People from elite backgrounds increasingly dominate academia, data shows(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
People from elite backgrounds increasingly dominate academia, data shows
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/07/08/dept-of-data-academia-elite/
333 comments
> Also there should be a high correlation between kids being college-material and parents being college-material. Whether you believe in nature (genetics) or nurture (good parenting, high standards, role model, access to education, etc), or a mix of both, either way, you should not expect the % of college students from graduate families to match the % of graduate families in the country. So not sure what point the article makes
Just because something can easily be explained using logic doesn't mean that it's outcomes can't be negative. Perhaps this indicates that our society is further stratifying into different classes and upward mobility is being reduced for a portion of the population which I think most people would agree is a bad thing
Just because something can easily be explained using logic doesn't mean that it's outcomes can't be negative. Perhaps this indicates that our society is further stratifying into different classes and upward mobility is being reduced for a portion of the population which I think most people would agree is a bad thing
I'm not sure it suggests that society is stratifying, though. People didn't go to college nearly so much prior to the 70s. Once college became ubiquitous, I would expect that the number of people who's parents went to college could have to go up no matter what. ie, there is a smaller and smaller pool of people who's parents did not go to college since the 1970s. I'm not even suggesting that society is not stratifying; I just don't think this is proof of it.
"caste", the word you are looking for is "caste". It's not just a difference in incomes, it's a closed system for reproduction (college educated often meet their future spouse in college, and even if not are rarely willing to marry non-college educated). Closed system for reproduction plus inheritance (genetic and cultural both) is the predecessor to castes, given a few more generations of this kind of separation.
Except “first generation college student” is still very much a thing.
It doesn't scale like that, though. If the % of people with college degrees had increased by 6x, to 24%, would you expect 6/5 of students to have parents with a college degree?
Not exactly like that, but close. As % of people with college degrees approaches 100%, all students will have parents with a college degree, so it will approach 5/5. The logic in the parent comment still stands.
What you care about is how much more likely a person with parents who had degrees is to have a degree over one who doesn't.
In 1970 4% of people had degrees and 20% of degree holders had parents with degrees. That means that children of degree holders got 5 times as many degrees as children of non-degree holders.
In 2020 14% of people have degrees and 66% of degree holders have parents with degrees. That means that children of degree holders got 4.7 times as many degrees as children of non-degree holders.
Which is the opposite of what the article assumes.
In 1970 4% of people had degrees and 20% of degree holders had parents with degrees. That means that children of degree holders got 5 times as many degrees as children of non-degree holders.
In 2020 14% of people have degrees and 66% of degree holders have parents with degrees. That means that children of degree holders got 4.7 times as many degrees as children of non-degree holders.
Which is the opposite of what the article assumes.
This is wrong. By this logic, "25% of people have degrees and 100% of degree holders have parents with degrees" is better than the 4%/20%, because it's only 4 times instead of 5 times. One of the better methods would be to calculate the "Bayes factor"(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes_factor) for estimating possibility of holding degree given the evidence of "parents holding degree". In this case, we need to know the parents degree percentage for both people in 1970 and 2020.
> That means that children of degree holders got 4.7 times as many degrees as children of non-degree holders.
That doesn't follow at all? You can't just divide the two percentages and get that conclusion?
In 2020 children of degree holders got twice as many degrees as children from non-degree holders; 66 vs 34. In 1970 children of degree holders got 1/4 as many degrees as children of non-degree holders; 20 vs 80.
Edit: removed math based on wrong assumption
That doesn't follow at all? You can't just divide the two percentages and get that conclusion?
In 2020 children of degree holders got twice as many degrees as children from non-degree holders; 66 vs 34. In 1970 children of degree holders got 1/4 as many degrees as children of non-degree holders; 20 vs 80.
Edit: removed math based on wrong assumption
>If you put it in absolute numbers. In 1970 among 1000 people 40 had degrees and of those 40 20% so 8 people had parents with degrees. On the other side you have 32 degree holders to 960 non degree holder parents, so just 3.3% of their kids got degrees.
>In 2020 among 1000 people 200 had degrees and of those 200 66% so 132 people had parents with degrees. On the other side you have 68 degree holders to 800 non degree holder parents, so just 8.5% of their kids got degrees.
You're confusing the total number of people who have degrees with new graduates. The only thing we can calculate with the numbers given is the ratio of new graduates who have parents with degrees to those who have parents without degrees.
>In 2020 among 1000 people 200 had degrees and of those 200 66% so 132 people had parents with degrees. On the other side you have 68 degree holders to 800 non degree holder parents, so just 8.5% of their kids got degrees.
You're confusing the total number of people who have degrees with new graduates. The only thing we can calculate with the numbers given is the ratio of new graduates who have parents with degrees to those who have parents without degrees.
> You're confusing the total number of people who have degrees with new graduates.
Yes you're right. The original data said new graduates. I got sidetracked by the formulation in your comment. I removed the false calculation.
> The only thing we can calculate with the numbers given is the ratio of new graduates who have parents with degrees to those who have parents without degrees.
Yea that ratio is 2 and 1/4 respectively? I don't even know how to put in words what we get by dividing the percentage of new grads with degree holding parents by the percentage of degree holders with college age children among the general population. Nothing useful?
Yes you're right. The original data said new graduates. I got sidetracked by the formulation in your comment. I removed the false calculation.
> The only thing we can calculate with the numbers given is the ratio of new graduates who have parents with degrees to those who have parents without degrees.
Yea that ratio is 2 and 1/4 respectively? I don't even know how to put in words what we get by dividing the percentage of new grads with degree holding parents by the percentage of degree holders with college age children among the general population. Nothing useful?
The math is trickier than that:
- If 4% of parents have degrees, something like 7% of the next generation has at least one parent with a degree. Because children have two parents, and only one of those two parents needs to have a degree. So the correct number to compare 20% against is ~7%, not 4%.
- Suppose a child of a degree-holder is 3 times as likely to become an economics PhD as a child of no degree-holders. Then, if 7% of children have a degree-holding parent, you would expect (7 * 3) / (7 * 3 + 93) = 21 / 114 = ~18.4% of economics PhDs to have a degree-holding parent, not 21%. If 25% of children have a degree-holding parent, you'd expect (25 * 3) / (25 * 3 + 75) = 75 / 150 = 50% of economics PhDs to have a degree-holding parent, not 75%.
Eyeballing the last few numbers, it does look like the value of having a degree-holding parent may have increased significantly, from a ~3.3x multiplier to almost 6x. But the error bars on this back-of-the-napkin analysis are pretty wide.
- If 4% of parents have degrees, something like 7% of the next generation has at least one parent with a degree. Because children have two parents, and only one of those two parents needs to have a degree. So the correct number to compare 20% against is ~7%, not 4%.
- Suppose a child of a degree-holder is 3 times as likely to become an economics PhD as a child of no degree-holders. Then, if 7% of children have a degree-holding parent, you would expect (7 * 3) / (7 * 3 + 93) = 21 / 114 = ~18.4% of economics PhDs to have a degree-holding parent, not 21%. If 25% of children have a degree-holding parent, you'd expect (25 * 3) / (25 * 3 + 75) = 75 / 150 = 50% of economics PhDs to have a degree-holding parent, not 75%.
Eyeballing the last few numbers, it does look like the value of having a degree-holding parent may have increased significantly, from a ~3.3x multiplier to almost 6x. But the error bars on this back-of-the-napkin analysis are pretty wide.
> If 4% of parents have degrees, something like 7% of the next generation has at least one parent with a degree.
Are you presuming marriage and degree-holding are independent variables? Although I presume there are fewer female degree holders, so perhaps it makes little difference.
Are you presuming marriage and degree-holding are independent variables? Although I presume there are fewer female degree holders, so perhaps it makes little difference.
>Although I presume there are fewer female degree holders, so perhaps it makes little difference.
Since ~80s there are more female undergraduate students than male.
EDIT: with graduate degrees it got equal just in 2005. Which is relatively close to the age of current students...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/185167/number-of-doctora...
Since ~80s there are more female undergraduate students than male.
EDIT: with graduate degrees it got equal just in 2005. Which is relatively close to the age of current students...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/185167/number-of-doctora...
[deleted]
“Something like 7%” is noticeably less than twice 4%, so no, I didn’t make that assumption. (I also explicitly stated that this was a back-of-the-napkin-quality analysis.)
It is noticeably closer to 8% than to 4% though. 7% would imply graduates exhibit a rather strong preference for marrying non-graduates over other graduates, which I find hard to believe.
At a time when only 4% of the population had graduate degrees, if 25% of married grad-degree-holders were married to another grad-degree-holder, that would constitute a large preference in favor of other graduates.
It doesn't work like that because you need to include the rates of people who have a degree and whos parent's don't.
CD = Child has a degree PD = Parent has a degree
Your rates would be calculated with P(CD|PD)/P(CD|notPD) = [4x20/(4x80+96A)]/[4x80/(4x80+96(100-A))] where A = Probability of parent having a degree and child not having degree
CD = Child has a degree PD = Parent has a degree
Your rates would be calculated with P(CD|PD)/P(CD|notPD) = [4x20/(4x80+96A)]/[4x80/(4x80+96(100-A))] where A = Probability of parent having a degree and child not having degree
The 1970 stats are just saying that of the 4% of people who held a degree, 20% had parents who also had a degree (the 20% is a subset of the 4%, the 2 numbers are not directly comparable). This in fact means that graduates-with-degreed-parents were rarer than graduates without.
This situation has changed when we look at 2020. The overall number of degree holders is still relatively low compared to overall population (14%) but of this number a full 2/3rds now have degreed parents. The situation within this group has reversed.
This situation has changed when we look at 2020. The overall number of degree holders is still relatively low compared to overall population (14%) but of this number a full 2/3rds now have degreed parents. The situation within this group has reversed.
% of degree holders as a population vs % parents of people with degrees is misleading - trend for getting degrees as a % of population is increasing and parents with degrees is lagging by around 10-20 years (ie. it will be 10-20 years before all the people that have degrees now can have children old enough to attain a degree).
So even if this probability reduces to 4 times more as likely, the % of population with degrees keeps increasing you'll see the pattern article is describing.
So even if this probability reduces to 4 times more as likely, the % of population with degrees keeps increasing you'll see the pattern article is describing.
Yes and?
The point is that if anything degrees now provide less generational predictability than they used to 50 years ago.
The article is trying to argue the exact opposite.
The point is that if anything degrees now provide less generational predictability than they used to 50 years ago.
The article is trying to argue the exact opposite.
For simplicity let’s assume a static equilibrium (i.e. the rate of degree holders doesn’t change across cohorts and people don’t marry outside of their class).
Obviously in such case the probability to get a degree if your parents have a degree are 20% (in 1970) and 66% (in 2020).
Now let’s calculate the probabilities to get a degree if your parents don’t have a degree:
1970: 0.04*0.8/0.96 = 3.33%
2020: 0.14*0.34/0.86 = 5.53%
Even a “whooping” 1.7 increase doesn’t make much of a difference.
Obviously in such case the probability to get a degree if your parents have a degree are 20% (in 1970) and 66% (in 2020).
Now let’s calculate the probabilities to get a degree if your parents don’t have a degree:
1970: 0.04*0.8/0.96 = 3.33%
2020: 0.14*0.34/0.86 = 5.53%
Even a “whooping” 1.7 increase doesn’t make much of a difference.
You don't create outrage, and thus clicks, with honest reporting of facts or by applying elementary-school-level math.
It's an oversimplification of course, but let's try another oversimplification just for argument's sake and to highlight the mechanism.
Let's say you are born without parents, and your parents get picked at random once you enter university (a completely fair system in that there is no bias involved).
If 4% of all "available" parents have a degree, your chance that you'll get at least one of those "assigned" to you is 7.84% (1 - ((1 - 0.04)^2)).
If 14% of all parents have one, this probability rises to 26.04% (1 - ((1 - 0.14)^2)).
Let's say you are born without parents, and your parents get picked at random once you enter university (a completely fair system in that there is no bias involved).
If 4% of all "available" parents have a degree, your chance that you'll get at least one of those "assigned" to you is 7.84% (1 - ((1 - 0.04)^2)).
If 14% of all parents have one, this probability rises to 26.04% (1 - ((1 - 0.14)^2)).
I guess like plenty of bounded processes in nature, this is likely a sigmoid-ish function where close to zero you can approximate the function linearly. Yet yeah, there is some error.
I had the same thoughts. The country is now more educated than it was before, and they want to paint that as a bad thing. And point some fingers at the “elite,” Which is now people who’s parents have a college degree I guess.
And realistically we are at point where having a degree doesn't make you an "elite" anymore. Not necessarily even having PhD... The value of degrees has also inflated.
> value of degrees has also inflated
Nitpick: the degree has inflated. Its value has decreased. If something’s value inflates its price has deflated.
Nitpick: the degree has inflated. Its value has decreased. If something’s value inflates its price has deflated.
Nope. Value is not a function of cost. Value is just a measure of utility. Not utils per dollar.
[deleted]
Well, most of the press is desperate to find a new big bad to generate clicks… and the in the case of the Washington Post to make us forget that they were the ones that gave a column to Amber Heard
If a graduate degree is not in some sense an elite marker something is messed up. A graduate degree should guarantee the holder could be admitted into a decent doctoral programme. Obviously this isn’t true, education schools exist, but it should be. If graduate school isn’t for an educational elite the material should be in a Bachelor’s.
I think your analysis mixes up college degrees and graduate degrees. 'College degree' refers to a 4-year BA/BS, whereas 'graduate degree' typically refers to a PhD, Master's degree, or professional degree (JD/MD/MBA).
Yeah GP seems to be missing something. PhD programs at top schools are somewhat hereditary at this point. It’s so competitive and there’s too much stuff to just know how to do; spending time with a family member who’s done it before is a huge leg up vs. figuring it out on your own.
It's also an extremely stupid thing to do financially, in almost every case. There are intangible benefits to it, but you need someone coaching you on them in order to accept the choice to actually halve (or more) your income. (Take it from a 2nd generation PhD who has halved his salary being a professor vs. working in industry.)
Postgraduate education in UK etcetera means graduate education in North America - as per https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postgraduate_education
The quotes from the article seem to be using graduate in the US sense, which is what would be called post-grad in NZ.
FYI, AFAIK college degree or professional degree means little in New Zealand, and probably not the UK either.
Also see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undergraduate_degree
I'm just saying that to people outside the US, the article is unclear because the words mean different things in different countries, which could affect some commenters.
Disclaimer: I only know what we call degrees in NZ so I am just trying to say why people from different countries could be confused. And this comment probably is confused itself, sorry.
The quotes from the article seem to be using graduate in the US sense, which is what would be called post-grad in NZ.
FYI, AFAIK college degree or professional degree means little in New Zealand, and probably not the UK either.
Also see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undergraduate_degree
I'm just saying that to people outside the US, the article is unclear because the words mean different things in different countries, which could affect some commenters.
Disclaimer: I only know what we call degrees in NZ so I am just trying to say why people from different countries could be confused. And this comment probably is confused itself, sorry.
In the UK you do GCSEs about age 16, A-Levels about age 18 (there are some vocational certificates too), both while typically living at home.
You then typically go away for a Bachelor degree which lasts 3-4 years and gives you a BSc, BA or similar. After that you might do a Masters degree which would be 1 year (full time) which gives you an MSc/MA, then you'd start a doctorate which takes several years before getting a PhD
At 16 people leave that track and do formal qualifications in more vocational areas (bricklaying, farming, etc), at 18 people who didn't do vocational training from 16 may leave, a gap year is quite popular at that point, where you have a year off and travel the world.
Most people who do BA/BSc level courses will finish after graduation, typically age 21-23 (depending on gap year and length of course). Some stay direct on, plenty of people do Masters remotely part time later in their careers.
You then typically go away for a Bachelor degree which lasts 3-4 years and gives you a BSc, BA or similar. After that you might do a Masters degree which would be 1 year (full time) which gives you an MSc/MA, then you'd start a doctorate which takes several years before getting a PhD
At 16 people leave that track and do formal qualifications in more vocational areas (bricklaying, farming, etc), at 18 people who didn't do vocational training from 16 may leave, a gap year is quite popular at that point, where you have a year off and travel the world.
Most people who do BA/BSc level courses will finish after graduation, typically age 21-23 (depending on gap year and length of course). Some stay direct on, plenty of people do Masters remotely part time later in their careers.
Hasn’t the number of college degrees basically ballooned since the 70s?
Isn’t this like saying, “The number of professors whose parents have a car is up 3x since the 1930s?”
Isn’t this like saying, “The number of professors whose parents have a car is up 3x since the 1930s?”
> So % of parents with college degree increased by 3.5x (from 4% to 14%) and % of students coming from parents with college degree increased 3.3x (from 1/5 to 2/3). That more than explains it, doesn't it?
Just wait until percentage of parent with a degree reaches 25%. Then you'll see 120% of students having a parent with a degree. Hope that your explanation that "everything is normal" will still hold then.
Just wait until percentage of parent with a degree reaches 25%. Then you'll see 120% of students having a parent with a degree. Hope that your explanation that "everything is normal" will still hold then.
> Whether you believe in nature (genetics) or nurture
...or nepotism, which is known to be extremely common in both academia and among billionaires.
...or nepotism, which is known to be extremely common in both academia and among billionaires.
This story is decidedly anecdata, even personal, but I think it's illustrative of what's going on in certain fields.
- Had a friend who has multiple graduate level degrees in architecture related sub-specialties e.g. architecture criticism etc
- HN being what it is, I will mention that the pay for most of the jobs you would get with the above is zero or near zero.
