Are students outside of the top 20 or so universities more interesting people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After many years of dealing with artists, I can say that I've never personally known a truly outstanding musician (or painter, sculpture, etc.) who didn't periodically falter in some serious way in terms of criteria viewed as a necessity for admission at top universities. ALL of the Ivies, plus Stanford, and Duke will certainly accept a B+/1200 SAT student who is truly a top international talent. But they view that as a major concession for a seriously "lopsided" talent like this. Try getting a B-/C student who is barely willing to prep and take the SAT and has an issue with authority that causes them to periodically have unexcused absences and speak rudely to the teacher into these same schools. I know everyone has some anecdotal counterexample, but just understand that this is what real talent looks like, and these are the kinds of people that just can't be admitted. Everyone doesn't have to be a part of every institution, and Ivies/Duke/Stanford are fabulous institutions, but let's just be clear about what kinds of talents are actually being admitted into these schools.

You focused on musicians and sculptors because you knew people would immediately be more familiar with talented writers and actors who’ve attended elite schools. So transparent.

I focused on them because they are artists who I spend a lot of time around! But I don't see any reason why outstanding writers are any more able to fit into the structure of these universities.

And for that matter, I don't know how you would study this, but I'm pretty sure that the "best" writers are significantly less likely to attend "elite" colleges, at least in the last 50 years.

As long as you’re “pretty sure” it must be true, right? Do you really have no idea how silly you sound?

Why is this silly? Because it makes you feel bad?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many would point out that elite schools are filled with creative people, since these schools have a very rich pipeline into the culture and entertainment industries.

Of course, the counterargument is that whatever our culture and entertainment industries appear to be producing is absolute garbage. Harvard seems to attract a lot of comedians and so on, and yet none of them are actually funny.

You sound like a joy to be around…you don’t like any popular movies or tv shows and even the comedians that have enough of a national following such that they are known…you don’t find funny.

You must be the life of the party.

You like Conan O'Brien?

DP. I'm pretty sure Conan O'Brien went to Harvard in the 80s, back when the Harvard Lampoon was basically a feeder program for SNL and other late night shows. The Harvard of today does not have anywhere near the chaotic energy of the 80s and 90s. Stanford is the same way. It was once the fun school for nerds. And now it's a desultory pit stop for those yearning for a job at a VC firm on Sand Hill Road. Both schools made decisions to really clamp down on anything that might be remotely considered offensive or non-inclusive. And as a consequence, both schools are very lame and boring today.

I don't think that holds true of all T20s though. But Harvard and Stanford in particular no longer encourage risk-takers or unconventional thinkers. They are safe spaces for a certain kind of conformity. I'm sure other selective colleges are more interesting. I'd imagine Brown, Rice, UCLA, MIT, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, and Chicago are all pretty good places for bright, interesting people. And probably much better overall than lower tier schools.

Agreed, but do you really think this was a result of the administration attempting to crack down on anything offensive or non-inclusive? My sense is that these institutions are simply tracking larger changes in the capitalist western societies.

The young Conan O'Briens of today are not going to Harvard or Stanford.

What better place for someone who seeks success in a highly insular, selective, competitive, well-paying, prestigious industry than universities with a proven track record of doing just that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After many years of dealing with artists, I can say that I've never personally known a truly outstanding musician (or painter, sculpture, etc.) who didn't periodically falter in some serious way in terms of criteria viewed as a necessity for admission at top universities. ALL of the Ivies, plus Stanford, and Duke will certainly accept a B+/1200 SAT student who is truly a top international talent. But they view that as a major concession for a seriously "lopsided" talent like this. Try getting a B-/C student who is barely willing to prep and take the SAT and has an issue with authority that causes them to periodically have unexcused absences and speak rudely to the teacher into these same schools. I know everyone has some anecdotal counterexample, but just understand that this is what real talent looks like, and these are the kinds of people that just can't be admitted. Everyone doesn't have to be a part of every institution, and Ivies/Duke/Stanford are fabulous institutions, but let's just be clear about what kinds of talents are actually being admitted into these schools.

You focused on musicians and sculptors because you knew people would immediately be more familiar with talented writers and actors who’ve attended elite schools. So transparent.

I focused on them because they are artists who I spend a lot of time around! But I don't see any reason why outstanding writers are any more able to fit into the structure of these universities.

And for that matter, I don't know how you would study this, but I'm pretty sure that the "best" writers are significantly less likely to attend "elite" colleges, at least in the last 50 years.

As long as you’re “pretty sure” it must be true, right? Do you really have no idea how silly you sound?

Why is this silly? Because it makes you feel bad?

NP here. It is pretty silly. I’m very familiar with today’s literary fiction world and the authors are disproportionately elite grads, for better and for worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After many years of dealing with artists, I can say that I've never personally known a truly outstanding musician (or painter, sculpture, etc.) who didn't periodically falter in some serious way in terms of criteria viewed as a necessity for admission at top universities. ALL of the Ivies, plus Stanford, and Duke will certainly accept a B+/1200 SAT student who is truly a top international talent. But they view that as a major concession for a seriously "lopsided" talent like this. Try getting a B-/C student who is barely willing to prep and take the SAT and has an issue with authority that causes them to periodically have unexcused absences and speak rudely to the teacher into these same schools. I know everyone has some anecdotal counterexample, but just understand that this is what real talent looks like, and these are the kinds of people that just can't be admitted. Everyone doesn't have to be a part of every institution, and Ivies/Duke/Stanford are fabulous institutions, but let's just be clear about what kinds of talents are actually being admitted into these schools.

You focused on musicians and sculptors because you knew people would immediately be more familiar with talented writers and actors who’ve attended elite schools. So transparent.

I focused on them because they are artists who I spend a lot of time around! But I don't see any reason why outstanding writers are any more able to fit into the structure of these universities.

And for that matter, I don't know how you would study this, but I'm pretty sure that the "best" writers are significantly less likely to attend "elite" colleges, at least in the last 50 years.

As long as you’re “pretty sure” it must be true, right? Do you really have no idea how silly you sound?

Why is this silly? Because it makes you feel bad?

NP here. It is pretty silly. I’m very familiar with today’s literary fiction world and the authors are disproportionately elite grads, for better and for worse.

"for better and for worse" -- but that's precisely the point. If you are familiar with today's literary fiction world, I doubt you actually believe that its inhabitants are the best that society has to offer. I don't dispute that elite colleges have an outsize effect on the attributes of the art world, but they only attract people with a certain mindset.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: elite universities select for people who are good at embracing the dullness and conformity of corporate culture, people who think that seeking "leadership positions" in various meaningless student-run clubs is a good use of time, people who need structured activity for at least 16 hours a day, people who lack some sort of spirit which is hard to identify and name but which is important.

Actually, they select *against* precisely this group of people.

Disagree. Look at Ivy recruiting outcomes. Look at how many go into consulting. Consulting is intellectually interesting BUT often depends on intellectual asset stripping of the people who actually work for the client. At best it's a talent rental model where the talent never sees the fruit of its labors. This is an "excellent sheep" kind of industry and it absorbs a huge amount of grads because it pays well.