This does fit my hypothesis that the outliers at state schools are likely undervalued in the market by recruiters. The averages at selective schools are a lot higher (work a few career fairs where you ask basic technical questions and this is obvious), but everyone is competing over them and the outliers at state schools are people like you with extenuating circumstances. Since the actual education product isn’t that different (though there is some difference), there’s probably opportunity in trying to recruit the best students from state schools companies tend to ignore.

An alternative hypothesis, entirely consistent with the author’s arguments, is that Harvard exists to educate its students (and to do research and have fancy sports and pretty buildings and cultural events, etc), that it’s quite good at this but not necessarily substantially better than its lower class competition, and that its gating function developed over time and is unfortunate.

This is always such an interesting argument people make when nearly every 'next step' after undergrad is more selective than Ivy League schools.

Tier-1 Tech/Banking/Consulting/Law School/Med School all reject plenty of people from Harvard because they didn't do a good enough job there. Plenty of Harvard grads languish.

It's true that getting a degree is simple once you're in, but doing something with it still has capability-based gates.

That’s life though, but most of the upper class and higher don’t realize it.

The elite universities are not primarily selling education they’re selling prestige. In academia it’s worse because prestige is the metric for getting grants and status since the pay is bad.

It’s also not great in private companies since institutional prestige is used to filter inbound interest, but it’s better because at least there are other ways to prove ability - it’s just harder to get the opportunity.

The prestige is also available for direct sale - I think you could pay $5M for a building or something and your kid could go to Stanford (I was told this off the record by a student that worked in admissions) That was the irony with the whole “famous people cheating their way in” news cycle, the schools were angry they were getting a discount on the fee (and probably that this hurt their prestige).

Schools like Harvard also hold spots that help their own prestige, in Lisa Brennan-Jobs (great) book Small Fry she talks about her Harvard interview and the woman was basically an ass ignoring her until she mentioned her dad founded a computer company. When the interviewer realized her dad was Steve Jobs she literally got up and left for a moment, then came back with an entirely different demeanor. Lisa expected it to help (she was counting on it), but even she was surprised by the obviousness of it. She was accepted.

If you read the admissions content that came out in the affirmative action SCOTUS case you can see how messed up it is. [0] This kind of high status selective scarcity creates perverse incentives.

If the goal was actually educating smart people, the behavior of the institutions would be different (probably more ISAs and such), but that’s not the primary goal and the behavior reveals it.

[0]: https://colemanhughes.substack.com/p/10-notes-on-the-end-of-...

What I've seen in the last year or so is making me reconsider. I see the profiles of the top graduating seniors in our newsletters and they read like parodies. 4.9 GPA - check. Sports teams - check. Competitive academic club - check. Social clubs - check. Musical instrument competitions - check. Leadership roles - check. Volunteer roles- check. It's just so cynical after a while. You know some consultant has been hired with a todo list and they've dutifully filled in every box.

Then the kids I know who've gotten in and gone to these elite schools are really struggling. Struggling in ways that I didn't see when my peers and I were going to these schools. There's been a sea change in expectations and requirements.

In the meantime it's the kids I know who got into the "second-tier" schools who are doing well. They aren't under such high expectations, they aren't surrounded by classmates under such high expectations. If some day they don't get hired by a FAANG or a some Wall Street firm than maybe that's for the best too.

I was talking to a couple of high school seniors from Germany recently and it all sounded so sane. All the state colleges are free and all are good. You fill out one application, rank the ones you want to get into, and wait for your letter.

I can make guesses as to how it all got so insane in the US but it doesn't matter much. I don't want to play. I don't want my kid to play.

* It's partly about where your kids graduated valedictorian with perfect GPAs, etc. I was considered "gifted" in my district, but I would be below average in the greater scheme of things.

* Top 99% of SAT is nothing. I read somewhere that 60% of Ivy applicants have perfect scores.

* It depends on the major they intend to pursue. If it's a popular one, there would be many fewer open slots.

And I agree with you, there's schools just as good, if not better, than the Ivies. You just have to shop around looking for the field you're interested in. For instance, UIUC is a top choice for computer science and engineering, and it's a state-funded school.

What I grew up with:

- Universities are tax funded

- there's no tuition (there's an option to pay something like $500/year for being a member of the student organization, which gets you meal discounts, social events, etc; strictly not related to your studies)

- approval process is a direct function of high school grades and entrance exam, top N pass (exchange students were separate, and closer to scholarships, but still the criteria was scoring well in some test)

To someone who grew up in a different setting, many American systems can be summarized as institutionalized corruption.

