> “Number one people go to number one schools” is how one lawyer explained her firm’s recruiting principle to Rivera.
What a load of number two.
What a load of number two.
As a simple example, my parents and family have a much more fatalistic 'fate-guided' view of the world, whereas the people I met in university were extremely motivated to just change what they saw as wrong. Even though my parents nominally supported that attitude, they were never able to actually do it.
How do you convince someone that there are people out there so gifted at everything that they make MIT and Stanford alums look like village idiots? You likely can't.
People reading our comments will think, "That's a myth. There are no people like that."
I think my basic thesis is that, if you come from a normal background, and go through these institutions, this is a major selection factor for some level of charisma. You understand the game and you understand the normal person. This is why the first 'round' of purely meritocratic admits worked. The graduates were inevitably going to be so irresistibly charming, they'd have no problem dealing with the world.
However, as time went on and they had their own children, who did not experience the normal childhood, they are at a disadvantage. They have the educational background, but not the ability to connect with people.
For example, since it's all fresh in our minds. I remember people saying that Vance was going to appear weird at the debate and Walz normal. As evidence, they used the fact that Vance was rich and thus out of touch. At the time I thought differently, simple because Vance had been to Yale and then through the Silicon Valley VC landscape and -- from what I understand -- came out successful. Thus, in my mind, he was the perfect test to my thesis.
And I think that's what we saw, not only did he come across as amazingly likeable, he even seemed to make Tim Walz like him at times. And the general consensus was that he won [1]. Normal people don't make it through these institutions without the ability to -- at least temporarily, maybe even disingenuously depending on your politics -- come across as irresistibly charming.
> How do you convince someone that there are people out there so gifted at everything that they make MIT and Stanford alums look like village idiots? You likely can't.
That's correct, as demonstrated by the people that accuse them of cheating to get where they are. Or of cheating because they worked less hard than someone else who worked very hard at the wrong thing.
[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/02/vance-walz-who-won-... . Doesn't matter your politics, he clearly was very effective, even if you think he was disingenuous -- like I said, you don't go through Yale and VC without being able to charm.
What I'm talking about is something different entirely. I'm talking about people who are truly different. People who pick up salsa as easily as they pick up tensor analysis. Piano as easily as molecular engineering. And when they go into the military, they can reap a guy just as easily as they can analyze intel.
You might make the mistake of thinking, "Well that's not impressive. We train thousands of analysts." You're right. We do. Between DIA, CIA, FBI, etc etc, we train tens of thousands. And we might get a couple dozen that are any good. And maybe 2 of those can also compose symphonies and tape out a microprocessor on the side.
To compare it to Vance, or Obama on the other side, is to downplay it. People could see themselves being Vance or Obama. We're talking about people you meet where it's clear, there is no comparison. Which is saying something when you're already in a top 1% population in the first place.
I’ve read your entire thread, and I don’t mean this negatively… but I can’t tell if you’re larping.
Take this example: “[They learn] piano as easily as molecular engineering”
Pretty much anyone with a career will have one or more other interests, like playing an instrument. And yes, at elite levels. Or sports, I know multiple olympians… but like… they’re quite normal. It’s obviously impressive, sure, but… what you’re saying doesn’t reflect my experience so I feel like I’m missing something!
I have never met any ivy league elite, actor, scientist, musician or anyone else that felt like they were super human.
The only ones who felt unworldly were billionaires because they could hire so many people to work on their projects in parallel.
Maybe an illustration with the benefit of hindsight. There were many renaissance men and women, but Leonardo was a bit different. That takes nothing away from anyone else, but the works of Leonardo are a bit different.
So what I’m saying, is that at MIT, most people are not Leonardo. But when you come across one, you know. Whether they make history with their gifts, is up to their own inclination.
This doesn’t mean everyone else at elite schools are any less special. But it does mean those individuals are operating at a level that many of us just don’t.
I would say a few things:
1. Less social anxiety / confidence -- simply realizing that the worst thing that happens is you fail. It does help to have daddy's money for this though.
2. More calculating -- One trait I absolutely noticed in all these people was that they had planned out their entire life. This did not mean the plan always happened as expected, but the goal was clear, and always worked towards. They made lists, they met criteria, they executed extremely well. For example, they knew they needed to publish a paper. That can mean you either dazzle with a brilliant paper, which most 'normies' would say is the route you should go down. But that's not necessarily the 'elite' position. Sure, a handful might be truly smart. The rest would just crank out work and submit to as many journals as possible until they found one that matched their criteria.
3. When they get together they talk about ideas -- this one is a trait I picked up on, and it led to some strife with my own family when I went back home. It's a hard one to explain, but with Thanksgiving coming up, really pay attention to what's talked about. Is it celebrities? The current election even? I guarantee you somewhere out there, some elites are discussing the next great invention / policy / etc. It's why so many 'normies' get blind-sided by new ideas, whereas for the elites, it's normal. For example, conspiracists on Twitter believe that AI is the result of alien technology, because they are so far removed from the actual development of the thing that to them it must truly seem like magic.
I have read this on Quora 10 years ago, esp. when i was in a highly divese neighborhood, like: Poor people, doing-well-people, refugees, unemployed, but also academics and wealthy. So i could jump segments very often in a week, and this saying turns out to be absolutely right, in my perception. Since then, i'm looking/hearing very thoroughly when being in a group situation.
To be fair, there is some controversy as to the validity of Dweck's model. However, you may find it interesting, even at the risk of falling into confirmation bias (given that you appear to be primed to agree with it). I myself have no strong opinion as to the validity of the model's explanatory power, but at the very least I do believe it is personally a better choice to aim for a Growth Mindset.
I've heard about the idea of the 'growth mindset', and indeed my prior today would very much be on that, but by my upbringing I didn't even know that existed.
OTOH, arguing that anyway might give you a far better shot at getting your hands on a few of those $billions than I'll ever have. GO FOR IT.
A group of people whose sole value is social network/wealth is probably not sufficient.
Humans have a limited amount of time and energy to work with, so some mechanism of filtering who or what to place bets on would presumably increase desirable results.
Not too dissimilar from seeking recommendations for a plumber or electrician or romantic partner from a trusted neighbor or family or friend.
As the article somewhat points out, "network effect" is - at most - a means. Not an end. And the narcissistic group-think and badly limited worldview that the article describes at Ivy League schools sounds very much like the worst failings of those old noble and royal courts.
I went to a famous institution, and there were loads of kids who bought into this. If you don't know quite what you want to do, it is very easy to fall into the trap of "oh I'll do this well paid thing for a while and see how it goes".
You then get there, and it's a treadmill. Nobody thinks it's a meritocracy either. But everyone looks down on taking a normal, non-elite job.
Also question, is consulting considered an elite job? My impression is that even consulting for the big 4* is nothing special.
* are they they same everywhere? : Deloitte, EY, KPMG and PwC
But there are multiple levels of prestige in consulting. The mentioned firms, and then McKinsey/Bain/Boston, which are above that level in the hierarchy.
The sad thing is that no one's heard of the actual prestigious ones: Bain, McKinsey, and BCG. I sure hadn't when I joined Bain & Co, but all the rich kids were doing it.
Can't speak for other countries but in the US there are a glut of lawyers, and if you're not at a Top 14. and in the top half the class, you're not going to make the Big Money -- and the stats generally bare that out.
Doesn't mean you can't do well, but the market is packed, tolerable jobs in law are sparse, hours are long, and student loans are large.