Why are you grouping MIT into the same group as Stanford?

They are both elite institutions with sub 8% acceptance rates, it's a valid categorization

They’re all wrought with dishonesty and self preservation.

Jennifer Doudna [1], who discovered and characterized CRISPR, worked at Yale:

> Doudna joined Yale's Department of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry as an assistant professor in 1994.

... and now works at UC Berkeley.

David Liu [2], who pioneered base editing, a generational improvement on classic CRISPR, works at Broad Institute (which is a collab between Harvard and MIT):

> He is the Richard Merkin Professor, Director of the Merkin Institute of Transformative Technologies in Healthcare, and Vice-Chair of the Faculty at the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT

I absolutely loathe the current social meta where people are allowed (even celebrated) for thoughtlessly punching upwards, regardless how broad the brush (boxing glove?) seems to be. Are there shitheads in these institutions? Undoubtedly. Are there also a ton of really brilliant people who have good intentions, have integrity, and deserve your utmost respect? Undoubtedly. Are the shitheads more likely to be located in administration? My bet is yes, because the scope of administration is a lot more political, but again -- we have to be careful.

Is it anywhere near accurate to say "They’re all wrought with dishonesty and self preservation"? I don't see how this statement could be supported with anything other than personal emotion. Anti-intellectualism is just another form of dangerous prejudice and should be treated as such. You can sign me up for metaphorically stringing up this particular asshole.

I also say all this as someone who didn't go to a prestigious school.

Happy New Years!

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Doudna [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_R._Liu

Doudna didnt discover CRISPR; her fellow Nobel recipient Emmanuelle Charpentier did

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuelle_Charpentier?wprov=s...

Yes, "discovered" was too way strong of a word there, and apologies to Charpentier. Thanks for the correction.

However, she did win the Nobel prize and I have found source after source that suggests she seemed to be fundamental to the development of the science.

My point remains -- you could literally substitute her name with one of a thousand names associated with high profile biomedical miracles to have originated from prestigious universities.

Yeah I’m thankful you brought it up. There’s a really well done documentary about their individual and then collaborative work but i’ve not found it. Will update with link if i do.

Update: might be

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/human-nature/

> Are there shitheads in these institutions? Undoubtedly. Are there also a ton of really brilliant people who have good intentions, have integrity, and deserve your utmost respect? Undoubtedly.

Right, that is the nature of every human institution, and every human.

When I say “they” not referring to individuals. I’m referring to the organization at a whole. It’s ironic that so many who operate under the umbrella of science and truth do things that are antithetical to that. At the end of the day these institutions are fighting for survival like everyone else - and they don’t always operate truthfully.

> They’re all wrought with dishonesty and self preservation.

Citation needed.

Its not because smart students go to these places that the teachers are

In a positive sense, they are the two top tech oriented universities, west coast and east coast counterparts.

In the negative, you have this story at Stanford. With MIT you have the Jeffery Epstein connection, some high profile retractions, and the president part of the three Uni Presidents who flubbed the anti-semitism question in the congressional hearing.

Other universities have negatives too, but they are not newsworthy at lesser known schools. The heads of lesser-known schools aren't featured in Congressional hearings.

"Smug MA"?

I worked at a fintech that employed both MIT graduates and people that didn't go to college at all.

With our hiring and interview process serving as a great filter, it was impossible to tell who fell into which population until they told you.

Not surprising. Papers have no bearing on ones capabilities especially in an era where knowledge is virtually everywhere

What was the interview pass rate for MIT grads and people without a college education?

Given that MIT grads are objectively superior to the rest of us that didn't get into any elite schools in basically every dimension I'd wager it's fairly high.

With that said, the Square interview process isn't as algorithmic as most tech or finance companies and is instead more collaborative, so the raw IQ most MIT grads would use for their Jane Street interviews probably doesn't apply here.

> Given that MIT grads are objectively superior to the rest of us that didn't get into any elite schools in basically every dimension I'd wager it's fairly high.

Genuflect when you say that fella.

You jest, but is it not accurate?

Your belief that somebody who got into MIT is “objectively superior” in “basically every dimension” compared to someone who didn’t is one of the cringiest thoughts I’ve seen expressed on HN and that is saying something.

I honestly thought (and still hope) that I missed the sarcasm.

I'm not being sarcastic and I don't just mean MIT obviously, any elite school. I didn't get into any and I've met people that have. They're just superior - physically, mentally, in habits, by net worth and income.

