
Meet the New Super People - danso
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/02/opinion/sunday/meet-the-new-super-people.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
======
jonmc12
Reminded me of [http://theamericanscholar.org/the-disadvantages-of-an-
elite-...](http://theamericanscholar.org/the-disadvantages-of-an-elite-
education/) \- “So are you saying that we’re all just, like, really excellent
sheep?”

Also, Marc Andreeson's take on a similar stereotype, The Organization Kid -
[http://pmarca-archive.posterous.com/the-pmarca-guide-to-
care...](http://pmarca-archive.posterous.com/the-pmarca-guide-to-career-
planning-part-2-sk)

In the younger generations it may seem there is nothing worse than
entitlement, but after many years of observing, I think it is a worse
affliction to be both super and an extreme conformist. I'm talking about the
funneling of premium intellectual capital into existing institutions like
investment, legal, management consulting, medicine, academia (in some cases)
often through mechanisms like the Ivy's, but also through parental mechanisms
(pressure, nepotism, etc) and various social institutions.

When ego-based considerations like reputation, status and compensation lure
young minds, these minds have lost forever the ability to question everything
- to abstract their understanding of the world beyond what social influences
and short-term goals will allow. Stifling openness, creativity and non-
conformity in formative years gives a person the ability to achieve a
definition of success in our world. However, it closes the door to changing
the world itself - and this is the real job of the super-capable.

Question everything. Take your own path. The world needs the super to
constantly re-invent itself for the greater good, not for you to show the
world that you are the best.

~~~
DavidSJ
We've tried to domesticate genius, and lost it:

“It has been pointed out that we no longer have infant and child prodigies, or
that at least they are now much rarer than before. … We sacrificed genius for
our present interest in homogeneity. We began to dislike precocity in children
and to dislike children themselves. Our insistence on uniformity began the
modern oppression of children.” —Richard Farson, Birthrights

~~~
patrickyeon
I feel like there's a common thread in many conversations I have these days,
which can be described well by "We've tried to domesticate genius, and lost
it." It's the parents that push their kids to be measurably good at all the
things they've been told geniuses are good at. It's the students who go to
university because that's how they're told they will get good jobs, and not
due to a thirst for learning. It's the managers that try to create a workplace
that has some superificial resemblance to another place that has turned out
great work, and then expect that they've flipped on the genius switch.

We're so used to measuring and planning everything, that when we decide we
want 'genius' all we think to do is measure what we can in other instances,
and force that to happen. I suspect it's very hard for a lot of people to
believe that (a) it takes all kinds of un-measured hard work, (b) there are so
many more aspects than they can think of that go into creating genius, and (c)
there's a measure of luck to it and they can't control everything.

Back to the topic of the article though, I see parents who believe there is a
causal link from Good School --> 'Good Job', and see a link to Good School
from all these things 'geniuses have been known to do.'

~~~
chernevik
Absolutely. But I also question the criteria of the hypercompetition, and the
judges' valuation of the signals. Volunteer work in a Guatemalan day care
center may indicate altruism and awareness, right up the moment when it
becomes an aid, or a requirement, of Harvard admission. Likewise the school
paper. Maybe the insistence on being "well-rounded" pushes kids outside a
purely academic focus, and gets them exposed to things they might otherwise
miss. But how much will a kid get from an experience without an interior
interest? "Gotta go check the 'well-rounded' box."

Likewise I wonder about the curriculum they have to hit. If they are doing so
much homework, why aren't they more numerate, why aren't they more familiar
with the underpinnings of our literature and history? Why isn't Harvard
conducting interviews in foreign languages?

We've made a grueling admissions process that measures compliance with a
particular norm of social and political values, and tries to be "academically
rigourous" without suggesting that particular topics are especially important
or essential.

And why, exactly, is Harvard so much more important than Brown, and Brown than
Wesleyan? The education available at these cannot be so different as the
quality of the social network established. Now networks are extraordinarily
important, but are the Harvard grads _learning_ that much more after college?
or is the difference in their positioning for various status competitions?

It's hardly surprising that this process perpetuates the same status structure
that determines its rewards and criteria. Those rewards and criteria are
stated in vague but emphatic terms, which can only be judged subjectively. Is
it any wonder that the process seems crazy? or that makes suspicious the very
notion of "excellence" supposedly at its core?

