On Elitism(stanford.edu)
stanford.edu
On Elitism
http://www.stanford.edu/%7Epgbovine/on-elitism.htm
23 comments
That is unfortunately true.
There is this old joke:
Q: How do you know someone is from MIT {Stanford, Havard, ...}?
A: He tells you.
There is this old joke:
Q: How do you know someone is from MIT {Stanford, Havard, ...}?
A: He tells you.
The refined version for those from Harvard is:
Q: Where did you go to school?
A: Boston.
Q: uhh, where in Boston?
A: Harvard.
They make you draw it out of them. I have found at least three types of people that respond in this manner:
1 - The person that was raised elite since birth and really doesn't care at all what you think about him. So him dragging it out is him avoiding the question and hoping you'll learn not to pry.
2 - The person that is tired of being identified with this standard questioning. So him dragging it out is somewhere in the middle. He can use it to his advantage when needed but for the most part doesn't want to be identified in this way.
3 - The snob.
Q: Where did you go to school?
A: Boston.
Q: uhh, where in Boston?
A: Harvard.
They make you draw it out of them. I have found at least three types of people that respond in this manner:
1 - The person that was raised elite since birth and really doesn't care at all what you think about him. So him dragging it out is him avoiding the question and hoping you'll learn not to pry.
2 - The person that is tired of being identified with this standard questioning. So him dragging it out is somewhere in the middle. He can use it to his advantage when needed but for the most part doesn't want to be identified in this way.
3 - The snob.
the motivation for people i know to do that is less disingenuous ...
4 - if you say that you went to Harvard (or another well-known university), lots of people automatically cringe and think "ugh this guy must be a snob!", so if you're really not a snob, then the reason for avoiding specifics is so that people don't pre-judge upon first impressions.
the responses to my article sort of exemplifies this phenomenon. lots of readers didn't like how i 'name-dropped' where i attended school ... i was mentioning where i went to school because it's relevant for the point i'm making in my article, not merely to show off or brag.
oftentimes i don't tell people where i went to school because i don't want to automatically be viewed as a snob on first impressions.
4 - if you say that you went to Harvard (or another well-known university), lots of people automatically cringe and think "ugh this guy must be a snob!", so if you're really not a snob, then the reason for avoiding specifics is so that people don't pre-judge upon first impressions.
the responses to my article sort of exemplifies this phenomenon. lots of readers didn't like how i 'name-dropped' where i attended school ... i was mentioning where i went to school because it's relevant for the point i'm making in my article, not merely to show off or brag.
oftentimes i don't tell people where i went to school because i don't want to automatically be viewed as a snob on first impressions.
Your joke makes the opposite claim that he does at the end of his post. With no data either way, I guess we all default to our biases.
This is pretty impressive:
2009 ACM SIGSOFT Distinguished Paper Award for HAMPI: A Solver for String Constraints, an ISSTA 2009 paper with Kiezun (lead author), Ganesh, Hooimeijer, and Ernst
The rest is mediocre-impressive. Nothing to laugh at, but nothing to distinguish him from the other MIT/Stanford students either. I think he has a good point.
2009 ACM SIGSOFT Distinguished Paper Award for HAMPI: A Solver for String Constraints, an ISSTA 2009 paper with Kiezun (lead author), Ganesh, Hooimeijer, and Ernst
The rest is mediocre-impressive. Nothing to laugh at, but nothing to distinguish him from the other MIT/Stanford students either. I think he has a good point.
Wow I've been looking for a library like HAMPI for a long time.
Serendipity at its finest.
Serendipity at its finest.
sorry it's off-topic, but you can download it from here:
http://people.csail.mit.edu/akiezun/hampi/
http://people.csail.mit.edu/akiezun/hampi/
Thanks, I found it already but I can see you're one of the co-authors so I appreciate your effort.
It's going to be some time before I can get to using it but like I said this pretty much is exactly what a currently-stalled project has been looking for.
If I make a real use of this library I'll pass along a proper description so you can see what use it's getting.
As it'll be awhile I'll give you a minimal summary now (in as much detail as I can, which isn't that much sorry).
The overall point is to take input (sequence of words), and then generate further input that is "related" but not identical (think: clearly a variation on the theme, but not rote repetition). The mechanism is that there's a set of grammars specifying overlapping formal languages; input is broken into words and each word is parsed in each grammar that contains that word; some inference and calculation is done to generate a sort-of style profile and then that profile is used together with the underlying grammars to drive generation of new output.
The quality of the output has been underwhelming, mainly b/c doing exact parsing seems to leave a nasty trade-off between the "interestingness" of the grammars in the set and nontriviality of the "style profile":
- having "interesting" grammars means the style profile is too constrained (so the generated output too closely resembles the input)
- having "larger" grammars means the style profile is richer but the output is weak (doesn't adequately resemble the input to a human observer)
Where a library like hampi fits into this is (hopefully) the ability to efficiently loosen-up the parsing in a nicely-constrained way; using some metadata attached to the grammars it ought to be possible to intelligently knock-out part of a word and ask hampi to find a replacement string that makes the word parse within a particular language.
Essentially intentional misunderstanding of input => novel synthesis.
It's going to be some time before I can get to using it but like I said this pretty much is exactly what a currently-stalled project has been looking for.
If I make a real use of this library I'll pass along a proper description so you can see what use it's getting.
As it'll be awhile I'll give you a minimal summary now (in as much detail as I can, which isn't that much sorry).
The overall point is to take input (sequence of words), and then generate further input that is "related" but not identical (think: clearly a variation on the theme, but not rote repetition). The mechanism is that there's a set of grammars specifying overlapping formal languages; input is broken into words and each word is parsed in each grammar that contains that word; some inference and calculation is done to generate a sort-of style profile and then that profile is used together with the underlying grammars to drive generation of new output.
The quality of the output has been underwhelming, mainly b/c doing exact parsing seems to leave a nasty trade-off between the "interestingness" of the grammars in the set and nontriviality of the "style profile":
- having "interesting" grammars means the style profile is too constrained (so the generated output too closely resembles the input)
- having "larger" grammars means the style profile is richer but the output is weak (doesn't adequately resemble the input to a human observer)
Where a library like hampi fits into this is (hopefully) the ability to efficiently loosen-up the parsing in a nicely-constrained way; using some metadata attached to the grammars it ought to be possible to intelligently knock-out part of a word and ask hampi to find a replacement string that makes the word parse within a particular language.
Essentially intentional misunderstanding of input => novel synthesis.
Indeed, his point about name-brand universities is entirely backed up, albeit in a slightly ironic fashion, by his namedropping.
ad hominem arguments detract from this discussion, i think :)
plus, the blogger is still a student, so of course he's not going to have much in terms of real-world accomplishments.
plus, the blogger is still a student, so of course he's not going to have much in terms of real-world accomplishments.
Its an interesting topic. Not sure the blog post really proved his point, but a bit of "arrogance in the large" (on the internet), doesn't bug me. I don't expect to be able to decide if his stated credentials mean anything; just that he is stating they do and establishes how he feels relative to the other statement he's making.
I can be arrogant at times, both in public posts and with people that know me well. For the public assertions, I don't expect people to buy my assertions. Simply asserting them may set a tone I find, at the moment, to be useful. The reader can decide for themselves how to take it.
I can be arrogant at times, both in public posts and with people that know me well. For the public assertions, I don't expect people to buy my assertions. Simply asserting them may set a tone I find, at the moment, to be useful. The reader can decide for themselves how to take it.
He's on the fast path to a research job, buried in the bowels of some company, working on middle ware. Either that or he'll simply get a teaching job at one of the schools he decries in his post.
Feel free to downvote, but at least bother to type some reasoning. The number of tier-1 PhD grads that end up in teaching posts at state schools is pretty tremendous.
And as anyone who reads this site knows, good schooling != life/work experience.
Unless Mr. Guo changes his attitude a bit, he's unlikely to find success outside of academia or pure research departments of large companies.
And as anyone who reads this site knows, good schooling != life/work experience.
Unless Mr. Guo changes his attitude a bit, he's unlikely to find success outside of academia or pure research departments of large companies.
I think you misunderstood his arguments. He did not in any way denigrate the non "name brand" schools.
Saying X has advantages over Y is not the same as saying Y is crap.
I don't believe you read the article. He's edited it now, but the ending was basically advice that "if you didn't go to X, don't try to compete, you'll only be met with disappointment". That's (was before the edit) calling Y crap pretty much.
I skimmed it - forgive me that I didn't want to read the whole thing. Given that I feel you have consistently misinterpreted his words in the main article in question, I doubt I would agree with your current interpretation if I could check it against his original words.
i also think this guy is a real tool who hasn't accomplished anything noteworthy in life. and what kind of a stupid username is pgbovine?
but seriously, i'm hoping that the level of discourse on HN stays above ad hominem attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)
but seriously, i'm hoping that the level of discourse on HN stays above ad hominem attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)
I'm sorry but this isn't a new one for sociology...
I've observed that some of the people who display the greatest degrees of elitism and snobbery are those who are technically skilled in their given area of expertise but who do not necessarily have the most reputable externally-recognizable marks of status.
Indeed. Those who need to display elitism are those who aren't automatically accepted as elite. Similarly, those who are naturally accepted as elite, don't need make as much of an effort to display their eliteness. This is so established that the act of not attempting to show one's eliteness is often subtler a mark of greater eliteness. And this is the basic conundrum of elitism: how the 'old guard' defends itself against the arriviste etc.