- There is also a dramatic oversupply of candidates for available positions
- That being said, certain jobs can be prestigious e.g. curator at a museum etc
- Most places that would hire someone with these degrees will ONLY hire the children of very wealthy individuals
- Why? The thought is that a museum hires the child of a hedge fund manager, there is a non-zero chance the wealthy parent will give or leave money to the institution when they die
- This means a steady stream of unpaid internships for everyone else for, essentially, the rest of their lives
It's therefore not surprising that only wealthy/elites would go into these particular fields and, in turn, causes people to not even enter the academic subjects to begin with.
This isn't necessarily a criticism since everyone here is acting rationally from an economics perspective. I do wonder about the poor kid from a bad neighborhood who could have become the next great museum curator if not for the fact that his parents aren't wealthy.
- Had a friend who has multiple graduate level degrees in architecture related sub-specialties e.g. architecture criticism etc
- HN being what it is, I will mention that the pay for most of the jobs you would get with the above is zero or near zero.
- There is also a dramatic oversupply of candidates for available positions
- That being said, certain jobs can be prestigious e.g. curator at a museum etc
- Most places that would hire someone with these degrees will ONLY hire the children of very wealthy individuals
- Why? The thought is that a museum hires the child of a hedge fund manager, there is a non-zero chance the wealthy parent will give or leave money to the institution when they die
- This means a steady stream of unpaid internships for everyone else for, essentially, the rest of their lives
It's therefore not surprising that only wealthy/elites would go into these particular fields and, in turn, causes people to not even enter the academic subjects to begin with.
This isn't necessarily a criticism since everyone here is acting rationally from an economics perspective. I do wonder about the poor kid from a bad neighborhood who could have become the next great museum curator if not for the fact that his parents aren't wealthy.
> Why? The thought is that a museum hires the child of a hedge fund manager, there is a non-zero chance the wealthy parent will give or leave money to the institution when they die
Another way that inequality damages society. When your best bet for your future is to appeal to the super rich instead of serving society and getting money from the government society losses its power.
As you say, it is rational to work for the one that can pay you. It's a catastrophe that there general public in aggregation has less power than very rich individuals by themselves.
Another way that inequality damages society. When your best bet for your future is to appeal to the super rich instead of serving society and getting money from the government society losses its power.
As you say, it is rational to work for the one that can pay you. It's a catastrophe that there general public in aggregation has less power than very rich individuals by themselves.
>best bet for your future
The best bet for the future is to pick a career path that is not massively over supplied with candidates. Once you get to that situation there's no system that will not cause most everyone to be unhappy.
The best bet for the future is to pick a career path that is not massively over supplied with candidates. Once you get to that situation there's no system that will not cause most everyone to be unhappy.
That game will get worse over time as people optimize for it too. It'll be a matter of trying to guess what's going to be in demand but not so in demand that people are training for it because they are also trying to choose a career that's in demand. And as usual, those with the better information and means to switch paths or take multiple shots will be the ones who can come out ahead.
Pretty much, We don't talk about it as often as we should - but post dot-com Software was a bad place to be. There was general fear that outsourcing to India would do to software what outsourcing to China was doing for Manufacturing. These fears culminated in an under-supply of CS majors through the 2000s and an oversupply of various "business" degrees. The assumed "ideal path" was to be in management so as not to be vulnerable to outsourcing.
Flash forward to the 2010s and there are too many entry level accountants/financiers/managers in training, and too few software professionals. Even in fields with some shortages it's not a given that you will have bargaining power e.g. Nursing.
Flash forward to the 2010s and there are too many entry level accountants/financiers/managers in training, and too few software professionals. Even in fields with some shortages it's not a given that you will have bargaining power e.g. Nursing.
Even after the dot com crash software was never a bad field it just felt that way because it was worse than it had been at the peak. There was still enough demand for most people to get actual jobs somewhere just not at the wages they like. Fields that suffer from this in academia have small percentages of people who study for it actually end up doing related work. Sometimes as low as 5% of the people. Software is nowhere close to 19 in 20 people working outside the field even during its worst crashes.
>accountants/financiers/managers
All of these professions do just fine, even the ones in which there's "oversupply". What these professions don't provide is readily available opportunity for someone of substantially below median intelligence and work ethic to make a very nice living with little more than token effort as is the case in software, or any other "hot" industry (in a cooler industry they plateau much closer to entry level).
All of these professions do just fine, even the ones in which there's "oversupply". What these professions don't provide is readily available opportunity for someone of substantially below median intelligence and work ethic to make a very nice living with little more than token effort as is the case in software, or any other "hot" industry (in a cooler industry they plateau much closer to entry level).
> substantially below median intelligence and work ethic to make a very nice living with little more than token effort as is the case in software
I disagree that you can make a nice living room with "substantially below median intelligence" in software. Getting into FAANG+ is hard and plenty of people never even finish their degree or get a related job.
I think you have no idea what people with "substantially below median intelligence" are like.
I disagree that you can make a nice living room with "substantially below median intelligence" in software. Getting into FAANG+ is hard and plenty of people never even finish their degree or get a related job.
I think you have no idea what people with "substantially below median intelligence" are like.
Nursing pay did rise quite a bit with Covid, so I suspect there wasn't a shortage before then.
This gets to a core issue with our system. Employers want an over supply to drive down wages and the easiest way to get that is misinformation.
This gets to a core issue with our system. Employers want an over supply to drive down wages and the easiest way to get that is misinformation.
Actually I think those who come out the most ahead are those interested in the field, even when nobody else is. It seems a better strategy than trend hoping is to find something you like, that can plausibly be useful and invest in that.
That's not what GP is saying though:
> The best bet for the future is to pick a career path that is not massively over supplied with candidates.
> The best bet for the future is to pick a career path that is not massively over supplied with candidates.
I agree, avoiding the worst career choices is easier than trying to find the good ones. Sorry if there was a confusion about context.
There's a difference between picking the optimal career and not picking a career with the worst prospects.
>And as usual, those with the better information and means to switch paths or take multiple shots will be the ones who can come out ahead.
I feel a person should care more about their own happiness than how other people are doing.
>And as usual, those with the better information and means to switch paths or take multiple shots will be the ones who can come out ahead.
I feel a person should care more about their own happiness than how other people are doing.
Picking a career path isn’t that simple. Who can really predict what will be oversupplied 4 (college), 6(college + masters) or 8/10 (college + PhD) years from now?
Additionally, if you’re wealthy enough, going into a passion project is the viable option. It’s what privilege affords you- doing what you are passionate about. I wished everyone had this.
Additionally, if you’re wealthy enough, going into a passion project is the viable option. It’s what privilege affords you- doing what you are passionate about. I wished everyone had this.
>Picking a career path isn’t that simple. Who can really predict what will be oversupplied 4 (college), 6(college + masters) or 8/10 (college + PhD) years from now?
Seriously? In the late 1990s, I was in middle school. My grand parents sat me down and told me to work towards a degree that makes a lot of money. They had lists of "typical starting salaries, by college degrees". We picked the top 3, and I started working towards those. I later reassessed and picked the top 1 - Electrical Engineering.
In 2010, I got my BSEE, and my starting salary was more than the average US salary.
Looking back, it was a hard road, but I get paid enough to provide for my wife and kids, and our life is good.
Seriously? In the late 1990s, I was in middle school. My grand parents sat me down and told me to work towards a degree that makes a lot of money. They had lists of "typical starting salaries, by college degrees". We picked the top 3, and I started working towards those. I later reassessed and picked the top 1 - Electrical Engineering.
In 2010, I got my BSEE, and my starting salary was more than the average US salary.
Looking back, it was a hard road, but I get paid enough to provide for my wife and kids, and our life is good.
> Seriously? In the late 1990s, I was in middle school. My grand parents sat me down and told me to work towards a degree that makes a lot of money. They had lists of "typical starting salaries, by college degrees". We picked the top 3, and I started working towards those. I later reassessed and picked the top 1 - Electrical Engineering.
And people from poor and/or rural backgrounds? I only got those discussions because I tested well enough that my future potential was considered a societal matter and educators unrelated to me were brought in to inform both me AND my parents. None of my classmates, siblings, or cousins had that benefit.
And people from poor and/or rural backgrounds? I only got those discussions because I tested well enough that my future potential was considered a societal matter and educators unrelated to me were brought in to inform both me AND my parents. None of my classmates, siblings, or cousins had that benefit.
I grew up poor. I was raised by my grandparents part of the time, and my single mom part of the time. I also spent part my my childhood in "rural" America. And I'm mentally disabled. Educators told my family that I would end up in prison by the time I turned 18.
I'd be curious about your grandparents' socio-economic statuses throughout their life and their ages (particularly whether their socio matched their economic). Also which part of your childhood was rural, because lacking resources at 6-7 is going to have very different results than lacking them in high school.
My point is that whether or not something is 'simple' depends very much on what resources you (and your group/family) have at hand. For example, I was coding in elementary school, so from my experience the idea that coding could be difficult to learn doesn't make sense. But it obviously is/can be difficult depending on background.
And never mind if somebody is from an abusive home (like I also was): If mom's passed out drunk and depressed on the couch and middle school you is running after your younger sibling (me again), mom and dad aren't giving you college or earnings talks.
It's not a kid's fault for not knowing these things, although at least now bright kids with no adults can use the Web to help and look up this information.
My point is that whether or not something is 'simple' depends very much on what resources you (and your group/family) have at hand. For example, I was coding in elementary school, so from my experience the idea that coding could be difficult to learn doesn't make sense. But it obviously is/can be difficult depending on background.
And never mind if somebody is from an abusive home (like I also was): If mom's passed out drunk and depressed on the couch and middle school you is running after your younger sibling (me again), mom and dad aren't giving you college or earnings talks.
It's not a kid's fault for not knowing these things, although at least now bright kids with no adults can use the Web to help and look up this information.
[deleted]
I think you're misinterpreting the parent comment. The best bet for the future of the museum is to appeal to the rich. The child of the hedge fund manager will be fine no matter what they do.
> Once you get to that situation there's no system that will not cause most everyone to be unhappy.
There are three negatives in this sentence, and I'm having a very difficult time telling what it is saying (and I tried several times to track through the parity flips required). Anyone mind translating it for me?
There are three negatives in this sentence, and I'm having a very difficult time telling what it is saying (and I tried several times to track through the parity flips required). Anyone mind translating it for me?
If you're field is overpopulated the people in the field won't be happy.
It's not that difficult and using the three negatives makes sense.
It's not that difficult and using the three negatives makes sense.
This is a decidedly personal, anecdotal story too, but I think it's illustrative of some of the reasons to hope for the world.
I was dating someone that was a civil engineer and she absolutely hated the constant sexual harassment that happens on construction sites in Canada. She came from a poor family that fled Russia as the Soviet Union was collapsing.
I told her I could teach her tech in one month. Whatever she wanted, frontend, backend, didn't matter. Enough to get hired. She took the plunge, dove in and I tutored her about 40 hours a week for a month or so. Got her a mini data science contract with some friends of mine and after this little boost of experience she landed a job at Shopify and more than tripled her already above average salary. Stayed there for years and as far as I know she's still doing quite well.
Yes there are problems in the modern economy. Real, awful problems. We need to look at them with clear eyes and make policy changes to make sure that things don't get worse for the least fortunate in life.
But that said, there are a lot of unsung stories out there and the world is getting better in a lot of little ways. We should not lose hope.
I was dating someone that was a civil engineer and she absolutely hated the constant sexual harassment that happens on construction sites in Canada. She came from a poor family that fled Russia as the Soviet Union was collapsing.
I told her I could teach her tech in one month. Whatever she wanted, frontend, backend, didn't matter. Enough to get hired. She took the plunge, dove in and I tutored her about 40 hours a week for a month or so. Got her a mini data science contract with some friends of mine and after this little boost of experience she landed a job at Shopify and more than tripled her already above average salary. Stayed there for years and as far as I know she's still doing quite well.
Yes there are problems in the modern economy. Real, awful problems. We need to look at them with clear eyes and make policy changes to make sure that things don't get worse for the least fortunate in life.
But that said, there are a lot of unsung stories out there and the world is getting better in a lot of little ways. We should not lose hope.
Thanks for the neat story, and kudos to you for helping her.
hopefully she won't also get sexually harassed in tech
This is not really correct. Art and a lot of jobs that don't pay well go to children of rich people because they don't need the money, their parents are usually already in the network of influence and patrons. The current state of art is at the mercy of them anyway to keep up the illusion - the rich donate and get their benefits/private events and tax write offs. And since they're rich they end up becoming public figures themselves and bring even more attention to their institute.
Academia just isn't WORTH it for talented peasants (speaking as one).
I had people encouraging me to go into academia since I was 4-5 years old, had a desire to go be a professor, etc. But things have changed a lot since I was a child 30 years ago. Now, if I were to go into academia without family or other connections, I'm looking at:
- Unstable employment and a serious amount of overwork. At the end of this I may get a chance at some stability, but given how academia is moving away from the tenure-track, that's less and less likely.
- Restrictions on what I can say and what kind of work I can do based on academic politics, what grants will fund, etc.
- Very little reputational benefit to affiliating myself with an institution: speaking as an American, our institutions are collapsing. Why would I tie myself to a sinking ship? Those who are already in the upper-middle or upper class are all in on maintaining the status quo because it works for them and because they have a safety net if things go south. It's similar to how, no matter what your interpretation of Jan. 6, 2021, I bet there's some reconsidering of people's desires to be staff in Congress. ("I'm not getting shot for Pelosi/McConnell, fuck that noise.")
On the other hand, if I DON'T go into academia, I can still access research and I can say whatever I want. I can also work on my own schedule and only do work that I think has some value (as opposed to chasing after publications and massaging my work to beef up my CV).
Anyone from a poorer background who has the skills to make it in academia also has the skills to recognize that it is a TERRIBLE deal for them at the moment and that they have better options.
Granted, this is also true of higher socio-economic classes, and that's one reason the people from elite backgrounds in academia are also trending towards the more and more mediocre.
I had people encouraging me to go into academia since I was 4-5 years old, had a desire to go be a professor, etc. But things have changed a lot since I was a child 30 years ago. Now, if I were to go into academia without family or other connections, I'm looking at:
- Unstable employment and a serious amount of overwork. At the end of this I may get a chance at some stability, but given how academia is moving away from the tenure-track, that's less and less likely.
- Restrictions on what I can say and what kind of work I can do based on academic politics, what grants will fund, etc.
- Very little reputational benefit to affiliating myself with an institution: speaking as an American, our institutions are collapsing. Why would I tie myself to a sinking ship? Those who are already in the upper-middle or upper class are all in on maintaining the status quo because it works for them and because they have a safety net if things go south. It's similar to how, no matter what your interpretation of Jan. 6, 2021, I bet there's some reconsidering of people's desires to be staff in Congress. ("I'm not getting shot for Pelosi/McConnell, fuck that noise.")
On the other hand, if I DON'T go into academia, I can still access research and I can say whatever I want. I can also work on my own schedule and only do work that I think has some value (as opposed to chasing after publications and massaging my work to beef up my CV).
Anyone from a poorer background who has the skills to make it in academia also has the skills to recognize that it is a TERRIBLE deal for them at the moment and that they have better options.
Granted, this is also true of higher socio-economic classes, and that's one reason the people from elite backgrounds in academia are also trending towards the more and more mediocre.
> Restrictions on what I can say
Academia isn't perfect and it sure isn't what it once was. But go ahead and talk crap about your corporate employer for the next six months and see what happens to you.
Academia isn't perfect and it sure isn't what it once was. But go ahead and talk crap about your corporate employer for the next six months and see what happens to you.
I'm a freelancer + work in the non-profit space; I don't do corporate work. Which is also on purpose. ;)
The difference is that corporate work never had the pretense of offering me intellectual freedom, whereas academia did. At least if I go corporate, they'll buy my silence with resources/$$$.
Academia? So you want to give me nothing AND restrict what I can say? That's going to be a hard pass.
The difference is that corporate work never had the pretense of offering me intellectual freedom, whereas academia did. At least if I go corporate, they'll buy my silence with resources/$$$.
Academia? So you want to give me nothing AND restrict what I can say? That's going to be a hard pass.
I have to push back against this since I have some personal experience here. As a (non-tenure-track) research assistant professor I got into a major argument with a dean at my University over a specific speech issue re: the NSA and Snowden leaks [1]. (The NSA is also a major funder of [part] of my University.) I was prepared to be fired when I refused to go along with the University's request: I was not fired, and instead I've been promoted. I don't think there are very many other institutions where I could have expected this outcome.
Yes, my story is just one data point. But all important speech issues are just a few datapoints. It's absolutely critical for our society that there be real institutions where policy critics can survive. Until someone builds an alternative home for policy criticism (and no, consulting for non-profits isn't it) I'm going to stand by the academic system... however imperfect it is.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/10/johns-hopkins-...
Yes, my story is just one data point. But all important speech issues are just a few datapoints. It's absolutely critical for our society that there be real institutions where policy critics can survive. Until someone builds an alternative home for policy criticism (and no, consulting for non-profits isn't it) I'm going to stand by the academic system... however imperfect it is.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/10/johns-hopkins-...
I appreciate the push back; it's how I learn and refine my positions.
I think it very much depends on what field you want to go into and the institution. Since I have the misfortune of having my primary academic research interests lie in the intersection of tech and society, my work is/would be unfortunately politicized. I'd also go in through Library/Information Science (which my Master's is in) if I were to get a PhD and go into research, and that particular field is STEEPED in rightthink.
I'm happy to hear that you had a positive experience, and it's definitely possible. It's just harder to find that than it used to be, and the opportunity cost for trying is very high.
> It's absolutely critical for our society that there be real institutions where policy critics can survive.
100% agree. I'd love for academia to grow a spine and assert itself.