~~~
DavidSJ
I've sometimes toyed with the idea of starting a university which gives no
degree, in fact won't even confirm or deny a person's past attendance to any
other institutions, in order to weed out those who are there for the degree.

~~~
lurker19
In the US we have community colleges, which offer a range of "adult ed"
courses outside the degree program. Many universities also have
Continuing/Night non-degree programs.

~~~
DavidSJ
Yeah, unfortunately those institutions tend to be for people who want academic
"appetizers", or a degree. They're not for serious intellectual pursuit.

------
javert
This article is pretty interesting and well-written, but hypes up a major
fallacy:

 _Just as the concentration of wealth at the very top reduces wealth at the
bottom, the aggressive hoarding of intellectual capital in the most sought-
after colleges and universities has curtailed our investment in less
prestigious institutions._

This is just the the fallacy that the economy's wealth is a fixed pie; if I
get a bigger slice, you must get a smaller one. But wealth and prosperity are
not a limited resource. I think it's fitting that the author supports this
fallacy with a quotation from the Bible.

By the way, I'm not just talking abstractly. The point made by the author is
also just flat-out wrong. More and more people are going to college - now, you
practically _have_ to have a degree - because we've been spending tons of
money on public higher education. Think of the California public schools; the
North Carolina ones (we have 14 public universities!), etc.

~~~
zafka
1) No fallacy, if the the Pie gets bigger, but a small percentage of people
get an increasingly larger percentage of that pie, inequality is increasing.
2) The author did state that more and more people are going to college. Thus
if you have a fixed size of "Ivy League schools" a smaller percentage of the
total will get into the top schools.

~~~
javert
But the passage I'm citing isn't about inequality increasing, as you're
discussing. It's about people at lower levels getting less, in an absolute
sense. Which is a fallacy.

~~~
davidmathers
1\. You're attacking a straw man, which actually is a fallacy.

2\. _Even if_ the passage you cited were about "getting less in an absolute
sense", there's still no fallacy. zafka already pointed this out in his #1
above. What's so hard to comprehend?

~~~
javert
Please stop.

------
wallflower
If the ultimate goal of an institution is to maximize the alumni donation
revenue, then attracting the top 5% of the type A's might be an effective
strategy. But then again, the most successful might not be the type A's or
even smart (see Terman's Kids)

If you do want to go to an Ivy League, consider the alternative strategy:

"How to game the U.S. Higher Ed system"

> In this article, I want to debunk a popular myth: the popular conception
> that very smart high school students should go to very good and very
> expensive colleges, and that these colleges will advance these peoples'
> careers more effectively than would other options. I propose another option:
> go to a cheap state school for a small amount of money, do very well, and
> pay full tuition at a fantastic graduate program. I believe that in most
> cases, these students would be better served by a bare-budget (but
> difficult) undergrad state-school education, and an expensive high-profile
> Master's degree.

<http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2009/1/24/11657/1141>

~~~
kenjackson
This quote presumes you pay a lot of money to go to expensive colleges. Most
friends I know who went to Harvard, Stanford, MIT paid close to nothing -- due
to scholarships. Given that those who are likely to get into Harvard are also
those most likely to win 3rd party full ride scholarships -- is this still
good advice?

~~~
wallflower
I think the advice of the article is targeted to high school students who
aren't smart enough to get scholarships and are not necessarily guaranteed
admission into a top Ivy. The type of students who are engaged in an AP arms
race. The students who have parents who are living vicariously through their
kids' academic performance, in pursuit of the ultimate bragging prize: an Ivy.
The students who go to a very competitive high school an hours drive away in
hopes that they can do well in this large pool of competitive hormones... only
to be crushed by the true weed out courses, not science but humanities like AP
History. Where high school graduation demands careful preparation of the
pronouncement of the many Indian and Asian surnames. Where having a girlfriend
is seen as having a direct negative correlation on the semester GPA. Where a
bad test score can create family tensions that crack the San Andreas fault and
leave all in the family, worst for fears.

All in the hopes of playing for a spot in a competitive admissions class with
thousands of cookie cutter aspirants like themselves.

Your friends probably were not part of this group, and I wonder what they are
doing now.