I'd suggest a reading of De Tocqueville, Veblen and modern signalling theory.
I've observed that some of the people who display the greatest degrees of elitism and snobbery are those who are technically skilled in their given area of expertise but who do not necessarily have the most reputable externally-recognizable marks of status.
Indeed. Those who need to display elitism are those who aren't automatically accepted as elite. Similarly, those who are naturally accepted as elite, don't need make as much of an effort to display their eliteness. This is so established that the act of not attempting to show one's eliteness is often subtler a mark of greater eliteness. And this is the basic conundrum of elitism: how the 'old guard' defends itself against the arriviste etc.
I'd suggest a reading of De Tocqueville, Veblen and modern signalling theory.
Can you recommend a good book on modern signalling theory?
What I have been reading recently is "Game Theory Evolving" by Herbert Gintis. The Wikipedia articles on signaling theory and evolutionary game theory are useful too.
>"The smartest kids in the class had reputable externally-recognizable marks of status --- their top-ranked grades on exams and homeworks --- and thus did not need to assert their intelligence."
Having the top grades on exams and homework doesn't in any way demonstrate that those kids are the smartest in the class. Grades are correlated with intelligence to some degree, but much more strongly correlated with work-ethic and compliance.
Having the top grades on exams and homework doesn't in any way demonstrate that those kids are the smartest in the class. Grades are correlated with intelligence to some degree, but much more strongly correlated with work-ethic and compliance.
If think you replace "smartest" with "most successful", the point he's trying to make does not change.
Which is still a ridiculous point: A/A+ students are not necessarily smarter, more successful, more intelligent, whatever-you-want-to-call-it than B+/A- students. His sole defense of that assertion is
if you're so damn smart, wouldn't it take you just slightly more effort to get an A
which I cannot characterize as anything else but a total lack of any sense of what someone may want to do with his time, other than obtain high grades, combined with the unfounded accusation that they all consider themselves capable of doing better.
He completely rules out the possibility that out of numbers 5 through 15 out of a 100, five may rather want to spend their time, let's say, starting a company, practicing a sport or contributing code to some open source project.
That's when the real problem shows it's ugly head: they are made to feel like they have to excuse themselves for their grades, as anything below 'perfect' is always questioned, as the article did: "why don't you get higher grades?"
For me, the answer really was exactly as he says: because I have a fucking life out of school. However, the intention of that answer wasn't to play down the grades of others or to assert my intelligence. I won't deny they usually also have a life out of school. The intention was purely and solely: to answer the question that everyone keeps asking. I've given that answer so many times I can only think of it shouted with the expletive in it. And then grade-obsessed nitwits like this guy throw a hissy fit because they think I'm trying to trump them. No, I don't bloody care about trumping you. If I cared, I would spend my time trying to score higher grades, so I'd get into that prestigious university. I'm not sure I would succeed, but the point is: I'm not even trying to best you. God, guys like this still piss me off. They don't want to accept the fact that there may have been guys that could outdo them, but didn't bother.
if you're so damn smart, wouldn't it take you just slightly more effort to get an A
which I cannot characterize as anything else but a total lack of any sense of what someone may want to do with his time, other than obtain high grades, combined with the unfounded accusation that they all consider themselves capable of doing better.
He completely rules out the possibility that out of numbers 5 through 15 out of a 100, five may rather want to spend their time, let's say, starting a company, practicing a sport or contributing code to some open source project.
That's when the real problem shows it's ugly head: they are made to feel like they have to excuse themselves for their grades, as anything below 'perfect' is always questioned, as the article did: "why don't you get higher grades?"
For me, the answer really was exactly as he says: because I have a fucking life out of school. However, the intention of that answer wasn't to play down the grades of others or to assert my intelligence. I won't deny they usually also have a life out of school. The intention was purely and solely: to answer the question that everyone keeps asking. I've given that answer so many times I can only think of it shouted with the expletive in it. And then grade-obsessed nitwits like this guy throw a hissy fit because they think I'm trying to trump them. No, I don't bloody care about trumping you. If I cared, I would spend my time trying to score higher grades, so I'd get into that prestigious university. I'm not sure I would succeed, but the point is: I'm not even trying to best you. God, guys like this still piss me off. They don't want to accept the fact that there may have been guys that could outdo them, but didn't bother.
> They don't want to accept the fact that there may have been guys that could outdo them, but didn't bother.
I guess I was one of these guys too. I perceived striving for best grades as inefficient use of my time. I remembered interesting things automatically, I memorized things useful for applications of interesting things with bit of effort. With the rest, I didn't bother. For much effort on my side reward would be very little if any, so I was satisfied with any grade I got, as long as it was passing grade (it was not always easy to get, lack of interest and reputation in the subject sometimes makes getting passing grade really hard).
I believe that striving for best grades can have significant mental risk because some things depend only on chance and there is nothing more stressful than seeing how your hard effort becoming pointless by silly accident of teacher being in a bad mood.
That changed a little bit in college. There I was satisfied with grades that gave me grade average high enough to get highest merit-based scholarship, because I always liked getting money for something else than my time. With this strategy I ended up as one of 10 best graduates.
Along the way, when current school topics aligned with my interests I was getting highest grades. In case of C++ course after spending week on reading interesting half of Bjarne Stroustrup's book, on tests I was pointing out the mistakes in test questions, and providing two answers, one according to intention of the question writer and other according to exact erroneous phrasing of the question. The grade I got was something like A++ (no one else got it) and it was illegal so on later occasions it was counted as A+).
When topics diverged from my interests other people were doing better. I wasn't jealous of them because I was never interested in competing with them on their ground and I was pretty sure that on grounds that were important to me they could never be significantly better than I was. When I think of this now I never actually felt good about beating them in my domain. I felt that if they were as interested in these things as I was they could achieve similar results as I did.
I guess I was one of these guys too. I perceived striving for best grades as inefficient use of my time. I remembered interesting things automatically, I memorized things useful for applications of interesting things with bit of effort. With the rest, I didn't bother. For much effort on my side reward would be very little if any, so I was satisfied with any grade I got, as long as it was passing grade (it was not always easy to get, lack of interest and reputation in the subject sometimes makes getting passing grade really hard).
I believe that striving for best grades can have significant mental risk because some things depend only on chance and there is nothing more stressful than seeing how your hard effort becoming pointless by silly accident of teacher being in a bad mood.
That changed a little bit in college. There I was satisfied with grades that gave me grade average high enough to get highest merit-based scholarship, because I always liked getting money for something else than my time. With this strategy I ended up as one of 10 best graduates.
Along the way, when current school topics aligned with my interests I was getting highest grades. In case of C++ course after spending week on reading interesting half of Bjarne Stroustrup's book, on tests I was pointing out the mistakes in test questions, and providing two answers, one according to intention of the question writer and other according to exact erroneous phrasing of the question. The grade I got was something like A++ (no one else got it) and it was illegal so on later occasions it was counted as A+).
When topics diverged from my interests other people were doing better. I wasn't jealous of them because I was never interested in competing with them on their ground and I was pretty sure that on grounds that were important to me they could never be significantly better than I was. When I think of this now I never actually felt good about beating them in my domain. I felt that if they were as interested in these things as I was they could achieve similar results as I did.
Hi Confusion, I totally agree 100% with all of your points. I have absolutely no problems with people who choose to devote their energies outside of their schoolwork. My gripe is with kids who don't do that well in school but then vocally brag about how smart they are in particular school topics. A contrived example would be some kid in your high school class who is a solid B student but is always bragging about how he knows the material inside-out. I think that if you want to brag about how good you are in class, then you should probably have the grades to back it up, since by definition, grades are the metric by which people judge you in a particular class. I'm in no way saying that kids who don't do well in class aren't smart ... I definitely know people who didn't get great grades but are amazing hackers.
A/A+ students are, by definition, more successful at school than B+/A- students. That's the only sense of the phrase I meant it in.
"A/A+ students are, by definition, more successful at school than B+/A- students. That's the only sense of the phrase I meant it in."
More successful in school. There is very little value in getting high grades until the later years of high school. Working hard in middle school is a waste of time. The smartest kids would do the minimum amount of work to pass their classes and ensure they have a solid understanding of the material. Especially when you look back and remember how much of the middle school curriculum involved drawing bubble letters and pasting printed photos on to Bristol board.
More successful in school. There is very little value in getting high grades until the later years of high school. Working hard in middle school is a waste of time. The smartest kids would do the minimum amount of work to pass their classes and ensure they have a solid understanding of the material. Especially when you look back and remember how much of the middle school curriculum involved drawing bubble letters and pasting printed photos on to Bristol board.
Really? Walk through the curriculum starting around the 3rd grade onwards - It basically sets up a foundation for future learning in all disciplines. Reading, Writing, Arithmetic - I remember the precise instant (3rd grade) that I was introduced to the concept of a negative number. It blew my mind. And science classes theory in seventh and eights grade were awesome - if I hadn't been grinding I probably would have never learned about umbra's and penumbras, angle of reflection, etc... as well I did.
