Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by smugma 897 days ago
Why are you grouping MIT into the same group as Stanford?
4 comments

They are both elite institutions with sub 8% acceptance rates, it's a valid categorization
They’re all wrought with dishonesty and self preservation.
Jennifer Doudna [1], who helped characterize* CRISPR, worked at Yale:

> Doudna joined Yale's Department of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry as an assistant professor in 1994.

... and now works at UC Berkeley.

David Liu [2], who pioneered base editing, a generational improvement on classic CRISPR, works at Broad Institute (which is a collab between Harvard and MIT):

> He is the Richard Merkin Professor, Director of the Merkin Institute of Transformative Technologies in Healthcare, and Vice-Chair of the Faculty at the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT

I absolutely loathe the current social meta where people are allowed (even celebrated) for thoughtlessly punching upwards, regardless how broad the brush (boxing glove?) seems to be. Are there shitheads in these institutions? Undoubtedly. Are there also a ton of really brilliant people who have good intentions, have integrity, and deserve your utmost respect? Undoubtedly. Are the shitheads more likely to be located in administration? My bet is yes, because the scope of administration is a lot more political, but again -- we have to be careful.

Is it anywhere near accurate to say "They’re all wrought with dishonesty and self preservation"? I don't see how this statement could be supported with anything other than personal emotion. Anti-intellectualism is just another form of dangerous prejudice and should be treated as such. You can sign me up for metaphorically stringing up this particular asshole.

I also say all this as someone who didn't go to a prestigious school.

Happy New Years!

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Doudna [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_R._Liu

Doudna didnt discover CRISPR; her fellow Nobel recipient Emmanuelle Charpentier did

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuelle_Charpentier?wprov=s...

Yes, "discovered" was too way strong of a word there, and apologies to Charpentier. Thanks for the correction.

However, she did win the Nobel prize and I have found source after source that suggests she seemed to be fundamental to the development of the science.

My point remains -- you could literally substitute her name with one of a thousand names associated with high profile biomedical miracles to have originated from prestigious universities.

Yeah I’m thankful you brought it up. There’s a really well done documentary about their individual and then collaborative work but i’ve not found it. Will update with link if i do.

Update: might be

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/human-nature/

When I say “they” not referring to individuals. I’m referring to the organization at a whole. It’s ironic that so many who operate under the umbrella of science and truth do things that are antithetical to that. At the end of the day these institutions are fighting for survival like everyone else - and they don’t always operate truthfully.
> Are there shitheads in these institutions? Undoubtedly. Are there also a ton of really brilliant people who have good intentions, have integrity, and deserve your utmost respect? Undoubtedly.

Right, that is the nature of every human institution, and every human.

> They’re all wrought with dishonesty and self preservation.

Citation needed.

"Smug MA"?
In a positive sense, they are the two top tech oriented universities, west coast and east coast counterparts.

In the negative, you have this story at Stanford. With MIT you have the Jeffery Epstein connection, some high profile retractions, and the president part of the three Uni Presidents who flubbed the anti-semitism question in the congressional hearing.

Other universities have negatives too, but they are not newsworthy at lesser known schools. The heads of lesser-known schools aren't featured in Congressional hearings.