Political & Elections

BigG · Guru

RE: The reality of elite jobs.

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

Amazing,

Uhhhhh What? Alright let me get this straight. So what your saying is that there is a gigantic conspiracy among all the "elite" schools to prop up the ruling class and keep the poor down.

My question for you is why are these schools doing this? Schools act businesses. If one school is neglecting to admit all the smart kids, in favor of less smart "influential" kids then what is going to happen is that other schools are going to admit the negelected smart student that the first school ignored, and the first school is going to lose out.

Pretty sure schools don't operate as businesses. They get a lot of perks because of this. They don't even operate as non-profits, because that would require them to spend a certain amount of their endowment every year. Truthfully, I don't know what kind of entity private universities operate as. It's like a really secret and shady corporation.

And your argument assumes that there schools will lose out by not admitting the smartest students. That assumes that in our society, the higher one's intelligence, the greater one's success. That is obviously not the case. The Ivy League schools can get away with admitting smart — as opposed to the smartest — students, because after a certain threshold of intelligence and ability, connections matter more. The Ivy League has enough selective power to maintain high entrance SATs and GPAs by balancing out their groups of merely "smart but connected" with a few extreme geniuses.

Schools provide a service (education) in exchange for money (tuition/donations) or in exchange for that chance that someone is going to donate to the school in the future. The only reason why they might favor influential people is because they are more likely to donate money to them.

That's the problem, isn't it? Schools are supposed to be about attracting the brightest students, not the students who will be most likely later to increase the school's endowment.

And really what is wrong with this? If a school accepts a dumb student, but his parents donate a million dollars to school this is a net gain not a net loss. This is because with that millon dollars the school is going to be able to fund its other programs more, programs such as financial aid to students who would otherwise choose not to go to college. The ONLY reason why things like financial aid exist is because schools are able to charge a lot more money to rich students (either through high tuition or through "donations" in order to be accepted).

There's no guarantee that donations will go towards such good causes as financial aid.

There's also absolutely no proof that legacies result in more donations. At best, it's a misguided policy. At worst, it's a backdoor way to keep the "right people" in the top universities, even if their test scores and abilities don't merit it anymore.

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

It's ridiculous to think that a student from a lower Ivy is not good enough to compete with a student from a higher Ivy. The difference between a student at Harvard and at a student at a "safety school" like Berkeley is incredibly insignificant.

But these firms are probably looking for fiercely driven and competitive people who are influenced by prospects of traditional social prestige. You are much more likely to find those types at HYP than at UMich.

Canuckguy · Veteran Member

amazing wrote:

Schools provide a service (education) in exchange for money (tuition/donations) or in exchange for that chance that someone is going to donate to the school in the future. The only reason why they might favor influential people is because they are more likely to donate money to them.

And really what is wrong with this? If a school accepts a dumb student, but his parents donate a million dollars to school this is a net gain not a net loss. This is because with that millon dollars the school is going to be able to fund its other programs more, programs such as financial aid to students who would otherwise choose not to go to college. The ONLY reason why things like financial aid exist is because schools are able to charge a lot more money to rich students (either through high tuition or through "donations" in order to be accepted).

You may find this piece enlightening:

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/09/22/legacy

Canuckguy · Veteran Member

amazing wrote:

Uhhhhh What? Alright let me get this straight. So what your saying is that there is a gigantic conspiracy among all the "elite" schools to prop up the ruling class and keep the poor down.
I think it would be more accurate to say the elites serve as the handmaiden of the privileged.

My question for you is why are these schools doing this? Schools act businesses. If one school is neglecting to admit all the smart kids, in favor of less smart "influential" kids then what is going to happen is that other schools are going to admit the negelected smart student that the first school ignored, and the first school is going to lose out.
It is a very impressive business plan. By catering to the privileged, they know the proletariats will clamour for admission. Applications skyrocket not because the smart folks are going, but the rich and powerful are. Remember Brown and JFK Jr, St. Andrews and Prince Williams?

