Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by vladvasiliu 1054 days ago
I'm not very familiar with the German system, but I'd argue in France it's different. Yes, you need to go to a "general" high-school to hope to get into a prep-school. But no-one forces you to go to a technical or professional one. Teachers may recommend it, but the choice is with the pupil and the family.

Where it does get selective is at the prep-school level. But AFAIK this is based on the high-school grades, and it would seem that being very good in a "bad" high-school nets you better chances of being picked than being average in an "elite" high-school.
1 comments
alephnerd 1054 days ago
It's orthogonal.

Classmates of Sarkozy's and Lagardère's kids at École Jeannine Manuel will continue to leverage their network from there no matter if they attended a Grande école or a random generic university. And there are plenty of schools like those to this day in France.

This is the exact kind of network that Americans complain about with regards to legacy.

Most HNers did well enough on their SATs and ACTs to attend a target public school or non-legacy private like UC Berkeley or MIT respectively, and around 75% of students at Harvard didn't get in via Legacy admissions yet we (rightfully) still complain about that 25% who leveraged their network and class background to get in.

link
vladvasiliu 1054 days ago
But then the issue is the networking, not the school itself. And all the circus around school admissions is just that.

I doubt that if they were somehow forbidden to put their kids in the same school, Sarkozy's and Lagardère's kids would be total strangers and completely unlikely to "network". Just as there are cliques in all schools, even if their kids went to the same school as younger me, an immigrant, we would probably not have been friends, just like I was friends with kids whose "social level" was close to mine.

link
alephnerd 1053 days ago
> But then the issue is the networking, not the school itself

Yep.

Most reputable schools in the US are actually public flagships (UC Berkeley, UCLA, UCSD, UCSB, UT Austin, UWisc Madison, UWashington, Georgia Tech) or private universities (MIT, CalTech, CMU, JHU, Amherst College, Pomona College) which don't actually consider alumni or legacy.

There are 2 concurrent trains of thought in opposition to legacy in the US

1. It's an insult to the meritocratic nature of the US. (I agree with this aspect)

2. Any kind of networking is an unfair advantage (I disagree with this, but plenty of HNers and Americans in general appear to agree with this)

In the US, there is an assumption that after legacy is removed, there is never a need for legacy and someone from Podunk State will have equal standing as an MIT graduate all variables being equal. This is never going to happen, as you know well in France as well. ENS or SciencesPo grads will always be viewed as "better" than, idk, Université Toulouse II (not picking on Toulouse, just randomly selecting a city and number).

Plenty of Americans want to remove this kind of hierarchy, period. In reality, even if that happens, networking will continue and elites will continue to send kids to elite grade schools.

link