(I did debate leaving the country, but as someone with a disability that isn't a permanent option.)
I think it very much depends on what field you want to go into and the institution. Since I have the misfortune of having my primary academic research interests lie in the intersection of tech and society, my work is/would be unfortunately politicized. I'd also go in through Library/Information Science (which my Master's is in) if I were to get a PhD and go into research, and that particular field is STEEPED in rightthink.
I'm happy to hear that you had a positive experience, and it's definitely possible. It's just harder to find that than it used to be, and the opportunity cost for trying is very high.
> It's absolutely critical for our society that there be real institutions where policy critics can survive.
100% agree. I'd love for academia to grow a spine and assert itself.
(I did debate leaving the country, but as someone with a disability that isn't a permanent option.)
It all depends what kind of crap you talk. There are plenty of things you just can't say and tenure won't protect you when they come for you. Ask Joshua Katz, formerly of Princeton. He complained very publicly and they dug up an old crime and tried him again. Suddenly the old crime that was punishable with a suspension before is now bad enough to merit firing.
Note: I'm not speaking to the merits of how Princeton or Katz behaved. Only that tenure is not the license to speak that some people imagine. And if you criticize your own institution, you're bound to upset people and maybe they'll be the ones with control over the punishment process.
Note: I'm not speaking to the merits of how Princeton or Katz behaved. Only that tenure is not the license to speak that some people imagine. And if you criticize your own institution, you're bound to upset people and maybe they'll be the ones with control over the punishment process.
From what I understand, Joshua Katz had a sexual relationship with one of his undergraduate students and behaved inappropriately with several others. When the matter was first being investigated he contacted the student directly and then failed to disclose this fact to the investigators, who then learned about it when the student filed a new complaint. I know it is fashionable to say this is about Katz's "speech" but the case would be much easier to make if he'd upheld basic standards of professional behavior (i.e., don't date or try to date your students.)
What disturbs me most is that Princeton acts right out of the dictator playbook - knowingly keep corrupt people with serious oustable offenses on staff to have them pre-blackmailed.
To be frank this is the behavior which allows for mass sex abuse rings. Also something which statues of limitations, even not made for this purpose (limitations of investigative capabilities are more likely reason). It would still be a good fit. It is an admittedly bizzare and perverse phenomena thatnthe best defense against abuse in a judicial system has been to let the guilty go free for misconduct of others.
To be frank this is the behavior which allows for mass sex abuse rings. Also something which statues of limitations, even not made for this purpose (limitations of investigative capabilities are more likely reason). It would still be a good fit. It is an admittedly bizzare and perverse phenomena thatnthe best defense against abuse in a judicial system has been to let the guilty go free for misconduct of others.
Even if this is true, it probably explains a fraction of 1% of the effects that TFA is talking about. The set of "curator etc." positions with fundraising influence is vanishingly small. It's much more likely that the bigger pressure is the need to complete many unpaid internships, which is easier for wealthy folks. (And to add anecdata, the two curators I personally know are both from middle-class backgrounds and have nothing to do with fundraising.)
> Why? The thought is that a museum hires the child of a hedge fund manager, there is a non-zero chance the wealthy parent will give or leave money to the institution when they die
That's a thought. But it smells, unsurprisingly, as petit-bourgeoise thought, where "money" is the end all be all of social striving. So another thought is that a certain class insists that it is the rightful keeper (a whiff of the divine right of kings here btw) of cultural lights and direction of "civilization". And naturally, these cultural shepherds are nurtured generationally in institutions that were created by their forebears. MoMA for example, is a Rockefeller institution.
Anyway, food for "thought".
That's a thought. But it smells, unsurprisingly, as petit-bourgeoise thought, where "money" is the end all be all of social striving. So another thought is that a certain class insists that it is the rightful keeper (a whiff of the divine right of kings here btw) of cultural lights and direction of "civilization". And naturally, these cultural shepherds are nurtured generationally in institutions that were created by their forebears. MoMA for example, is a Rockefeller institution.
Anyway, food for "thought".
[deleted]
Also, as you point out, this is a very-low-paying field. Someone who isn't from a wealthy family will struggle to live on the kind of pay they will get, meaning that they are more likely to work in the field for a few years, then get married, have kids - and need a real income. And now the next hiree has to go to all the trouble of re-establishing relationships with donors.
I just read a reasonably interesting book (In the Garden of Beasts) about an academic who became FDR's ambassador to Nazi Germany. One of the points that the author repeatedly makes is that such positions were very much the preserve of the wealthy, who were expected to spend substantially from their own pockets for both official and unofficial events. Living on his salary alone was an unusual and unpopular move, even within the State Department.
I just read a reasonably interesting book (In the Garden of Beasts) about an academic who became FDR's ambassador to Nazi Germany. One of the points that the author repeatedly makes is that such positions were very much the preserve of the wealthy, who were expected to spend substantially from their own pockets for both official and unofficial events. Living on his salary alone was an unusual and unpopular move, even within the State Department.
> This isn't necessarily a criticism since everyone here is acting rationally from an economics perspective. I do wonder about the poor kid from a bad neighborhood who could have become the next great museum curator if not for the fact that his parents aren't wealthy.
I guess you're right, as long as you take it as axiomatic that capitalism should govern absolutely every part of our society.
I guess you're right, as long as you take it as axiomatic that capitalism should govern absolutely every part of our society.
Elite schools want people from the power class. A lot of this is explicitly baked into admissions. Over 40% of white students at Harvard are side-door admissions (legacy, donors, children of faculty, etc.). This is especially true for minority admissions. For the most part, Harvard won't admit lower-class African Americans; they'll select from a much smaller pool who have already moved into the power networks. That's important for maintaining power networks now that the DEI movement means minorities will likely e.g. serve on corporate boards.
There is some amount of meritocratic admissions as well, but you can't look at this as an accident.
There is some amount of meritocratic admissions as well, but you can't look at this as an accident.
And all of this contributes to extremely low intellectual diversity at Ivy Leagues. I have the pleasure of frequently interacting with Harvard students and it is consistently true that they are always unremarkable individuals. These schools simply breed a managerial class that is capable of grinding hard and following orders.
I've been affiliated with MIT in one way or another for more than a quarter-century. What's been astounding is the change in faculty.
Historically, MIT faculty were nerds into neat tech problems.
New MIT faculty are slick politicians with an increasing sleazy Enron-style vibe. That's true of MIT leadership as well.
Historically, MIT faculty were nerds into neat tech problems.
New MIT faculty are slick politicians with an increasing sleazy Enron-style vibe. That's true of MIT leadership as well.
>Historically, MIT faculty were nerds into neat tech problems.
Computer Science used to be for nerds that were into neat tech problems. Now it's just seen the same as business/law/finance/whatever. And accordingly, we now have a deluge of CS graduates that want nothing to do with tech and simply move into management as fast as possible.
Computer Science used to be for nerds that were into neat tech problems. Now it's just seen the same as business/law/finance/whatever. And accordingly, we now have a deluge of CS graduates that want nothing to do with tech and simply move into management as fast as possible.
Do you know of some place where there are still nerds into neat tech problems?
Less popular but still hardcore places like Carnegie Mellon, Caltech, some state schools like Ohio State, UMich come to mind. Just stay away from woke ivy league
FYi, MIT is not Ivy League.
Caltech's still the real deal.
[deleted]
You need to leave the US and look at European Unis. EPFL, ETH Zürich, Delft, TÜ Berlin/Munich.
I’ve suspected this. There was always some seed corn of this type at MIT, even in the old days. I got SB, 1968-72. Hacker was a new word, and nerd was often spelled with a “u.” It would have been unthinkable to try to prosecute Jonathan Swartz then.
Can you elaborate on what "Enron-style vibe" means when describing university faculty?
- Academic fraud
- Clever financial schemes and complex conflicts-of-interest
- Incredible salesmanship relative to the amount of substance
- ... and so on.
I've seen criminal activity there too (which I can't elaborate on), but I suspect the Institute is waiting for an Enron-style collapse. It will be a soft landing. The endowment is obscene at this point; the Institute can weather a lot.
- Clever financial schemes and complex conflicts-of-interest
- Incredible salesmanship relative to the amount of substance
- ... and so on.
I've seen criminal activity there too (which I can't elaborate on), but I suspect the Institute is waiting for an Enron-style collapse. It will be a soft landing. The endowment is obscene at this point; the Institute can weather a lot.
People who make decisions using powerpoint slides?
form over substance
has been reflected in the student body as well in some ways? tia
I would agree that high-value donors definitely access a side-door. I know of one university that had an admissions officer who dealt with children of famous people and big donors.
But I think that children of faculty and legacies are not as clear-cut a case. For example, it takes a lot of skill and hard work (and luck) to become a faculty member at Harvard. If you are still there when your kids are college-aged, you are very likely tenured. It would not at all be surprising if your children were significantly above-average in terms of academic achievement. This would be the result of your intelligence, drive, mate selection, and parenting. The fact that your kids are much more likely to get into Harvard (probably around 40%, versus 4%) is due in large part to these facts. The admissions office may put a thumb on the scale, but it's undoubtedly the case that the average faculty child applicant has higher qualifications than the average Harvard applicant.
These same arguments apply to legacy admits, but to a much lesser degree. Harvard did not used to be much of an academic/intellectual filter, but since the 90s or so it was very difficult to get in. If you are applying now and your parents went there, there's a good chance that the hard work and skill that got them in was passed down to you, by nature or nurture.
I don't disagree with you entirely, but I do disagree with the last sentence that frames 'meritocratic' admissions as distinct from children of legacy and faculty who are admitted at higher rates than the average applicant.
But I think that children of faculty and legacies are not as clear-cut a case. For example, it takes a lot of skill and hard work (and luck) to become a faculty member at Harvard. If you are still there when your kids are college-aged, you are very likely tenured. It would not at all be surprising if your children were significantly above-average in terms of academic achievement. This would be the result of your intelligence, drive, mate selection, and parenting. The fact that your kids are much more likely to get into Harvard (probably around 40%, versus 4%) is due in large part to these facts. The admissions office may put a thumb on the scale, but it's undoubtedly the case that the average faculty child applicant has higher qualifications than the average Harvard applicant.
These same arguments apply to legacy admits, but to a much lesser degree. Harvard did not used to be much of an academic/intellectual filter, but since the 90s or so it was very difficult to get in. If you are applying now and your parents went there, there's a good chance that the hard work and skill that got them in was passed down to you, by nature or nurture.
I don't disagree with you entirely, but I do disagree with the last sentence that frames 'meritocratic' admissions as distinct from children of legacy and faculty who are admitted at higher rates than the average applicant.
If it was merely higher rates, I'd agree.
However, Harvard admissions keeps a special list of ALDC students and admits from that list. It's not that there are no standards, but the standards are much, much lower.
However, Harvard admissions keeps a special list of ALDC students and admits from that list. It's not that there are no standards, but the standards are much, much lower.
> the standards are much, much lower.
Is this true for children of faculty? I realize it is certainly true for the A (athletes) and D (donors' kids). Are there any sources that break the standards/cutoffs out by subgroup? These are very different groups of applicants, and I would be surprised if they were all subject to the same processes.
Is this true for children of faculty? I realize it is certainly true for the A (athletes) and D (donors' kids). Are there any sources that break the standards/cutoffs out by subgroup? These are very different groups of applicants, and I would be surprised if they were all subject to the same processes.
What you say is true for undergraduate admission but unless you’re from an URM that’s not how graduate admission works. They admit people they think will make excellent researchers, or that they think are capable of graduating, for URMs. Law school, need school and business school may pay more attention to those kinds of concerns but I’m not aware of e.g. Yale Law having legacy preferences.
Those endowment funds need donors.
Or, maybe they don't anymore. But I bet that historically, there must have been some baked-in probability of how much a student will potentially give back in the future.
Not sure how that correlates with old vs new money. But coming from old money has some clear advantages, like knowing how to play the game.
(I'm fairly sure at least business schools judge applicants on their potential power and influence, in the future.)
Or, maybe they don't anymore. But I bet that historically, there must have been some baked-in probability of how much a student will potentially give back in the future.
Not sure how that correlates with old vs new money. But coming from old money has some clear advantages, like knowing how to play the game.
(I'm fairly sure at least business schools judge applicants on their potential power and influence, in the future.)
> Over 40% of white students at Harvard are side-door admissions (legacy, donors, children of faculty, etc.).
I'm sure it's over 40%. It wouldn't surprise me if it's 70. There are a lot of side doors.
My information is dated, but as of circa-2008, the Ivies were including ZIP code and paternal (but not maternal) profession in their predictive modeling. The interviews (which are evaluative, even when people say they're not) are also driven more by class markers than academic factors.
> This is especially true for minority admissions. For the most part, Harvard won't admit lower-class African Americans; they'll select from a much smaller pool who have already moved into the power networks. That's important for maintaining power networks now that the DEI movement means minorities will likely e.g. serve on corporate boards.
This. Which is why I get so angry about right-wing populism. Yes, DEI initiatives mostly come from a place of insincerity. Corporates care about more about making the elite look more palatable than changing how it actually governs, and the minorities being accepted into the outer fringes of the (still inbred at heart) corporate elite will be discarded the minute they are no longer needed. But, nevertheless, the causes (racial, social, and gender justice) from which "wokeness" sprung are still quite laudable and necessary. The fact that we've allowed insincere corporate assholes to carry a banner on these issues is a travesty... because, while they don't know it, a lot of the right-ish populists are motivated by justified anger at the corporate system... and for us on the left to say that they're actually motivated by "anti-woke" racism does no good for anyone.
I'm sure it's over 40%. It wouldn't surprise me if it's 70. There are a lot of side doors.
My information is dated, but as of circa-2008, the Ivies were including ZIP code and paternal (but not maternal) profession in their predictive modeling. The interviews (which are evaluative, even when people say they're not) are also driven more by class markers than academic factors.
> This is especially true for minority admissions. For the most part, Harvard won't admit lower-class African Americans; they'll select from a much smaller pool who have already moved into the power networks. That's important for maintaining power networks now that the DEI movement means minorities will likely e.g. serve on corporate boards.
This. Which is why I get so angry about right-wing populism. Yes, DEI initiatives mostly come from a place of insincerity. Corporates care about more about making the elite look more palatable than changing how it actually governs, and the minorities being accepted into the outer fringes of the (still inbred at heart) corporate elite will be discarded the minute they are no longer needed. But, nevertheless, the causes (racial, social, and gender justice) from which "wokeness" sprung are still quite laudable and necessary. The fact that we've allowed insincere corporate assholes to carry a banner on these issues is a travesty... because, while they don't know it, a lot of the right-ish populists are motivated by justified anger at the corporate system... and for us on the left to say that they're actually motivated by "anti-woke" racism does no good for anyone.
Thank you for this. I’ve tried explaining this to many of my peers and family but even now, this viewpoint is considered bigoted by many, at least in major metro areas on the west coast. I think part of the problem is people are responding to the messenger (the right) rather than the message.
It's 43%. You can do a web search. It came up in legal discovery for a perfectly reasonable discrimination law suit.
It distorts things a lot.
* Coveted non-ALDC slots are that much more limited and exclusive. Harvard looks harder to get into.
* Since close to half of the white slots are pre-stuffed, that makes the remaining ones that much harder to get into. That, in turn, leads to extreme affirmative action and no slots for Asians.
... and so on.
It distorts things a lot.
* Coveted non-ALDC slots are that much more limited and exclusive. Harvard looks harder to get into.
* Since close to half of the white slots are pre-stuffed, that makes the remaining ones that much harder to get into. That, in turn, leads to extreme affirmative action and no slots for Asians.
... and so on.
Why is this at all surprising?
In any status-conscious society (read: any human society), given enough time, the people who make it to the top will invariably maximize opportunity afforded to their affinity group (i.e. offspring) at the expense of everyone else. This process manifests itself regardless of the role merit plays in the sorting algorithm. If the rules are relatively meritocratic (and relatively stable), and merit broadly defined is largely a heritable trait either via genetics or culture, it follows that given enough iterations, a structure will eventually emerge that exhibits strong nepotistic tendencies. The growing call for greater diversity and equity among high-status occupations is a reaction to this phenomenon.
Alternatively, many long-lasting power structures throughout history attempted to mitigate the phenomenon of hereditary nepotism via the policy of enforced celibacy among the elite class: eunuch advisors in many classical near-Eastern empires, Catholic clergymen, etc.
In any status-conscious society (read: any human society), given enough time, the people who make it to the top will invariably maximize opportunity afforded to their affinity group (i.e. offspring) at the expense of everyone else. This process manifests itself regardless of the role merit plays in the sorting algorithm. If the rules are relatively meritocratic (and relatively stable), and merit broadly defined is largely a heritable trait either via genetics or culture, it follows that given enough iterations, a structure will eventually emerge that exhibits strong nepotistic tendencies. The growing call for greater diversity and equity among high-status occupations is a reaction to this phenomenon.
Alternatively, many long-lasting power structures throughout history attempted to mitigate the phenomenon of hereditary nepotism via the policy of enforced celibacy among the elite class: eunuch advisors in many classical near-Eastern empires, Catholic clergymen, etc.
A small caveat: nepotism was the practice when cardinals (who were celibate) would push their nephews into positions of power. So, strictly speaking, it is the other way around: celibacy caused nepotism, otherwise we would have had filism (from filius/son rather than from nepos/nephew).
Nepotism today is probably most notable in politicians and Hollywood. (Hollywood is especially fascinating. Royalty runs rampant there.)
Those are both the cases where there is a public demand for nepotism, though. People want to see the next generation of the royalty, perhaps more than the kingmakers want to supply it. For that matter, sports is similar but slightly more meritocratic; lots of "Known Athlete Jr." out there in most sports, all of whom are at least good enough to play, but some of them only barely.