No. The elites are not losing out by admitting the less smart students. What the study is suggesting is that it is not being smart that counts, but that you appear to be smart, as decided by the admission committee of the elites. As a result, I suspect a lot of people are in over their head, getting into positions (based on pedigree) they should never have.

It is these folks that have not served America well, and the world is poorer because of it.

amazing · Veteran Member

Canuckguy wrote:

BigG wrote:

But it is not so much the absense of meritocracy as misdirection of same.

I continue to believe it is both. If we are to look at elite college admission, something like 50-60% of the places are already taken- by legacies, developmental admits, URMs, faculty brats, scions of the rich, famous and powerful etc. I also feel the true purpose behind the re-norming of the SAT is to obliterate the extreme end of the right tail, so we can not differentiate between a good math student who scores 800 from a math Olympian who score the same. This, of course, give the elites additional latitude to admit more of what they wanted.

I always find it funny that people argue the elites admit students for diversity, for leadership quality (but not morality!), or because they need an oboe player for the orchestra. That is pure nonsense. They “exist” to perpetuate and to strengthen the ruling class, and the “others”, the lucky sperms, are admitted as fodder.

What is really ironic is this: the reason the lucky sperms want to be there so badly is because that is where the privileged are.

Uhhhhh What? Alright let me get this straight. So what your saying is that there is a gigantic conspiracy among all the "elite" schools to prop up the ruling class and keep the poor down.

My question for you is why are these schools doing this? Schools act businesses. If one school is neglecting to admit all the smart kids, in favor of less smart "influential" kids then what is going to happen is that other schools are going to admit the negelected smart student that the first school ignored, and the first school is going to lose out.

Schools provide a service (education) in exchange for money (tuition/donations) or in exchange for that chance that someone is going to donate to the school in the future. The only reason why they might favor influential people is because they are more likely to donate money to them.

And really what is wrong with this? If a school accepts a dumb student, but his parents donate a million dollars to school this is a net gain not a net loss. This is because with that millon dollars the school is going to be able to fund its other programs more, programs such as financial aid to students who would otherwise choose not to go to college. The ONLY reason why things like financial aid exist is because schools are able to charge a lot more money to rich students (either through high tuition or through "donations" in order to be accepted).

Canuckguy · Veteran Member

BigG wrote:

But it is not so much the absense of meritocracy as misdirection of same.

I continue to believe it is both. If we are to look at elite college admission, something like 50-60% of the places are already taken- by legacies, developmental admits, URMs, faculty brats, scions of the rich, famous and powerful etc. I also feel the true purpose behind the re-norming of the SAT is to obliterate the extreme end of the right tail, so we can not differentiate between a good math student who scores 800 from a math Olympian who score the same. This, of course, give the elites additional latitude to admit more of what they wanted.

I always find it funny that people argue the elites admit students for diversity, for leadership quality (but not morality!), or because they need an oboe player for the orchestra. That is pure nonsense. They “exist” to perpetuate and to strengthen the ruling class, and the “others”, the lucky sperms, are admitted as fodder.

What is really ironic is this: the reason the lucky sperms want to be there so badly is because that is where the privileged are.

BigG · Guru

I generally agree with Canukguy's latest statement. America's elite has failed.

But it is not so much the absense of meritocracy as misdirection of same.
The rewards for inherently non-productive activities are too great. Smearing existing wealth about and inventing new ways to scam money out of the government pay better than curing cancer, building aircraft, operating a chemical plant, or growing wheat.

It does not matter how much, or how little, the "elite" earn, steal, create, misappropriate, etc. if their activities are producing "the good life" for ordinary citizens.

America's "elite" have failed and are failing this criteria. Just as the old communists failed this test. Just as corrupt aristocracies through the ages have failed.

Declining standards of living, un and underemployment (27% by some measures!), general demoralization among American workers (you are LUCKY you have a job!), obscene bonuses and salaries for well connected executives that have nothing to do with performance, spiraling debt; All point to a society in senescence unable to cope or improve.

No wonder voters are embracing TEA party and Palinesque candidates. The attitude that "anything is better than what we have" is becoming the leitmotif of American politics.

