It's controversial because that assertion assumes that entrance to MIT, Harvard etc. is primarily based on IQ (or whatever other metric of "smartness" one uses). It is apparent that admission to these universities is based on many things other than IQ, and that IQ may in fact be a lesser component than other things, such as socioeconomic status (which leads to attending schools that prepare one for applying, being able to participate in activities that pad a CV, etc).

I didn't say there weren't other factors, there clearly are, but there are real differences in smarts between schools and to consider this controversial is something I think is more of a product of our present moment than something that people really deep down believe.

And I actually think I can speak to this with some amount of personal experience. I've been at both a lower tier college and a best-in-the-country university. When I was 11 I wanted to learn how to write software so I took courses nights, weekends and summers at the near by college until I was 14. I know how smart the class was and it was no where near as smart as the engineering students at the top tier university.

But that is ok! I think we overvalue intelligence in modern society, but to pretend that there are no differences is undervaluing the truth for the sake of political correctness or ideology.

I think you're confounding competence and skill levels with "smarts". I wouldn't argue that the output of elite schools is not measurably different than that of e.g. state schools, but I think your view that the intrinsic quality (e.g. IQ) of the people is different is mistaken and not backed by any evidence.

Tangentially, I think it is lazy to say somebody who is disagreeing with you is just being "politically correct" or "a product of the present moment". I see no evidence for claims like yours, which strike me as more ideologically driven than you might believe.

Going to MIT and Harvard is more about ambition than "smarts" is my thought on it.

On average smarter, but that more has to do with population size than anything. If you limit the comparison to the top N from state schools so that you were looking at the same population size, state schools would end up out in front on the "smarts" scale but lose on the "ambition" scale.

It's hard to justify the extra 200K for MIT CS degree tuition vs many public in-state universities' CS major.

My take is, if you are interested in academic research and theory study, going to ivy leagues makes sense, or if you're into law/business/medical majors, school ranking matters a lot. For a high paid IT job at undergraduate degree level, ivy league makes absolutely no sense, the extra $200K tuition is also really just a net loss.

This is an obvious and observable fact. An MIT trained programmer is probably smarter than a CS grad from a big state school. To deny this is to deny the obvious difference between an elite CS education and a run-of-the-mill state school education.

Of course one is better than the other.

As someone who went to a state school this does not bother me at all. CS education is not locked behind some door in a secret location - its open to anyone with internet access.

What makes one programmer better than the next is the extent to which he invests in educating himself.

> Some people are smarter than others.

This is true, but most of them don't go to top tier schools. Which is not at all the same thing as saying most people who go to top tier schools aren't smarter than average. This fact is the root of a lot confusion in the area.