<p>Perhaps wisdom is knowing that just because you can doesn’t mean you should.</p>
<p>Perhaps my medical bias showing; we hear that a lot in the ICUs.</p>
<p>Perhaps wisdom is enduring opposition, and even hostility, in support of a vital right.
Freedom of speech is extremely important to me. I do not like attempts to shut down a conversation, when the calls to shut it down are all on one side. That’s just wrong.</p>
<p>In a medical context, particularly in an ICU, I think that the statement “Perhaps wisdom is knowing that just because you can doesn’t mean you should,” means that one respects the rights, dignity, and wishes of the patient. </p>
<p>That context is a great deal different from a discussion forum.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, that’s not always what it means.</p>
<p>
You are talking about empirical philosophy? Conceptual framework is only the beginning of inquiry. It must then be confirmed by empirical evidence or it is idle speculation at best. I heard a lot of interesting “scientific theories” in my younger days, but unfortunately they only work if you are willing to suspend the laws of thermodynamics. </p>
<p>
Did you look at the number of posts some of the members have? When personal self- interest is on the line, (your definition of) wisdom goes out the window. We are tribal that way.</p>
<p>My definition of wisdom is information + experience which greatly improve the predictiveness of an outcome. When IBM’s deep blue defeated Garry Kasparov, I took notice. Now we have this:
<a href=“Number crunchers were right about Obama despite what pundits said”>http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/08/business/la-fi-election-math-20121108</a></p>
<p>And this:
<a href=“http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/ai-system-diagnoses-illnesses-better-than-doctors/”>http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/ai-system-diagnoses-illnesses-better-than-doctors/</a></p>
<p>If the elites are really selecting the kind of students they claim they are, big data can vastly improve the results. I am not, however, holding my breath that these systems will be implemented any time soon. The elites too have their own self interest to look after.</p>
<p>Sorry, somewhat off-topic, but I am curious, Nrdsb4. I would have thought that in an ICU context, “just because you can doesn’t mean you should” means that there are medical measures that might be taken, but that it might be better overall for the patient if one does not take. I also took “can” to refer to the medical capability of the physician, and not necessarily to the legal status of taking the measures. </p>
<p>I suppose that if a patient has expressed wishes against certain medical measures in writing, or has given power of attorney to someone who opposes extreme medical measures, then those measures actually <em>cannot</em> be taken; so my earlier statement was incorrect in that regard. </p>
<p>Is there some other meaning of the phrase?</p>
<p>To me the problem with relying entirely on academics (grades and/or test scores) for admissions decisions is that a student can substantially cheat on both. A student can cheat their way through their high school classes, and they can cheat on the SATs/APs (sitting next to a very smart kid and copying their answers, using time from one section to work on another section while the proctor isn’t looking, having a very smart kid take the test for them, etc.). Extracurriculars, especially the kind of leadership positions Harvard looks for (President/Captain of non-academic clubs/teams/groups mainly) is harder to cheat. It’s hard to cheat/force popularity with your peers, especially for things like student council president, newspaper editor-in-chief, debate team captain, tennis captain, etc. that Harvard looks for.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The above is very ROTFLOL-worthy considering how easy it was to get leadership positions in many ECs in high schools and boarding schools without expending much effort, especially if one’s an extrovert and from a well-to-do enough family to have the leisure time and/or funds to pursue them in lieu of holding a part-time or more job afterschool and weekends. </p>
<p>It also seems to be a serious problem at some boarding schools according to some friends who taught and had to put a stop to this sort of cheating while teaching there. </p>
<p>Incidentally, the issue of ECs tending to privilege students of higher SES families especially in lower grades is one key reason why many alums of my public magnet are strongly against introducing it as a factor in our public magnet admissions process. </p>
<p>It has nothing to do with being well-to-do, but it has a lot to do with popularity. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It does when a given EC(s) require so much time and/or funds(i.e. Equipment or participation fees) that lower SES students may not be able to participate due to part-time job and/or lack of funds. </p>
<p>Also, leadership positions require more time than being a mere member. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But if one is an introvert (and about 25-33% of people are introverts) and is shy and doesn’t have many (or any) friends, then it’s going to be very hard to cheat/force those president/captain/editor-in-chief positions since they mostly (or entirely in some cases) have to do with popularity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not if one has extrovert friends willing to facilitate/help, classmates who feel the introvert is the best candidate for a leadership position, or some who help introverts into leadership positions because they can be thankless tasks in practice even if it looks good on a college app. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I added “is shy and doesn’t have many (or any) friends” to my post above. What if an introvert doesn’t have any friends but is savvy at cheating in classes/SATs? Gonna be hard to get those president/captain positions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How well did Nate Silver’s system predict World Cup Soccer championship outcome?</p>
<p>I am sure there are people somewhere lining up to be treated by a system designed by a CS professor. I wonder who decides their inputs and validation of their outputs to prove their system to be superior to treatments by actual doctors?</p>