Soon to come, a left or right wing dictatorship as people get to the point they will embrace a "fearless leader" type who promises to "fix" things.

Oh yeah. Scapegoats, gottta have scapegoats. Lookout minorities!!!
-- Edited by BigG on Wednesday 2nd of February 2011 03:43:08 AM

-- Edited by BigG on Wednesday 2nd of February 2011 03:44:41 AM

-- Edited by BigG on Wednesday 2nd of February 2011 03:45:10 AM

-- Edited by BigG on Wednesday 2nd of February 2011 03:48:52 AM

Canuckguy · Veteran Member

Not long after I got on the other site that I noticed the purpose of elite American universities are not meant to filter out the truly brilliant from the merely bright, but to perpetuate and consolidate the power and influence of the ruling class. Coming from the British Commonwealth, I can smell a plutocracy when I see one. What is surprising is how much more in control the US ruling class is comparing to their peers on the other side of the pond, as the following story indicates:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1405237/Euan-Blair-misses-out-on-place-at-Oxford.html

Euan Blair could not get into Oxford, even though he is a legacy and the son of the most powerful man in Britain, but a few years later

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/3652608/Its-not-how-Euan-got-his-scholarship-but-why.html

he got into Yale on scholarship when though he only managed a 2.1 (upper second class).

I cannot help but notice the first story dated from 2002 and the second one from 2006. Am I the only one wondering if Prime Minister Blair called President Bush, a Yale alumnus and reminded him he owes him a favour over Iraq?

Is it a good thing? To be honest, I don’t think thing the American ruling class has done a good job ruling America; they have certainly not done the rest of the world any favour either. Given the evidence, I think a meritocracy would serve America better.

BigG · Guru

It really depends on how stratified wealth and influence become.

The societal effect of the "elite" schools is to concentrate ability via selective breeding.
How often does a Harvard woman marry a state school undergrad who cannot get into an "elite" graduate program?

Smart, well connected, students get in on influence and , well, "smarts". Less connected students get in on ability but once there are part of the "breeding pool".

Are we creating a society of alpha, beta and delta caste citizens?

The day may come when marrying outside one's caste will be considered tantamount to bestiality.

That is the natural progression of the stratification of wealth and influence.

BigG · Guru

It really depends on how stratified wealth and influence become.

The societal effect of the "elite" schools is to concentrate ability via selective breeding.
How often does a Harvard woman marry a state school undergrad who cannot get into an "elite" graduate program?

Smart, well connected, students get in on influence and , well, "smarts". Less connected students get in on ability but once there are part of the "breeding pool".

Are we creating a society of alpha, beta and delta caste citizens?

The day may come when marrying outside one's caste will be considered tantamount to bestiality.

winchester · Guru

Is "the reality of elite jobs" a good thing? Is it a bad thing? Or is it neither good nor bad, but a fact of life that just "is?"

What do you think?

BigG · Guru

Effective medical care in our society is only there for the people who have good jobs with good health benefits.

The unemployed and underemployed don't get that care.

Look at infant mortality rates in our society compared to other developed nations;
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html
This data from that bastion of liberal spin, the CIA.

What you all are saying is that I have got mine now and to hello with the bottom 25% (and increasing!) of the populace.

If current trends continue, your grandchildren will be without medical care.

Between the stupidity of the liberals in passing a huge, incomprehensible, and indigestible omnibus health insurance reform bill (2000 paqes!!!) and the conservative determination to do NOTHING, I see little real hope for the US. Too many "vested interests" have got their fingers in the pie and Congressmen in their pockets.

Note that Social Security, Rural Electrification, Transcontinential railroads, and the Interstate Highway system required less than 50 pages of legislation each.

-- Edited by BigG on Monday 31st of January 2011 07:19:24 AM

-- Edited by BigG on Monday 31st of January 2011 07:21:37 AM

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

Medical advances have not only prolonged our lives, but also saved us from illnesses and injuries that would have killed us in the 50's.

