Hacker News Reader

Comment by JumpCrisscross | Hacker News Reader

> Without networking opportunities, what possible incentive would there be to attend a top university?

You're describing someone with zero intellectual curiosity and only a base form of ambition.

The networking matters. But it's not just about meeting legacy families or donors' kids. And broadly speaking, the people who are in a room just to meet the rich people and/or their kids are plainly obvious from a distance. If a kid got into an elite school with that attitude and upbringing, one of the most useful things they might learn is to grow past it.

> you can gain most or all of the benefits of a top-dollar education these days by reading the necessary literature online

No, you cannot replicate being taught by one of the brightest minds in a field by reading their published work.

View on HN

> You're describing someone with zero intellectual curiosity and only a base form of ambition.

If attending university was merely a means of satisfying your intellectual curiosity, we wouldn't be concerned about legacy admissions. The problem is that a university education is seen as the only viable path to a good life and a good career, and elite universities being one of the few paths to membership in Western society's elite class. So in effect, a lot of young people are pushed into getting a university education so that they can have a good life.

> No, you cannot replicate being taught by one of the brightest minds in a field by reading their published work.

Personal mentorship by one of the brightest minds in a field is indeed difficult to replicate with YouTube videos and online courses.

Undergraduate-level lectures taught by bored TA's? Video lectures are almost certainly a superior alternative -- especially if the student actually has that intellectual curiosity and initiative.

> elite universities being one of the few paths to membership in Western society's elite class

One of the first lessons of the classics is in the danger to a society of empowering only those with the most base ambitions. To the degree we have elite rot in America, it’s largely perpetuated by incredibly-wealthy idiot dynasties.

More pragmatically, look at our current crop of elites. What fraction got there by being proximate to an elite’s kid in college (versus simply becoming conversant with money)?

> Undergraduate-level lectures taught by bored TA's

One, this doesn’t describe most classes at Stanford or USC. Two, I went to a public university. Behind the bored TA is a professor with office hours, research they need help with and internship connections.

Definitely agree that empowering those who's only desire is power is not a desirable outcome. As for the current crop of elites, I get the impression that there is a clear split between business elites and political elites. Wealthy but foolish kids are of only limited benefit in the world of business, but in politics knowing some senator's son opens a lot of doors. (This is not a desirable outcome, of course.)

To the extent that eliminating legacies disrupts this pipeline, great. The world does not need another President Bush.

> To the extent that eliminating legacies disrupts this pipeline, great

This is the root of my thinking on it. The heritability of power should not be materially more than the heritability of IQ.

America is actually really good at circulating elites. You can’t be the most powerful country the world has ever seen for considerable time without it. It’s not practical to expect the circulation to cycle in a generation though. But it will in due time.

I agree that the system has to allow for elite cycling but I probably disagree on the healthy timeframe.

You have it backwards. It’s not for smart kids to find rich people. It’s for rich people to find smart kids.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com