I think you get out of any experience (Sports, School, Start Ups) what you put into it. And I have to agree - the entire point of the article, that people who haven't been able to demonstrate "success" in school, do tend to be a bit more defensive than those who have. I don't know if this applies to other fields (Sports, Startups) - but it's certainly seen in schools with regards to academic achievement. (BTW, We can all agree to hate the valedectorian who not only graduated with a perfect 4.0 GPA, but also spent close to 30% of her final two years of high school traveling Europe, preparing for the winter olympics, and participating in the debate club)
I think you get out of any experience (Sports, School, Start Ups) what you put into it. And I have to agree - the entire point of the article, that people who haven't been able to demonstrate "success" in school, do tend to be a bit more defensive than those who have. I don't know if this applies to other fields (Sports, Startups) - but it's certainly seen in schools with regards to academic achievement. (BTW, We can all agree to hate the valedectorian who not only graduated with a perfect 4.0 GPA, but also spent close to 30% of her final two years of high school traveling Europe, preparing for the winter olympics, and participating in the debate club)
Not by definition, because the definition of success at school isn't "getting high grades". School is not the end, it's only a means. If I had to give a single metric for success at school it would be 'education'; those who learn more are more successful at school. This isn't necessarily reflected by test scores.
It's the metric that is used to judge academic success.
Really, all of this is besides the point that the author was trying to make. You're getting caught up in his example, but ignoring his point. Grades are a metric of a kind of success. I agree that education is more important than grades, but that's not what the example was about.
Really, all of this is besides the point that the author was trying to make. You're getting caught up in his example, but ignoring his point. Grades are a metric of a kind of success. I agree that education is more important than grades, but that's not what the example was about.
I'm not trying to score rhetorical points here, but it seems like you're trying to change the subject after having one of your unconscious assumptions brought to your attention.
Everybody has them, and, er... by definition... nobody is aware of them. Most people try and forget all about them when they do become visible, but is that the ideal reaction?
Everybody has them, and, er... by definition... nobody is aware of them. Most people try and forget all about them when they do become visible, but is that the ideal reaction?
I feel not that I'm trying to change the subject, but reign it back in.
I assumed people would recognize that what I meant when I said "more successful" in the context of an objective metric like grades. I hoped that pointing out that the author was more concerned about success in a general endeavor than in the specific example he used would clarify the point he tried to make. I was wrong.
I assumed people would recognize that what I meant when I said "more successful" in the context of an objective metric like grades. I hoped that pointing out that the author was more concerned about success in a general endeavor than in the specific example he used would clarify the point he tried to make. I was wrong.
That metric has long been flawed.
[deleted]
True, but they hold something that is generally recognized as a mark of intelligence. Whether or not it is actually a mark of intelligence is irrelevant to his point.
And for being duped into believing this little lie, Mr. Guo has singularly proven that Stanford folks are not as smart as their reputation makes them out to be.
Downvoted obviously from a Stanford grad.
You're new here, so please read the guidelines: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Fair enough, I can see how that was trollish. So I'll elaborate.
Mr. Guo exists in a world built upon a false axiom, "only the smartest make it into the top schools, and that people who don't make it into those schools are obviously not the smartest." Making it into a top school implies top grades. And since only top grades can get you into top schools, only the smartest get top grades.
Since people who have made it into top schools are the smartest, it is obvious that they do not need to demonstrate their intelligence, schooling or other such
This is the thrust of his entire argument, period. Yet anybody with access to the Internet knows that top grades correlate poorly to other measures of intelligence. Being common knowledge, perpetuating notion that top grades = top intellect is clearly a basic untruth (maybe "lie" is too trollish, dunnah).
Therefore (spelling it out formally now),
If top grades != top intellect and top grades implies entrance into top schools the students at top schools are not guaranteed to be persons of top intellect
Since we have now formally established that not all the people at Stanford (just using Mr. Guo's school as an exemplar here) are not of the top intellect, we know that there exists people who attended non-top schools who are of the top intellect (or did not attend post 12th grade schooling at all!).
And we also know that, using this article as an exemplar as well, that there exists people who are inclined, like Mr. Guo, to assume that people who did not attend a top school are also not of top intellect, that persons of top intellect who did not attend a top school must therefore clarify this basic truth to persons like Mr. Guo.
The problem with this of course is that Mr. Guo works off of a false axiom, so people who have tried to clarify this to him are viewed as, to use Mr. Guo's own word choice, disreputable?
In other words, he's calling them liars.
Mr. Guo exists in a world built upon a false axiom, "only the smartest make it into the top schools, and that people who don't make it into those schools are obviously not the smartest." Making it into a top school implies top grades. And since only top grades can get you into top schools, only the smartest get top grades.
Since people who have made it into top schools are the smartest, it is obvious that they do not need to demonstrate their intelligence, schooling or other such
This is the thrust of his entire argument, period. Yet anybody with access to the Internet knows that top grades correlate poorly to other measures of intelligence. Being common knowledge, perpetuating notion that top grades = top intellect is clearly a basic untruth (maybe "lie" is too trollish, dunnah).
Therefore (spelling it out formally now),
If top grades != top intellect and top grades implies entrance into top schools the students at top schools are not guaranteed to be persons of top intellect
Since we have now formally established that not all the people at Stanford (just using Mr. Guo's school as an exemplar here) are not of the top intellect, we know that there exists people who attended non-top schools who are of the top intellect (or did not attend post 12th grade schooling at all!).
And we also know that, using this article as an exemplar as well, that there exists people who are inclined, like Mr. Guo, to assume that people who did not attend a top school are also not of top intellect, that persons of top intellect who did not attend a top school must therefore clarify this basic truth to persons like Mr. Guo.
The problem with this of course is that Mr. Guo works off of a false axiom, so people who have tried to clarify this to him are viewed as, to use Mr. Guo's own word choice, disreputable?
In other words, he's calling them liars.
wow, that is quite a stretch from what i said or implied in my article! Here is my central thesis:
"Thus, I assert that given two people with comparable levels of intelligence and technical skills, the one who did not go to a name-brand university will be more likely to display outward signs of elitism, arrogance, and snobbery as a form of compensation for his/her lack of visible status."
i'm sorry that i didn't make it more clear up-front (and my intro about school grades wasn't the greatest choice), but the central tenet of my article is that i am comparing people "with comparable levels of intelligence and technical skills". in other words, i'm asking you to compare identical twins, one who went to a well-known university and the other who went to a lesser-known university. i'm definitely not saying that one is smarter than the other :) quite the opposite, actually ... i'm controlling for intelligence/technical-skills
i really hope that i didn't write or imply any of what you accused me of writing, namely that i somehow feel that people who didn't make it into a well-known school are "not of the top intellect" ... if i did, please please point that out, and i will immediately take down the offending portions of that article. i don't want people mis-interpreting what was meant to be a simple statement.
"Thus, I assert that given two people with comparable levels of intelligence and technical skills, the one who did not go to a name-brand university will be more likely to display outward signs of elitism, arrogance, and snobbery as a form of compensation for his/her lack of visible status."
i'm sorry that i didn't make it more clear up-front (and my intro about school grades wasn't the greatest choice), but the central tenet of my article is that i am comparing people "with comparable levels of intelligence and technical skills". in other words, i'm asking you to compare identical twins, one who went to a well-known university and the other who went to a lesser-known university. i'm definitely not saying that one is smarter than the other :) quite the opposite, actually ... i'm controlling for intelligence/technical-skills
i really hope that i didn't write or imply any of what you accused me of writing, namely that i somehow feel that people who didn't make it into a well-known school are "not of the top intellect" ... if i did, please please point that out, and i will immediately take down the offending portions of that article. i don't want people mis-interpreting what was meant to be a simple statement.
Glad the author is here, so this doesn't stay one-sided! Some people here apparently think I'm trolling, but I'm simply cutting to the chase and hoping for a spirited and informed debate.
Mr. Guo, your article stands in opposition to itself. On the one hand, you try to state that "given comparable levels of intelligence or skill" and on the other "only the smartest have the highest grades". Your only example is one that does not draw a comparison of comparable persons (or rather, reaches the conclusion that an A student and a B student are not comparable or equivalent). And then you directly relate this situation of grades=intelligence to the world of adults. You don't say, "only smart people get into top schools", but the implication is pretty apparent.
Over the past few decades, largely because of the rise of the Internet, and the equalization of information access this brings about, name brand schools are finding themselves greatly diminished in reputation (it probably didn't help that our last president was mysteriously from Yale). World class research now regularly comes from lesser known schools without ridiculously large endowments. I'm not sure the same could be said 50-100 years ago. Yet an attitude persists in the "adult world" that people from tier-1 schools should start their careers higher and progress faster because they have somehow received a higher quality of education from their esteemed institutions of higher learning.
I think that this attitude is demonstrably false. In 14 years I've worked with a variety of people from a variety of educational backgrounds and I've seen virtually no difference in performance across the board. In fact, in the last two years I've had to take 2 Ivy League grads off of projects because of their failure to perform.
Understandably, many grads from these schools don't turn down these unearned opportunities (when was the last time you heard of a Harvard grad asking for a smaller starting salary because it wasn't fair?). I wouldn't. But to the folks who did not, for whatever reason (grades, opportunity, money, family, immigration, etc.), attend a name brand school, this unfairness smacks of all kinds of bad.
If I choose to ignore the elitist garbage in your post and focus only on your stated central argument, you decry their only avenue of dealing with the situation -- making noise about it. Yet you offer no other alternative except for an unstated "you shoulda gone to a better school then."
