Although, I think it paints with too fine a brush sometimes (narrowing its conclusions to the Ivy Leagues).

For example, I've definitely noticed a loss of solitude and way too much over specialization too early. A lot of the people I know in Ivy League schools began competing and winning in contests in their chosen field by middle school. I understand that a University would rather admit a USAMO or Intel Science Fair Winner - but the competition there is so intense it forces students aiming high to begin specializing before they're even teenagers.

Frankly I've taken more math courses than anyone ever should, and there are still some USAMO problems that I couldn't solve given unlimited time. Take a look: http://www.unl.edu/amc/a-activities/a7-problems/USAMO-IMO/q-... And they expect 16 year olds to do that!

Hell, I've personally seen a few high school science fair projects that are essentially graduate level work involving genetic engineering and monte carlo simulations.

Although, to be fair, a lot of these kids also try to see the bigger picture and recognize the role of their formal education (they are usually the ones who end up as quants or traders ;-)).

Ok, it's wildly unfair for a Putnam fellow to be looking at these, but since you asked... I think I can see how to solve problem 6, but I'd have to take a few minutes to make sure that my solution works. The other 5 problems took me about 30 seconds each.

Hell, I've personally seen a few high school science fair projects that are essentially graduate level work involving genetic engineering and monte carlo simulations.

Funny, I was about to say that I've seen far too many graduate students doing work which is essentially high school science fair material.

Even so, that's very impressive. After looking through, I only see likely solutions to 3 of the 6, and I would still have a fair amount of work to even verify those 3.

goes and mopes in the corner

The world is filled with brilliant, respected people who never did well on a math test.

Interesting... I found the opposite. I went to Oxford University (as elite as it gets), with a head big as a balloon, and clearly thinking myself better than everyone. Four years in the presence of people whose intellect crushed me like an insignificant cockroach taught me humility. Since I still needed to believe that I wasn't... you know... just plainly inferior, that forced me to re-rationalise what it means to be "better", and to come to the conclusion that intellectual prowess has nothing to do with being a better person.

It forgot that the true purpose of education is to make minds, not careers.

I also disagree with this, to an extent. My time in Oxford made me a more rounded person, intellectually, inter-personally, and emotionally. And I think that was the right result - that's certainly what my parents hoped when I went in. I think the purpose of education is to make people - not just minds or careers. A person is a combination of many different things, including mind, network of connections, desires, abilities, and a myriad other things.

Mind you, Oxford might just be different from Yale... perhaps Yale should take a leaf ;-)

I realized that intelligence has nothing to do with being a better person when I came up against the apparent contradiction that all of the fascinating people I enjoyed talking to were far less intelligent than myself. :-)

If I was sitting next to Tiger Woods I would probably talk very little about golf, knowing that we share little in common in that area and would make for a very one-way conversation. Perhaps, then, it would appear that I have interesting things to say, although the whole time I am a golf idiot (or sports idiot, or math idiot, whatever).

Or is it something different?

If I sat next to Tiger Woods I would talk about the weather and the menu for a minute or two, but then I'd certainly introduce the topic of golf and see what happened. It could be that Tiger loves nothing more than to talk about golf. He is freakishly obsessed with golf, after all.

The result might turn out to be a "one-way conversation". So what? People really like to talk about the things they love. If you listen intently and ask questions that indicate you're following along, they'll love you for it, even if the questions are basic.

The secret is to be alert for signs that your conversation partner is trying to change the subject. If I ask Tiger about golf and he responds with a few quick sentences and then asks about the music that's playing on the radio it's probably time to talk about something else.

I was drawing an analogy though, to pick on cperciva's post. It isn't so hard to see that the contradiction he writes about isn't so much of a contradiction, which is surprising to read from someone who is obviously very intelligent.

Example: http://www.arwu.org/rank/2007/ARWU2007_Top100.htm with Cambridge 4th, Oxford tenth and Sheffield in place 72, just ahead of the University of Arizona.

Something tells me it would have been better going to Sheffield than going to this local University just for this reason, but we all make mistakes.

As it happens, I became friendly with the head of computer science at my local University choice, for doing well in a computer trivia quiz.

Anyone else feel like they're in this boat?

Interestingly I have heard from my friends at Harvard & Columbia that they are disappointed with the kids there, i.e. no one is actually an intellectual and everyone just seems to be legacy.

What strikes me is how much the Ivy League issue bothers HN readers, measured by comment number and intensity. As if there was something unsaid in the lives of each of us, something profoundly disturbing.

