[laidoffamazon]

I'd love for you to tell me, step by step, what someone that didn't get into a top institution of any kind should take away from this comment.

Because all I can take away is that people like me are just objectively inferior compared to you, destined to not be a future leader or professional. Is that not what you are attempting to communicate? I just want to be crystal clear. We all know people like you are superhuman. I'm just wondering what it should mean for the rest of us, the 99.99%.

[SturgeonsLaw]

Yep, the Ivy League is one mechanism through which classism is perpetuated. The "elite" do think they're better than us, though it's rare that they'd be so gauche as to say it outright.

[theGnuMe]

So turns out that someone studied this way back in 1999. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1999-10/27/049r-...

[laidoffamazon]

Unless I'm missing something obvious Dale & Kruger says people that get into top schools get the premium, which is exactly what I alluded to. What can the rest of us even do?

Makes me think my class of people are just considered garbage humans by everyone.

[ken47]

What is your class of people? The 99.99% that you alluded to in another comment? Can that be called a class of people?

[laidoffamazon]

Correct, those of us that didn't get into any elite institution (and most likely aren't considered "qualified").

[theGnuMe]

You are indeed missing something obvious.

[laidoffamazon]

Help me out here, what am I missing?

[theGnuMe]

Maybe read the article?

[laidoffamazon]

It seems like my takeaway is identical to the article's takeaway, that getting in matters more than going. Unless you're thinking of something else.

The whole "matters less multiple years into career" bit is a cope if it's just a measure of how inherently good you are if you can get in. There seems to be a clear separation between the people that get in and the people that don't!

[wolverine876]

Here are my thoughts:

The first step is to put aside subjective biases, put aside ourselves completely, which is necessary to reading and listening effectively - curiously and objectively. You may fear or hate those things, but you brought them to the conversation; they aren't what I wrote about. (For example, I never said I attended either institution, or that the students there are somehow superior.)

Another step: There are more talented people, with better resources, than you - and than me, and you might be one of them. Good for you, if that's so; I hope you go much further than I do. That fact will always be true for everyone (ignoring a statistically meaningless theoretical exception). If we can't handle that fact, we can't talk about reality. Must we censor the idea that elite university education is exceptional, and their student bodies are exceptional? It's a cheap way out of the conversation.

Step three is that it doesn't bother me at all that you might go further than me, or the students at these institutions might go further. What is to fear? I'm not inferior to anyone on the planet. If we rely on external rewards, especially elite ones, as necessary to a successful life, then 99.99% will 'fail' - which seems to be where you reached your own conclusions. Most importantly, all the external rewards in the universe won't fill the holes inside; people seek them as a substitute, including elite status, but it never works. The only answer is to be happy with yourself internally, to provide love and recognition internally, regardless of the external rewards. The external doesn't fill those holes, and will come and go; you are the only person who will always be there; nobody can take that away.

[laidoffamazon]

> and their student bodies are exceptional? It's a cheap way out of the conversation

> I'm not inferior to anyone on the planet

These appear in tension, yes? It’s pretty clear that I’m inferior to anyone at Harvard including Claudine Gay, and my life is far worse than anyone there and will not get better. It’s also clear that people like you would definitely believe people like me are subhuman “NPCs” because we didn’t accomplish enough in high school if you bristle at censoring your admiration for this exceptional, superhuman cohort of people. If they’re superhuman, I can only conclude I’m under human, yes?

[wolverine876]

I can only refer you back to the GP. All your words are brought by you to the conversation; none by me. I not only disagree with you, some directly conflicts with what I've said.

The tension is only if you accept some external definition of yourself. That's why I talked about external and internal in the GP. Harvard can't possibly love you; in a sense, nobody can love you; you can only love yourself (and then, there's there's room for personal love from others - but never Harvard). The same goes for me and everyone else.

All that matters is what you give to yourself. If you give yourself the parent comment, that's what you will have, even if Harvard begged you to come - lots of externally successful people are very unhappy for that reason. If you give yourself love and value, then you will have that, again regardless of what Harvard says about you. Harvard is orthogonal to the outcome.

You are not inferior to anyone. But only you can tell yourself that. You won't hear me until you tell yourself and believe it. But I really mean it.