You've chosen to define this state of things as elitism, if you can find me a dictionary with a definition of elitism that matches your I'll eat my hat. You do hit the nail on the head with this however,
"Such an attitude is understandable, since alumni from top-tier schools have an implicit symbol of status from the name-recognition of their diploma, but alumni from more obscure universities often get puzzled replies of "hmmm, sorry, never heard of that place" when they mention their alma mater. Thus, in order to prove themselves as worthy colleagues, they must strive to more actively advertise and demonstrate their skills and technical competence, because their peers, superiors, and outside observers are not going to give them the benefit of the doubt."
A person saying "but I'm just as good as that guy from a name branded school!" is not elitism by any possible stretch of the word. It's a desire to seek equality and be given a fair shake. Something that, being a student two name branded schools you will never ever have to deal with. For a salient example, can you guess how immensely hard it is to even get a call back let alone a job from Google if you didn't graduate a top school? Who's elitist? The Stanford grads that don't call back the folks who graduated from xyz State University, or the people who graduated from xyz State University? These people have to make noise just to be seen beyond the brick wall of tier-1 graduated middle level managers in any organization.
But to my reading of the entirety of the article, what you seem most upset about is the declining status of the elite schools, and that people should have the temerity point this out in the real world. Instead of elitism, I think you are trying to turn this state of things into a kind of victimization. It's kind of sad really, the rest of us peons have had to get by on merit, it's time that the elite did also.
Mr. Guo, your article stands in opposition to itself. On the one hand, you try to state that "given comparable levels of intelligence or skill" and on the other "only the smartest have the highest grades". Your only example is one that does not draw a comparison of comparable persons (or rather, reaches the conclusion that an A student and a B student are not comparable or equivalent). And then you directly relate this situation of grades=intelligence to the world of adults. You don't say, "only smart people get into top schools", but the implication is pretty apparent.
Over the past few decades, largely because of the rise of the Internet, and the equalization of information access this brings about, name brand schools are finding themselves greatly diminished in reputation (it probably didn't help that our last president was mysteriously from Yale). World class research now regularly comes from lesser known schools without ridiculously large endowments. I'm not sure the same could be said 50-100 years ago. Yet an attitude persists in the "adult world" that people from tier-1 schools should start their careers higher and progress faster because they have somehow received a higher quality of education from their esteemed institutions of higher learning.
I think that this attitude is demonstrably false. In 14 years I've worked with a variety of people from a variety of educational backgrounds and I've seen virtually no difference in performance across the board. In fact, in the last two years I've had to take 2 Ivy League grads off of projects because of their failure to perform.
Understandably, many grads from these schools don't turn down these unearned opportunities (when was the last time you heard of a Harvard grad asking for a smaller starting salary because it wasn't fair?). I wouldn't. But to the folks who did not, for whatever reason (grades, opportunity, money, family, immigration, etc.), attend a name brand school, this unfairness smacks of all kinds of bad.
If I choose to ignore the elitist garbage in your post and focus only on your stated central argument, you decry their only avenue of dealing with the situation -- making noise about it. Yet you offer no other alternative except for an unstated "you shoulda gone to a better school then."
You've chosen to define this state of things as elitism, if you can find me a dictionary with a definition of elitism that matches your I'll eat my hat. You do hit the nail on the head with this however,
"Such an attitude is understandable, since alumni from top-tier schools have an implicit symbol of status from the name-recognition of their diploma, but alumni from more obscure universities often get puzzled replies of "hmmm, sorry, never heard of that place" when they mention their alma mater. Thus, in order to prove themselves as worthy colleagues, they must strive to more actively advertise and demonstrate their skills and technical competence, because their peers, superiors, and outside observers are not going to give them the benefit of the doubt."
A person saying "but I'm just as good as that guy from a name branded school!" is not elitism by any possible stretch of the word. It's a desire to seek equality and be given a fair shake. Something that, being a student two name branded schools you will never ever have to deal with. For a salient example, can you guess how immensely hard it is to even get a call back let alone a job from Google if you didn't graduate a top school? Who's elitist? The Stanford grads that don't call back the folks who graduated from xyz State University, or the people who graduated from xyz State University? These people have to make noise just to be seen beyond the brick wall of tier-1 graduated middle level managers in any organization.
But to my reading of the entirety of the article, what you seem most upset about is the declining status of the elite schools, and that people should have the temerity point this out in the real world. Instead of elitism, I think you are trying to turn this state of things into a kind of victimization. It's kind of sad really, the rest of us peons have had to get by on merit, it's time that the elite did also.
This time around you have some very interesting and well reasoned points.
But it does not diminish from the original points of the essay. People who lack visible status indicators will tend to make a lot of noice about how good they. This may be justified, or not depending on the person. It may be necessary, or not depending on the circumstances. But the tendency to do it is definitely there.
There is also a tendency, in some of these people making a lot of noise, to do it in the form of diminishing others.
A person who makes a lot of noice about how good they comes accross as at least slightly arrogant, someone who does this in the form of trying to lower others can come across as elitist.
But it does not diminish from the original points of the essay. People who lack visible status indicators will tend to make a lot of noice about how good they. This may be justified, or not depending on the person. It may be necessary, or not depending on the circumstances. But the tendency to do it is definitely there.
There is also a tendency, in some of these people making a lot of noise, to do it in the form of diminishing others.
A person who makes a lot of noice about how good they comes accross as at least slightly arrogant, someone who does this in the form of trying to lower others can come across as elitist.
I agree completely about people putting others down. I would call it more "bullying" than elitist. But that's just semantics.
I also agree with the claim that more disadvantaged people will make more noise to get noticed. That's because they have to.
The alternative is to simply accept the fallacy that people from elite backgrounds are simply better than you.
> There is also a tendency, in some of these people making a lot of noise, to do it in the form of diminishing others. So likewise, what many non-elite persons perceive is that, through various overt and subtle messages, that elites broadcast that they are better than non-elites. Perhaps through acts like social exclusion or hiring discrimination. I don't think that instances of a person saying "~~~I~~~ went to Harvard, and ~~~you~~~~ didn't so nyah" are all that common (but they do happen).
I think the author gets this and does in fact rail against this practice as a form of bullying.
I also agree with the claim that more disadvantaged people will make more noise to get noticed. That's because they have to.
The alternative is to simply accept the fallacy that people from elite backgrounds are simply better than you.
> There is also a tendency, in some of these people making a lot of noise, to do it in the form of diminishing others. So likewise, what many non-elite persons perceive is that, through various overt and subtle messages, that elites broadcast that they are better than non-elites. Perhaps through acts like social exclusion or hiring discrimination. I don't think that instances of a person saying "~~~I~~~ went to Harvard, and ~~~you~~~~ didn't so nyah" are all that common (but they do happen).
I think the author gets this and does in fact rail against this practice as a form of bullying.
ok, this is your most convincing post yet. i concede defeat, on two main points ...
1.) i can now understand why my intro regarding high school grades led people to make certain assumptions about what i was trying to say; again, horrible choice of intro
2.) i don't think my definition of elitism or elitist behavior matches up with the commonly-accepted definition, so that is where lots of conflicts seem to be arising
could you please email me at the address i posted on my webpage? (i haven't figured out if you can private message on HN yet, sorry) i want to ask you something personally ... don't worry, it's nothing scary or bad :)
1.) i can now understand why my intro regarding high school grades led people to make certain assumptions about what i was trying to say; again, horrible choice of intro
2.) i don't think my definition of elitism or elitist behavior matches up with the commonly-accepted definition, so that is where lots of conflicts seem to be arising
could you please email me at the address i posted on my webpage? (i haven't figured out if you can private message on HN yet, sorry) i want to ask you something personally ... don't worry, it's nothing scary or bad :)
Live and learn. You've suffered a withering attack here, but you've continued to engage. I like that, upvoted for balls.
At the very least it was a popular and thought provoking article that warranted lots of passionate debate. Borderline trollish, but with enough elements of truth as to make for interesting forum fodder!
Email being sent if I can figure out this Internet thing with the education I received from a 2nd rate school ;)
At the very least it was a popular and thought provoking article that warranted lots of passionate debate. Borderline trollish, but with enough elements of truth as to make for interesting forum fodder!
Email being sent if I can figure out this Internet thing with the education I received from a 2nd rate school ;)
His arguments are not built on that axiom. Never does he claim that the "only the smartest" people make it into the top schools. His argument is based on signals (such as grades and pedigree), not actual intelligence.
His claim is that some people who lack one signal (academic pedigree) will try to compensate with another signal (elitism).
His claim is that some people who lack one signal (academic pedigree) will try to compensate with another signal (elitism).
The central claim of the article
"Given two people with comparable levels of intelligence and technical skills, the one with less-reputable external marks of status will be more likely to display outward signs of elitism, arrogance, and snobbery."
and the content are in conflict.