You're not giving professional sports enough credit. On the player picking side, it's arguably the last true meritocracy in the US. Teams are willing to take fliers on fringe Jrs because of genetics and maybe the media attention that will come to their team. Otherwise, they always pick the players with the best combination of potential and immediate talent, regardless of background.
Coaching on the other hand, that's as nepotistic as any political field.
Coaching on the other hand, that's as nepotistic as any political field.
Cardinals were very often not actually celibate, just like less promoted priests.
Yeah, those nephew were often illegitimate sons, but that just goes to prove that forced celibacy has never worked.
Depends what you mean by “worked”. It prevented the emergence of priest kings quite well. Not allowing legitimate sons puts a major crimp in anyone’s plans to turn a religious organization’s land into their personal property. See how the Teutonic order turned into Brandenburg upon Protestantisation.
The Pope was a priest king for centuries not to mention the smattering of Bishop/Cardinal led mini statesi n the HRE.
This is an excellent explanation, but I have one small remark:
Diversity and equity is taught at elite cadre schools and used as a distinguishing marker from the proletariat. This gives elite children a wedge to get into Ive League institutions without high test scores.
Think of it as the new "extracurricular activity" on steroids. Diversity and equity have been co-opted by the elites and are a powerful tool (smoke screen).
Diversity and equity is taught at elite cadre schools and used as a distinguishing marker from the proletariat. This gives elite children a wedge to get into Ive League institutions without high test scores.
Think of it as the new "extracurricular activity" on steroids. Diversity and equity have been co-opted by the elites and are a powerful tool (smoke screen).
> Diversity and equity is taught at elite cadre schools and used as a distinguishing marker from the proletariat. This gives elite children a wedge to get into Ive League institutions without high test scores.
Can you prove that in any way? This sounds like a made up "fact."
Can you prove that in any way? This sounds like a made up "fact."
I'm not OP, but this is a made-up interpretation, not a fact. Unlike facts, interpretations don't have unambiguous true/false values - the question is whether or not (or to what extent) the statement is consistent with facts.
How can you "prove" it? It is neither a theorem, nor written on a legal document somwhere. It's an observation.
Quite. See abolishing the GRE and similar exams for entrance to graduate school as well. Letters of introduction come much easier to the right sort of people than to the kind of strivers who have to rely on objective tests to get into prestigious institutions.
I went to a merit admissions high school, and as a teenager I’d say stuff like “there are too many Asian nerds here, we should get rid of the admissions tests!” to be edgy. (I was obviously joking—I was an Asian nerd who got in on standardized testing.)
In recent years I’ve been shocked to learn how many “nice” liberals basically agree with such statements, except unironically.
In recent years I’ve been shocked to learn how many “nice” liberals basically agree with such statements, except unironically.
> many long-lasting power structures throughout history attempted to mitigate the phenomenon of hereditary nepotism via the policy of enforced celibacy among the elite class: eunuch advisors in many classical near-Eastern empires
That is not a goal of having eunuchs around. Eunuchs usually don't have children, but they pretty much always have family members.
That is not a goal of having eunuchs around. Eunuchs usually don't have children, but they pretty much always have family members.
> attempted to mitigate the phenomenon of hereditary nepotism via the policy of enforced celibacy among the elite class
That just tells us nepotism is bad. We have much better ways of dealing with it -- strong independent institutions, transparent rules, free education, social programs for the poor and so on.
That just tells us nepotism is bad. We have much better ways of dealing with it -- strong independent institutions, transparent rules, free education, social programs for the poor and so on.
[deleted]
> Why is this at all surprising?
Nobody said it is surprising. You don't need something to be surprising to write an article about it.
Nepotism has been around for millennia and it's good to point the finger at it.
Nobody said it is surprising. You don't need something to be surprising to write an article about it.
Nepotism has been around for millennia and it's good to point the finger at it.
Life is not fair. It only bothers you if you allow it to. Don't be bitter. Be better. Be grateful for what you have.
> Why is this at all surprising?
That's exactly my reaction. It's like concluding that 1+1 is equal to 2.
That's exactly my reaction. It's like concluding that 1+1 is equal to 2.
> In any status-conscious society (read: any human society), given enough time, the people who make it to the top will invariably maximize opportunity afforded to their affinity group (i.e. offspring) at the expense of everyone else.
You state this as if it's an inescapable fact instead of something that we as a society should improve upon.
Case in point, I grew up in a "working class" factory but thanks to socialist policies of affordable and state-sponsored education, I got a college degree and work in IT now. Everyone should have that opportunity IMO.
Of course, your point does stand, because our government started to pull up the ladder behind me; first with policies to reduce "eternal students", people who abused the system and stayed in school until their 30s because they got paid; then with getting rid of the state-paid thing entirely, changing the whole scholarship system to a loan - leading to young graduates to start their career tens of thousands in debt. Great start, keep 'em financially weak. They seem to be reversing that, but there is a whole generation now that has suffered under it.
TL;DR, I think education at all levels should be free or cheap / affordable, to avoid education becoming something for the rich elite.
You state this as if it's an inescapable fact instead of something that we as a society should improve upon.
Case in point, I grew up in a "working class" factory but thanks to socialist policies of affordable and state-sponsored education, I got a college degree and work in IT now. Everyone should have that opportunity IMO.
Of course, your point does stand, because our government started to pull up the ladder behind me; first with policies to reduce "eternal students", people who abused the system and stayed in school until their 30s because they got paid; then with getting rid of the state-paid thing entirely, changing the whole scholarship system to a loan - leading to young graduates to start their career tens of thousands in debt. Great start, keep 'em financially weak. They seem to be reversing that, but there is a whole generation now that has suffered under it.
TL;DR, I think education at all levels should be free or cheap / affordable, to avoid education becoming something for the rich elite.
Education is everywhere and essentially free today. There’s tons of content, some even from universities, on the internet and plenty of forums stocked with experts on subjects.
It’s the credential that’s expensive. It’s the gate you must pass through.
It would be nice if there were ways to determine someone’s level of expertise in a subject that didn’t directly involve the university system.
It’s the credential that’s expensive. It’s the gate you must pass through.
It would be nice if there were ways to determine someone’s level of expertise in a subject that didn’t directly involve the university system.
From my own experience in academia I was surprised by how many of my peers went into academia because they were expected to do so by their parents, who were also academics. It's a smallish sample, but ~90% of the people I talked to never considered other careers paths. Their parents were academics, so it's just natural that they become one too. They already knew this ever since high school.
As someone who got into academia "by chance" this was quite a shock to me.
As someone who got into academia "by chance" this was quite a shock to me.
Not unheard for me too: it seemed for some that having both parents with PhDs, and a partner too, basically made them feel like they needed one.
Plenty going on in such a phenomenon I feel. There’s the relative directionless-ness that can plague smart people coming out of unchallenging high school environments; the often accompanying “prestige for the sake of prestige” logic that you can get in middle-upper class culture, and, IMO, the inflated value and prestige of actually having a PhD in the modern (ie production-line) education system. A healthy dose of cynicism about the corporate world is often involved too I’d say.
I personally find it unfortunate how classist and stupid Grad school would feel at times.
Plenty going on in such a phenomenon I feel. There’s the relative directionless-ness that can plague smart people coming out of unchallenging high school environments; the often accompanying “prestige for the sake of prestige” logic that you can get in middle-upper class culture, and, IMO, the inflated value and prestige of actually having a PhD in the modern (ie production-line) education system. A healthy dose of cynicism about the corporate world is often involved too I’d say.
I personally find it unfortunate how classist and stupid Grad school would feel at times.
That was me, 20 years ago. Going to grad school after college was just automatically assumed, like going to college after high school. And why not? My parents had made a nice life for themselves, going from farms to a secure upper-middle-class existence. Seemed like a relatively low-stress occupation that provided a lot of intellectual variety.
Of course, the level of competition changed dramatically between their generation and mine. Then you could go directly from grad school to a tenure-track position and generally expect lifetime employment. Now, in the sciences, you're expected to live a nomadic life as you go from postdoc to postdoc, making less than $50k, perhaps eventually landing that coveted tenure-track. In the humanities it's even worse, where you work adjunct jobs that pay less than minimum wage.
It's no surprise that people with family money are most likely to win these contests of endurance. If you need to earn your own money, it's simply irrational to persist in the academic rat race.
Of course, the level of competition changed dramatically between their generation and mine. Then you could go directly from grad school to a tenure-track position and generally expect lifetime employment. Now, in the sciences, you're expected to live a nomadic life as you go from postdoc to postdoc, making less than $50k, perhaps eventually landing that coveted tenure-track. In the humanities it's even worse, where you work adjunct jobs that pay less than minimum wage.
It's no surprise that people with family money are most likely to win these contests of endurance. If you need to earn your own money, it's simply irrational to persist in the academic rat race.
not at all uncommon with other highly specialized professions either.
MD's kids are 24x more likely to become MDs as well.
MD's kids are 24x more likely to become MDs as well.
I wonder if that will maintain going forward. All the doctors I am business partners/friends with advise their kids to go into commercial real estate/tech/law/finance/engineering.
They say declining pay and difficulties negotiating with bigger players such as governments and larger and larger healthcare employers in combination with the bad quality of life at work no longer make the costs of becoming a doctor worth it.
They say declining pay and difficulties negotiating with bigger players such as governments and larger and larger healthcare employers in combination with the bad quality of life at work no longer make the costs of becoming a doctor worth it.
Isn't this to be expected with any similarly weighted network?
Guess who private sector loves to promote to executive positions like VP and SVP? Harvard and ivy grads. Even in engineering, where it's supposed to be more of a meritocracy, you can see this at every bigco.
Human idiosyncrasies lead to branding pedigree consistently being selected over pure skill and / or superior experience in favor of an abstract perception.
Guess who private sector loves to promote to executive positions like VP and SVP? Harvard and ivy grads. Even in engineering, where it's supposed to be more of a meritocracy, you can see this at every bigco.
Human idiosyncrasies lead to branding pedigree consistently being selected over pure skill and / or superior experience in favor of an abstract perception.
Nobody cares where you graduate from school in engineering. It's all about what you can do, and in larger corporations, also how politically savvy you are. Most of middle and upper management (VP / SVP) also has degrees from no-name schools. If anything, they'll have degrees from worker bee / nerd schools like CMU, Caltech, and UC Berkeley, not Ivy degrees (except for Cornell, which is basically a public school). Upwardly mobile engineers are usually immigrants with high IQs who don't have connections and so have to work 60-80 hour weeks to make up for what they normally could have gotten "for free" with a more privileged upbringing.
The C-suite is a different story: The Ivy Grads are either joining their parents' companies, going into VC, or starting their own companies (YC), not working as lowly "senior" ICs at say Amazon. Chances are the company you work for was founded by a Harvard or Stanford grad who spent their school years partying and networking in social clubs instead of studying...
You might further split Ivy into HYPS and others (Stanford is much more like the other Ivies than Cornell). The others like Brown and Dartmouth are more like a Northwestern / U-Chicago, for people who didn't quite make the cut or for good test takers from upper middle class rather than upper class backgrounds.
UPenn and Columbia lean in the middle. Sure, Elon Musk and Donald Trump went to UPenn, but the school itself still mainly graduates "just" worker bees in finance / investment banking. Your coworkers at Google didn't go there, though.
There are always outliers at all of these schools, but by definition, they are the exception rather than the rule...
The C-suite is a different story: The Ivy Grads are either joining their parents' companies, going into VC, or starting their own companies (YC), not working as lowly "senior" ICs at say Amazon. Chances are the company you work for was founded by a Harvard or Stanford grad who spent their school years partying and networking in social clubs instead of studying...
You might further split Ivy into HYPS and others (Stanford is much more like the other Ivies than Cornell). The others like Brown and Dartmouth are more like a Northwestern / U-Chicago, for people who didn't quite make the cut or for good test takers from upper middle class rather than upper class backgrounds.
UPenn and Columbia lean in the middle. Sure, Elon Musk and Donald Trump went to UPenn, but the school itself still mainly graduates "just" worker bees in finance / investment banking. Your coworkers at Google didn't go there, though.
There are always outliers at all of these schools, but by definition, they are the exception rather than the rule...
"Nobody cares where you graduate from school in engineering."
Oh yes they do. It definitely opens doors. After that, depending on the role, it can have subtle effects. For mid-level management, right in the grinder, probably no as you say. For externally facing things, yes. They also might have more opportunities for lateral moves, into BD/Sales etc..
Oh yes they do. It definitely opens doors. After that, depending on the role, it can have subtle effects. For mid-level management, right in the grinder, probably no as you say. For externally facing things, yes. They also might have more opportunities for lateral moves, into BD/Sales etc..
Regardless of school, I would be hard pressed to find someone in my engineering organization who is an extroverted native English speaker with the very high EQ needed to hack it in sales. We're all better at working with computers than people.
Yeah probably not, because those people would realize they'll make more money for less work, being in sales.
I'm aware of at least one company a friend works at in the marketing department, and works directly with salespeople, and at that company a single salesperson brings in 40% of the entire company's revenue, makes 7-figures, and non-execs in the company complain they can't get him to do anything else in the job, like provide data for presentations and the like (personally I'm of the opinion that if they're generating that much revenue for the company, the salesperson has already done their job, and C-suite seems to think so too, but I digress).
Other salespeople at that company pull in a lot less but are still difficult to get them to do other work (except attend meetings here and there), just slightly less so. They're still making good money. And that seems to be the norm at all the companies my friend has worked at.
I imagine sales is more of a grind when you're starting from the bottom, and/or for companies where the margins are much smaller, but Corp2corp salepeople in particular seem to have a pretty sweet gig.
I'm aware of at least one company a friend works at in the marketing department, and works directly with salespeople, and at that company a single salesperson brings in 40% of the entire company's revenue, makes 7-figures, and non-execs in the company complain they can't get him to do anything else in the job, like provide data for presentations and the like (personally I'm of the opinion that if they're generating that much revenue for the company, the salesperson has already done their job, and C-suite seems to think so too, but I digress).
Other salespeople at that company pull in a lot less but are still difficult to get them to do other work (except attend meetings here and there), just slightly less so. They're still making good money. And that seems to be the norm at all the companies my friend has worked at.
I imagine sales is more of a grind when you're starting from the bottom, and/or for companies where the margins are much smaller, but Corp2corp salepeople in particular seem to have a pretty sweet gig.
>Nobody cares where you graduate from school in engineering.
I have witnessed numerous times hiring managers that would request that HR only sends them resumes from 1-2 target schools, specified by name.
I have witnessed numerous times hiring managers that would request that HR only sends them resumes from 1-2 target schools, specified by name.
> Chances are the company you work for was founded by a Harvard or Stanford grad...
Thankfully not at the moment, but I get your point.
My original point stands- looking at the social network connections, nothing these days is a surprise with regard to general composition.
Is it the best? No, I think it is elitist and pointlessly or harmfully exclusionary. These are fundamental divisions in society, a glass ceiling that is hard to break through.
Thankfully not at the moment, but I get your point.
My original point stands- looking at the social network connections, nothing these days is a surprise with regard to general composition.
Is it the best? No, I think it is elitist and pointlessly or harmfully exclusionary. These are fundamental divisions in society, a glass ceiling that is hard to break through.
If Harvard went away, I would be VERY happy. Schools like Tsinghua, IIT, and C9 are much more meritocratic. Oxford / Cambridge are also very "exclusive" in the worst way possible, and given the history of the early US, it's not surprising that this insular Victorian / London culture of poshness also permeated into 17th / 18th century Ivy League schools in the Puritanical US. I'm amazed at what abject conditions Eastern Europeans overcome to earn top international ranks in IOI competitive programming, for example.
> Oxford / Cambridge are also very "exclusive" in the worst way possible
I went there, and I didn't see anything but ordinary people. Something like Classics will naturally skew towards secondary schools that have a Latin class, but apart from that admissions are close to a dice roll among qualified kids. Certainly the impression I got was that dons were jealously guarding their right to decide, on their own, who would get in.
The place was non-elite enough that I never even realized the Bullingdon Club was a thing until after I left.
As you might expect though, a fairly large proportion of kids came from wealthy backgrounds. Private schools that cost way more than university tuition, that kind of thing.
I went there, and I didn't see anything but ordinary people. Something like Classics will naturally skew towards secondary schools that have a Latin class, but apart from that admissions are close to a dice roll among qualified kids. Certainly the impression I got was that dons were jealously guarding their right to decide, on their own, who would get in.
The place was non-elite enough that I never even realized the Bullingdon Club was a thing until after I left.
As you might expect though, a fairly large proportion of kids came from wealthy backgrounds. Private schools that cost way more than university tuition, that kind of thing.
Can confirm. Just went to open days at Oxford and Cambridge with my son. We are Americans. Both my wife and I are double ivy grads.
Totally different than the US and much more meritocratic. Steps are:
1. Be qualified to apply. In UK this means at least AAA if not more. Varies by course. US equivalent is have at least three 5s on AP and above 1450 on SAT. This is roughly equivalent to top 10% of uk graduates.
2. Take the entrance exam. Huge weed out. This really separates the grinders vs the smart kids as the tests are based on what you intend to study, but most are more intelligence based and cannot necessarily be prepped for.
3. Assuming you make it past that, you get two sets of interviews. They are testing for the ability to go toe to toe in an intellectual conversation on your subject. This is obviously biased toward a certain "type", but given the small group tutorial teaching, it is really a responsibility of the student to engage this way to provide a good experience for all. No sitting in the back of the room taking notes!
