<p>
[quote]
Paul is the author of On Lisp (Prentice Hall, 1993), ANSI Common Lisp (Prentice Hall, 1995), and Hackers & Painters (O'Reilly, 2004). He has an AB from Cornell and a PhD in Computer Science from Harvard, and studied painting at RISD and the Accademia di Belle Arti in Florence.
<p>From a guy who has two Ivy League degrees, heretical only to his own history. Maybe he could invent a time traveling machine, give back his degrees and obtain two from Podunk U. Then write about his life trajectory and his views on education.</p>
<p>I "get" the K&D study.
The argument this guy is making is weakest in assuming that the best applicants are cynical gamers who look alike and that admissions officers can't make distinctions.
Harvard chose Bill Gates and Princeton the founders of Amazon, e-Bay and Teach for America. Of course admissions people don't have crystal balls, but I am impressed nonetheless.
I also agree that helping change the zeitgeist isn't necessary to a life well-lived.</p>
<p>Several replies have mentioned the Dale and Krueger working paper, which is the sole source so far for a proposition that I don't believe, and which is usually cited (as in this thread) for a proposition that goes beyond what the authors said. </p>
<p>Dale, Stacy and Alan Krueger, "Estimating the Payoff to Attending a More Selective College: An Application of
Selection on Observables and Unobservables," NBER Working Paper 7322, 1999. </p>
<p>I think there is a methodological flaw in that working paper that systematically underestimates the benefit to the learner of going to a better college. See footnote 27 in </p>
<p>for a criticism of the methodology in the Dale and Krueger working paper, and for a plausible alternative view of return to learners from attending more selective colleges. Note that even on the Dale and Krueger working paper's own terms, a low-income student is better off going to the most elite college the student is admitted to. I believe that conclusion is actually generalizable to more income groups. What is badly needed here is an attempt to replicate the results of the Dale and Krueger working paper and to publish those results in a peer-reviewed journal. </p>
<p>P.S. I thought Marite's reply was the funniest so far in this thread. I think Paul Graham may be surprised to find out that there are some high-tech entrepreneurs in the top 50 colleges as well as in the top 5, but that's not quite the same as proving that there is no difference among the top 2,000 colleges.</p>
<p>Paul Graham is a legendary name in the world of Web investing--a start-up founder who made it to the big time by inventing a new Web-based application. I have been aware of his writings since his "Why Nerds Are Unpopular" was posted on the Web </p>
<p>is very good advice for high school students. But I still respectfully think that Graham overstates how little choice of college matters, while agreeing with him that learner initiative is very, very important in whatever environment a learner is in.</p>
<p>My H and I have this debate all the time and now I am hearing it from friends whose children are getting close to the college admissions process. My H went to flagship U for undergrad and his advanced degree and did very well and is now extremely successful in the same city. I went to an ivy and a top public school for my advanced degree (because of $$) and ended up in the same city with the same starting job. His point: end result the same with less work and stress on his part. My point: education is not a means to an end, but an end unto itself. And I am much richer for my experience.</p>
<p>So, as we are fully underway in our first college application season and D has her sights set high, I have no difficulty agreeing wholeheartedly with those who think it's worth it. Yes, we are more than what we end up doing. And while we can learn similar things in the classroom, I probably got even more out of what happened outside the classroom. As others have pointed out--it makes a difference when you go to school with students who are not only whip smart, but who are intellectually engaged. This spills over to other aspects of life. Top schools also attract great speakers and academic happenings and renowned visiting professors in the greatest numbers. The entire experience is ramped up and makes a big difference to those who take advantage of it.</p>
<p>That said, there are certainly instances in which people have been in this sort of environment and have not taken advantage of it at all, as well as those who really made something special out of their public U days. Still, for my own kids, I think it will mean a lot in their lives to be away from home in an extremely stimulating residential school with really smart kids.</p>
<p>
[quote]
a high school record that's largely an index of obedience.