Before the first paragraph is even over Mr. Guo has provided his actual claim
"the most arrogant and academically-snobby kids in the classroom were the ones who were undoubtedly smart but not the smartest. _The smartest kids in the class had reputable externally-recognizable marks of status --- their top-ranked grades on exams and homeworks --- and thus did not need to assert their intelligence._"
I'm not really sure how much more clear that needs to be made. The parallel he then draws is:
"As adults, one common external mark of status is the reputation of one's college. Just like how there are name-brand clothing lines and electronics products, there are also name-brand colleges: What college-educated person hasn't heard of Harvard, Yale, or Stanford? Thus, I assert that given two people with comparable levels of intelligence and technical skills, the one who did not go to a name-brand university will be more likely to display outward signs of elitism, arrogance, and snobbery as a form of compensation for his/her lack of visible status."
The argument is clear and I stand by my statement. The elitism in the article is clear, and it's not the tier 1+n schooled folks. You'll have to recheck your receiver because the only signal I'm getting from this is, "hey state school, did I give you permission to talk? The grown ups can't hear each other over the racket you're making."
Just because it's couched in fancified language like "externally-recognizable marks of status" doesn't change what he's saying.
"Given two people with comparable levels of intelligence and technical skills, the one with less-reputable external marks of status will be more likely to display outward signs of elitism, arrogance, and snobbery."
and the content are in conflict.
Before the first paragraph is even over Mr. Guo has provided his actual claim
"the most arrogant and academically-snobby kids in the classroom were the ones who were undoubtedly smart but not the smartest. _The smartest kids in the class had reputable externally-recognizable marks of status --- their top-ranked grades on exams and homeworks --- and thus did not need to assert their intelligence._"
I'm not really sure how much more clear that needs to be made. The parallel he then draws is:
"As adults, one common external mark of status is the reputation of one's college. Just like how there are name-brand clothing lines and electronics products, there are also name-brand colleges: What college-educated person hasn't heard of Harvard, Yale, or Stanford? Thus, I assert that given two people with comparable levels of intelligence and technical skills, the one who did not go to a name-brand university will be more likely to display outward signs of elitism, arrogance, and snobbery as a form of compensation for his/her lack of visible status."
The argument is clear and I stand by my statement. The elitism in the article is clear, and it's not the tier 1+n schooled folks. You'll have to recheck your receiver because the only signal I'm getting from this is, "hey state school, did I give you permission to talk? The grown ups can't hear each other over the racket you're making."
Just because it's couched in fancified language like "externally-recognizable marks of status" doesn't change what he's saying.
thanks for that post, scott_s!
that beautifully sums up the thrust of my article way better than my article actually did ;)
sorry for seeming like i'm sucking up, but i think that comments on HN are amongst the highest quality i've seen on the web ... perhaps there should be an online service where an intelligent crowd reads articles and tries to summarize them succinctly in one sentence or paragraph. i think that this organically occurs with lots of articles posted on HN ... amongst the dozens of comments, there will be a few awesome summaries.
that beautifully sums up the thrust of my article way better than my article actually did ;)
sorry for seeming like i'm sucking up, but i think that comments on HN are amongst the highest quality i've seen on the web ... perhaps there should be an online service where an intelligent crowd reads articles and tries to summarize them succinctly in one sentence or paragraph. i think that this organically occurs with lots of articles posted on HN ... amongst the dozens of comments, there will be a few awesome summaries.
If you meant me, I have an undergrad from Oklahoma State University and am working on a Masters at University of Nevada Las Vegas right now.
Nice...I'm surprised you down-voted me when I was agreeing with you. But meh.
???
I haven't downvoted you, and if you were agreeing with me then the choice of words is...unusual.
I haven't downvoted you, and if you were agreeing with me then the choice of words is...unusual.
I think we have achieved a rare bidirectional miscommunication event.
I thought I was agreeing with you, you thought I wasn't. I thought you downvoted me, you apparently did not.
I think we the term is "violent agreement". I say we just call it a day before any children get hurt. :)
I thought I was agreeing with you, you thought I wasn't. I thought you downvoted me, you apparently did not.
I think we the term is "violent agreement". I say we just call it a day before any children get hurt. :)
He covers that:
'I remember that some of the most arrogant kids were the A-/B+ students who always took the opportunity to assert that, although they did not get as high marks as the A/A+ students, they were somehow 'smarter' in other ways '
(kidding, kidding :)
'I remember that some of the most arrogant kids were the A-/B+ students who always took the opportunity to assert that, although they did not get as high marks as the A/A+ students, they were somehow 'smarter' in other ways '
(kidding, kidding :)
this is the author here ... since this post seems to have spawned the largest thread, hopefully i can address it at its root. i now realized that this was a horrible way to start the article, for several reasons:
1.) it makes people debate grades vs. intelligence vs. likelihood of eventual success, etc.
2.) it reminds hacker types of how schools only rewarded the teachers' pet kids who bothered doing inane homework and studying a lot for tests and didn't have proper incentives for people who liked hacking in their spare time rather than spending all their efforts trying to earn A+'s
3.) it makes people think that the point of my article is about intelligence, getting good grades, and being admitted into an elitist school
I think all of these detract from the main point of my article, which is to make a very simple claim, which i've observed to be true in my personal experiences:
"Given two people with comparable levels of intelligence and technical skills, the one with less-reputable external marks of status will be more likely to display outward signs of elitism, arrogance, and snobbery."
i guess the moral of the story is that i should be more concise in my writing ... smaller attack surface ;)
1.) it makes people debate grades vs. intelligence vs. likelihood of eventual success, etc.
2.) it reminds hacker types of how schools only rewarded the teachers' pet kids who bothered doing inane homework and studying a lot for tests and didn't have proper incentives for people who liked hacking in their spare time rather than spending all their efforts trying to earn A+'s
3.) it makes people think that the point of my article is about intelligence, getting good grades, and being admitted into an elitist school
I think all of these detract from the main point of my article, which is to make a very simple claim, which i've observed to be true in my personal experiences:
"Given two people with comparable levels of intelligence and technical skills, the one with less-reputable external marks of status will be more likely to display outward signs of elitism, arrogance, and snobbery."
i guess the moral of the story is that i should be more concise in my writing ... smaller attack surface ;)
Yes, bad example. Ignoring it, I would counter-argue that the only people I've ever had introduce themselves with their school appended to their names were tier-1 school grads.
I'm unsure of your definition of "elitism", "arrogance" and "snobbery". Your examples do not demonstrate any of these three on the part of the tier-1+n people.
I'm unsure of your definition of "elitism", "arrogance" and "snobbery". Your examples do not demonstrate any of these three on the part of the tier-1+n people.
The author writes about himself, "Coming from two universities with world-renowned Computer Science departments (MIT and Stanford) and having worked at a top-tier software company (Google) as well as at several less high-profile companies ..."
Meaning, of course, that he is not elitist -- he just had to share these crucial facts about himself.
Meaning, of course, that he is not elitist -- he just had to share these crucial facts about himself.
I think the tide has really turned against name-brand institutions, leaving people such as the author in a position where they feel they have to defend themselves and their "prestige." This manifests itself in some peculiar ways, as we can see from this piece...
agreed, university reputation matters a lot less nowadays than it did in the previous generation ... nowadays anyone with a good idea can start up a tech company and get rich. nobody cares about ur college name
fair enough, that does sound pretty elitist ;) sorry if i offended people with that language.
but the rest of that sentence says "... , I have seen a wide variety of personalities and egos amongst computer scientists and software engineers."
the point of that paragraph was to establish that i had experience in interacting with CS people from a variety of backgrounds, both from so-called elitist places and from less elitist places (i suppose i should've also listed the other lesser-known places where i've worked and gone to school, but since by definition they're not well-known 'elitist' places, you probably wouldn't have heard of them anyways)
wow, had i known that my article would someday be posted on a news aggregator site, i would've definitely been more politically correct in my word choice :)
but the rest of that sentence says "... , I have seen a wide variety of personalities and egos amongst computer scientists and software engineers."
the point of that paragraph was to establish that i had experience in interacting with CS people from a variety of backgrounds, both from so-called elitist places and from less elitist places (i suppose i should've also listed the other lesser-known places where i've worked and gone to school, but since by definition they're not well-known 'elitist' places, you probably wouldn't have heard of them anyways)
wow, had i known that my article would someday be posted on a news aggregator site, i would've definitely been more politically correct in my word choice :)
No offense taken! I honestly didn't expect my comment to be voted up so high. Your point in that paragraph is valid.
I was just struck by the contrast between this and when you state later on that people who attend elite institutions generally do not share where they've worked ;-)
Your essay did make a nice point though, one that I did not previously consider!
I was just struck by the contrast between this and when you state later on that people who attend elite institutions generally do not share where they've worked ;-)
Your essay did make a nice point though, one that I did not previously consider!
An elitist disses people who he considers inferior to himself. Stating that you are Among the elites doesn't make you an elitist.
"Stating that you are among the elites" implies that everybody else is inferior to you. By definition, that is elitism.
It is probably true that people who scholastic reputation will try to make up for it in other ways. However the problem is that there may be too much authority placed in these usual standards of achievements.
Philip forgets that people with academic credentials like himself are being smug when they complain about others. If your academic credentials represent you so well, why should it bother you if someone is simply acting?
Another disingenuous behavior he describes is hiding that you went to a reputable school like Harvard.
The reason people are afraid of living up to "artificially higher" expectations is because their school's reputation really is artificially high. What these type of people want is to have the "Harvard" reputation when it suits them, and the average Joe culpability should they ever fail. They want to further perpetuate the image of superiority that Harvard/Stanford entails without letting the public correct their perception that going to one of these top schools does not make you a Godly Genius.