I know people who want to say University of Virginia who have had better outcomes than some folks I know who went to Harvard College - just to cherry pick a single set.

At Harvard, that nepotism number is closer to 50%, according to my colleagues at the time.

The remainder are chosen from those with strong academics, nearly at random, with a very strong bias against students who don't visual demonstrate diversity on campus.

Second, maybe we overproduce good students. Either the curriculum is too easy (imagine compared to Chinese high schools). Either everyone wants to be in the tertiary sector and society doesn’t need so many, and rejects people who are perfectly fit, randomly without fairness.

Third, were they victim of white discrimination?

Jamie Dimon went to Tufts — Harvard-adjacent? — with an MBA from Harvard.

Tim Cook went to Auburn, with an MBA from Duke.

"Relatively"? According to what metric? I think the US has one of the world's highest Gini coefficients, at least among Western countries.

"Only"? 1% owning about a third of all wealth seems remarkably skewed.

    I think "SUPER QUALITY PRO" almost certainly isn't 
    as good of quality as Apple.

It's just that with Apple (substitute another high-prestige name brand, if you prefer) you are typically getting a certain guaranteed level of quality.

I've had Apple-branded phone cases. They are always top-tier. I've had generic ones that were just as good or maybe better. Also had some godawful ones. I can afford to experiment with phone cases because I can tolerate a $15 failure that takes a small amount of my time. But this isn't as true for potential hires so companies gravitate toward those "big-name" schools.

When you are in a hiring role, it's often impossible to avoid this kind of bias. If you hire a Harvard grad and they don't work out, at least you made the safe choice in your manager's eyes. Much easier to defend than taking a chance on some rando wildcard person.

citation needed. (plot twist, this is not true).

Because it argues for meritocratic rewards in society? Because it pointed out that capital is a gatekeeper? What makes it seem "Marxist" to you?

> Why not build more “Ivy+” and attempt to lift others up rather than flip the table?

I think the argument against subsidizing anti-meritocratic institutions such as Harvard is exactly this. The money is better spent on lifting up people regardless of their ability to get into Harvard.

I find the ending ambiguous, less "Harvard should be burned to the ground" and more "Harvard shouldn't get subsidies."

I think Harvard would survive just fine without subsidies. It's Harvard.

A Marxist tone would be more focused on getting rid of the elite class doing the owning things part. (which has proved difficult...)

Meritocracy is actually nearly as awful as aristocracy in practice. A better society would just be more equal across the whole population regardless of birth, merit or whatever. i.e. CEO pay is now 300 times average employee pay, something more like 5 times would be a very different society and still have room for some merit element And having wealth above a reasonable level shrink exponentially rather than grow exponentially through some kind of share ownership tax

Then Harvard just wouldn't matter that much

From the article:

"Some people say Harvard is a private institution and it can do what it wants. These people are wrong."

"private universities are non-profits."

"When John Paulson donated $400 million to Harvard, that was tax-deductible. If we assume his marginal tax rate was 25%, that’s equivalent to him donating $300 million of after-tax money, and then having the government kick in an extra $100 million. Ivy-league universities also earn insane profits on endowments tax-free and are exempt from local property taxes."

A college admission lottery doesn't seem to be a serious solution.

Otherwise the results will be similar to if any 18 year-old could “win” a place in the NFL. Either they have a rough time and get spit out or the system is forced to change to accommodate them.

I would agree to this under 3 conditions

1. The university can not accept any federally backed student loans, grants, etc

2. The university must self finance any financial aid given using their massive endowments

3. Those loans must be discharged in bankruptcy

I dont even care about their non-profit status as others do. I care they are getting billions in federally (tax payer) backed loan, with no accountability for the money, and no skin in the game at all

Problematic/controversial but not necessarily illegal. They can probably ask for SAT/ACT scores which are probably a pretty good proxy as well.

>In fact college degrees are merely proxies for the lack of IQ data

Disagree to a fair degree. The college degree (and grades/other experiences) tell more than how well you do on a multiple choice test. One can of course argue how much more.

It may be easier to not use it than to produce evidence that it is relevant, but ...

I have worked in an environment where {maths degrees} really did seem to matter. An organization set up by people with {maths degrees} where other people with {maths degrees} seemed to have advantages in (a) getting in and (b) getting ahead. It wasn't ever really addressed explicitly (though "credentialism" was occasionally mentioned by others as well, I wasn't the only one who noticed). It definitely played zero role in my leaving that organization.

Maybe the problem is that maths degrees exist.

