yes, money helps in so many ways. it sure does help you get in. It starts helping you when you are an infant. It helps the whole way. I know this because I worked in the tutoring idustry that helps people get in in exchange for money.
It helps, but it's certainly not the dominant effect. I don't know anyone who went to an elite university without significant baseline intelligence. I've seen so many students who still didn't do that well even after extensive, expensive tutoring.
For example, SAT coaching only increases scores by around 50 points. [0]
>" I don't know anyone who went to an elite university without significant baseline intelligence"
Oh, I sure do. The strongest positive correlations I've noticed with elite schooling are conscientiousness, acquiescence to authority and then wealth, in that order. Intelligence is a relatively distant 4th place, thought it still correlates positively, IMO.
"...what we've found is that the variation between schools is so much smaller than the variation between individuals that it's negligible by comparison. We can learn more about someone in the first minute of talking to them than by knowing where they went to school."
For what it's worth, I agree with pg and don't think your college is the best predictor of anything (after all, I actually decided not to go to an Ivy myself). That being said, I reject the notion that it's trivial to buy your way into an elite university. There's a whole class of second-tier private colleges that exist primarily because it's not that easy for rich kids to buy their way into the truly top schools.
That's an extremely patronizing way of approaching this debate.
I'm well aware of the different kinds of privilege which money affords students. I grew up lower middle class but went to boarding school and university with some incredibly privileged people.
Money helps, but it's still not the dominant factor. If it were, I never would have gotten the education I received. Insinuating that those who went to elite universities just had enough money to get in and go is insulting to those of us who worked very hard to get there.
I'm not going to engage further with you, since you seem more interested in "teaching" me than engaging in a discussion of equals.
You're free to ignore me, but I'll engage just once more.
I read your comments and perceived that you were misunderstanding, and that I could present it in a way that would clarify things. I'm sorry that you felt patronized, but there is no shame in ignorance. I think you should be more open to people telling you that they have something to teach you; maybe I was wrong, and maybe this isn't the case for everyone, but when I try to teach someone something it's because I respect them enough to think it's worth the effort.
You see all of our points, but you keep coming back to this idea of buying your way into school, which is not a point anyone is arguing. Why is that?
Happy trails.
Edit: And yes, I do believe that, regardless of how difficult it was to get into school, people work very hard in school. I never said they didn't, though I can see how it would be easy to come away with that impression. What I am saying is that it doesn't show them to be harder working than someone who did not attend school.
This was bothering me, so I consulted with a friend, and tl;dr, I didn't pay your arguments the attention they deserved (as you are aware), and I shouldn't have mentioned a "teachable moment" because, while the phrase didn't have this connotation for me, I could have easily foreseen that you would've interpreted that as me putting you a rung below where I am.
I stand by views and the substance of what I've said, but I can see that the way I interacted with you was counterproductive to the conversation. I apologize.
You're missing the point. It's not about whether I'm "ignorant" about your points or am ashamed of said ignorance, it's that you should never assume you know more than someone else—especially if you barely know them.
In my experience, there is never a benefit to assuming ignorance. Your original comment would have been much better without mentioning a "teachable moment." If you avoid assuming ignorance, then there are two outcomes:
1. The other person can actually not know what you're talking about and ask clarifying questions.
2. They do know what you're talking about, and can confirm your statements and extend it.
If you assume ignorance, you automatically put anyone who already knows what you're saying on edge. (This is also part of why "mansplaining" is such a grating phenomenon.) It's a conversational strategy with no upside and many downsides.
====
Having made that point, I'll say that I agree with everything you've said of there being lots of advantages that wealthy students have for getting into elite universities. That doesn't mean companies are necessarily wrong to concentrate on elite universities. Even though I think there are much better signals out there, if I had to choose a random Ivy league student vs. a random state college students I'd still choose the former.
I didn't assume ignorance, I observed it. I didn't mean to imply you were ashamed of being ignorant, what I meant is that it isn't an insult to tell someone that a moment is teachable, as we all have much to learn. I do apologize for framing my points in a way that was liable to be misinterpreted, and for not reading your argument closely enough. However, I'm not the only one missing something.
Correction: you observed that I did not mention certain facts. From that observation, you have no way of knowing whether I am ignorant of said facts or simply don't agree with you on their importance ot the issue at hand.
I don't think they're saying that money buys your way in a Ivy school, but in that it gives you a legs up with stuff like better and earlier education for example
I haven't taken the SAT in a long time, but I can speak on the GRE
For the GRE Verbal, you just have to memorize about a thousand words to basically get everything right except for the reading comprehension. that puts someone's score somewhere around ~158/170. I dont think memorizing 1k words is a very hard thing to do, though i am baffled that people dont do it.
For math, a person should memorize special right triangle ratios, prime numbers under 100, and some geometry rules. the rest is just practicing a finite set of question types.
For what it's worth, I boosted my SAT score by 400 points (2100 out of 2400) just by being more aware of the tricks used on those tests. My weakest subject was writing, but not because I am a bad writer, my handwriting is garbage.
It's just like taking IQ tests over again, once you know what to expect, you can game the system a bit by memorizing patterns. Scores on any standardized testing should be taken with a grain of salt.
I would disagree. Having money helps in a lot of things. For one, if you've got money, your family probably isn't struggling to eat. If you've got money, you're likely living in a better area of town.