Philip forgets that people with academic credentials like himself are being smug when they complain about others. If your academic credentials represent you so well, why should it bother you if someone is simply acting?
Another disingenuous behavior he describes is hiding that you went to a reputable school like Harvard.
The reason people are afraid of living up to "artificially higher" expectations is because their school's reputation really is artificially high. What these type of people want is to have the "Harvard" reputation when it suits them, and the average Joe culpability should they ever fail. They want to further perpetuate the image of superiority that Harvard/Stanford entails without letting the public correct their perception that going to one of these top schools does not make you a Godly Genius.
I don't think hiding you went to a prestigious school has to be disingenuous. I can be, but it doesn't have to be.
I have a purple belt in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. This is a mid-level rank, but it's also the point where a competitor is considered advanced. In tournaments that don't use belt level but Novice, Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced, I compete Advanced. If I talk to a stranger about BJJ, I never start out with "I have a purple belt." I am going out of my way to avoid sounding like a braggart. I am not worried about failing to live up to my rank, but I am worried about appearing like a jerk.
I have a purple belt in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. This is a mid-level rank, but it's also the point where a competitor is considered advanced. In tournaments that don't use belt level but Novice, Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced, I compete Advanced. If I talk to a stranger about BJJ, I never start out with "I have a purple belt." I am going out of my way to avoid sounding like a braggart. I am not worried about failing to live up to my rank, but I am worried about appearing like a jerk.
What you are saying is completely different from someone asking you "What college did you go to", and responding vaguely "Boston" when most people just say the name of the school.
yes, "Boston" would be a disingenuous reply to "What college did you go to". But it would not be a disingenuous reply to "Where did you attend college?" Some people I know say "in China" or "in Canada" ... "in Boston" is just as legit of an answer, and often one that makes people not roll their eyes at you nearly as much as if you say "HAHHHHHHH-VARD!"
Its also customary to say which college you attended if they ask you "where". I also don't know anyone that says HAHHHHHHH-VARD, STANNNN-FAHD or M-AHH-TTTTT. This pseudo-snobbery is all in your head.
If you keep hiding the fact that you are from a top school in order to dissociate fallibility with Stanford, this sort of sentiment will continue.
If you keep hiding the fact that you are from a top school in order to dissociate fallibility with Stanford, this sort of sentiment will continue.
You guessed that he avoids mentioning his school by name to avoid the high expectations along with it. To operate that this guess has to be true is, at best, disingenuous.
This is not a guess. This is factual evidence as publicly admitted by many people like Conan O'Brien.
And I should add that I also went to a top school, so its not like I am making this stuff up.
And I should add that I also went to a top school, so its not like I am making this stuff up.
That's anecdotal evidence, and you're assuming it also applies to this person.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and theorize that, since the start of this topic you've consistently taken Mr. Guo's side, pedantically pointing out rules and etiquette, deflecting from what he actually said, not responding to actual quotes from his writings and posts and your general literal mindedness, that you are indeed one of the name-brand school graduates that he feels is victimized by the boorish snobbishness of the tier-1+n school grads.
Spank me if I'm wrong. But it's the only thing that adds up.
Either that or you are a tier-1+n school grad who's been guilt tripped by this article into rethinking your prior maltreatment of the elite school kids.
Spank me if I'm wrong. But it's the only thing that adds up.
Either that or you are a tier-1+n school grad who's been guilt tripped by this article into rethinking your prior maltreatment of the elite school kids.
This is old by now, but you should be able to see from my profile that I am at a large, middle-of-the-road state school. Note that I haven't actually defended the authors position, only clarified what he said. I'm not sure if I agree with his position. But I've seen very little discussion on what he actually said. I've spent all of my time explaining what he did and did not say. I've spent no time (that I can think of) defending the position he took.
I also like to avoid long, drawn on point-by-point posts, and try to keep things focused by responding to a person's thesis.
Pointing out etiquette has nothing to do with this article, and everything to do with liking HN as a place for civil discussion.
I also like to avoid long, drawn on point-by-point posts, and try to keep things focused by responding to a person's thesis.
Pointing out etiquette has nothing to do with this article, and everything to do with liking HN as a place for civil discussion.
What do you think Philip's article is? Its a generalization of people with anecdotal evidence.
This is not about Philip himself. I'm not sure why you brought him up specifically in the first place.
This is not about Philip himself. I'm not sure why you brought him up specifically in the first place.
No, that's actually what he said
"oftentimes i don't tell people where i went to school because i don't want to automatically be viewed as a snob on first impressions."
"oftentimes i don't tell people where i went to school because i don't want to automatically be viewed as a snob on first impressions."
Not wanting to be viewed as a snob is different than wanting to avoid high expectations. I tried to illustrate that point with my example with BJJ.
Either way, if either is a problem for him, he shouldn't have gone to a top school.
A better example, using BJJ, is: "What martial art do you study?"
"It's Brazilian."
"Oh Capoeira?"
"Something like that."
"I heard it's not very good in a fight."
"Well it's not Capoeira, it's more practical."
"Vale Tudo?"
"Yeah, kinda like that."
"No really, what is it?"
"BJJ."
"Oh, then you must be a really good fighter! I heard BJJ wins like all the UFCs."
A better example, using BJJ, is: "What martial art do you study?"
"It's Brazilian."
"Oh Capoeira?"
"Something like that."
"I heard it's not very good in a fight."
"Well it's not Capoeira, it's more practical."
"Vale Tudo?"
"Yeah, kinda like that."
"No really, what is it?"
"BJJ."
"Oh, then you must be a really good fighter! I heard BJJ wins like all the UFCs."
What these type of people want is to have the "Harvard" reputation when it suits them, and the average Joe culpability should they ever fail.
Bingo.
Elitists tend to focus conversations around where they are going or went to school, where they work, or "who they know". Conversely, the genuinely smart / non-elitists get more excited talking about what subjects of University studies interest them. The minute the issue of "studied @'_____'" enters the conversation, the conversation has taken on an element of ego, elitism and inferiority that detracts from the interesting subject at hand.
Imho, these "Ivy League" (or whatever they're called these days) Universities are entirely overrated. Not to mention overpriced! In fact, it seems kind of stupid these days to expend the amount of $ demanded by them on a piece of paper that, thanks to libraries and the Internet, can be whatever you want to make it.
Bingo.
Elitists tend to focus conversations around where they are going or went to school, where they work, or "who they know". Conversely, the genuinely smart / non-elitists get more excited talking about what subjects of University studies interest them. The minute the issue of "studied @'_____'" enters the conversation, the conversation has taken on an element of ego, elitism and inferiority that detracts from the interesting subject at hand.
Imho, these "Ivy League" (or whatever they're called these days) Universities are entirely overrated. Not to mention overpriced! In fact, it seems kind of stupid these days to expend the amount of $ demanded by them on a piece of paper that, thanks to libraries and the Internet, can be whatever you want to make it.
It's amazing what people pay to go to school. I've known people who did their entire undergrad and master's programs for what someone might pay for a year at a top school.
Even figuring in the higher starting salary, the pay gap closes pretty darn fast for that pedigree to be worth it.
Even figuring in the higher starting salary, the pay gap closes pretty darn fast for that pedigree to be worth it.
I think it is true that the most insecure tend to exhibit the most elitism; elitism being defined as going out of your way to put down another group you consider inferior. The author, however, goes out of his way to condemn this sort of elitism, basically succumbing to the same elitism he is condemning. Just as I'm basically doing, going out of my way to write this comment. I think the thing to realize is that comparing yourself to others in a better/worse than relationship is a pretty human thing to do, even if it isn't good. It should be avoided and maybe even corrected, but it shouldn't be condemned or used as a way to put people down, lest you succumb to it yourself.
People from reputable universities don't need to vocally assert their capabilities, because the mere mention of their university is enough for people to acknowledge their capabilities. On the other hand, people from more obscure universities need to vocally assert their skills and experience in order to obtain the same recognition of their capabilities. This is just a plain fact of society and asserting your skills and experience is not in any way arrogant or elitist behavior. He completely confuses being vocal about your capabilities with vocally downplaying the capabilities of others, for instance the capabilities of people from reputable universities. He seems completely unaware that people can feel the need to assert their capabilities without in any way wanting or trying to downplay the capabilities of others.
I haven't noticed anything to suggest that elitism is more prevalent among those without elite credentials. Two distinguished professors from my school come to mind. Both of them have very impressive track records and yet both of them are on opposite ends of the arrogance spectrum.
I think it comes down to how comfortable you are with yourself. If you constantly wish you were higher up in the food chain, there's a good chance you are an elitist, and getting elite credentials likely won't satisfy you anyway.
I think it comes down to how comfortable you are with yourself. If you constantly wish you were higher up in the food chain, there's a good chance you are an elitist, and getting elite credentials likely won't satisfy you anyway.
The author sounds like a real jackass. Who else would be so concerned with the alma mater, "intelligence", or "technical skill" of other people that they feel the need to write an article about it.
I think the guy has some smart points. But the fact that he has the MIT dome picture on his blog counters the point that if you're a high achiever from a top-tiered university, you don't need to show external signs of achievement...
I imagine that when you go to a place like MIT where life is like "getting kicked in the balls repeatedly", your alma mater becomes an important part of your identity.
