[rfrey]

It's controversial because that assertion assumes that entrance to MIT, Harvard etc. is primarily based on IQ (or whatever other metric of "smartness" one uses). It is apparent that admission to these universities is based on many things other than IQ, and that IQ may in fact be a lesser component than other things, such as socioeconomic status (which leads to attending schools that prepare one for applying, being able to participate in activities that pad a CV, etc).

[3pt14159]

I didn't say there weren't other factors, there clearly are, but there are real differences in smarts between schools and to consider this controversial is something I think is more of a product of our present moment than something that people really deep down believe.

And I actually think I can speak to this with some amount of personal experience. I've been at both a lower tier college and a best-in-the-country university. When I was 11 I wanted to learn how to write software so I took courses nights, weekends and summers at the near by college until I was 14. I know how smart the class was and it was no where near as smart as the engineering students at the top tier university.

But that is ok! I think we overvalue intelligence in modern society, but to pretend that there are no differences is undervaluing the truth for the sake of political correctness or ideology.

[rfrey]

I think you're confounding competence and skill levels with "smarts". I wouldn't argue that the output of elite schools is not measurably different than that of e.g. state schools, but I think your view that the intrinsic quality (e.g. IQ) of the people is different is mistaken and not backed by any evidence.

Tangentially, I think it is lazy to say somebody who is disagreeing with you is just being "politically correct" or "a product of the present moment". I see no evidence for claims like yours, which strike me as more ideologically driven than you might believe.