Comment by lgessler
9 years ago
TL;DR:
Going to an elite school
1. denies you the opportunity to empathize with anyone beyond a narrow spectrum of socioeconomics and culture
2. anoints you with a sense of self-worth and entitlement that is, if earned at all, only founded on a narrow set of skills: analytic ability and hard work
3. admits you into the class of seductive "entitled mediocrity", which allows you to fail spectacularly with essentially no real repercussions
4. constraints you, via social pressure, to a narrow set of "prestigious" career paths, among which you might not find the one that is truly right for you
5. shelters you from failure and encourages the idea that it is unacceptable, leaving you less likely to take on risk which might be necessary for growth and fulfillment
6. "is profoundly anti-intellectual", because students are encouraged more to acquire power and all that is necessary for it than cultivation of one's intellect, which requires such slothful indulgences as sitting in solitude, journaling, or even making time to have a relationship with a close friend
TL;DR for the TL;DR: elite schools' "real purpose is to reproduce the class system", instead of to grow their students' minds.
I'll add that when I read Deresiewicz's article in the New Republic and then went to his talk on my undergrad institution's campus, his tone was markedly more bitter than it is here in 2008. I suppose the situation has not improved in his eyes.
I find this list (and the article in general) hilarious. Prefacing this with the disclaimer that the entire premise depends on how you define "elite", there are plenty of well-grounded, socially competent, altruistic young people attending elite universities, who go on to perform all sorts of contributive work. I find it odd that such an accomplished person would think it's ok to author a public piece about what seem to obviously be their own shortcomings.
Yes, perhaps some groups within some universities do contain individuals with certain proclivities that lead to cause certain behaviors that lead to certain outcomes, but not all!
That's a great list of positive benefits. Is there a corresponding list of negatives?
People like you are why the communists are going to win.
Hm. I went to Stanford. Famous for diverse, risk-taking non-mediocre graduates. I guess its the exception that proves the rule?
I went to Stanford, and I disagree. Sure, there are exceptions, but most fellow alumni I know are very boring.
For example, many live in San Francisco, work for Facebook or Google, and do little of note besides the following:
- have an "interesting" hobby - work out at the gym - hang out with friends at the bar or club - work on their career - start a "start-up" - travel - ... other very self-serving pursuits
Most recently, I am very disappointed in my fellow alumni for not standing up for this professor:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/19/ex-stanford-...
And actually, I am seeing to it that alumni and current students do something about this. Enough is enough.
Frankly, I'd be disappointed if mob justice prevailed in the case that you highlight above. Stanford hired a (presumably) competent lawyer to investigate the case and found the accused's case to be more compelling.
Nothing I have seen in the case indicates anything beyond a large amount of awkwardness and lack of comfort. Most of the evidence that she was actually discriminated against with regards to tenure is entirely circumstantial.
Having been intimately involved with these systems while at Stanford I have seen how cunningly many intelligent people at these institutions co-opt and leverage the prevalently liberal political attitudes towards race and gender issues for personal motivations, interests and grievances.
In fact I served as a residence assistant and witnessed someone who is now a very prominent politician wrongly accuse one of our students of racial discrimination. Having known the accused student ... I knew for a fact that no discrimination was involved. The student that made the accusation instantly leveraged the incident on several public forums to build political and social capital. His entire persona was based around "fighting racial oppression" -- even when said oppression was constructed purely for personal gain.
> and do little of note besides the following:
What do you think the average person in the world does? 99.9% of people are even more boring than the person you described. It's hard to find people who are more interesting than that.
> other very self-serving pursuits
There's no relationship between boringness and self-centeredness. It sounds like you might be incorrectly conflating "boring" with your own definition of "meaningless" (in a moral sense). I don't think charity work is likely to be less boring than any "self-serving" interest.
1 reply →
I've always wondered what it'd be like to go to Stanford and then just end up at Facebook or Google, alongside many state-school graduates. Would it be a massive let down? Sure, you might have learned more at Stanford than at your peers' state schools, but you are only using as much of your education as your peers are using.
6 replies →
What's wrong or boring about any of the things you mentioned? What would you do differently?
19 replies →
Throwing away big chunks of your company for VC cash before you've done a lick of work is risk taking?
What are some examples of "risk-taking"? (I don't think I've know anyone who could be described as risk-takers.)
Stanford is a great school but how do you figure those criteria are something Stanford is famous for?