This gave me a good laugh !
These same people also tend to bring this mind set with them to wherever it is they end up working. They seem to have a huge need to "kick others in the balls repeatedly" to feel better than others.
Have you ever noticed how no matter what topic(it could even be about fingernail clippings) is being discussed with these types the conversation almost always degrades into them having to make repeated points to prove that they are right and you are wrong. Apparently this indoctrinated part of their identity is what they call 'education'. I guess they also need this to justify the 100-200k of debt they have after graduation and the calls they will receive for the rest of their life from their alma mater each year for donations.
These same people also tend to bring this mind set with them to wherever it is they end up working. They seem to have a huge need to "kick others in the balls repeatedly" to feel better than others.
Have you ever noticed how no matter what topic(it could even be about fingernail clippings) is being discussed with these types the conversation almost always degrades into them having to make repeated points to prove that they are right and you are wrong. Apparently this indoctrinated part of their identity is what they call 'education'. I guess they also need this to justify the 100-200k of debt they have after graduation and the calls they will receive for the rest of their life from their alma mater each year for donations.
Unfortunately where I went to middle/high school there was very little elitism built around GPA and test scores. However, everyone just instinctively knew that the most dangerous bullies were not the most popular kids, but instead the kids just below them in the social heirarchy. The top tier were generally secure in themselves, but those below were always looking for an edge to get into the pantheon.
Indeed, pg addresses this in his essay on why nerds are unpopular in school.
Here's my question: does bullying ever give an edge into the pantheon?
Here's my question: does bullying ever give an edge into the pantheon?
No. But that never stopped those guys from bullying. If they understood this then they may have been at the top.
Interesting article but I am not convinced outward expressions of elitism have much of a correlation with one's academic background. In my experience, the most talented and creative individuals are modest, hard working and often quiet while those lacking demonstrable talent are the ones who make the most noise. I'd wager talent has little to no correlation with academic background.
What's the motivation for writing the article?
To me, there's always some way to feel superior by pointing fingers. I think he's driving his own brand of elitism.
(Somebody please accuse me of the same thing, and let's see if we can recursively create a singularity)
To me, there's always some way to feel superior by pointing fingers. I think he's driving his own brand of elitism.
(Somebody please accuse me of the same thing, and let's see if we can recursively create a singularity)
>What's the motivation for writing the article?
Well, he managed to name-drop Stanford, MIT and Google in a short article with the nutritional value of cardboard. Everyone knows that after the first job or two flashing a ivy-league CV around it starts to matter what you have achieved not where you went.
funny
The number of articles and editorials I've read in the last 5 years, written by people from tier-1 schools, decrying the tyranny and ill-manners of the unwashed masses, and the unfairness towards graduates of these so-called "top" schools, is enough to convince me that the reputation that grads from these schools have for being pompous windbags who went to these schools not for the education, but for the name brand, is well deserved.
This article (hosted not insignificantly at standford.edu) is an absolutely textbook example of this phenomenon.
Articles like this one, and numerous professional interactions with people who introduce themselves as "Suzy Sue, I went to Yale" or "Marcus Markk, I went to Harvard"...and then repeatedly fail to perform up to the expectations I'd have for community college dropouts...I've never heard somebody from a tier-2 or 3 school introduce themselves in this way.
After so many of these kinds of experiences, when I hire people, a degree from a tier-1 school is an automatic mark against, not a mark for.
This article (hosted not insignificantly at standford.edu) is an absolutely textbook example of this phenomenon.
Articles like this one, and numerous professional interactions with people who introduce themselves as "Suzy Sue, I went to Yale" or "Marcus Markk, I went to Harvard"...and then repeatedly fail to perform up to the expectations I'd have for community college dropouts...I've never heard somebody from a tier-2 or 3 school introduce themselves in this way.
After so many of these kinds of experiences, when I hire people, a degree from a tier-1 school is an automatic mark against, not a mark for.
What I find truly misleading is that he labels "name-brand universities" as a form of adult elitism. He then goes on to explain that it is actually those that did not attend the best schools that are outwardly elite. I have heard stories of name-brand universities' alumni not even giving those outside of the best schools the time of day.
Perhaps there is a cockiness to those that strive to prove themselves beyond grades and diplomas. Sure. However, I'd heavily argue that this is not elitism. Elitism requires grouping with those of similar backgrounds (e.g. Harvard, Yale, MIT, whatever). You cannot be an elitist unless you claim alumni from only your school - or brand of schools - are better than others. The author does mention that he went to a FEW prestigious schools and so doesn't follow his own advice on the matter.
(Elitism can also be displayed by a position that only wealthy are better [1]. This unfortunately may plague these so-called name brand schools.)
So, go be cocky and stop name dropping your prestigious university (or giving said university/universities more weight). Then you'll stop being an elitist, but you might just improve your former school's brand...
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism
Perhaps there is a cockiness to those that strive to prove themselves beyond grades and diplomas. Sure. However, I'd heavily argue that this is not elitism. Elitism requires grouping with those of similar backgrounds (e.g. Harvard, Yale, MIT, whatever). You cannot be an elitist unless you claim alumni from only your school - or brand of schools - are better than others. The author does mention that he went to a FEW prestigious schools and so doesn't follow his own advice on the matter.
(Elitism can also be displayed by a position that only wealthy are better [1]. This unfortunately may plague these so-called name brand schools.)
So, go be cocky and stop name dropping your prestigious university (or giving said university/universities more weight). Then you'll stop being an elitist, but you might just improve your former school's brand...
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism
Grades are a sign of intelligence ?
This could simply be a student's willingness to parrot whatever answers or theory a teacher would like to hear. Ever notice that often when a student outdoes his teacher or his teacher's favorite 'pets' then he is down-graded ?
The world's best scientists, mathematicians, physicists have all experienced this especially when their thinking was about to improve on and/or replace the old theories that their professors used for large grant money.
Maybe there was a good reason that it was a crime in Socrates day for teachers to accept money from students. Does financial incentive corrupt education outright ?
"Prestigious" schools also deny those that need tuition most when the whole point of attending is to gain something(knowledge etc.) that they do not already possess. These schools also pride themselves on cultural diversity but what about the classicism that defines their admissions ? Why should a decent degree run a student into 100-200k of debt after graduation ? Less wealthy countries provide comparable and even better education for free. Why ?
This could simply be a student's willingness to parrot whatever answers or theory a teacher would like to hear. Ever notice that often when a student outdoes his teacher or his teacher's favorite 'pets' then he is down-graded ?
The world's best scientists, mathematicians, physicists have all experienced this especially when their thinking was about to improve on and/or replace the old theories that their professors used for large grant money.
Maybe there was a good reason that it was a crime in Socrates day for teachers to accept money from students. Does financial incentive corrupt education outright ?
"Prestigious" schools also deny those that need tuition most when the whole point of attending is to gain something(knowledge etc.) that they do not already possess. These schools also pride themselves on cultural diversity but what about the classicism that defines their admissions ? Why should a decent degree run a student into 100-200k of debt after graduation ? Less wealthy countries provide comparable and even better education for free. Why ?
In The Psychology of Persuasion the author looks at how the appearance of authority yields big results: http://www.takebackyourbrain.com/2007/the-psychology-of-pers... - The disconnect, then, is that confidence and arrogance are often interpreted as authority.
hi everyone, this is the author --- wow, i totally didn't expect a random rant of mine to be posted on hacker news :) after monitoring comments for a few hours, i finally had to sign up for an account.
First off, I should mention the context of my article: I wrote that (admittedly not so well-written) article from personal observations I made of technical people in various fields working in various jobs at various companies (I don't want to name drop any further, heh). It was just my personal observation that given two people in the same exact job position WITH EQUAL INTELLIGENCE/SKILLS/EXPERIENCE/ETC., the one who went to a lesser-known university was usually more vocal about announcing his/her skills and, in a way, disparaging of people from so-called name-brand schools.
Sorry I didn't intend to make any sorts of value judgments as to how university reputation correlates with intelligence, likelihood of success, etc.
Now I'm gonna have some fun responding to other people's comments :)
First off, I should mention the context of my article: I wrote that (admittedly not so well-written) article from personal observations I made of technical people in various fields working in various jobs at various companies (I don't want to name drop any further, heh). It was just my personal observation that given two people in the same exact job position WITH EQUAL INTELLIGENCE/SKILLS/EXPERIENCE/ETC., the one who went to a lesser-known university was usually more vocal about announcing his/her skills and, in a way, disparaging of people from so-called name-brand schools.
Sorry I didn't intend to make any sorts of value judgments as to how university reputation correlates with intelligence, likelihood of success, etc.
Now I'm gonna have some fun responding to other people's comments :)
Without passing any judgement whatsoever, I'm going to leave this link here :)
http://www.stanford.edu/~pgbovine/advantages-of-name-brand-s...
http://www.stanford.edu/~pgbovine/advantages-of-name-brand-s...
Ugh, finally managed to read most of the article at the link. I would have preferred putting my hand in my garbage disposal.
It's an absolutely accurate portrayal of what's wrong in the world with respect to the reputation that top-tier schools have and the practices of top-tier corporations. Mr. Guo, in a few areas of self-reflection attempts to strike a reasonable tone in the parts that don't sound like a brochure for these name branded schools. But then we get to the section titled, "Take-home messages if you went to a normal, lesser-known university" (actually the title, I'm not making it up) and it's a fast ride downhill from there.