------
jarek
As an European, I find it cute how knowing "two or more" languages is
sufficient for super status in North America.

edit: It's also pretty amusing to see how touchy North Americans can be about
this even on HN.

~~~
sliverstorm
It's a consequence of the social environment. In Europe, you are surrounded by
different languages. In North America, you have English in the USA, English in
Canada (with some French), and Spanish in Mexico.

You do have clusters of Spanish/Chinese/Japanese/Hindi/etc on the West Coast
of the USA, but except for the large Hispanic populations, almost every one of
them speaks English too.

In short, you can learn English and Spanish and be understood in 99.9999999%
of North America. Learning any other language is largely a pursuit of fancy
("for fun" or for traveling abroad), unless you plan on moving out of the
country.

~~~
DanBC
> Learning any other language is largely a pursuit of fancy

What happens if you want to sell to, or buy from, some other country? Is
business squeezed into the bit that isn't "largely a ..."?

I'm English. I speak no other languages, and it's something I'm a bit
embarrassed by.

~~~
sliverstorm
I'm not a businessman, but as I understand it English is pretty well
established as the international language of business.

~~~
DanBC
I'm not a businessman, but if I was trying to sell something I would want to
reduce the work my customers have to do. I don't want to give them the choice
of "The guy who doesn't speak $LANGUAGE" vs "Let's go with this guy who made
an effort". (Let's not forget that customers are not always rational.)

------
noonespecial
More like cargo-cult super. Geniuses are often musical and multi-lingual so if
junior can play sax and speak French...

Except that the components turn out, in most cases, to be cheap facades of the
real thing and the spark of real genius is nowhere to be found.

~~~
billswift
Real genius is usually narrowly focused, but smart enough to pick up a
reasonably good variety of other skills, like music and languages, on the side
(see Richard Feynman for a good example). But you do not become a real expert
without lots of dedicated practice, and if you are dividing your serious
practice time between multiple subjects, you will never become really good at
any one.

Richard Feynman's _"Surely You're Joking, Mr Feynman!"_ and _"What Do You Care
What Other People Think?"_ and Jagdish Mehra's biography of Feynman, _The Beat
of a Different Drum_ all show the combination of focus on physics and his
ability to easily pick up the side interests, safecracking, drawing, drumming,
Mayan arithmetic, that exemplifies real genius.

------
Shenglong
_The competition for places in the upper tier of higher education is a lot
tougher than it was in the 1960s and ’70s, when having good grades and SAT
scores in the high 1200s was generally sufficient to get you into a
respectable college._

Just a note about the SATs: The SATs used to be out of 1600 with Math/Verbal
as a 800/800 split. Critical Reading wasn't added until 2005. There was also
an adjustment in 1995 that boosted the mean score on the SAT about 100 points,
effectively making tests taken before 1995 worth more than tests taken after.

~~~
eurleif
Critical Reading is just the new name for the Verbal section. Writing is the
new section.

~~~
cgoddard
Writing also doesn't factor into the main combined math / verbal score. It is
considered separately and is on a completely different scale.

~~~
snikolov
There is actually a combined Math/Verbal/Writing score totaling a maximum of
2400. There is a separate score for the essay of the writing part, but it is
factored into the final writing score out of 800.

------
phillmv
Outliers… gonna outlie. Have you ever looked into the requirements for a
Rhodes scholarship?

Also I think the article was a bit fawning.

------
ilamont
How much of this is exaggeration? Of course there are outliers, but when
thousands of people applying to top schools show such incredible backgrounds
and achievements, I have to wonder about the accuracy of some of their claims.

The top schools are fooled from time to time, as evidenced by some high-
profile cases at Harvard College in recent years. All of the following
examples could be considered "super people" -- a published author, a
valedictorian and essayist, a standout student with impeccable grades. Yet all
three were exposed as plagiarists, and one of them pulled off a series of cons
based on fabricated records and lies.

Blair Hornstine:

 _Following a widely-publicized report that Hornstine had plagiarized material
in articles she wrote for her local paper, the Harvard admissions office has
rescinded her offer to attend Harvard in the fall, according to a source
involved with the decision._

[http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/7/11/harvard-takes-
ba...](http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/7/11/harvard-takes-back-
hornstine-admission-offer/)

Adam Wheeler:

 _In Middlesex Superior Court, Wheeler conceded today that he dishonestly
gained admission to Harvard by fabricating SAT scores, falsifying letters of
recommendation, and forging high school and college transcripts. He also
admitted to plagiarizing essays and a research proposal that earned him a
Hoopes Prize, Sargent Prize, and Rockefeller research grant while he was a
Harvard student._ [http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2010/12/16/harvard-
wheeler...](http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2010/12/16/harvard-wheeler-
college-guilty/)