[/quote]
While this is obviously an overstatement, designed to provoke, it does give rise to some things to ponder. HS GPA (or class rank, or some combination of the two) is a huge factor in college admissions. Yet, what reasonably bright high school student can't place in the top decile of his or her class simply by being consistently diligent and obedient? Isn't the consistent and faithful completion of specific, yet unremarkable tasks a significant factor in posting a high HS GPA? The students who conform to those standards are a safe bet for college adcoms, because they are likely to continue to be diligent and obedient and reasonably bright, making them low-risk students. It's probably true that "No one ever got fired for buying IBM" and it's probably equally true that no one ever got fired for admitting a valedictorian - for the same reasons and perhaps with much the same result. </p>
<p>So the truth that Graham describes may well start with the very process by which colleges make their admissions decisions in the first place. The significance of the college attended by a potential hiree (or investee) may be small because the criteria by which colleges select their students is not biased towards excellence, but towards obedience and consistency - admirable qualities, and good predictors of successful performance of future assignments in life - but not particularly predictive of outstanding achievements.</p>
<p>
[quote]
HS GPA (or class rank, or some combination of the two) is a huge factor in college admissions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If we accept that what is important is not so much the educational opportunities offered by top schools but their admissions policies as per Kluge's and others' posts, then two things come to mind.</p>
<p>First, that at the very top, HS GPA will get you a serious look, but that won't be enough. It could never be since every last school in the US has to have students getting perfect As as well as students flunking. Hence the value of national standards such as the SAT, however flawed they may be.
Additionally, even stellar GPAs and SATs are not good enough for the very top schools. Students must demonstrate qualities and achievements that go beyond stellar classroom performance, whether it be IMO gold medals or state or national level achievements in the arts or sports. These qualities and achievements do not go to the docile and conformists. This diametrically opposed to Kluge's statement below.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The significance of the college attended by a potential hiree (or investee) may be small because the criteria by which colleges select their students is not biased towards excellence, but towards obedience and consistency - admirable qualities, and good predictors of successful performance of future assignments in life - but not particularly predictive of outstanding achievements.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Granted, not everyone can be an innovator or leader, and innovators and leaders can stick out uncomfortably in an organization that prizes conformity. I'm reminded of the scene in A Chorus Line, where Cassie is too vibrant a personality to dance smoothly and anonymously in the corps de danse. But top universities do look for applicants with passions and unusual qualities and achievements. </p>
<p>My second observation is that Graham is a good illustration that the adcoms of Cornell and Harvard made good decisions when they decided to admit him into their respective programs and that his career illustrate the qualities that top universities seek out. An inventor such as he clearly has been is not someone who is happy being compliant and complacent.</p>
<p>kluge says:
[quote]
The significance of the college attended by a potential hiree (or investee) may be small because the criteria by which colleges select their students is not biased towards excellence, but towards obedience and consistency
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Where GPA is all that matters in admissions (as is basically true in UC admissions and I suppose similarly true in flagship universities across the country), then obedience and consistency dominate admissions. However, at the selectivity level we're looking at, GPA and high test scores are just the baseline. What gets a kid into HYP is demonstration of excellence above and beyond the baseline</p>
<p>Look, I share degrees from the same colleges with Graham. It has at least created a rebuttable presumption that I am capable and smart--quite helpful in the ongoing personal sales of life. (Of course, I have rebutted it a time or two!) I would have not wished to have to reprove myself at every step because I had gone to my state u or a middling lac that no one outside of its immediate region knew. The contacts and friends one makes at an Ivy are also more helpful than most would care to admit, as well as the cross-education one gets from almost across the board very bright fellow students. Yet there are bright, talented people in every walk of life and at and from every school. The track record of those who have gone to the Ivies and Stanford, MIT is undeniable, however. There is self-selection in the applications, and some wisdom in admissions, and a willingness to challenge oneself academically and personally reflected in attendance and graduation. Good educations can be had at any good college if one is willing and able to look and understands how it must be done. It is harder to do the weaker the college, and in some places cannot be done. It is also far easier to escape into academic and personal mediocrity at a non-Ivy caliber, tho it can be done anywhere. The decision to opt for a now so-called "flagship state u" or anything below the very first tier of lacs rather than a more challenging academic environment, if one has that choice, may also reflect qualities that are life-limiting.</p>