Rich parents does a lot of lifting there.

Stephen Smale scored a Wolf Prize, a Fields Medal, a Sloane Fellowship and a slew of other accolades off the back of mediocre grades at the University of Michigan (a fairly decent public research uni I've heard but not as far as I know an "elite" school).

Looking around there's many a high achiever that missed out on a US Ivy League placing.

Don't know if Smale is a good example to use, since he did this 75 years ago! Back then the CUNY schools had similarly impressive graduates due to quotas at the elite schools. And Michigan is also a public ivy, though I'll concede it's more achievable to get into Michigan compared to Princeton (far more egalitarian in this regard).

I'll be honest, I'm sure there are some high achievers that missed out, but I haven't met a single one. Most very high achieving people I know that didn't go to top schools at least got into one (and usually multiple). I don't think there's any hope for my class of people.

You mean like Steve Jobs who, by your definition, didn’t go to a top school, but is more highly regarded than 99.99% of graduates of top schools?

Reed is a pretty selective and well regarded school, unlike the schools I got into.

It’s nowhere near the stature or notoriety of Princeton, Harvard, Yale, etc. It feels like you’re moving the goalpost.

Anyway, maybe you should change the way you measure yourself.

How else would I? Seems pretty clear how society views people like me

I don't know what subset of society you live in, but the university you attended is not commonly brought up in America. If you're referring to your intellectual aptitude rather than the credentials attached to your name, just try to be a good person and do the best you can with what you've got.

> but the university you attended is not commonly brought up in America.

yes, it is, and it's seen as a proxy for intellectual aptitude

And clearly since I have no intellectual aptitude...

I’ve lived in America all my life, and it isn’t commonly brought up in my American peer group.

You’re also conflating the perception of intellect with the actual possession of it. It seems like you don’t have much confident in your measure of either. Maybe find a therapist. Help with this is beyond the scope of HN comments.

There are countless people who have not attended a top tier college, e.g. people who might be regarded as “intellectually inferior” who are richer than you and I. Meditate on that.

Is that really the point worth focusing on here?

I think those ratios are more telling than the observation that people are indistinguishable _after_ your interviewing filter. Especially in the context of this topic.

Here's my anecdote: In extensive exposure to a top-25 global university, and to a top-10 elite one, there was a big difference in the student body and the education. The latter was a different world; the education was innovative, brilliant, demanding at a very high level that I didn't anticipate. The students operated at a different level, world-class talent with shocking intelligence and, for their age, experience, being prepared - in a good way - to be world leaders.

Maybe a very simple comparison is between young tennis players that work with a local pro and go to tennis camp, and the super-talented ones working with elite professional coaches, the kind that train world champions. It was clear that there is no way you could teach yourself at anywhere near the level of top-10, nor find that education at most schools. And remember that your peers are part of your education - you won't find that population of peers either.

I know some institutions hire only from the elite, top-10 schools. I used to think it was 83% prejudice, but after those experiences I understand why. It's still lazy and unfair, but I also see significant reasons for it, maybe 33% prejudice.

(Possibly other top-10 schools aren't as good as the one I have experience with, of course.)

I'd love for you to tell me, step by step, what someone that didn't get into a top institution of any kind should take away from this comment.

Because all I can take away is that people like me are just objectively inferior compared to you, destined to not be a future leader or professional. Is that not what you are attempting to communicate? I just want to be crystal clear. We all know people like you are superhuman. I'm just wondering what it should mean for the rest of us, the 99.99%.

So turns out that someone studied this way back in 1999. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1999-10/27/049r-...

Unless I'm missing something obvious Dale & Kruger says people that get into top schools get the premium, which is exactly what I alluded to. What can the rest of us even do?

Makes me think my class of people are just considered garbage humans by everyone.

What is your class of people? The 99.99% that you alluded to in another comment? Can that be called a class of people?

Correct, those of us that didn't get into any elite institution (and most likely aren't considered "qualified").

You are indeed missing something obvious.

Help me out here, what am I missing?

Maybe read the article?

It seems like my takeaway is identical to the article's takeaway, that getting in matters more than going. Unless you're thinking of something else.

The whole "matters less multiple years into career" bit is a cope if it's just a measure of how inherently good you are if you can get in. There seems to be a clear separation between the people that get in and the people that don't!

Good students will do well wherever they go. The “getting in” qualification is a red herring. In this case it serves as the control.

