social justice, they would let in more poor kids"

> This is not their main priority.

I think you're right to say that this is not their main priority, but I think they actually do quite good letting in more more poor kids (at least better than most people expect).

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/09/th...

> The Economist MBA rankings 2021 have raised eyebrows because European schools rankings increased so much

Many schools did not participate:

- Harvard

- Wharton

- Yale

- Columbia

- Chicago

- Berkeley

- Stanford

These ratings have limited utility if you leave out the top schools.

Those are 7 American universities. Am sure hundreds of other non-American universities also didn't participate.

Either way, those 7 would make minor difference to the list.

Maybe.

Those were just 7 examples.

I will go out on a limb and say that those seven would be at or near the top of the rankings and would set the rating curve.

I personally think it would make a big difference in this list.

And IVY (Oxbridge and ENA as well) Grads are massively massively over represented in high status and positions of power.

I dont think that article is written in good faith its more like it has been written to keep the poor's and the "enthics" in their place

Hmm.. regarding the economist rankings —- wasn’t this solely because so many top US schools refused to participate, so they just excluded entirely?

> A rich kid is much more likely to leave an impact on the world

A rich person is subsidized by society. Why should we optimize fiscal policy to enable them and let them leave an outsized impact on the world?

Especially when the outsized impact of the rich is inequality, anti-democratic political norms, and environmental destruction?

They have no skills, or information advantage. Just a network effect advantage through monopoly of a shared value store. I see little difference with this system compared to monarchy or theology rule, which were also hierarchical, with ones power based on closeness to power, and monopoly of value store and public time economy.

To clarify, I mean wealthy non-doers. Hedge funds, old wealth, etc.

Doctors, engineers, etc., sure let us give them our ear. Unskilled rich are a drain on public agency.

> To clarify, I mean wealthy non-doers. Hedge funds, old wealth, etc.

What does this mean? How are hedge funds unskilled or non-doers in the manner that heirs are? I'd say the average hedge fund analyst is probably as accomplished/skilled/hard working as the average doctor or engineer.

Certainly more-so than the average [software] engineer. There's no 6-week bootcamp for hedge funds and there's no "typing JavaScript into a computer" equivalent. We can argue all day about whether hedge funds are good, bad, or useful, and reasonable people will disagree on the answer, but you'd be hard-pressed to make a cogent argument that the average software engineer works even nearly as hard as the average hedge fund analyst.

The value they claim to unlock is completely made up.

People need logistics to move materials to enable people to do stuff.

Not speculative emotional guidance on ephemeral value stores.

Most of them are, or are funded by, inherited wealth to service fiscal policy memes.

Speaking as someone who worked in private equity, our Principal had generational wealth- literally he was an Italian count and his family money came from the Crusades.

The people who made the investments and ran the fund came from State University of New York at Buffalo. The count had a team of three assistants and one's entire job was to coordinate shipping cases of wine from his vanity winery to everyone their kids encountered to lubricate the wheels of their success in life. Elite squash trainer might take on the son? Case of wine to the wife. College tour? Case of wine to the tour leader. I was an analyst reporting directly to the CFO and wasn't an assistant but would routinely get asked to do lifestyle chores like help the count's uncle hook up their ipod to their Range Rover's bluetooth.

Hence why I left finance and went into medicine which is more of a meritocracy.

Wow, the wine shipping is an incredible way to influence people. I should try that more often. So far I've only been sending small gifts over to people, or hand written letters. I know in sales this sort of stuff works very well but it also works well in day to day life.

How has the transition been?

"A rich kid is much more likely to leave an impact on the world"

I quoted this as a neutral fact. That things might or could be better otherwise is a total different question.

Qualify it as such in the original post.

Some search engine can come along in N days, weeks, months, and provide that snippet out of the context you intended.

Social media is not a friends backyard fire pit. The information peddled here isn’t necessarily lost to memory the next day.

I don’t know you so none of this should be considered a personal attack. I’m just taking information and expanding on it.

"Qualify it as such in the original post."

It is unfortunate that people seem not to be able to distinguish between a neutral fact and an endorsement. Just recently I posted something I consider a fact and since I was afraid if could be controversial, added that this is not meant in a judgmental way. The bulletin board owner took this to a meta level and argued that it was exactly this add-on that showed that it was meant in a judgmental way and banned me.

It’s been shown that words mean different things given geographical region.

One brain is not composed of the same experiential model, and as a result, neurological model, as others.

Physics > chemistry -> biology -> humans -> metaphor and analogy. Kind of my mental road map for information hierarchy.

If it’s not physically quantifiable it probably falls into some category like “relative metaphor and analogy”.

This seems unnecessary, since it's obvious from context. Endless caveats are death in writing and readability. We have modal verbs like "should" for a reason, and OP chose not to use them, making the communication clear.

"unskilled risk are a drain on public agency" what does this mean? How are they a drain?

There are a lot of assumptions baked into this statement. For example what does unskilled mean? Who gets to decide it? Would you consider an artist or a musician unskilled? A diplomat? Those people don’t code or perform surgery but most people would consider them skilled and those careers positive contributions to society.

Someone who is wealthy may not have skills as you describe it, but if they are investing their wealth in the stock market for example, it could be argued they have a much more outsized positive impact on society than the average person.

It could be argued but it’s a large assumption on its own.

Stock markets are recent inventions; some hand wavy way of saying “this is exactly the right way to store value!”

Why must that ideal be externalized onto others? Why do I have to believe some hedge fund is indeed worth N dollars?

Mendacity of the elderly is not a good enough justification for belief.

Correctly engineering a road, medicine, or making art does not at all rely on such belief.

> A rich person is subsidized by society.

What?

Could you please stop creating accounts for every few comments you post? We ban accounts that do that. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

You needn't use your real name, of course, but for HN to be a community, users need some identity for other users to relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be a different kind of forum. https://hn.algolia.com/?query=community%20identity%20by:dang...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com