<p>TBH, I find the current vogue of telling kids college isn’t worth it rather annoying. Very few adults telling this to kids are not sending their own kids to college. I posit that the number is at or around zero. </p>
<p>That said, I find the message the a kid needs to go into debt to go to a top school equally annoying. I think kids should go to the best school they can reasonably afford and take advantage of every opportunity there. </p>
<p>I like the point that google isn’t wedded to top school grads. It’s an important message. You’d be surprised by the number of these same grads even in I banking. </p>
<p>I have come across terms such as “cognitive ability” and “analytical vigour” in Jim Manzi’s article. Consulting firms such as BCG apparently screen for them. Charles Murray talked about the lack of intellectual humility of our ruling class who have never experienced failure (he claimed it is particularly common among those who have not majored in STEM), and who would not want a sense of responsibility in their employees?</p>
<p>His idea of “emergent leadership” is news to me. Someone with a big ego and a small ego at the same time? With all due respect, people with that attribute are rare; people having all of these attributes are as rare as hen’s teeth. </p>
<p>“Charles Murray talked about the lack of intellectual humility of our ruling class who have never experienced failure (he claimed it is particularly common among those who have not majored in STEM), and who would not want a sense of responsibility in their employees?”</p>
<p>“Ruling class”? I mean, really, get real, here. Rich people are people, too, and they experience good days and bad days and good emotions and bad emotions just like anyone else. And what on earth does being a STEM major have anything to do with anything, or are we back to how you, canuckguy, see everything through a prism of alleged “ruling classes” who band together based on racial / ethnic / religious affinity?</p>
<p>That affinity groups exist. To quote from Kahan, “motivated cognition” is “a form of information processing that rationally promotes individuals’ interests in forming and maintaining beliefs that signify their loyalty to important affinity groups.”</p>
<p>Sally, canuckguy accused me of “having certain beliefs” and “wanting to maintain the holistic status quo re admission to elite universities” because it benefited my kids and “people like us” who were “afraid of the Asian onslaught” (or words to that effect). It was quite evident that he was accusing me of being in some affinity cabal who had a hold on the ruling class, and where he was heading with that ugliness, and then he switched and claimed that he thought I was <strong>Catholic</strong> and that was my affinity group. Uh-huh. Consider the source. </p>
<p>Canuckguy: I always enjoy your links and pov. Thank you. If I understand correctly, each individual is part of a tribe and our tribe has to be right because otherwise our sense of place and meaning in the world sort of falls apart. So we defend the tribe. right or wrong… of course, I may not understand at all where you are coming from.</p>
<p>His thesis is that we believe what we do not because we actually believe it, but because we are part of a clan / tribe and we defend “our kind” at any cost. This is the same argument trotted out by people who see conspiracies and media dominance everywhere, as though there is some central cabal organizing it all. People aren’t individuals, only representatives of Jews, Catholics, WASPs and so forth and act only with “their clan” in mind. </p>
<p>Canuckguy, it would be most helpful if you can share with us how you jumped from:</p>
<p>“My take-away is that Google is looking for outstanding candidates. They want high cognitive ability, analytical vigour, emergent leadership-when to lead and when to follow, sense of responsibility and intellectual humility” … which is something I don’t think anyone can particularly argue with (Google is looking for outstanding candidates, and in other news, the sun rises in the east) … and</p>
<p>“Charles Murray talked about the lack of intellectual humility *of our ruling class who have never experienced failure <a href=“he%20claimed%20it%20is%20particularly%20common%20among%20those%20who%20have%20not%20majored%20in%20STEM”>/i</a>, and who would not want a sense of responsibility in their employees?”</p>
<p>It seems that you’re interjecting some hypothesis (there’s a ruling class, and that they’ve never experienced failure, and that they don’t have intellectual humility and responsibility) into this discussion out of left field. Are you suggesting that the “ruling class” (LOL) isn’t actually getting jobs at Google because they don’t demonstrate intellectual humanity and responsibility? Are you suggesting that they are, but they shouldn’t? It’s really unclear where your ruling-class comment came from, and it sets off bells given where you’ve gone with that construct in the past.</p>
<p>the ruling clan thing sounds out of place and odd, but there really is little doubt that holistic admissions is little but a crutch to keep Asians out of elite colleges (“or an Asian onslaught.”). After all, it was originally started to do the same to Jewish students, and it’s only natural that it’s purpose has been shifted to be used against Asian-Americans. Naturally, this would benefit all the other races (although white not as much unless they’re legacies). </p>
<p>I think that Google probably does have a bias to people from elite colleges, but probably not a huge one. Smaller companies probably have a greater bias because their HR process would have less resources (and thus be smaller), thereby meaning it makes greater sense to focus on elite colleges. </p>