The diversity at MIT is not only geographical and racial, but also cultural, socioeconomic, sexual, and anything else you'd care to measure. The culture is not at all self-affirming; most students come in wondering how they got in and leave glad to have made it to a degree. Engineering's obviously well-respected, but it's clearly not a glamorous profession, so that chase for social status and immeasurable wealth is really downplayed since most good engineers won't get there. And MIT students say they went to school in Boston (rather than Cambridge) not out of noblesse oblige, but because lots of people think it's in Michigan.

I guess the "mind and hands" ethic grounds you a little.

I think that this is an excellent observation, but I also think it's worth noting that many good engineers don't care if they get "there". If you're naturally inclined to find reward in problem-solving, then trained in how to solve progressively more complicated (and therefore rewarding) problems, the value comes from that activity, rather than in accumulating wealth.

Many engineers I've known are anything but "grounded," especially when it comes to their opinion of their own technical prowess, but that doesn't necessarily make them money-motivated.

The university functions essentially as a gatekeeper to various credentialized professions ( scientist, professor, doctor, lawyer, civil service). As gatekeeper, it really does not need to educate you. Students have been selected for high enough IQ that they will learn what they need in grad school or on the job. The school's main job is to teach you to love the school, that the school is responsible for everything good in your life, and that the school makes you special. That way, when you end up making money, you will be sure to send money back to the school that was responsible for such happy times.

I used to date a girl who went to Brandeis, which aspires to the Ivy League at every opportunity. In fact, by her admission it was the safety school of many who applied to Ivy League schools but were denied entry in the end. The students essentially had all the (sometimes subconscious) elitism of the Ivy Leaguers, combined with a massive chip on their shoulders due to their supposition that they were Ivy League material that mistakenly ended up at Brandeis. It was fascinating to read this article since she (and many of her colleagues) have many of the exact traits he describes, especially that "I have arrived" mentality.

Great submission!

Having excessively high expectations for his kids (or, you could say, excessively narrow) is the worst of it. I want to tell him, you have three kids, odds are they are not all going to be Ivy League scholars. But he can't imagine any other future for them. Going to be rough on him and his kids alike, I'm afraid.

That is so true. At Amherst, practically the only way to not get an Amherst degree is to finish your 4 years and not complete a major. (Guess how I found that out... ;-)) Steal an ambulance, drive it around the freshman quad, and crash it into a tree, and you get a 1-year suspension. Embezzle $13,000 from the school newspaper and you get a 4-year suspension. Both of those are real incidents, and their perpetrators are either Amherst alums or back at school now.

I visited Stanford for a few hours while travelling through California and even the bookshop clerk pretended I was some sort of king. Maybe she took acting classes, or denies the fact were she not employed by Stanford, many of the students wouldn't give her much more than the time of day.

I have nothing against Standford or the people that attend, and the article rang true with my experience passing through the school and my experience with people in that 'sphere' of influence. I don't associate myself with any sphere, and I aim to look at everyone's humanity. Furthermore, I went to a top univeristy (in Australia), but was one of the 'searchers,' so perhaps you can go to an Ivy league school but obtain the benefits on your own terms. When I got to university, I realized that not only had I not 'arrived,' but that I had barely even started. It really depends how deep you want your journey to go.

Says the article: "There’s no point in excluding people unless they know they’ve been excluded."

Social exclusion as practiced by the 'elites' (or anyone with any modicum of power) has its usefulness - it's a way to get ahead and stay ahead with that power. As such, people that are excluded shouldn't take it personally when they realize that the person or people who are excluding them overtly or covertly have designated them as their worst enemy, biggest rival, and their greatest fear. Ironically, for those not truly confronting their fears, the greatest power is deflected.

Well, a top university in Australia is very different to a top university in the US. Not because they aren't good -- Australia's top unis are probably better at least than the Ivy League's worst -- but because they don't have nearly the same sense of elitism. I guess this is mostly because of the way selection is done by course rather than by university -- it's far easier to get into the least selective courses at Sydney or Melbourne than it is to get into the most selective courses at Southern Cross or Charles Sturt.

(Full disclosure: I went to Sydney, and now I work at a not-elite-but-not-bad university in the US)

You know, there are some Stanford students who work in the bookstore. I think your accusation of all Stanford students having contempt for people who work at the bookstore, especially since it was just extrapolated from the behavior of a clerk who could've been a Stanford student himself, is highly unfounded.

I used to wonder about the creativity bit at my previous startup job. The guy was a serial entrepreneur, very clued in technically, was a great communicator, had a great sense of humour etc, etc, Heck, he even threatened to write code once. Wharton, HBS, Blah, Blah. Like I said technically qualified and clued in as well. But I couldn't understand why he had zero interest in doing anything original and was hell bent on chasing tail lights. All he was interested in was in making the right noises, adding features that would send out the right signals, etc. At that time,the area we were competing wide open and there were several gaps that could have filled in very creatively. Add to that, entirely clueless competition.