Kaavya Viswanathan:

 _A recently-published novel by Harvard undergraduate Kaavya Viswanathan ’08,
“How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life,” contains several
passages that are strikingly similar to two books by Megan F. McCafferty—the
2001 novel “Sloppy Firsts” and the 2003 novel “Second Helpings.”_
[http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2006/4/23/students-
novel-f...](http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2006/4/23/students-novel-faces-
plagiarism-controversy-beditors/)

Note that these are people who were caught. Surely there are others who
weren't, either because no one bothered checking their claims or they were
smart enough to keep a low profile once they were accepted.

------
stygianguest
Worse is the evolution of job requirements. I believe them to be the driving
force behind this madness. No good can come of it, only lies and deceit. While
I'm sure there are many true over-achievers at Harvard, I wonder how much of
all this is polish rather than true greatness. Remember that Nietzsche's
Uebermench has no scruples.

~~~
jey
What's wrong with job requirements?

Also, often "requirements" aren't truly "required". They're just trying to
give a sketch of the person they're looking for. So if an ad requires "7 years
of Javascript experience" but you have less, you aren't necessarily excluded
from applying, as long as you have a comparable level of expertise.

~~~
DanBC
It's a problem when the ad requires three years of Javascript, two years of
embedded C, two years of C++, two years of Python, two years of Ruby, and five
years of HTML and CSS, and yet is only offering college-leaver pay.

~~~
knieveltech
I remember during the dot com implosion, for six months straight section 115
was entirely absent from the local classifieds. The numbers jumped from 110
(clerical) to 120 (accounting). As you might guess, 115 was the catch-all for
anything computer related.

During the same time frame I saw a job post looking for all of the following:
8 years of unix systems administration experience, 5 years of MS Server,
Exchange, 6 years of network administration, 5 years of perl, 6 of VB, bash
scripting, and 8 years of experience as a DBA. The advertised wage for the
titan that qualified for the position? $10.50 an hour.

------
chris_dcosta
Isn't this what they call Eugenics? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics>

I know you have to give your kids the best that you can, but you also have to
let them find their way. Education helps teach us about what other people have
done (by it's very nature is is about the past) and maybe shows kids how to do
it too, but it doesn't innovate, and some might argue at a certain level it
could be a barrier to innovation.

It's the difference between a classically trained singer and James Brown.
Would he be who he was if he was classically trained? When you hear a
classical musician covering a rock song isn't there always something "just
missing"?

I'm all for education don't get me wrong, but surely one of the best bits is
allowing kids time to educate themselves? If you want your kids to be an
innovator or someone who changed the world, then you have to teach them a bit
about not following the rules, and self-determination.

I have no idea how I would have survived if I didn't have these skills.

------
giardini
Part of the high GPAs is grade inflation. Nobody wants to be the one who says
"No." Illiterate students are passed on to universities and into the
workplace, where reality suddenly intrudes.

~~~
andrewflnr
I think I was in third grade when we were paired up with older kids, fifth or
sixth grade, who were supposed to "help" us with our reading skills. It seemed
like the guy I was paired with could barely read out loud. I remember
wondering how he could possibly have made it that far. I've seen similar
phenomena since. I've seen native English speakers around my age struggle with
only moderately advanced vocabulary, including in college classes. It worries
me a lot.

Just in case you wanted some anecdotal evidence to go with your claim.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
I had a similar experience. But at college reading a play. Very depressing.

~~~
jff
Nothing more depressing than an in-class reading of "Romeo and Juliet" during
my freshman year of H.S. The obvious illiteracy of most of these students
floored me; nearly everyone was sounding-out and guessing at any words over 2
syllables. "Apothecary"? Dream on. I think it took us something like a week to
read through that play, which could be performed in an hour or two.

~~~
Figs
Outside of fiction, how many of them have even heard of an apothecary? How
many of them would be tripped up if it had said something more familiar, like
'pharmacist', instead?

------
dtbx
It's a matter of time. If we're all going to live 400 years or more, we could
all be super persons. Nobody will rush to achieve multiple things in no time.
One thing after another. Slowly and deep.

The people that read HN at least have the crucial ingredient: intellectual
curiosity. Others, like me, lack the frenzy.