4. There are some additional crazy things like applying to specific colleges, and wildly different admit rates based on the course you choose. But the overall impression I got was that for a well prepared and smart kid, it is much more straightforward than the so called elite US schools.
Totally different than the US and much more meritocratic. Steps are:
1. Be qualified to apply. In UK this means at least AAA if not more. Varies by course. US equivalent is have at least three 5s on AP and above 1450 on SAT. This is roughly equivalent to top 10% of uk graduates.
2. Take the entrance exam. Huge weed out. This really separates the grinders vs the smart kids as the tests are based on what you intend to study, but most are more intelligence based and cannot necessarily be prepped for.
3. Assuming you make it past that, you get two sets of interviews. They are testing for the ability to go toe to toe in an intellectual conversation on your subject. This is obviously biased toward a certain "type", but given the small group tutorial teaching, it is really a responsibility of the student to engage this way to provide a good experience for all. No sitting in the back of the room taking notes!
4. There are some additional crazy things like applying to specific colleges, and wildly different admit rates based on the course you choose. But the overall impression I got was that for a well prepared and smart kid, it is much more straightforward than the so called elite US schools.
> But the overall impression I got was that for a well prepared and smart kid, it is much more straightforward than the so called elite US schools.
Yes, plus you can skip applying to all the US schools if you get accepted, because you get the acceptance letter in December.
I went to a high school that sent kids to both US and UK universities, and the US ones are incredibly onerous, not to mention expensive to even apply for. Multiple teacher references, essays that are supposed to be some sort of work of art, requirements to do extracurricular stuff. I did the SATs, got the Oxford acceptance, and just dropped all the US stuff entirely.
Yes, plus you can skip applying to all the US schools if you get accepted, because you get the acceptance letter in December.
I went to a high school that sent kids to both US and UK universities, and the US ones are incredibly onerous, not to mention expensive to even apply for. Multiple teacher references, essays that are supposed to be some sort of work of art, requirements to do extracurricular stuff. I did the SATs, got the Oxford acceptance, and just dropped all the US stuff entirely.
Damn I wish that were still true. They say they issue decisions in January now, which is after application deadlines for everyone else (Jan 1.)
>This really separates the grinders vs the smart kids as the tests are based on what you intend to study, but most are more intelligence based and cannot necessarily be prepped for.
Can you expand on that? I would be amazed to find tests that truly measure intelligence and where your score doesn't improve with practice.
Can you expand on that? I would be amazed to find tests that truly measure intelligence and where your score doesn't improve with practice.
Sorry posted to the child comment below. It can certainly improve with practice but since these are so specific to each major, there is not a test prep industry geared up behind them. (you can do it on your own though, as they post the tests and most answer keys for prior years.)
https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/applying-to-ox...
https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/applying-to-ox...
Not sure I agree with it. I think you get a lot of Asian kids passing because they teach a lot of advanced things in their education system that are just beyond the curriculum in the West. Thus when it comes time to ask the clever questions, some kids already know the answer.
I think in general people who know the answer to something misjudge how hard it is to figure out from first principles.
I think in general people who know the answer to something misjudge how hard it is to figure out from first principles.
The grinds that can ace the test but can't speak are weeded out by the interview part.
Just look on oxfords website for the admissions test. The TSA test for example is required on top of the math test.
Of course you can train yourself to do these better, but because they are so specific to each major, there is not a test prep industry behind them. So it is a more natural test.
https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/applying-to-ox...
Just look on oxfords website for the admissions test. The TSA test for example is required on top of the math test.
Of course you can train yourself to do these better, but because they are so specific to each major, there is not a test prep industry behind them. So it is a more natural test.
https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/applying-to-ox...
There's no separate test prep industry, but private secondary schools will have extra classes for people based on what they intend to apply for. They also prep the kids for the interviews, for instance with mock sessions. That kind of thing is not available to ordinary kids. There's a wealth of Oxbridge application experience that is basically what such schools sell. I'm currently looking at them as a parent.
Isn't this what was depicted in The History Boys? The extra class for kids who wanted to get into Oxford? Can't quite remember.
Isn't this what was depicted in The History Boys? The extra class for kids who wanted to get into Oxford? Can't quite remember.
I don't know if you are from US or not, but the stuff over there cannot hold a candle to what happens in the US. I'm not saying it's totally meritocratic, but compared to US system, it is WILDLY more so for high performers.
I agree on that. There's no back door in the UK system, whereas the US system seems to be a front door with 1% acceptance plus a back door with maybe 40%. Choose your door with money.
In the UK system, even if you do have privilege, you still have to do the same exercises and the same work, and impress the same person to get in.
In the UK system, even if you do have privilege, you still have to do the same exercises and the same work, and impress the same person to get in.
Your first point seems paradoxical but I might be misunderstanding. When you said 'dons were jealously guarding their right to decide, on their own, who would get in', are you inferring that although the right to decide is owned by the dons, they are 'ordinary' so there is less selection pressure for people from powerful backgrounds?
Basically I got the impression that the Dons/profs would not like if the college master tapped them on the shoulder and said "Little Johnny's dad gave us some money, please let him into your tutorial group".
If you look at how admissions work, it seems reasonably fair: most courses have some sort of entrance test, and then a grilling by the don. There's not a lot of soft questions in those interviews: what's e, let's take the log of a negative number, what's magnetism. Not a lot of cultural fit or motivation questions.
There's also the fact that the dons seem to just have their own set of applicants to look at. My understanding of the US system is you have a whole pile of applicants from which to shape the class as a whole. At Oxford it seemed like your don has 10 applicants and chooses 2 or 3, and that's his class. The rest of the uni does the same and the incoming few thousand kids are just whatever the sum of those little decisions is.
If you look at how admissions work, it seems reasonably fair: most courses have some sort of entrance test, and then a grilling by the don. There's not a lot of soft questions in those interviews: what's e, let's take the log of a negative number, what's magnetism. Not a lot of cultural fit or motivation questions.
There's also the fact that the dons seem to just have their own set of applicants to look at. My understanding of the US system is you have a whole pile of applicants from which to shape the class as a whole. At Oxford it seemed like your don has 10 applicants and chooses 2 or 3, and that's his class. The rest of the uni does the same and the incoming few thousand kids are just whatever the sum of those little decisions is.
Ah I get it, the dons are the gatekeepers and they aren't incentivized by donations so meritocracy prevails. Thanks for the detailed reply.
What does the entrance process for Tsinghua, IIT, and C9 look like? I'm just wondering how they are more meritocratic, do they just have less side-door admissions?
IIT is pseudo-meritocratic.
It's a very rigorous exam and the person who can spend their whole high school time studying phy, Chem and maths and who can spend the most money joining the best coaching institutions and best mentors bacially get the admission. Doesn't matter if someone has an IQ of 200 or India's best football player or coding genius unless they get the highest marks in physics chemistry in maths they aren't allowed. It's technically meritocratic but it is a really flawed system that rewards rigorous practice over skill, interest and other aspects of a student.
There's nothing "flawed" about rewarding rigorous practice over irrelevant "skills" like being a good football player or scoring well on an I.Q. test. Sure it might be nice to pick up other meaningful predictors of achievement including e.g. deep interests, but that's very hard to do reliably in any sort of high-stakes situation, and school admissions are no exception.
I think I was biased due to getting my IIT entrance test results today where I did real bad. Now that I read it, it looks like a rant/vent :(
lol .... by this definition all college entrance exams are pseudo meritocratic.
There are no side door admissions basically. You have to write a National level entrance exam and get the best rankings to get into the best universities and departments.
Tech has started to absorb more and more Ivy/HYPS kids, many whom would have chosen a more traditional path (consulting/banking) before eventually going to graduate school. I guess the current pay is too good for many to pass out on - even though careers in finance and consulting will pay more, if you manage to climb all the way up.
But I guess it's the more "polished" post-MBA candidates from said schools that go on to become product managers, and eventually become executives.
What school you went to, what your 2-4 first years of work experience was like, and what business school you went to, seems to work pretty well when signaling potential and success - especially when trying to either come up with funding, or convincing some big corporation that you're the man to lead their product XYZ.
But I guess it's the more "polished" post-MBA candidates from said schools that go on to become product managers, and eventually become executives.
What school you went to, what your 2-4 first years of work experience was like, and what business school you went to, seems to work pretty well when signaling potential and success - especially when trying to either come up with funding, or convincing some big corporation that you're the man to lead their product XYZ.
come on you can't make blanket statements like that. Plenty of my Ivy friends who took the tech path are senior ICs at big tech, startups (not founders), etc. Same as the stanford, caltech, MIT kids.. some are managers now of course.
they're just normal people who happens to be extremely smart and also from wealthy backgrounds. maybe some day they'll be C-suite but they're only mid 30s right now. I would say only a handful have the personality traits for C-suite or founding a company anyway. they're mostly just nerds who went to a top private HS and got perfect SAT scores.
they're just normal people who happens to be extremely smart and also from wealthy backgrounds. maybe some day they'll be C-suite but they're only mid 30s right now. I would say only a handful have the personality traits for C-suite or founding a company anyway. they're mostly just nerds who went to a top private HS and got perfect SAT scores.
Nope, I worked at two FAANG companies and with not a single Harvard or Stanford graduate. I hosted an intern from Stanford once who received a top of band return offer and rejected it for a "better option." I had one coworker from MIT who admitted he should have gone in finance instead. He later left for a prestigious hedge fund and 7 figure compensation. Most of my coworkers ended up here on H1-B visas from top schools in their home countries, but no network or strong family wealth here in the US. I always joked that Harvard graduates are above putting up with the semi-annual hoop jumping FAANG companies have for "performance reviews."
Quant trader at a firm that I've never even heard of but routinely pays even engineers 7 figures
I've also heard working at such firms has crazy finance hours too, which dissuades me from working there.
Are you an MIT graduate? I am told the recruiters don't accept job applications, they only reach out to people directly to invite them to apply.
I'm a mid career staff engineer & manager, and like many I filter out recruiter cold emails.
Plus I wouldn't let that dissuade me from attempting to figure out how to break in if it lead to x2 FANG compensation rates consistently at the same work load.
Plus I wouldn't let that dissuade me from attempting to figure out how to break in if it lead to x2 FANG compensation rates consistently at the same work load.
> Most of my coworkers ended up here on H1-B visas from top schools in their home countries, but no network or strong family wealth here in the US.
That's an interesting matter on its own. Americans are jumping through 12 stage interviews at a chance for a job and getting ghosted while somehow people from other countries are quickly filling up corporations.
It's also weird that so many people with no local connections and no reason to stay in the country get important roles in tech companies, return home, and data is consistently being leaked or "hacked" through various vulnerabilities obvious to employees.
That's an interesting matter on its own. Americans are jumping through 12 stage interviews at a chance for a job and getting ghosted while somehow people from other countries are quickly filling up corporations.
It's also weird that so many people with no local connections and no reason to stay in the country get important roles in tech companies, return home, and data is consistently being leaked or "hacked" through various vulnerabilities obvious to employees.
it says more about your skill that someone from 3rd world country, whose parents earn $10/mo is more skilled and smart to pass interview.
Keep in mind it is more expensive for company to hire foreigners as there are 12 hoops to bring foreigner in board, they just desperate for any talent that can do the job (at high bar though)
Keep in mind it is more expensive for company to hire foreigners as there are 12 hoops to bring foreigner in board, they just desperate for any talent that can do the job (at high bar though)
Nah. H1B sponsor mills are a well documented issue that the US government has been trying to handle for a while now. These organizations go as far as filing multiple applications so they can more easily push one through. [1] It's nothing to do with "skill level" but everything to do with employers pushing down wages and wanting employees that are easily churned when necessary and kept obedient with the threat of their contract and thus visa and livelihood being cut at any time.
The "Americans just aren't good enough!" excuse hasn't been bought by anybody for years now. It's boring and desperate sounding.
There's nothing wrong with hiring workers from other countries. The H1B system just promotes abuse.
[1] https://content.techgig.com/us-govt-to-end-h1b-visa-abuse-he...
The "Americans just aren't good enough!" excuse hasn't been bought by anybody for years now. It's boring and desperate sounding.
There's nothing wrong with hiring workers from other countries. The H1B system just promotes abuse.
[1] https://content.techgig.com/us-govt-to-end-h1b-visa-abuse-he...
WiPro H1B contractor mill staff are very very bad. The other person is probably talking from their non-wipro hiring experience.
You're talking about two different things. Google, Microsoft, other FAAGs's H1Bs are not the same as Infosys or Wipro.
Your coworker from MIT left to be a quant/software engineer at a hedge fund, or was the role non-technical?
"Normal people" aren't afforded the same opportunity or even half the chances in that just so happens from "being from wealthy backgrounds.". I think that's the issue.
> If anything, they'll have degrees from worker bee / nerd schools like CMU, Caltech, and UC Berkeley, not Ivy degrees
That's weird, because all those schools you mentioned are ivy leagues in the comparative sense.
That's weird, because all those schools you mentioned are ivy leagues in the comparative sense.
No. They are as academically rigorous but not nearly as good for networking or upward mobility
> Guess who private sector loves to promote to executive positions like VP and SVP? Harvard and ivy grads. Even in engineering, where it's supposed to be more of an meritocracy, you can see this at every bigco.
No. This has not been my experience working at bigcos -- the opposite is true. This isn't even hard to disprove -- just take a look at any large company (outside of those with Ivy funnels like management consulting). Just go to their websites. Many executives often did not attend Ivy league colleges.
You'll find that most US executives actually didn't go to prestigious schools. This fact surprised me when I first observed it, but it makes sense. Assuming US management is a meritocracy, those who make it to the top are those who are in some way good with people. Ivies optimize for intellect, but this often has a negative correlation with social skills.
No. This has not been my experience working at bigcos -- the opposite is true. This isn't even hard to disprove -- just take a look at any large company (outside of those with Ivy funnels like management consulting). Just go to their websites. Many executives often did not attend Ivy league colleges.
You'll find that most US executives actually didn't go to prestigious schools. This fact surprised me when I first observed it, but it makes sense. Assuming US management is a meritocracy, those who make it to the top are those who are in some way good with people. Ivies optimize for intellect, but this often has a negative correlation with social skills.
Given that many managers/executives are horrid when it comes to people, I think the Peter Principle explains that a lot better: People who can do (and won't get promoted because their productivity is needed where they are). People who can't will get promoted out of the way.
I think this take is too cynical. Many executives are by definition good with people -- politics included. There are negative forms of this, but there are also positive forms. I've had really good managers who could work across orgs and manage expectations and drive results. Tech ICs typically don't have this aptitude. Andy Grove's book "High Output Management" explains how good middle management ought to be, and I've experienced it first hand.
The Peter Principle is widely known and modern orgs are designed to account for it (American management is constantly evolving) -- for instance, promotions today are based on personnel already performing at the next level rather than them just showing good results at their current level.
The Peter Principle is widely known and modern orgs are designed to account for it (American management is constantly evolving) -- for instance, promotions today are based on personnel already performing at the next level rather than them just showing good results at their current level.
My experience has been in tech, so I don't have information handy for other sectors.
Even in tech, the majority of executives don't have Ivy League degrees. Some of them might have MBAs from good schools, but many went to ordinary colleges. I work in tech and in my entire reporting line, there is exactly 1 Ivy league graduate. Tim Cook went to Auburn (MBA at Duke). Satya Nadella went to Manipal Institute of Technology (then UW-Milwaukee, and later an MBA at UChicago Booth).
Had to check up the CEOs of the largest tech companies in the US - looks like the following:
Alphabet - Sundar Pichai (IIT, Stanford, Wharton)
Amazon - Jeff Bezos (Princeton)
Apple - Tim Cook (Auburn, Duke)
Microsoft - Satya Nadella (MIT Manipal, UW–Milwaukee, UChicago)
Meta - Mark Zuckerberg (Harvard - dropped out)
Tesla - Eleon Musk (UPenn / Wharton, Stanford - dropped out)
Nvidia - Jensen Huang (Oregon State, Stanford)
Broadcom - Hock E. Tan (MIT, Harvard)
Oracle - Safra A. Catz (UPenn)
Adobe - Shantanu Narayen (Osmania University, Bowling Green State University, University of California, Berkeley)
Cisco - Chuck Robbins (UNC)
Alphabet - Sundar Pichai (IIT, Stanford, Wharton)
Amazon - Jeff Bezos (Princeton)
Apple - Tim Cook (Auburn, Duke)
Microsoft - Satya Nadella (MIT Manipal, UW–Milwaukee, UChicago)
Meta - Mark Zuckerberg (Harvard - dropped out)
Tesla - Eleon Musk (UPenn / Wharton, Stanford - dropped out)
Nvidia - Jensen Huang (Oregon State, Stanford)
Broadcom - Hock E. Tan (MIT, Harvard)
Oracle - Safra A. Catz (UPenn)
Adobe - Shantanu Narayen (Osmania University, Bowling Green State University, University of California, Berkeley)
Cisco - Chuck Robbins (UNC)
Those are predominantly elite schools right?
Check Linkedin, it's been a revelation for me. Filter by company and school and you will find hundreds of Ivy League+ types as Upper Level Management. Idk why one would only look at C-suite
Look below C-Suite. There are actually relatively few Ivy League types if you take a larger sample across industries.
It is important to note that schools teach mannerisms and expectation.
The undergrad curriculum in Physics at MIT and a good state school are hardly dissimilar.
The undergrad curriculum in Physics at MIT and a good state school are hardly dissimilar.
Many big tech companies are indeed led by people from Worker Bee schools (Midwestern state schools, SEC, ACC, etc.) Except for Google, famously founded by Stanford students. Or Microsoft & Facebook: Harvard dropouts.