This kind of trite, patronizing, condescension is hard to find out in the public arena. This honest externalization from an elite is only confirmation of all the worst fears of what these folks are really thinking about you. The joy of it is not that Mr. Guo rails against the practices he so accurately describes but that he shrugs his shoulders, utters "just accept your station in life state-school", and ends his piece with a section so unbelievably arrogant, so paternal...we get this little pat on the head "be realistic state-school, you could always open some rinky-dink business in some small town that's never heard of Google".
Here, I'll not paraphrase anymore, I'll just quote:
"If you are like the vast majority of people who didn't attend a name-brand university, then I want to stress the importance of perspective. Realize that the deck is stacked against you...To try to buck the system will likely result in disappointment and dejection."
"Another aspect of perspective is the importance of realism. It's healthy to have dreams, but you must at the same time have a realistic career plan."
"Being realistic doesn't mean being complacent, though. For instance, starting a small local business is a great outlet for those who are aspiring entrepreneurs. If you are the town expert on Topic X, then you can form a small business without fear that some Ivy League brat will infringe on your local market."
Are you kidding me with this "why even try, you'll just end up disappointed" rubbish?
It's an absolutely accurate portrayal of what's wrong in the world with respect to the reputation that top-tier schools have and the practices of top-tier corporations. Mr. Guo, in a few areas of self-reflection attempts to strike a reasonable tone in the parts that don't sound like a brochure for these name branded schools. But then we get to the section titled, "Take-home messages if you went to a normal, lesser-known university" (actually the title, I'm not making it up) and it's a fast ride downhill from there.
This kind of trite, patronizing, condescension is hard to find out in the public arena. This honest externalization from an elite is only confirmation of all the worst fears of what these folks are really thinking about you. The joy of it is not that Mr. Guo rails against the practices he so accurately describes but that he shrugs his shoulders, utters "just accept your station in life state-school", and ends his piece with a section so unbelievably arrogant, so paternal...we get this little pat on the head "be realistic state-school, you could always open some rinky-dink business in some small town that's never heard of Google".
Here, I'll not paraphrase anymore, I'll just quote:
"If you are like the vast majority of people who didn't attend a name-brand university, then I want to stress the importance of perspective. Realize that the deck is stacked against you...To try to buck the system will likely result in disappointment and dejection."
"Another aspect of perspective is the importance of realism. It's healthy to have dreams, but you must at the same time have a realistic career plan."
"Being realistic doesn't mean being complacent, though. For instance, starting a small local business is a great outlet for those who are aspiring entrepreneurs. If you are the town expert on Topic X, then you can form a small business without fear that some Ivy League brat will infringe on your local market."
Are you kidding me with this "why even try, you'll just end up disappointed" rubbish?
thanks for the comments ... you have a good point regarding some of the passages, i'll take them down soon or try to re-work them.
i'm glad that you understood the main purpose of that article, which is to highlight what i've observed about top-tier schools and the hiring practices of certain big corporations.
however, i really don't mean to sound like i'm an advertising brochure for those schools, because i'm definitely not. again, i'm just trying to share the experiences i've heard from my friends (who went to all different types of schools) with regards to their job hunting process.
in part, i'm trying to express some of the frustrations that people have relayed to me because they were definitely worthy of certain positions but got passed up due to their lack of so-called name-brand credentials. but i see that i've done a bad job at doing that, since i drew such negative criticism due to my tone ;)
please email me personally if you'd like to give me more feedback on how i could emphasize the more objective points of that article without sounding condescending. thanks.
i'm glad that you understood the main purpose of that article, which is to highlight what i've observed about top-tier schools and the hiring practices of certain big corporations.
however, i really don't mean to sound like i'm an advertising brochure for those schools, because i'm definitely not. again, i'm just trying to share the experiences i've heard from my friends (who went to all different types of schools) with regards to their job hunting process.
in part, i'm trying to express some of the frustrations that people have relayed to me because they were definitely worthy of certain positions but got passed up due to their lack of so-called name-brand credentials. but i see that i've done a bad job at doing that, since i drew such negative criticism due to my tone ;)
please email me personally if you'd like to give me more feedback on how i could emphasize the more objective points of that article without sounding condescending. thanks.
I wouldn't change it at all. I think you were being honest, which is commendable. It's a perfect example of the attitude that permeates top-level schools, employers and social organizations. An attitude most elites won't admit to. Yet we of the penny seats in life face it every day. The honesty, while infuriating, is refreshing. It's not that you were quietly or subtly ignoring those from generic schools, but that you were out and out saying what we know you are thinking "don't bother competing, you can't hang with us".
It's the academic and professional version of the kind of trash talk you might hear at an inner city pick-up basketball game or an 8-mile rap battle. It's starts with why the elite are the best, and what being the best means, and ends with why the non-elites can't be part of this group and what they should do about it. You just had fewer insults about my mother, but the content was the same.
It's a challenge, not much different than the challenges presented by elites to non-elites in every capacity of life.
I suspect that much of what you see in the other article is merely the frustrated result of having to work just as hard as the elite guy for schooling, but then also having to beat, kick and claw their way through even minor interactions because they are being treated like a child just like in the example you provided in the original version of this article. It's a vicious cycle that creates a bad environment for everyone.
It's the academic and professional version of the kind of trash talk you might hear at an inner city pick-up basketball game or an 8-mile rap battle. It's starts with why the elite are the best, and what being the best means, and ends with why the non-elites can't be part of this group and what they should do about it. You just had fewer insults about my mother, but the content was the same.
It's a challenge, not much different than the challenges presented by elites to non-elites in every capacity of life.
I suspect that much of what you see in the other article is merely the frustrated result of having to work just as hard as the elite guy for schooling, but then also having to beat, kick and claw their way through even minor interactions because they are being treated like a child just like in the example you provided in the original version of this article. It's a vicious cycle that creates a bad environment for everyone.
ha thanks for the free advertising :) so, just to preempt any ad hominem attacks, here is what this article is NOT trying to say:
1.) people who did not go to 'name-brand' universities are somehow less intelligent or less deserving of professional success
2.) people who did go to 'name-brand' universities are somehow super awesome
3.) people who went to 'name-brand' universities are somehow more deserving of the advantages that are bestowed on them
I'm just trying to tell a collection of stories i've heard from friends and learned through my own experiences. I hope that I don't come off as being too judgmental :)
1.) people who did not go to 'name-brand' universities are somehow less intelligent or less deserving of professional success
2.) people who did go to 'name-brand' universities are somehow super awesome
3.) people who went to 'name-brand' universities are somehow more deserving of the advantages that are bestowed on them
I'm just trying to tell a collection of stories i've heard from friends and learned through my own experiences. I hope that I don't come off as being too judgmental :)
They figure that it's tough enough to get into and
graduate from MIT, so even a mediocre MIT student might do
the job as well as an exceptional student at a normal
(lesser-known) university.The subtle irony of this is lost on so many. I wish I could upvote this more than once.
I think the author is in error to assume that all people attend elite schools for the same reasons. Some people are honestly the best in their field and will gravitate to the best schools, others simply desire the best pedigree, and some people simply want to go to the best school they can.
I don't think that Ivy alumni are hesitant to name drop their school. Some are smug; most aren't. As I have gotten further from college the conversations generally swing toward what you are doing, rather than where you went.
The generalization about 2nd tier students is also too broad. My CS degree is from a 2nd tier school (RIT 01), and when talking with others from similar schools it seems like there is occasionally an elitist; but it isn't that common.
There are plenty of people who are elitist because they have something to prove. They may have gone to a great school, or no school at all. In the end it doesn't matter; they are simply annoying.
I don't think that Ivy alumni are hesitant to name drop their school. Some are smug; most aren't. As I have gotten further from college the conversations generally swing toward what you are doing, rather than where you went.
The generalization about 2nd tier students is also too broad. My CS degree is from a 2nd tier school (RIT 01), and when talking with others from similar schools it seems like there is occasionally an elitist; but it isn't that common.
There are plenty of people who are elitist because they have something to prove. They may have gone to a great school, or no school at all. In the end it doesn't matter; they are simply annoying.
This is a fun paradox: someone who graduated from {MIT, Harvard, etc.} can't say they did, since it would be elitist. They can stop mentioning their Alma mater when they realize that it sounds elitist to mention it. But then it just seems like they're not mentioning it, as a way of signaling their lack of need to mention it (their status is obvious). Once you graduate from any of these schools, there's no way not to sound elitist when asked where you went to school. You're trapped.
PS - This, of course, doesn't mean someone graduating from these schools isn't elitist. It's just that the social exchange in which they tell you their Alma mater doesn't give you any information in regards to their elitism.
PS - This, of course, doesn't mean someone graduating from these schools isn't elitist. It's just that the social exchange in which they tell you their Alma mater doesn't give you any information in regards to their elitism.
Is it a sort of oxymoron exercise or something?
[deleted]
What does everyone think of the blogger's academics page?
http://www.stanford.edu/~pgbovine/academic.htm
Disclaimer: I don't know the blogger, and as far as I know I don't know any of his professional colleagues or classmates from any era. I'm not competent to judge accomplishments in the domain of computer science, but I try to pick up nuances from English writing, just as does any other reader of English.