<p>I think this whole conversation, which occurs again and again (and again and again) on CC is ridiculous.</p>
<p>Of course there is a difference between quality of education at different colleges, just as there is a difference between the intellect of different students (another area in which people like to act that everyone is similarly endowed). </p>
<p>I have never understood the need to justify that all people and experiences are similar. Face it. They're not!</p>
<p>LISP, huh? Tell a programmer that the article was written by a LISP guy.....Apparently that's a key indicator of someone who always argues counter to the mainstream.</p>
<p>I'm sure Mr. Graham is very smart and rich but I find his essays almost unreadable. I think it is his very mundane prose that is the best indictment of the elite schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It has at least created a rebuttable presumption that I am capable and smart--quite helpful in the ongoing personal sales of life. ... I would have not wished to have to reprove myself at every step because I had gone to my state u or a middling lac that no one outside of its immediate region knew. The contacts and friends one makes at an Ivy are also more helpful than most would care to admit,
[/quote]
I think Redcrimblue makes a point which is the same as Graham's - A degree from a "prestigious" University is like "IBM" on the product - a recognized predictor of adequate quality; a safe bet as a service provider or employee. A student will get that imprematur with an Ivy League degree, and that's worth something to the student. It will give that student a leg up on initial job opportunities; down the road it may have added value as a source of referrals - although in some areas and some industries, good ol' State U may actually be better for that. But does that negate Graham's premise that the graduates of prestigious schools aren't necessarily any more talented or qualified to excel than the graduates of State U?</p>
<p>As Graham observes, "The other students are the biggest advantage of going to an elite college; you learn more from them than the professors." "Prestigious" schools attract bright students, therefore making those schools better - Ourabouros! But with increased student populations (and no increase in "top" schools) a 30th rank school may well have a more intellectually accomplished entering class this year than Harvard did 20 years ago. Won't those students have just as enriching an educational experience as today's 40-something Crimson captains of industry and professional leaders? And is Graham right in suggesting that bright students can find each other in the sea of mediocrity huge state colleges are assumed to be, and achieve that mutual self-education the same as they would at a smaller, more selective school? </p>
<p>My personal feeling is that different schools are better for different students. Some kids will thrive only in a LAC-type environment, others feed off the energy and chaos of a huge multiversity brimming with distractions and tangents to follow. It probably is easier to excel in a college where the average student is about the same intellectual level as you; too high and you're lost, too low and you sink to the level around you. But after graduation day, does it really all matter all that much?</p>
<p>
[quote]
As Graham observes, "The other students are the biggest advantage of going to an elite college; you learn more from them than the professors." "Prestigious" schools attract bright students, therefore making those schools better - Ourabouros! But with increased student populations (and no increase in "top" schools) a 30th rank school may well have a more intellectually accomplished entering class this year than Harvard did 20 years ago. Won't those students have just as enriching an educational experience as today's 40-something Crimson captains of industry and professional leaders? And is Graham right in suggesting that bright students can find each other in the sea of mediocrity huge state colleges are assumed to be, and achieve that mutual self-education the same as they would at a smaller, more selective school?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>All true and all discussing ad infinitum on CC. which is where I came in: Where has he been all this time?</p>
<p>He has been busy doing other things. Maybe, he isn't as obsessed with colleges as others. I didn't know that if somebody writes about something that others have talked about that his ideas are wrong or irrelevant.</p>
<p>Sorry Kluge. You are not as educated as others that have gone to better schools. ;)</p>
<p>Cut the sarcasm My post was not directed at Kluge but at Graham who writes as though he's discovered a new truth that is so heretical (his term) it has to be shared widely. And the fact is that Graham did go to "better" schools (your term, not mine).</p>
<p>Marite, my comment to Kluge had nothing to do with you or what you wrote.</p>
<p>As for Graham, he writes what he thinks and he likes sharing his ideas. I don't care if others have the same sentiments and have expressed these ideas before he expressed the same ideas.</p>