<p>Apparently, the Ivies, Duke, Stanford, and MIT are good at admitting students more likely than the average to become billionaires: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1687226-the-20-universities-that-have-produced-the-most-billionaires-p1.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1687226-the-20-universities-that-have-produced-the-most-billionaires-p1.html</a>.</p>
<p>Perhaps the holistic system does work, although it does not please some professors. The University of Pennsylvania admits students to Wharton, but the other colleges don’t. I think they don’t offer undergraduate business courses. So, some quality they select for correlates very well with leadership and success in the business world. According to Forbes, there are only 1,645 billionaires in the world. With 151 billionaires, the group of colleges I named above have 9% of the total. That is staggering.</p>
<p>There are some straw men in that post. First of all, that billionaire list doesn’t distinguish between people who were self-made and those who came from serious money (I’m talking like 50 million or more.) Harvard admits development cases; I’m not sure they should be lauded for it. </p>
<p>Second of all, how do you know it was the leadership component of the evaluation which raised the self-made billionaire count? You don’t.</p>
<p>Thirdly, again, it isn’t Pinker’s point that he wants more professors.</p>
<p>Fourthly, it’s interesting you mention Wharton because from what I have heard, the undergrad experience there is pretty intense, and is not at all like the Harvard idea of what a future CEO should be doing during undergrad. There is some overlap, maybe. For example, someone may form a startup at Harvard in their spare time whereas maybe at Wharton that could be part of the curriculum. I’m not really sure about that. But regardless, I think the classes are pretty intense at Wharton. Also, you seem to imply that Wharton evaluates graduate based more on leadership (as vague as that term is) than other top schools. I don’t think that’s the case either, really. And I don’t think the people at Wharton would say that the point of college is so that they, as future leaders, can go to school and “see what quality is”, which is how I think JHS put it. In other words, they aren’t there to study or train their minds but it’s good for them to meet other people who are good at various things–maybe so that if they need an expert in this or that they will know where to go. </p>
<p>I don’t like the whole message being sent here that if you want to be a captain of industry or some other kind of leader, you should be doing anything but being a serious scholar in high school or college. </p>
<p>That’s not the message. On the other hand, it is not credible to claim that academics are the only point of college. If that were true, there would be far fewer colleges. </p>
<p>I pointed to Wharton, because it is a program focused on preparing students for the business world. While the other Ivies (as far as I know) don’t have business majors, they do manage to draw future billionaires.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nor do you have any evidence to the contrary. It could be that the environments created by holistic admissions as practiced by these particular colleges appeal to people who will become billionaires. It could also be appealing to billionaire parents, trying to decide which colleges their children should attend. </p>
<p>However, Pinker did assert that using standardized tests would be a better means to select incoming classes. There may be very good reasons for Harvard to continue with its current practice.</p>
<p>
I think we should all strive for a well-rounded education. My personal experience though, tells me that scientists are more informed about the humanities than the literati about science. I think C P Snow’s The Two Cultures frames the problem well:
<a href=“http://www.newstatesman.com/cultural-capital/2013/01/c-p-snow-two-cultures”>http://www.newstatesman.com/cultural-capital/2013/01/c-p-snow-two-cultures</a></p>
<p>
I find most people do not get “rich” by innovating or creating, but by engaging in “rent seeking” types of behaviour. Since the elites product an extraordinary percentage of investment bankers and consultants from their rank, which is inconsistent with their mission as quoted earlier, do you think they are not telling us the truth, or their system is incapable of ferreting out the less provincial applicants? </p>
<p>
I think this article, written before the crucial match, hits the nail on the head.
<a href=“Is Nate Silver Wrong About the World Cup?”>http://www.forbes.com/sites/brettarends/2014/06/24/is-nate-silver-wrong-about-the-world-cup/</a>
We also have to remember he predicted that Brazil had a 65% change of winning, not 100%. </p>
<p>
Doctors are too prone to human errors, and they can not keep up with all medical advances Watson can. In short, if Watson is capable of winning Jeopardy, it can beat doctors in diagnostics.
<a href=“IBM's Watson May Soon Be the Best Doctor in the World”>IBM's Watson May Soon Be the Best Doctor in the World;
<p>Since I was pretty old before I learned what “rent seeking” is, here is a link to a brief Forbes article on the topic:
<a href=“What Is Rent-Seeking Behavior?”>http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidmarotta/2013/02/24/what-is-rent-seeking-behavior/</a></p>
<p>The wikipedia entry is also helpful.</p>
<p>Rent seeking is not managing an apartment complex.</p>
<p>" Since the elites product an extraordinary percentage of investment bankers and consultants from their rank, which is inconsistent with their mission as quoted earlier, do you think they are not telling us the truth, or their system is incapable of ferreting out the less provincial applicants?"</p>
<p>People go where the money is. If Goldman Sachs recruited at Tailgate State, Tailgate State students wouldn’t turn down those jobs out of nobility. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or it could just be due to selecting very high IQ individuals, which HYP/MIT/Duke/Stanford do a lot better than the average college. Very high IQ people are much more likely to be billionaires than merely “bright” people or average IQ people (saw data on this somewhere). Think Bill Gates (1590/1600 on the OLD unrecentered SAT), and I believe Mark Zuckerberg got a 1590/1600 on the SAT, but not positive (although the SAT is obviously not an IQ test). In any case, Zuckerberg is definitely very high IQ I would say.</p>