There are plenty of things I think are unfair or unjust, and the existence of Harvard is so far down that list it’s not even funny. War, poverty, the destruction of the environment, racism, sexism, and many other things that are absolute negatives for people bother me more than a positive someone else has.

And, in addition, because at least presently, anyone who didn't do Ivy+ is essentially never going to be a SCOTUS judge.

The obvious objection is that given there are only 9 justices at a time, essentially nobody is ever going to be a SCOTUS judge anyway.

But that misses the important gating function (as TFA puts it) which begins with Ivy+ schools. Yes, the chance that you or your neighbor will ever be a SCOTUS justice is essentially zero. But the 9 have to come from somewhere, and the current process essentially guarantees that they must have passed through Ivy+. It's far from clear that this is desirable.

Now notice that the same issue applies to the other fields showing massive Ivy+ over-representation.

As TFA says, maybe a gating function is required (sometimes), but the justification for it operating at 18 and not later (22, or later still) is weak to non-existent.

I would say I’d suggest if you plan to be a Supreme Court judge your chances are better if you went to the top law school in the land, just as going to one of the top engineering schools in the world (public!) helped my career for sure. Getting highest honors at a top engineering school that rarely gives summa cum laude helped too. But it only helped at the beginning and on the margin. What I learned at that school is what made the difference when things got real. And I learned more than the kids who got gentleman C’s at a top private school, because at a top engineering public school they hand out gentleman F’s like candy. I eat the Harvard kids for lunch in my career because I do know more, do better work, earn more revenue, and change my organizations for the better. At a certain point in your career that matters a ton more than what school you went to.

To me that’s a better way to focus your life than the advantages someone else has, because that is surmountable and has nothing to do with what you need to do next in your life.

I’d also say it’s false for almost anyway - YouTube directly impacts most people considerably more than Wall Street shenanigans, and that I lived the plot of the big short and know what actually happened for a first hand fact, I can assure you the big short is extraordinarily short of accuracy.

I don’t mean this as unkind, but Harvard is very hard to get into and very selective and state schools generally are neither. This often means the people that get in, other than legacy, are very capable people. State schools also have very capable people, but as a percentage it’s the vast majority of Harvard and the vast minority of state school students are equally as capable. This gives a leg up on the first jobs for sure - one, they’re likely to be more capable in general, and they have an achievement on their resume to prove it. Admission to Harvard IS an achievement in life.

But these advantages disappear quickly if you’re as capable or more, especially if you’re aggressive in locking in achievements and seeking better opportunities. After maybe 10 years into your career what school you went to matters almost not at all, and it’s entirely based on what you did with that opportunity. Many Harvard grads start strong due to the achievement on their resume then top out quickly in their careers because they’re just not very commercial, and many rely on their brand too much.

But you should -still- expect someone capable of getting into Harvard to be just as capable in their careers. That’s simply life. If it weren’t for Harvard, they would find other ways to differentiate.

The truth is, labor markets are not egalitarian. They reward people differently for different reasons, and their ability to compensate based on contribution is highly inefficient. That rewards people with achievements like a top school early when nothing else differentiates resumes. But it fades quickly, and it’s up to you to make a stronger resume if it matters to you.

But I think it shouldn’t matter. That was my point. Someone else doing better than you shouldn’t matter. What should matter is if you’re happy with what you’re doing yourself ignoring all other people. Anything else is petty, unhelpful, and at odds with how life and reality actually is.

But yes, it’s something I place no value on being able to go to whenever I want. I’d rather join a makerspace, and the people there are a lot more interesting.

I guess the reason I make these distinctions is that many reactions that seem like they could be solutions to "gentrification", like running those rich boys outta town, or even something like rent control ... they just don't feel like they're really solving anything. It's an entrenched systemic problem, and the system is huge and interconnected. You can't fix it locally. We need to actually tax the rich. We need to actually enforce anti-trust and consumer protection laws. We need big taxes on properties number 3 through N that go toward subsidizing affordable housing ... or something to that effect. I'm sure others have better ideas than this too. But what we don't need is neighborhood signs that say "no rich people".

I’m not an economist and there are countless reasons for that, but I can’t imagine that 10 millionaires in a community of 1,000 people would materially change life for the other 990 in the way that you’re suggesting.

Gentrification and unbalanced income strata are real things and real problems, but the 1% aren’t causing them simply by existing.

The average income and wealth is higher too.