That's when I decided that Ivy league folks are not all that creative. They are very tribal in ways that you and I may not realise immediately.

There are Ivy-league alumni who are creative and inspired, just as there are public school alumni who are insipid and shallow. The interesting question is, how could someone go through all of that high-quality education, and not gain the capacity for introspection that would allow him to be more original?

As a product of UC's (UC San Diego Math/English major followed by MS in Engineering at Berkeley), I know my experience was utterly different from an Ivy, mainly because I attended Columbia Law school for one semester before dropping out to get the MS in Engineering. I learned that you can absolutely sit on your thumb and get through an elite law school at an Ivy. Berkeley engineering was as brutal and uncaring as Math at UCSD: one mistake, and your ass is out.

I'd say that students at top public universities aren't coddled like Ivy Leaguers, and they're more acutely are aware of the possibility of failure, but still have the opportunity to succeed on the highest level and work with the top researchers in their fields (this isn't just true of Berkeley, it's true of many large, research oriented publics, like Texas, Washington, Michigan, Illinois, as well as UCLA, UCSD, etc...) Check out rankings for PhD programs and you'll see a heavy representation of these schools, especially in Engineering and the Sciences.

Overall, I'd say that the danger isn't an elite education, its a culture of entitlement. Nobody leaves Berkeley feeling entitled to a damn thing, and almost everyone feels like they got knocked around a bit. Part of the reason is the sheer number of undergrads at these publics. Berkeley may have a great faculty, but you have to compete with four-five times the number of undergrads to get there. No wonder Berkeley is a little more willing to grade hard and kick people to the gutter. You just can't coddle 24,000 undergrads. You have to start shedding them.

And there's the problem - Berkeley may be, uh, character building, but does that sound like a fun way to spend years 18-22? You have a better chance of making your Venture Capital connections at Stanford or Harvard. Kinda sucks, but membership does have its privileges, and honestly, doesn't it sound better to go to a school that won't give you a C in physics and deny you entry to the CS major?

To a certain extent, we shouldn't care about Ivy League institutions, because in the end, they are just a name, right? What is sad, though, is that there are brilliant professors at these universities having to teach these pathetic students, and not those who actually care and have some skill in a particular subject. What is sad is that parents, employers and institutions themselves proclaim that these students are the best and the brightest and we believe them. What is sad is that the resources of the Ivy League institutions are widening compared to strong public/private universities, but the "elite" institutions are not giving these resources to those who can best take advantage of them (I think what should have been more carefully scrutinized was Harvard President Drew Faust's comments a few months ago that Ivy League institutions will have the best scientific research because they have the most money/best profs, and that other institutions with fewer resources should work on "smaller problems" - the most disgusting thing I have heard in a long time). In short, the whole system is powerful, yet completely broken.

If, by some luck of lottery (at least in my case), you are someone who really cares in this "elite" environment, once you get past the disappointment of not relating to your peers, you have a great opportunity to do research for professors who are not only brilliant, but also very helpful since you are one of very few who care. I just hope that the many others like me who did not win the lottery get the same chances I do. I know at Berkeley, the grad students are given tremendous opportunities with respect to research (with probably only slightly more money concerns than places like Stanford/MIT), but it's very tough for an undergrad to get the same opportunities. I know I wouldn't have survived as an ugrad here, but I'm not sure if other institutions have similar environments.

How awful! Those miserable Ivy League kids and all that they miss out on. I never knew they had it so rough. We really should do something for those poor kids going into these schools. A warning or something. Maybe we should start some sort of charity to help them.

You're also missing the point of life if you continue to hold "being rich" to such a high level.

I didn't go to an ivy league school, but is this generally accepted as true? Is this other people's experience, or is the author's opinion more of an outlier?

If you explicitly went up to an Ivy League or top liberal arts student with the above quote, most of them would be disgusted. It's not like people walk around campus all day talking about how everyone else is inferior to them. Someone like that would probably be considered an antisocial boor.

But the point about not having anything to talk about with people who didn't go to an Ivy or other top college is true. One of the selling points of Ivies & top liberal arts colleges is that they "teach you how to think"; well, if they teach you how to think, how do you relate to other people that think differently? There's a shared depth of experience that going to a top college gives you, like the close relationships with professors, chance to talk to well-known public speakers, hanging out on a lush green quad in the middle of a city, or being able to break lots of rules without the administration caring. People who went to state schools, community colleges, or no college at all often didn't have that experience, so what's there to talk about?