Yep, the Ivy League is one mechanism through which classism is perpetuated. The "elite" do think they're better than us, though it's rare that they'd be so gauche as to say it outright.

Here are my thoughts:

The first step is to put aside subjective biases, put aside ourselves completely, which is necessary to reading and listening effectively - curiously and objectively. You may fear or hate those things, but you brought them to the conversation; they aren't what I wrote about. (For example, I never said I attended either institution, or that the students there are somehow superior.)

Another step: There are more talented people, with better resources, than you - and than me, and you might be one of them. Good for you, if that's so; I hope you go much further than I do. That fact will always be true for everyone (ignoring a statistically meaningless theoretical exception). If we can't handle that fact, we can't talk about reality. Must we censor the idea that elite university education is exceptional, and their student bodies are exceptional? It's a cheap way out of the conversation.

Step three is that it doesn't bother me at all that you might go further than me, or the students at these institutions might go further. What is to fear? I'm not inferior to anyone on the planet. If we rely on external rewards, especially elite ones, as necessary to a successful life, then 99.99% will 'fail' - which seems to be where you reached your own conclusions. Most importantly, all the external rewards in the universe won't fill the holes inside; people seek them as a substitute, including elite status, but it never works. The only answer is to be happy with yourself internally, to provide love and recognition internally, regardless of the external rewards. The external doesn't fill those holes, and will come and go; you are the only person who will always be there; nobody can take that away.

> and their student bodies are exceptional? It's a cheap way out of the conversation

> I'm not inferior to anyone on the planet

These appear in tension, yes? It’s pretty clear that I’m inferior to anyone at Harvard including Claudine Gay, and my life is far worse than anyone there and will not get better. It’s also clear that people like you would definitely believe people like me are subhuman “NPCs” because we didn’t accomplish enough in high school if you bristle at censoring your admiration for this exceptional, superhuman cohort of people. If they’re superhuman, I can only conclude I’m under human, yes?

I can only refer you back to the GP. All your words are brought by you to the conversation; none by me. I not only disagree with you, some directly conflicts with what I've said.

The tension is only if you accept some external definition of yourself. That's why I talked about external and internal in the GP. Harvard can't possibly love you; in a sense, nobody can love you; you can only love yourself (and then, there's there's room for personal love from others - but never Harvard). The same goes for me and everyone else.

All that matters is what you give to yourself. If you give yourself the parent comment, that's what you will have, even if Harvard begged you to come - lots of externally successful people are very unhappy for that reason. If you give yourself love and value, then you will have that, again regardless of what Harvard says about you. Harvard is orthogonal to the outcome.

You are not inferior to anyone. But only you can tell yourself that. You won't hear me until you tell yourself and believe it. But I really mean it.

Throwing out numbers like 83% and 33% seems like a handwavy attempt at precision and diminishes your argument. The real world is not like university, unless you live in the very small subset of the world that makes its living off research. Formal education / book smarts !== leadership.

It's a representation of basic fractions that I think most people on HN recognize, and is not at all precise.

If the kind of work these people do at your company doesn’t pressure test the skills they exhibited to get into MIT, then that stands to reason.

True that. I used to feel bad not being able to get into these schools due to mental health issues. Felt insecure. Now I’ve looked around at the community of the Ivy League, the various so called success stories like Zuckerberg, and of course incidents like this.

All I see is the rich fucking over everyone else for power and inflating public perception of their intelligence to try and keep actually intelligent people down.

I recall Paul Krugman discussing the composition of Ivy League college student bodies, and how legacy admissions allow subpar students to matriculate while the schools have the resources to attract the most intelligent / capable students — so the student body let’s say is half legacy, half brilliant outliers (one maybe consider rich legacies as societal outliers too for different aspects). The brilliant students give the schools clout for being intellectual; while, the legacy students support the elite way of life and make that associated with the school — elite lifestyle as an enticing prospect for many brilliant students. A symbiotic relationship is formed, one that may then essentially slowly corrupt the minds of people to aggressively pursue elite-perpetuating actions (so then elite are preserving their position in society, a position that can be challenged by the more intelligent).

People have to have the innovative ideas and skill to make them happen, and others need to know them to fund the venture.

This is why the objective admission system used by the University of California is so important. Nobody can game their way into a UC and IIRC, being a legacy only DQs you from some financial assistance they offer to 'first in family' to attend.

They are operated by and for the elite. Sociopaths are overrepresented in the elite.