I would take the current timeline.

My grandmother died of breast cancer in the 60's almost immediately after being discovered to have a lump. Not as many options in those days.

My mother died of a heart related illness that would be all but curable by the miracles of modern surgical techniques and medications in the 70's.

My son would surely have died if he was born in the 50's.

Mortality was higher. Wealth may have been relatively higher, too - but I would rather hedge my bets in the modern world with technology and medical advances.

Bogney · Senior Member

The only caveat about wealthy in the 50s versus middle class now would be one's health. If I knew that I would not have a serious injury or illness, I would definitely choose wealthy in the 50's. If I didn't know, I would probably still choose that, but with some trepidation.

Of course, if we are talking do overs for personal satisfaction rather than money, I would prefer to go back to the 60's and participate in the civil rights movement.

Abyss · Senior Member

amazing wrote:

BigG: Used to work well for working and middle class? I'm curious which period of time you are talking about. I mean, are you seriously saying that you would rather be a working/middle class family 50 years ago (or even 20) as opposed to now (in the US of course. I fully admit that among third world countries life hasn't really changed that much, and might have become worse)? Even in the last decade or two technology has become just plain awesome, and its only going to become more awesome.

I can honestly say that if I were given a choice between being among the richest of rich in the 1950s, and to be among the poorest of poor in 2011 (in the US) the choice would be obvious. I would choose 2011. Because technology is just pretty darn awesome now days.

-- Edited by amazing on Sunday 30th of January 2011 08:29:43 PM

I disagree. I'd prefer to have a 99.9th percentile wealth in the 1950s than .1th percentile wealth in 2010.

Life expectancies would probably be the same.

amazing · Veteran Member

BigG: Used to work well for working and middle class? I'm curious which period of time you are talking about. I mean, are you seriously saying that you would rather be a working/middle class family 50 years ago (or even 20) as opposed to now (in the US of course. I fully admit that among third world countries life hasn't really changed that much, and might have become worse)? Even in the last decade or two technology has become just plain awesome, and its only going to become more awesome.

I can honestly say that if I were given a choice between being among the richest of rich in the 1950s, and to be among the poorest of poor in 2011 (in the US) the choice would be obvious. I would choose 2011. Because technology is just pretty darn awesome now days.

-- Edited by amazing on Sunday 30th of January 2011 08:29:43 PM

BigG · Guru

If our society were providing sufficient good to excellent jobs, it really wouldn't matter who got the "elite" jobs.

But the current circumstance of the "elite" plundering the rest of society has got to end.

The US used to work pretty well for working and middle class families. Now it does not.

-- Edited by BigG on Sunday 30th of January 2011 08:05:59 PM

john doe · Guru

Maybe not so good for the economy but one of my kid's classmates was going to work for his father who does "God's work" - so I guess that's ok!

Abyss · Senior Member

At my school there definitely was a share of people that were 1400+/1600 SAT scorers that didn't even have a clue how the elite work in our society.

I wouldn't mind if financial professionals were taxed at a top 90% marginal rate. Their value to our economy is highly suspect. I am primarily referring to people who trade on secondary markets.

-- Edited by Abyss on Sunday 30th of January 2011 04:12:53 PM

john doe · Guru

I believe it. My kid who had just graduated from one of those schools and one of the graduation ceremonies takes place at the "houses" where the future plans of each student are announced. A large percentage were going into finance and at top firms including 3 of my kid's roomates. Most had summer internships from before at these firms.

Abyss · Senior Member

A blog post regarding elite firm hiring practices. Nothing new to people who are aware, but it provides a stark reminder that if you don't go to elite schools your chances of even being hired within a certain industry are essentially nil.

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2011/01/credentialism-and-elite-employment.html

Here is another post (that I agree with heavily) articulating a very big difference between smart people at elite schools and smart people at other schools.

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2010/10/how-world-works.html

I don't think there's been a time in US history where career paths have been so 'cemented' upon entering college.

-- Edited by Abyss on Sunday 30th of January 2011 03:02:45 PM