> The existence of billionaires and millionaires negatively affects everyone else's standard of living via gentrification

Gentrification benefits property owners and is bad for renters. Believe it or not, bad neighborhoods have homeowners too and most of them would love for their bad neighborhood to become better. So it's not like the effects are uniformly negative. Even renters who are able to afford higher rents, or have rent-controlled housing, benefit from living in a safer, cleaner, more prosperous area. Their children's schools will have more involved parents, more funding.

The real issue with wealth inequality is the disproportionate amount of political influence the wealthy have. I have no problem with people being disgustingly rich as long as they don't use their money to influence laws.

Except that no; prices would almost not budge at all. Each millionaire will buy 2, maybe 3 houses. But they will target the nice and expensive home; the price/demand for middle/low class houses will not change at all.

Same for car; the demand for Rolls Royce will increase and the price there might increase as well if they were being discounted because nobody was buying them. But they will not even look at the Toyota Prius and I don't see the car dealer there saying thinking "This billionaire will definitely buy all my Prisues, so I will increase their price". He will just shrug it off and keep selling his cars to the middle class whose purchasing power didn't move by an inch. The main difference he will see is that maybe the Rolls Royce dealer who could not afford a car himself because he was not selling anything will now be able to buy a Prius. So it's one more customer.

Keeping with your analogy, we might similarly eliminate rent-seeking on prestige by banning legacy admissions and making applications more quantitative (i.e., test-based) and less subjective.

Claiming superiority on narrow conditions like Modern American middle-class-ness is still claiming superiority. I don't see how it is an essentially a morally better position.

Either way, you're not going to get 10 millionaires just moving into an area with houses that are so cheap they ignore them as "too cheap" on a realty listing. Even if you're talking about an investment purchase and then they don't move in, themselves. You might have a property developer though, looking to create the next HOA hellscape.

This really isn't a good hypothetical.

Now I'm at a somewhat well regarded startup and most of the people around me went to Cal States, Arizona State, or UC's.

If an institution doesn't want to simply accept the top N performers on one or more standardized tests, they could go one step further and perform an SAT/ACT-weighted lottery followed by a culling. This can be per-major or per-department, but many universities already enforce a set of near-universal required courses. Set a minimum performance requirement on those courses and bada bing bada boom, the institution is getting the cream of the crop for whatever quantitative definition of "cream" they want to set. People will be naturally disincentivized from applying to overly competitive programs in which they're likely to fail. There are probably many effective variations of this idea, too, like using a geographically distributed population-weighted lottery for applicants meeting some threshold score instead.

What are the failure modes of such quantitative approaches? Could the outcomes be worse than those of our current system? What are some better alternatives?

I don't understand your objection. Comprehensive math training is useful in areas other than academic research math, and it's not like PhD programs erase or overwrite all math instruction from before you entered that program.

That's ridiculous. There are certainly laws.

But I think OP meant more so "natural pressures" that cause things to more often than not to align certain ways.

Taking "law of nature" so literally is pretty dang useless.

Think of the neural complexity required for an amoeba to navigate with flagella vs a fly to navigate with wings. Even the fly's complexity is dwarfed by, say, the neural complexity of an elephant's control of his trunk. And that pales in comparison to the neural complexity required to get a spacecraft into orbit.

Complex behavior requires complex systems and complex systems require the simplicity that hierarchies provide.

He's referring to the more general observation that parents want to take care of their kids as well as they can. But they do that in a strictly unfair way: they prioritize their kids over all other kids simply because they happened to have spawned them, a property the kid has zero control over.

Now, I'll concede there's a difference between interest and ability, but it will probably come out in the wash, as failure to keep up will typically result in a loss of interest

https://neworleanscitybusiness.com/blog/2015/01/22/most-loca...https://www.pugetsound.edu/sites/default/files/file/1359_Fah...

and straight from the horse's mouth, the IRS:

> Typical organizations that may qualify for exemption under IRC section 501(c)7) are: ... Country clubs, ..., Yacht clubs

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/atg_social_rec_clubs.pdf

During the middle ages the universities were associated with the monastaries because those were the few places where literate people congregated.

Plus there were only 5 areas of study in the early university.

- Theology

- Law

- Medicine

- Natural Scene

- And mathematics (I think)

So you're wrong, like really wrong, like wrong wrong, can't be more wrong. But hey I'm sure if you go back to /r/athiesm you'll get some more good talking points.

I also disagree with his point that gatekeeping should come as late as possible. That's how you get graduate students loaded down with debt who can't get a job in the field. Gatekeeping should come as soon as possible to allow the people who don't pass the gate the best opportunity to find some other path to succeed in.