It's quite a different story when you get to the people who really consider themselves Elite: big consulting firms, white shoe law firms, large media companies, and top echelons of the government. For those people, an Ivy League degree or equivalent is money, if not mandatory.
I think, in addition to the percentage of incoming students who are historically marginalized, those schools should track "percentage of students whose parents did NOT go to college." If they really cared about providing opportunity for upward mobility, those are the people they'd go after.
It's quite a different story when you get to the people who really consider themselves Elite: big consulting firms, white shoe law firms, large media companies, and top echelons of the government. For those people, an Ivy League degree or equivalent is money, if not mandatory.
I think, in addition to the percentage of incoming students who are historically marginalized, those schools should track "percentage of students whose parents did NOT go to college." If they really cared about providing opportunity for upward mobility, those are the people they'd go after.
Most colleges actually do track this metric - generally it's reported as "first-generation students." (Generally defined as parents without a four-year degree, not parents with zero college education, but same concept.) Here's Harvard's press release for the class of 2026, saying "Students who will be in the first generation of their family to graduate from a four-year college or the equivalent represent 20.3 percent of this year’s admitted class."
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/03/harvard-to-ex...
Yale doesn't report this statistic as far as I could find, although I found a blurb that says "more than one out of every six" (https://admissions.yale.edu/advice-first-generation-college-...).
Princeton's class of 2025 was 22% first-generation (https://www.princeton.edu/news/2021/04/06/extraordinary-year...).
Yale doesn't report this statistic as far as I could find, although I found a blurb that says "more than one out of every six" (https://admissions.yale.edu/advice-first-generation-college-...).
Princeton's class of 2025 was 22% first-generation (https://www.princeton.edu/news/2021/04/06/extraordinary-year...).
Harvard has more students from the top 20% income percentile than the bottom 80%.
This is true, but also doesn't conflict in any way with the 20% first-generation statistic. After all, the corollary of "20% first-generation" is that the vast majority of Harvard students do have one or more parents with a college degree.
Thanks. Has anyone graphed this over a longish time period (30-40 years)?
For a person that isn’t from a wealthy background already, it’s hard to justify the path of academia when a more lucrative path has much more potential to be life changing for them and their family.
My working class zip code public schooling presented a narrative that academics make low wages. Later I realize the wages of STEM PhDs in industry. I known this does not generalize among discipline but I regret not taking an academic path.
STEM PhDs in industry are not really in 'academia', as their research is typically not arbitrary.
i think what he meant was, pursuing a PhD opens the possibility of entering academia, and if not, the time and attainment is not wasted financially.
also, he might include that STEM professors earn higher than other academics and have many opportunities to earn high rates of consulting pay, and or spin off to found companies, etc.
also, he might include that STEM professors earn higher than other academics and have many opportunities to earn high rates of consulting pay, and or spin off to found companies, etc.
It's very hard to come back to high-tier academia from a PhD in industry. Let alone becoming a professor. And clumping STEM together is always a bit silly when we're discussing such topics, not all fields are the same. The opportunity cost and ROI of a PhD in CS is going to be vastly different than one in biochemistry, for instance.
Can you elaborate slightly? I don't want to misinterpret you.
"Academics" usually means "university faculty or people working in research labs." These people tend to make low wages compared to typical industry positions. PhDs also don't tend to open too many doors in industry. At the major tech companies, they are roughly equivalent to 3-6 years of industry experience. They might make a resume more attractive, but you end up going through the same hiring process and largely working on the same stuff.
But this is discluding those who work in academic research labs for major tech companies.
This is only applicable to a very small subset of STEM academics and is definitely not the expected career outcome for a STEM PhD.
There are indeed people with CS PhDs at Google and Microsoft whose primary job involves publishing papers rather than building applications. But that's not the norm.
There are indeed people with CS PhDs at Google and Microsoft whose primary job involves publishing papers rather than building applications. But that's not the norm.
The number of people working in academic research labs for major tech companies is probably on the order of 1% of all PhDs.
Same. The best decision I could have made was skipping 4+ years of adult daycare. When my peers were getting out of college I was already in senior positions and 6 years of experience on my resume.
Going into academia is usually not the best way to maximize your financial earning potential.
So usually people who go into academia value pursuit of knowledge over money.
Academics tend to raise children with those values.
Academics tend to raise children with those values.
It's also well known that connections are extremely important for academic positions, especially so in humanities academia where TT positions are so rare and hyper competitive. The name appeal of the Ivy's can have huge sway, and it leads to a flattening of intellectual diversity in scholarship as whole fields are shaped by certain "schools" or movements that are more often just former fellow students mutually citing each other and their former supervisors. A lot of brilliant research gets passed over because it's not coming from the right school.
Most of the people I know that get into academia do it because traditional work sounds awful to them but they're really good at school, so they stick with what they know. My ex got a PhD just so she didn't have to work for 5 years in a traditional office style job in finance.
> value pursuit of knowledge over money
Or status over money, similar to upper-class careers in journalism.
Or status over money, similar to upper-class careers in journalism.
I would like to draw the attention to the precise wording around the statistics:
""" In 1970, just 1 in 5 U.S.-born PhD graduates in economics had a parent with a graduate degree. Now? Two-thirds of them do, [...] """
These numbers (1/5, 2/3) refer to US-born PhD graduates (in economics).
But the number of US-born PhD students is very small. The vast majority of PhD students are immigrants.
""" In 1970, just 1 in 5 U.S.-born PhD graduates in economics had a parent with a graduate degree. Now? Two-thirds of them do, [...] """
These numbers (1/5, 2/3) refer to US-born PhD graduates (in economics).
But the number of US-born PhD students is very small. The vast majority of PhD students are immigrants.
> People from elite backgrounds increasingly dominate academia
Even if your system was pure Meritocracy that'd make 16th century Anglos proud, you'd still expect it to eventually come to this (smart people have smart kids, dumb people have dumb kids)
Even if your system was pure Meritocracy that'd make 16th century Anglos proud, you'd still expect it to eventually come to this (smart people have smart kids, dumb people have dumb kids)
I can't believe this comment hasn't been downvoted into oblivion, but I tend to agree. It's a markov model. Educated people care about educating their children. Uneducated either a) want their kid to be the first to reach higher education (but struggle to do so or b) don't value education.
Pretty rare to find a well educated person who places no value on education. Guys like Peter Thiel (educated, but promote non-traditional routes) are outliers on that spectrum, in my experience.
Pretty rare to find a well educated person who places no value on education. Guys like Peter Thiel (educated, but promote non-traditional routes) are outliers on that spectrum, in my experience.
Parents also provide pretty bad advice if they don’t have experience in your path. My parents aren’t really uneducated, but they didn’t go to 4 year schools, and so I was pretty much on my own from high school on in figuring out how to go about getting into university and such. I got lucky, but I always feel like I could have done better with some better advice.
Millennials who entered college in 2010-2015 -- prior to the deep learning era -- are more subject to placing less value on education. Attention was turned to business, not education.
Downvoted because 16th century Britain was anything but a Meritocracy, and throwing around cliches about demographics and history lowers the value of a discussion
While this is a very inflamed area of discussion, there's a considerable portion of right-wing politicians - even some with degrees from prestigious school - that are becoming more and more hostile against education.
It is current day anti-intellectualism. Nothing new, but unfortunately not dead either.
It is current day anti-intellectualism. Nothing new, but unfortunately not dead either.
Education in the broadest sense isn’t all positive. It comes at a cost of time and money. There are certainly institutions and endeavors that might not have a yield on the time and money spent. For profit colleges capitalizing on student loans are not a good thing for society.
You don't just have to be "smart" to pick academia, you have to care about reputation a whole bunch, and you need to be able to not care about money.
> pure Meritocracy that'd make 16th century Anglos proud
Huh?! 16th century's UK was a feudal society.
> smart people have smart kids, dumb people have dumb kids
You are confusing intelligence, effort, education and opportunities.
Huh?! 16th century's UK was a feudal society.
> smart people have smart kids, dumb people have dumb kids
You are confusing intelligence, effort, education and opportunities.
They’re defining having an elite background as having a parent with a post-graduate degree… which seems like a stretch to me.
Post graduate degrees are not that special anymore and they often don’t earn you much additional money, let alone power.
Post graduate degrees are not that special anymore and they often don’t earn you much additional money, let alone power.
Twenty or thirty years ago a graduate degree was very unusual. Now it’s clearly not a marker of elite status. Things have changed.
That by itself totally explains the trend. There were enough intelligent people back then, but they just didn't go to college. This is alarmist, virtue-signalling, click and rage bait journalism.
Make education expensive enough, and only rich kids can get one. Not hugely surprising. Education used to be a lot cheaper and you got a lot more first generation graduates.
Except this isn’t true. A larger fraction of the population than ever before are getting a college education: https://www.statista.com/statistics/184272/educational-attai.... More Americans get a college degree than in most other developed countries.
What you’re seeing is an entirely different effect, which is that academic hiring focuses intensely on pedigree. Professors are drawn from the ranks of a handful of elite schools: Harvard, Yale, etc. Graduates of those schools are much more likely to be elites. For example, the vast majority of law school professors went to Harvard or Yale.
What you’re seeing is an entirely different effect, which is that academic hiring focuses intensely on pedigree. Professors are drawn from the ranks of a handful of elite schools: Harvard, Yale, etc. Graduates of those schools are much more likely to be elites. For example, the vast majority of law school professors went to Harvard or Yale.
And prior to that, education used to be a lot more expensive, and was only for the rich.
Your claim is not just cause-and-effect, it's historical fact too.
Your claim is not just cause-and-effect, it's historical fact too.
Not in the US it wasn't? Costs for higher education have tripled in the past couple decades, to say NOTHING of costs in the 80s or 90s.
Note that I already knew this, having a free ride thanks to the U.S. Pell Grants, however I DID to a basic google search. Among many other sources, this one is eye opening. Curious as to what your thoughts are:
https://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-ongoi...
In case you think I'm shilling a link (I'm not, first i've seen of this), here is another:
https://res.cloudinary.com/value-penguin/image/upload/c_limi...
and one more: https://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-education/
Even being at the edge of a boomer and a millennial, I particularly love that last link.
Note that I already knew this, having a free ride thanks to the U.S. Pell Grants, however I DID to a basic google search. Among many other sources, this one is eye opening. Curious as to what your thoughts are:
https://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-ongoi...
In case you think I'm shilling a link (I'm not, first i've seen of this), here is another:
https://res.cloudinary.com/value-penguin/image/upload/c_limi...
and one more: https://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-education/
Even being at the edge of a boomer and a millennial, I particularly love that last link.
As siblings note, the "historically" I'm talking about is pre-WW2.
Life in the US from 1950-2000 will one day be seen as a historical blip, not a state of being the US can ever return to. In that period, the US reaped massive profits from its position as sole industrial powerhouse for the first 20-30 years of that period (thanks to the destruction of the rest of the world's industrial capacity in WW2), and then as the world's bank for the following 20-30 years. It was a privileged position that--combined with the rise of the automobile and the opening up of cheap hinterlands for suburban development, without accounting for the externalities of course--enabled all sorts of leverage and quality of life for the working and middle classes, including massive subsidies for higher education.
Those days are over. Labor has little leverage these days, there's little exploitable land, and the middle class is more or less gone.
We could definitely decide to bring back the massive subsidies for higher ed -- after all, they're present in much of the EU. But it's not clear why one would think that heavily subsidized education would have an appreciably better effect here than it does in the EU.
Life in the US from 1950-2000 will one day be seen as a historical blip, not a state of being the US can ever return to. In that period, the US reaped massive profits from its position as sole industrial powerhouse for the first 20-30 years of that period (thanks to the destruction of the rest of the world's industrial capacity in WW2), and then as the world's bank for the following 20-30 years. It was a privileged position that--combined with the rise of the automobile and the opening up of cheap hinterlands for suburban development, without accounting for the externalities of course--enabled all sorts of leverage and quality of life for the working and middle classes, including massive subsidies for higher education.
Those days are over. Labor has little leverage these days, there's little exploitable land, and the middle class is more or less gone.
We could definitely decide to bring back the massive subsidies for higher ed -- after all, they're present in much of the EU. But it's not clear why one would think that heavily subsidized education would have an appreciably better effect here than it does in the EU.
"Prior" was before 1920 or 1945 or so. Costs for higher education placed it well into the realm of the super-elite.
Higher education was only made affordable after WW2 in the western world, and has been rising ever since then (at least in the USA). Before WW2, it was something mostly rich kids did.
Whenever this comes up, I'm always puzzled about where the extra money is going. Is it just pure profit for the University?
Rarely profit. But it goes towards higher salaries, larger administrations, financial aid, and various amenities that today's college-bound kids' parents demand, like comfortable dorms, gyms, etc. College in the 80s didn't look much like college today.
For many schools, the actual cost the average student pays has not changed as much as the sticker price. One reason is that some colleges discovered they could price discriminate: by charging $XXk/yr as the sticker price, they could let in some fraction of students who can afford to pay full fare, and use that money to offer financial aid to the students they want to attract but who can't pay full fare. Another reason is that basically no college competes on being less expensive, because that might imply that they're not "worth it".
For many schools, the actual cost the average student pays has not changed as much as the sticker price. One reason is that some colleges discovered they could price discriminate: by charging $XXk/yr as the sticker price, they could let in some fraction of students who can afford to pay full fare, and use that money to offer financial aid to the students they want to attract but who can't pay full fare. Another reason is that basically no college competes on being less expensive, because that might imply that they're not "worth it".
Also a lot of lifetime academics are generally insufferable. Hugely important vision of themselves, lack of knowledge of reality, and are totally useless if they had to do a job outside of their hyper-specialized area.
I see a lot of value in hard-science / math research. Don’t see a lot of value in yet another 80 page treatise on Proust that only 8 people will ever read.
Hopefully everything gets priced so high that the vast amounts of money wasted on universities will be greatly reduced.
I see a lot of value in hard-science / math research. Don’t see a lot of value in yet another 80 page treatise on Proust that only 8 people will ever read.
Hopefully everything gets priced so high that the vast amounts of money wasted on universities will be greatly reduced.
Haha. Because math research is so widely read
Well some of it is used a LOT - for example all of digital technology is basically applied boolean algebra, and calculus is the base of physics. Granted, the original research for those was 200-400 years ago, but the current day applications are everywhere.
So while a new research paper on some obscure subset of point-set topology may not appear to be useful today, it is possible that in the future it will be. :)
EDIT: misread your comment as "widely used", not "widely read", my bad.
So while a new research paper on some obscure subset of point-set topology may not appear to be useful today, it is possible that in the future it will be. :)
EDIT: misread your comment as "widely used", not "widely read", my bad.
Accredited education like universities are more expensive than ever.
But actual education and attainment of knowledge is cheaper than ever. Just YouTube alone is a massive driving factor. Or Kahn Academy.
But to benefit from things like these, you have to have a culture that values education and actively seeks it out.
But actual education and attainment of knowledge is cheaper than ever. Just YouTube alone is a massive driving factor. Or Kahn Academy.
But to benefit from things like these, you have to have a culture that values education and actively seeks it out.
The bad of caste appearing is a symptom of technology strangulation & stagnation. Meaning: new technology empowers the new comer, allowing them to excell in moments of meritocracy - if the economic circumstances give them the chance. But they do no longer, creating the families of old, who own all the things and prevent a change of all the things.
The ugly truth is, the more oligarch a country is, the more the number of disruptions reduces. All that remains is "allowed" disruption, which are basically take over of internal guilds by the oligarchs consolidating power. Think of Rockefeller taking over the stage coach guild with ueber.
The good thing is though, this consensus of oligarchs is not global. In chaotic countries, were the hold of the oligarchs is not total, the new might still bloom and overthrow them. There lies hope, supressed by the tendrils of the oligarchs to the extern in a empire that sanctions experiments.
The ugly truth is, the more oligarch a country is, the more the number of disruptions reduces. All that remains is "allowed" disruption, which are basically take over of internal guilds by the oligarchs consolidating power. Think of Rockefeller taking over the stage coach guild with ueber.
The good thing is though, this consensus of oligarchs is not global. In chaotic countries, were the hold of the oligarchs is not total, the new might still bloom and overthrow them. There lies hope, supressed by the tendrils of the oligarchs to the extern in a empire that sanctions experiments.
These studies are lagging behind reality by about a quarter century. Academia was obviously starting to become dominated by financial elites as early as 30 years ago.
The non-lagging metric is: how many high-performing students, from non-elite backgrounds, are refusing to pursue academic vocations?
This number has been decreasing steadily since the late 80's, and this has been very well documented in the Chronicle of Higher Education.
The non-lagging metric is: how many high-performing students, from non-elite backgrounds, are refusing to pursue academic vocations?
This number has been decreasing steadily since the late 80's, and this has been very well documented in the Chronicle of Higher Education.
There's a (vicious?) feedback spiral at work here too. Most of the policies, bills etc., are authored by back office workers who are either themselves academics or are heavily influenced by them. Same with lobbyists. Academics (primarily economists) are also at work to produce all those white papers, op-ed articles that shape public opinion.
Academics pays less compared to industry (tech, finance etc.,) so it's mostly those with elite backgrounds with big inheritance wealth who can afford to spend a long time in academia in return for a chance to keep elite's hold in the government.
Academics pays less compared to industry (tech, finance etc.,) so it's mostly those with elite backgrounds with big inheritance wealth who can afford to spend a long time in academia in return for a chance to keep elite's hold in the government.
Academia does not equal economics, a field where a Nobel Prize winner ran a multibillion dollar hedge fund into the ground, and economists can’t agree on whether a person deserves healthcare.
You're talking about macroeconomics, the exciting and unscientific field of how interest rates, markets, etc interact and the whole big world of wealth works. Obviously very difficult to get any real experimental data that isn't unrepeatable or biased. You can argue one position, or just as easily find data to argue the opposite position, and nobody will ever know which one is right.