This is ameliorated somewhat depending on what you choose to do after college. I went into computers, where many of the best programmers went to no-name colleges or dropped out of high school, so a.) I can always talk tech with other people in the computer field and b.) I found out pretty soon that where you went to school isn't a good proxy for ability. Some of my friends are bakers or teachers or secretaries, and they're sitting firmly in the real world. But the financial system and top law schools are populated with huge proportions of alums from top colleges, so the "Amherst bubble" (which includes Harvard & Yale & Columbia & Brown & Dartmouth & Swarthmore & Williams too, except they undoubtedly call it by their own school name) extends over it too.

So I'm truly curious what's at work behind this inability or unwillingness to talk to "the masses", as it were.

Class consciousness. The problem has nothing to do with the content of the conversation, but everything to do with the subtext: You're interacting with someone from a completely different social group and you may not even be sure what social cues you want to send, let alone exactly how to send them.

What is the proper relationship between you and your plumber? Master and servant? Master and slave? Contract employer and contract employee? Genial boss and long-term employee? Two friends trading with each other? Fellow members of a communal society? Friendly rivalry? Unfriendly rivalry?

How does this change if the plumber turns out to be the cousin of your sister-in-law? If the plumber belongs to your church? If the plumber lives next door?

If the plumber recommends an electrician friend, how important is it to hire that friend? Why is the plumber telling you this tale about the draconian local house inspector -- is this a standard plumber gripe, the plumbing equivalent of complaining about the weather, or is he trying to excuse the fact that his work might not pass inspection? When the plumber asks to be paid up-front, is that a standard practice or could he be planning to get drunk and then skip town?

(Regarding that last one: The books suggest that you never pay construction subcontractors in advance, but only as the work is completed. Unfortunately, the books don't tell you the precise words to use to inform your subcon that, no, you were not born yesterday. That part is up to you, and it's one of those things that they can't teach in an Ivy League class.)

Obviously, the problem of conversation has nothing to do with the topic or your knowledge of it. Thanks to the web, we know that people can happily spend hours discussing topics that they know absolutely nothing about. And there are probably very few topics that you're afraid to discuss with your peers, because you know how to navigate their social world: you know the slang, you know the legends, you know the taboos, you know when you're being insulted and how to give insult in return, and you know how to change the subject. Most importantly, you know the social order. If I log on here and write "Arc is Blub", everyone knows that I'm either issuing a (crude) challenge or being a clueless noob -- the authors of Arc have high social status here. If I write "VBScript is Blub", everyone knows that it's the news.yc/Slashdot/Digg equivalent of talking about the weather. ;)

But it's not as if socializing is as hard as I make it sound. It's like riding a bicycle -- if you enumerate all the computational tasks involved it sounds like a monumental feat, but kids do it all the time.

I certainly didn't when I went to college, though I try to practice when I get a chance now. And I remember many of my classmates expressing an uncomfortableness with smalltalk when I got to freshman orientation. "I'd rather talk about God or philosophy or Plato or quantum physics than the weather or sports results," I heard many people say.

Remember there's a bit of selection bias at work here: people who like to learn about and talk about academic things tend to do well in academics, which is how they got into Ivy League colleges in the first place.

Methinks the English prof likes to be dramatic.

For instance, I am going to generalize here, but most people I know coming out of these "elite" schools are more driven. My only explanation is that drive is what got them into these school in the first place. And being surrounded by driven and smart people who aren't afraid to challenge conventional wisdom is by far the biggest advantage in my opinion

Disclaimer: I went to a public university for a year before I transferred to an Ivy League school.

That's probably the most profound argument against our society that I have yet seen in a one liner.

The comment addresses the seeming contradiction between our views on beating up old ladies, and outwitting dumb people. For example, witness the practices of many payday loan operations.

I'm not taking a stance one way or the other at this point, but I found the comment compelling.

MIT sounds awesome, actually - people in touch with reality! Humble people! People who don't expect it to be easy, and hence complain about things being so hard! Maybe I should have applied, but apparently their financial aid isn't too good.

When I visited Yale, their sense of entitlement was very, very stifling. From anecdotal comparisons, Yale seems way relaxed, academically, as well.

nonsense. Harvard, MIT, and Princeton have the best financial aid in the country (besides of course Olin, Cooper Union, and the military academies...)

Less seriously, but maybe relatedly: Steve Jobs dropped out of Reed; Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard.

Reed has many of the intellectual trappings of an Ivy, but little of the opportunity to rub elbows with the rich & powerful. Jobs excepted, most of the college's famous alumni found their success in academia and the arts, not the business world.

I actually just wrote about this last night: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=224729

And correlation is not causation. He never stops to ask whether the brats he's complaining about are simply drawn to elite education and not at all produced by it. The idea that college fundamentally changes people seems far fetched to me.