Microeconomics on the other hand is much more a real science that helps answer boring practical questions like "How much capital should I invest in each product line? How much should I price this good at?" or my personal favorite because it is relevant to everyone, not just managers: "How elastic is the demand at firm X or in industry Y for laborers with skills like mine, and how elastic is the supply of such laborers?" Thinking about that question can really help anyone make choices about where to apply for work if you want your career to do well.
And since it happens at a small level there is lots of data so correspondingly more scientific certainty.
Microeconomics on the other hand is much more a real science that helps answer boring practical questions like "How much capital should I invest in each product line? How much should I price this good at?" or my personal favorite because it is relevant to everyone, not just managers: "How elastic is the demand at firm X or in industry Y for laborers with skills like mine, and how elastic is the supply of such laborers?" Thinking about that question can really help anyone make choices about where to apply for work if you want your career to do well.
And since it happens at a small level there is lots of data so correspondingly more scientific certainty.
The company in question if anyone is as interested as I was:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/longtermcapital.asp
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-Term_Capital_Management
Interestingly the Nobel Prize winners' advice was ignored in some cases: "As a result, LTCM began investing in emerging-market debt and foreign currencies. Some of the major partners, particularly Myron Scholes, had their doubts about these new investments. For example, when LTCM took a major position in the Norwegian kroner, Scholes warned that they had no "informational advantage" in this area"
Interestingly the Nobel Prize winners' advice was ignored in some cases: "As a result, LTCM began investing in emerging-market debt and foreign currencies. Some of the major partners, particularly Myron Scholes, had their doubts about these new investments. For example, when LTCM took a major position in the Norwegian kroner, Scholes warned that they had no "informational advantage" in this area"
> economists can’t agree on whether a person deserves healthcare.
Economists have no special insight into deserts, any more than philosophers. Is does not imply ought and all that.
Economists have no special insight into deserts, any more than philosophers. Is does not imply ought and all that.
Healthcare is 20% of the U.S. econ-omy.
"PhD programs tend to require a hidden curriculum of classes in subjects such as mathematics that are not technically required for economics majors."
<record scratch>
"subjects such as mathematics that are not technically required for economics majors"
Eh?
Who lets clueless writers like this near a keyboard?
<record scratch>
"subjects such as mathematics that are not technically required for economics majors"
Eh?
Who lets clueless writers like this near a keyboard?
There is a rampant war against math. I don't know when it started, but it did. But what people ignore is that math is mandatory in hard science. So people thought that math was the obstacle put in their path just to block them. They asked to get rid of the obstacle, but they failed to understand that it was not there to block their path, it was mandatory.
Reality always win.
Reality always win.
Real Analysis, Linear Algebra and Calc I-III are not required to get an Economics degree but they will help enormously if you want to go to MIT(number one programme), Harvard (two) or even someplace like Penn(somewhere in the top 20). You do not need to get a Math minor to get an Economics major.
"You do not need to get a Math minor to get an Economics major."
That wasn't the claim. The claim was that it's somehow surprising that economics is math heavy. Yes there are 'policy' or 'international business' degrees camouflaging as 'economics' degrees, but how can it be a surprise to any but the most uninformed that 'economics' (at least the prestigious degrees, which are the ones that will produce the majority of future academics) are math heavy? And I'm not even talking about just the pure math courses. Courses like Operations Research are notorious 'filter courses' for economics students, good luck passing those without math fundamentals.
That wasn't the claim. The claim was that it's somehow surprising that economics is math heavy. Yes there are 'policy' or 'international business' degrees camouflaging as 'economics' degrees, but how can it be a surprise to any but the most uninformed that 'economics' (at least the prestigious degrees, which are the ones that will produce the majority of future academics) are math heavy? And I'm not even talking about just the pure math courses. Courses like Operations Research are notorious 'filter courses' for economics students, good luck passing those without math fundamentals.
Economics is very unusual in that even doing extremely well in the undergraduate major is not going to prepare you all that well for graduate study. Knowing things like that is part of the hidden curriculum the article is talking about. See also doing undergraduate research assistantships in other disciplines. The author may not have been as clear as they could have been.
Why would Calc I-II not be required to get an Econ degree? Derivatives are used all over basic microeconomics. Anytime you see the word "marginal" you're taking a derivative.
I noted that, when I worked at the university, the admin tier seemed to have a lot of wealth not attached to their jobs, although they did do a decent job of hiding it. One might have a father who did Everest (not cheap), or you might hear about multiple "family homes." Others seemed to take incredible amounts of vacations to exotic locales. Meritocracy was largely a sham, especially if you tracked careers of those who came and went.
John Adams, the 2nd President of the United States, once said
"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain."
"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain."
The article totally fails to mention the elephant in the room: graduate school costs!
Moreover, the public debate over student loan forgiveness typically fails to mention that graduate students owe 50% of all student loan debt, despite being only 25% of all student loan debtors.
Getting a PhD often takes many years, and the PhD completion rate for incoming graduate students is very low. Even after you get a PhD, it can be difficult to get a tenure track job. For those who get on the tenure track, you'll probably be fine financially, but for everyone else... going graduate school can ruin your life. You may waste the best years of your life while accumulating a debt you can never pay off, without even an official graduation certificate to show for it.
College, including graduate school, is so much more expensive now than it was decades ago. And people forget that the post-WWII generation could use the GI Bill to pay for both undergraduate and graduate school.
Moreover, the public debate over student loan forgiveness typically fails to mention that graduate students owe 50% of all student loan debt, despite being only 25% of all student loan debtors.
Getting a PhD often takes many years, and the PhD completion rate for incoming graduate students is very low. Even after you get a PhD, it can be difficult to get a tenure track job. For those who get on the tenure track, you'll probably be fine financially, but for everyone else... going graduate school can ruin your life. You may waste the best years of your life while accumulating a debt you can never pay off, without even an official graduation certificate to show for it.
College, including graduate school, is so much more expensive now than it was decades ago. And people forget that the post-WWII generation could use the GI Bill to pay for both undergraduate and graduate school.
Most graduate school debt is due to master’s degrees and professional degrees (e.g. JDs, MDs, MBAs). The vast majority of PhD programs are fully funded, fully covering tuition and providing a (modest) stipend.
Citation please?
For reference, I was in a PhD program in the humanities at the University of Wisconsin, and it was definitely not fully funded.
For reference, I was in a PhD program in the humanities at the University of Wisconsin, and it was definitely not fully funded.
Sure: https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/STE...
In STEM fields, 10% of PhD students reported using external (non-university) funds as their primary source of grad school funding; 10% of those externally funded students (1% overall) reported using loans as their primary funding source.
In non-STEM fields, the proportion of non-funded PhD students is higher, at 35%, of which about half (17% overall) used loans as their primary source of funding.
Given that the majority of PhDs in the US are in STEM, it is correct to say that the vast majority of American PhD programs are fully funded.
In STEM fields, 10% of PhD students reported using external (non-university) funds as their primary source of grad school funding; 10% of those externally funded students (1% overall) reported using loans as their primary funding source.
In non-STEM fields, the proportion of non-funded PhD students is higher, at 35%, of which about half (17% overall) used loans as their primary source of funding.
Given that the majority of PhDs in the US are in STEM, it is correct to say that the vast majority of American PhD programs are fully funded.
> In STEM fields, 10% of PhD students
No. The link is a study of PhD recipients not PhD students. This is a crucial distinction, because my main claim was about the effects of attending graduate school on non-recipients. It's quite likely that PhD recipients are better funded than non-recipients, which funding helps them to complete their PhDs. In my academic department, there were many more students than there were sources of funding such as teaching assistantships, research assistantships, lectureships, and fellowships.
> In non-STEM
It's not clear to me that the study was comprehensive. It says STEM and SBE (social, behavioral, and economic), but does SBE mean non-STEM? Why didn't they just say non-STEM? Does SBE include Art, English, History, and Music, for example?
> Given that the majority of PhDs in the US are in STEM
~65% of PhDs awarded are in STEM, but only ~25% of Masters degrees are in STEM. This may say a lot about the PhD completion rate. At my school, a Masters was often rewarded on the way to a PhD, so it was kind of a (mostly worthless) consolation prize for those who didn't finish their PhD.
Anyway, the study is primarily about the "primary source" of funding, which is not quite the same as full funding.
The linked study was heavy with survivorship bias. Sadly, grad school dropouts are mostly forgotten and ignored by society.
No. The link is a study of PhD recipients not PhD students. This is a crucial distinction, because my main claim was about the effects of attending graduate school on non-recipients. It's quite likely that PhD recipients are better funded than non-recipients, which funding helps them to complete their PhDs. In my academic department, there were many more students than there were sources of funding such as teaching assistantships, research assistantships, lectureships, and fellowships.
> In non-STEM
It's not clear to me that the study was comprehensive. It says STEM and SBE (social, behavioral, and economic), but does SBE mean non-STEM? Why didn't they just say non-STEM? Does SBE include Art, English, History, and Music, for example?
> Given that the majority of PhDs in the US are in STEM
~65% of PhDs awarded are in STEM, but only ~25% of Masters degrees are in STEM. This may say a lot about the PhD completion rate. At my school, a Masters was often rewarded on the way to a PhD, so it was kind of a (mostly worthless) consolation prize for those who didn't finish their PhD.
Anyway, the study is primarily about the "primary source" of funding, which is not quite the same as full funding.
The linked study was heavy with survivorship bias. Sadly, grad school dropouts are mostly forgotten and ignored by society.
This isn’t due to Economics Phds. In my program (and in every other top program) we get full funding plus a stipend so we don’t need to go into debt. And completion rates are very high, out of a cohort of 20 usually only 1 or 2 a year can’t pass their prelims. The filter is at the admissions stage, which is nearly as bad as for the ivies. For comparison, at the University of Minnesota (a state school with a top 15 Econ department) we get 400 applications to the PhD program a year and admit 50, of which 20 are expected to actually come.
That's one of the reasons I oppose taxpayer-funded debt dismissal.
It's just not right to ask low-income taxpayers (including those who didn't go to college) to pay off the debts of those who did go-- and have a higher earnings potential.
It's also a great dis-service to those who have paid into Social Security for decades and now face a looming shortfall. Those people actually paid in and are going to have to deal with a benefit reduction, while the student borrowers took out and may potentially have their debts funded by the same taxpayers!
It's just not right to ask low-income taxpayers (including those who didn't go to college) to pay off the debts of those who did go-- and have a higher earnings potential.
It's also a great dis-service to those who have paid into Social Security for decades and now face a looming shortfall. Those people actually paid in and are going to have to deal with a benefit reduction, while the student borrowers took out and may potentially have their debts funded by the same taxpayers!
> It's just not right to ask low-income taxpayers (including those who didn't go to college)
Low-income people don't actually pay much taxes. In fact their primary tax payment may be the fixed-rate Social Security FICA that you mention, not the progressive income taxes after deductions and credits.
Moreover, what about the low-income student who have to go into debt to go to school, while the rich kids have their parents pay for everything? This is my point in relation to the article: who can afford to even get a PhD nowadays except the kids of financially well-off parents? That's one of the reason richer kids are coming to dominate academia.
> a higher earnings potential
My point is that the difference between actual and potential is the difference between a comfortable life and a lifetime of debt that may follow you to old age and death.
There's basically no return whatsoever on your investment if you spend years in a PhD program but don't finish. It's all money down the drain. Meanwhile, graduate students are exploited by universities for very cheap teaching labor.
Low-income people don't actually pay much taxes. In fact their primary tax payment may be the fixed-rate Social Security FICA that you mention, not the progressive income taxes after deductions and credits.
Moreover, what about the low-income student who have to go into debt to go to school, while the rich kids have their parents pay for everything? This is my point in relation to the article: who can afford to even get a PhD nowadays except the kids of financially well-off parents? That's one of the reason richer kids are coming to dominate academia.
> a higher earnings potential
My point is that the difference between actual and potential is the difference between a comfortable life and a lifetime of debt that may follow you to old age and death.
There's basically no return whatsoever on your investment if you spend years in a PhD program but don't finish. It's all money down the drain. Meanwhile, graduate students are exploited by universities for very cheap teaching labor.
this is not true. PhD coursework qualifies for Masters degree. Almost all PhD dropouts (on 1-2 year) - dropout with masters degree and a very nice industry job offer in hand.
Which industry? The English literature industry? The history industry? The philosophy industry?
phd students from low income background are not doing eng lit/hist/phil phd, never seen one. It is mostly people from affluent backgrounds who go there.
but I have seen more than enough econ phd dropouts who left academia with MS in Econ and a finance industry job offer. same for most of the engineering PhDs.
but I have seen more than enough econ phd dropouts who left academia with MS in Econ and a finance industry job offer. same for most of the engineering PhDs.
"It is mostly people from affluent backgrounds who go there."
This is the whole point of the article, "People from elite backgrounds increasingly dominate academia"!
What do you mean by low income though? There's low income and there's affluent, but there's also the big middle class between those two.
This is the whole point of the article, "People from elite backgrounds increasingly dominate academia"!
What do you mean by low income though? There's low income and there's affluent, but there's also the big middle class between those two.
What was the situation in the 1920s?
The US created another higher education system in the postwar era to handle the demand created by the GI Bill. The number of open professor slots at these new schools could not have been filled just by the children of existing academics, so there was a window when newcomers could enter academia much more easily than what would come after, and probably even more easily than what came before.
Now we have children and grandchildren of the gigantic cohort of PhD holders from the GI Bill era competing for jobs when the student population is stagnant or declining. Given that we won't be doubling the size of higher education anytime soon, I don't foresee opportunities like what we witnessed in the 70s returning.
The US created another higher education system in the postwar era to handle the demand created by the GI Bill. The number of open professor slots at these new schools could not have been filled just by the children of existing academics, so there was a window when newcomers could enter academia much more easily than what would come after, and probably even more easily than what came before.
Now we have children and grandchildren of the gigantic cohort of PhD holders from the GI Bill era competing for jobs when the student population is stagnant or declining. Given that we won't be doubling the size of higher education anytime soon, I don't foresee opportunities like what we witnessed in the 70s returning.
US centered studies like this are so myopic that they are useless taken individually. https://www.piie.com/sites/default/files/documents/wp22-4.pd...
When Europeans make these studies–especially from smaller countries–they make cross country comparisons as a rule. These comparisons makes it possible to separate national policy from other effects.
Almost everything is multicausal in social sciences, separating the possible effect of different factors makes studies worthwhile.
When Europeans make these studies–especially from smaller countries–they make cross country comparisons as a rule. These comparisons makes it possible to separate national policy from other effects.
Almost everything is multicausal in social sciences, separating the possible effect of different factors makes studies worthwhile.
My father was a professor, so saw a lot of University people and politics. I just dont understand how anyone can talk about Academia as "elite". They are mostly a bunch of poorly paid, navel gazing bureaucrats who do a little interesting exploring but mostly spend time with annoying students. Its a terrible career, esp compared to tech or business world. To say poorer students are "locked out" makes me lol.
There is also the fact that many more people have undergrad & graduate degrees now so the fact that the number of educated parents has increased is what you'd expect.
There is also the fact that many more people have undergrad & graduate degrees now so the fact that the number of educated parents has increased is what you'd expect.
The state of Florida publishes professor salaries, likely other states do too. Your assessment of “poorly paid” falls on deaf ears for most Americans not making tech salaries.
How to determine if this is attributable to economic inequality and not just overproduction of degrees ?
Let's play it forward where in some alternate reality we were able to reset the current "inequity" and give lots more people from non-elite backgrounds a good shot at proving their capabilities. Or even have that as an ongoing policy in a very fair way. ("Fair" being the problematic word which will constantly be debated.)
Do you imagine that a new elite of some new type of class would not emerge? Would that new elite be more acceptable?
Is the problem that we just don't like our current kind of elite? That it doesn't provide for "fair" resetting of the system periodically? (or within each generation) Does it unfairly give children of the elite access to things they wouldn't otherwise be qualified for, compared to some other better system? What is that system? Some kind of setup where every kid gets to have equal access to showing his/her value -- yet you don't like having tests to do that?
I am not against the idea of an elite class. There will always emerge people who succeed and pass on their success. The question is, what is the outcome we're trying to achieve?
Do you imagine that a new elite of some new type of class would not emerge? Would that new elite be more acceptable?
Is the problem that we just don't like our current kind of elite? That it doesn't provide for "fair" resetting of the system periodically? (or within each generation) Does it unfairly give children of the elite access to things they wouldn't otherwise be qualified for, compared to some other better system? What is that system? Some kind of setup where every kid gets to have equal access to showing his/her value -- yet you don't like having tests to do that?
I am not against the idea of an elite class. There will always emerge people who succeed and pass on their success. The question is, what is the outcome we're trying to achieve?
Since elite classes are probably inevitable without significantly reengineering the human condition, we at least want elite social structures that...
1. Do not stifle the well-being of lower classes
2. Allow upwards mobility into the elite class from lower classes
Today's elite caste fails both criteria: the current elites have architected the US, if not the world, to the detriment of the working class. Upwards mobility is very low - which drives resentment and distrust. The elite tends to select for its children moreso than any hypothetical notion of "merit", which gives the feeling that they are less "the best our country has to offer" and more "space aliens that happen to run everything".
1. Do not stifle the well-being of lower classes
2. Allow upwards mobility into the elite class from lower classes
Today's elite caste fails both criteria: the current elites have architected the US, if not the world, to the detriment of the working class. Upwards mobility is very low - which drives resentment and distrust. The elite tends to select for its children moreso than any hypothetical notion of "merit", which gives the feeling that they are less "the best our country has to offer" and more "space aliens that happen to run everything".
A dominating class that
> 1. Do not stifle the well-being of lower classes
> 2. Allow upwards mobility into the elite class from lower classes
is not possible without significantly reingeneering the human condition.
> 1. Do not stifle the well-being of lower classes
> 2. Allow upwards mobility into the elite class from lower classes
is not possible without significantly reingeneering the human condition.
would a new elite emerge? Probably, if there are certain traits which tend to predict success in a given endeavor, the new elite would tend to have those traits.
But one would hope for an elite rather like the Navy SEALs, where selection is based on the ability to handle difficult conditions, not one where selection is based on being born to the right family.
Yes, there is evidence that intelligence is at least partially hereditary, so if we assume intelligence is correlated with academic success, one would expect children of academic successes to have a slightly higher chance of academic success. Similarly, if we assume that height is correlated with success in basketball, since height is partially genetic we should expect children of basketball successes to have a slightly higher chance of success in basketball.
Still, I think an elite based on "fair" selection in the form of some set of hard-to-game test (for an unfeasible example, give everyone who wants to apply to a PhD program a 3-6 month mini-research internship, select the best ones and ignore all other criteria) would create a society where the people in charge tend to make better decisions/increase the global utility function more/produce better research in the case of academia than one where it's just rich kids aping their parents.
But one would hope for an elite rather like the Navy SEALs, where selection is based on the ability to handle difficult conditions, not one where selection is based on being born to the right family.
Yes, there is evidence that intelligence is at least partially hereditary, so if we assume intelligence is correlated with academic success, one would expect children of academic successes to have a slightly higher chance of academic success. Similarly, if we assume that height is correlated with success in basketball, since height is partially genetic we should expect children of basketball successes to have a slightly higher chance of success in basketball.
Still, I think an elite based on "fair" selection in the form of some set of hard-to-game test (for an unfeasible example, give everyone who wants to apply to a PhD program a 3-6 month mini-research internship, select the best ones and ignore all other criteria) would create a society where the people in charge tend to make better decisions/increase the global utility function more/produce better research in the case of academia than one where it's just rich kids aping their parents.
[deleted]
In other news, we've found that athletes often have parents that are athletes, and musicians often come from muscial families.
This is one of the stupidest articles I have seen in a long time. I could just as easily write an article about "The number of professors today with US citizen parents is at an all-time low" based on Figure #1 of this article but it wouldn't be politically correct so it would never be published by the washington post.
https://www.aip.org/statistics/reports/trends-physics-phds-1...
Note that public funding for grad students really exploded in the 1960's so there are just a hell of a lot more PhDs running around today because their degrees were paid for by the US government. In the 1950's and earlier, PhDs were paid for with something called CASH (not credit), from the POCKET of the parents of the PhD - a concept that we just don't have any more today ...
https://www.aip.org/statistics/reports/trends-physics-phds-1...
Note that public funding for grad students really exploded in the 1960's so there are just a hell of a lot more PhDs running around today because their degrees were paid for by the US government. In the 1950's and earlier, PhDs were paid for with something called CASH (not credit), from the POCKET of the parents of the PhD - a concept that we just don't have any more today ...
Everyone is for social justice but somehow it always works best at the expense of someone else's children.
I got an engineering job at a top-30 EE dept (UBC). By the pay was really poor - i once had an elite dad but he died when i was 13. So I quit the job, as I was no longer elite. An elite family can backstop you when you are taking a low-paying academic job in an expensive city.
The thought that poor people would go for a professor job is no true. I believe most poor people would much rather have money to help their family, money to bank for security, money to pay back their student loans, money to start a family life, etc.
Also it's worth pointing out that academia is a huge pyramid scheme and jumping to the next rung of the pyramid can be made much much easier if your mentors (ie your parents) know which tricks to use to make the greatest leap possible.
The thought that poor people would go for a professor job is no true. I believe most poor people would much rather have money to help their family, money to bank for security, money to pay back their student loans, money to start a family life, etc.
Also it's worth pointing out that academia is a huge pyramid scheme and jumping to the next rung of the pyramid can be made much much easier if your mentors (ie your parents) know which tricks to use to make the greatest leap possible.
This makes sense as graduate school gets more and more competitive. Getting a tenure track position nowadays often requires being among the best students of a top graduate program. Even just getting into a PhD program can be difficult depending on the subject.
If your parents have graduate degrees or are professors its likely that graduate school was on your radar much earlier in life. You probably had more time to consider what steps you'd need to take to get there. You're also probably more likely to be interested in graduate school at all, since many people don't even view it as an option for themselves at all.
If your parents have graduate degrees or are professors its likely that graduate school was on your radar much earlier in life. You probably had more time to consider what steps you'd need to take to get there. You're also probably more likely to be interested in graduate school at all, since many people don't even view it as an option for themselves at all.
Here, let me fix the title:
People from elite backgrounds increasingly dominate, data shows
People from elite backgrounds increasingly dominate, data shows
It was ever thus. Look back on history - academia was always dominated or even the exclusive preserve of those from wealthy backgrounds. It is wrong, but it is in no way new.
This is true.
As an optimist, however, I believe that it doesn't have to be.
Looking back on history, slavery was the dominant method of production for several thousand years - until we industrialized.
Looking back on history, human flight was the preserve of fools - until the Wright brothers.
As an optimist, however, I believe that it doesn't have to be.
Looking back on history, slavery was the dominant method of production for several thousand years - until we industrialized.
Looking back on history, human flight was the preserve of fools - until the Wright brothers.
Is it a recent phenomenon in the US? My country has a pretty straightforward pay-to-win scheme, which leads to degrees with a higher barrier of entry (mostly STEM) having a disproportionate amount of middle-upper class students.
Even university is partially pay-to-win since well-off students usually spend thousands a year on private lessons that are the uni equivalent of cheat codes. Even if it weren't dominated by the elite, it would still be a fundamentally elitist system.
Even university is partially pay-to-win since well-off students usually spend thousands a year on private lessons that are the uni equivalent of cheat codes. Even if it weren't dominated by the elite, it would still be a fundamentally elitist system.
The biggest difference I noticed at University was not that wealthier students would pay for private lessons, but rather that wealthier students didn't need to do part-time work to get by. This gave them much more time to study.
+1. I also saw some wealthier students go part-time during particularly hard semesters (and/or to have extra time to study for gre) and just add an extra semester or two.
Elite Capture https://www.haymarketbooks.org/books/1867-elite-capture is a short book but gives some good ways of thinking about these and other processes as a systems problem.
Also addresses how “elite” can span multiple dimensions: belonging to a socially dominant class, caste, having higher levels of education, being an “influencer” etc.
Also addresses how “elite” can span multiple dimensions: belonging to a socially dominant class, caste, having higher levels of education, being an “influencer” etc.
Excellent link. I can't recommend this book highly enough.
The one-millionth-and-one article to fan petit bourgeois striver angst over maybe possibly not getting-in on the grift of mainstream academia--like economics. Churchill's famous quote:
If you put two economists in a room, you get two opinions, unless one of them is Lord Keynes, in which case you get three opinions.
If it's a choice between "inequality", or reducing it by minting more parasites, I think I prefer inequality.
If you put two economists in a room, you get two opinions, unless one of them is Lord Keynes, in which case you get three opinions.
If it's a choice between "inequality", or reducing it by minting more parasites, I think I prefer inequality.
If anything, I think this just goes to show again how much of a scam higher education is. The demographic of those seeking a better education wouldn't have changed as much if the availability of those services hadn't been made artificially scarce. I think we have a combination of greedy businesses practices by university administrations and the weird culture of ivy league worship to thank for this.
It's interesting that it starts off talking about elite backgrounds by discussing graduate degrees, and only later talks about wealth as an influence.
Wealth seems like such a huge factor in who is successful in this country. Whereas I know quite a few people with college degrees, even graduate degrees, that aren't using that knowledge in their work.
Wealth seems like such a huge factor in who is successful in this country. Whereas I know quite a few people with college degrees, even graduate degrees, that aren't using that knowledge in their work.
ru kidding me I saw a top-10 school give a professor offer to a stanford grad. She did a shitty interview talk about a PhD topic that didn't matter. All the grad stuents who heard her talk agreed.
But as it was explained to me by a member of the faculty recruiting committee, "She's a woman and the bad PhD could have been the advisor's fault". She turned down the offer for something better.
Academic recruitment is a total crock of shit. You just need to tick the boxes, "woman, top-3 school" and THEY have to justify NOT hiring you ...
But as it was explained to me by a member of the faculty recruiting committee, "She's a woman and the bad PhD could have been the advisor's fault". She turned down the offer for something better.
Academic recruitment is a total crock of shit. You just need to tick the boxes, "woman, top-3 school" and THEY have to justify NOT hiring you ...
It's almost as if the move away from merit-based acceptance (purely driven by test scores) in the name of equity has led to increased nepotism. Who could have saw that coming?
And in Controverse: "But while they want to be known and keep been famous, they stored 'history' to an extend, still some people learning -not?" P-:
I was almost a first generation academic. But, my family needed me to make money to handle chronic medical issues so I quit and took my skills to big tech.
This is actually nothing to worry about, because people from elite backgrounds increasingly think this is a consequence of meritocracy.
I object to the use of the word elite!
Someone with a degree is not elite! (Even if that term flatters my educational level.)
Elite is someone who's parents have ever increasing amounts of money through the holdings they already have, who do things like take degrees, etc as a lifestyle choice not because they need a job, and have aspirations over the job they get.
Typically elite families would be billionaires, political leaders, bankers, etc.
Someone with a degree is not elite! (Even if that term flatters my educational level.)
Elite is someone who's parents have ever increasing amounts of money through the holdings they already have, who do things like take degrees, etc as a lifestyle choice not because they need a job, and have aspirations over the job they get.
Typically elite families would be billionaires, political leaders, bankers, etc.
Hey WaPo, they increasingly dominate journalism, too. Perhaps you should hold a mirror up to yourself.
Indeed. Big-name journalism outfits run on unpaid internships. Who can afford to do the unpaid internships and eventually land a staff position? Bingo.
(As an aside, this is why blue checks on Twitter always have the worst takes.)
(As an aside, this is why blue checks on Twitter always have the worst takes.)
I started grad school in 1993 and felt completely lost as a child of working class parents.
US seems to have all its institutions set up in a way to increase the class divide.
Liars who wish to divide us use lie about "priviledge", etc. to confuse us, their enemies, and turn us against each other.
99.9% of the time, "deserve" applies to that which one has. Kind of like people who are confused about "respect".. they believe that when an ally tells them a truth they don't like, it is "disrespectful", and when a liar lies to them in a way they find pleasant, it's "respectful", when in both cases, the opposite is true.
A newborn hasn't "earned" what they have, but they deserve it because it is, and because their ancestors earned it for them. The wealthiest/healthiest people aren't people who at some point in their life learned a healthy diet, how to exercise, and to earn a high wage.. The healthiest/wealthiest people are those who had ancestors who sacrificed to earn, preserve, and teach, health/wealth to their descendants.
There are some people who spend money before they get it, and there are others who earn and save for their great grandkids who they don't expect to meet. The great grandkids don't earn their place when they're born, but their parents, grandparents, and great grandparents earned that place for them.
When people understand that IQ is inherited, and can't really be permanently increased (but can be permanently decreased through abuse, malnutrition, etc.), and that children require growing up in a family with married parents all living together to be healthy, their children will be far better off than those of people who don't realize those two things. If one lives their life accordingly, they will earn the several advantages for their children. It will be their child's to build from for future generations, or squander.
TL/DR; Elite backgrounds are "elite" for a reason. It is deserved, and based in merit.
99.9% of the time, "deserve" applies to that which one has. Kind of like people who are confused about "respect".. they believe that when an ally tells them a truth they don't like, it is "disrespectful", and when a liar lies to them in a way they find pleasant, it's "respectful", when in both cases, the opposite is true.
A newborn hasn't "earned" what they have, but they deserve it because it is, and because their ancestors earned it for them. The wealthiest/healthiest people aren't people who at some point in their life learned a healthy diet, how to exercise, and to earn a high wage.. The healthiest/wealthiest people are those who had ancestors who sacrificed to earn, preserve, and teach, health/wealth to their descendants.
There are some people who spend money before they get it, and there are others who earn and save for their great grandkids who they don't expect to meet. The great grandkids don't earn their place when they're born, but their parents, grandparents, and great grandparents earned that place for them.
When people understand that IQ is inherited, and can't really be permanently increased (but can be permanently decreased through abuse, malnutrition, etc.), and that children require growing up in a family with married parents all living together to be healthy, their children will be far better off than those of people who don't realize those two things. If one lives their life accordingly, they will earn the several advantages for their children. It will be their child's to build from for future generations, or squander.
TL/DR; Elite backgrounds are "elite" for a reason. It is deserved, and based in merit.
around paywall : https://archive.ph/ivXCE
Who else can afford the time and money associated with all that.
Higher education is the most socially acceptable form of capitalism. You invest in large upfront costs with the hopes that the multipliers of your capital will make it all worth it. Here, capital includes skills, knowledge, relationships, and human networks.
Interesting. Although US graduate students are only 53% white [1] (while the US is 57.8% white [2]) and women account for 53% of doctoral degrees [3], all 5 of the people in the generic stock photos in the article are white males, despite making up only an estimated 25% of graduates. A striking deviation from the photographic trend if one e.g. google image searches for "phd graduate".
[1] https://www.equityinhighered.org/indicators/enrollment-in-gr...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Sta...
[3] https://www.statista.com/chart/15685/doctoral-degrees-awarde...
[1] https://www.equityinhighered.org/indicators/enrollment-in-gr...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Sta...
[3] https://www.statista.com/chart/15685/doctoral-degrees-awarde...
You could go further and observe that all of the article's pictured students are graduating from Oxford, whereas the article discusses students at US universities.
But that's grasping at straws — it really has no bearing on the article itself.
But that's grasping at straws — it really has no bearing on the article itself.
A search for "uk phd graduate" or "uk university students" likewise yields exceedingly diverse results.
Presumably a bored photo editor, trying to think of "elite" images, typed in "oxford university graduation" into Getty Images and got these results: https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/oxford-university-graduat...
This is especially true of PhD/DPhil programmes at places like Oxford: their intake is massively international, unlike their undergraduate provision which hews to (a small slice of) England.
You usually see men hanging with other men, and women with other women.
There are 2 pictures shown.
If you went to a campus and captured 2 such pictures of people at random, it would be completely common for both pictures to end up like the ones in the article.
There are 2 pictures shown.
If you went to a campus and captured 2 such pictures of people at random, it would be completely common for both pictures to end up like the ones in the article.
> If you went to a campus and captured 2 such pictures of people at random
Yes. But if a Washington Post photographer went (or chose the pictures), it's vanishingly uncommon. A duckduckgo image search, limited to washingtonpost.com, of "phd graduation", "phd students", "phd graduate", "graduation", or "university students", yields almost no such pictures. Almost all are either very diverse, or entirely black.
They only find whites when it comes to "elites" "dominating".
Yes. But if a Washington Post photographer went (or chose the pictures), it's vanishingly uncommon. A duckduckgo image search, limited to washingtonpost.com, of "phd graduation", "phd students", "phd graduate", "graduation", or "university students", yields almost no such pictures. Almost all are either very diverse, or entirely black.
They only find whites when it comes to "elites" "dominating".
Yeah that should be two Chinese people, an Indian and then white male and female if it needs to match my anecdata at university.
Criteria for becoming an academic:
- Above-average IQ
- Intellectual upbringing
- PhD, i.e. spending five years of your life in your mid to late 20s getting your union card
- During those five years, at least one of: no other mouths to feed, a working spouse, independent wealth, or well-off parents willing to support you
- Willingness to get a PhD for a less than <30% chance of ever getting a tenure-track job (though much higher if you are black or hispanic)
- Left-wing cosmopolitan social and political views
- Above-average IQ
- Intellectual upbringing
- PhD, i.e. spending five years of your life in your mid to late 20s getting your union card
- During those five years, at least one of: no other mouths to feed, a working spouse, independent wealth, or well-off parents willing to support you
- Willingness to get a PhD for a less than <30% chance of ever getting a tenure-track job (though much higher if you are black or hispanic)
- Left-wing cosmopolitan social and political views
I think all of that is accurate except for "PhD, i.e. spending five years of your life in your mid to late 20s getting your union card"
A lot of this depends on your advisor, but some programs are a lot more than that.
A lot of this depends on your advisor, but some programs are a lot more than that.
"Intellectual upbringing" is huge: correctly pronouncing the shibboleths, hearing all of the dog-whistles, yet never whistling the wrong one. Saying the right thing, but in the wrong way, has ended many an academic career.
Ex-wife is an English professor. Department-wide "purges" were not unheard of. She was spared, though this was probably because she was a lowly adjunct.
Ex-wife is an English professor. Department-wide "purges" were not unheard of. She was spared, though this was probably because she was a lowly adjunct.
> This partly reflects population trends: Over that same period, the share of parents with graduate degrees and college-age children rose 10 percentage points, to 14 percent, our analysis of Census Bureau data shows. But compared with the typical American, a typical new economist is about five times more likely to have a parent with a graduate degree.
So % of parents with college degree increased by 3.5x (from 4% to 14%) and % of students coming from parents with college degree increased 3.3x (from 1/5 to 2/3). That more than explains it, doesn't it?
Also there should be a high correlation between kids being college-material and parents being college-material. Whether you believe in nature (genetics) or nurture (good parenting, high standards, role model, access to education, etc), or a mix of both, either way, you should not expect the % of college students from graduate families to match the % of graduate families in the country. So not sure what point the article makes.