
On Elitism - unignorant
http://www.stanford.edu/%7Epgbovine/on-elitism.htm
======
tokenadult
The blogger doth protest too much, methinks. We learn all about his academic
credentials almost as soon as the blog post begins, but don't hear anything
about his real-world accomplishments beyond attending great schools.

What does everyone think of the blogger's academics page?

<http://www.stanford.edu/~pgbovine/academic.htm>

Disclaimer: I don't know the blogger, and as far as I know I don't know any of
his professional colleagues or classmates from any era. I'm not competent to
judge accomplishments in the domain of computer science, but I try to pick up
nuances from English writing, just as does any other reader of English.

~~~
catzaa
That is unfortunately true.

There is this old joke:

Q: How do you know someone is from MIT {Stanford, Havard, ...}?

A: He tells you.

~~~
jhancock
The refined version for those from Harvard is:

Q: Where did you go to school?

A: Boston.

Q: uhh, where in Boston?

A: Harvard.

They make you draw it out of them. I have found at least three types of people
that respond in this manner:

1 - The person that was raised elite since birth and really doesn't care at
all what you think about him. So him dragging it out is him avoiding the
question and hoping you'll learn not to pry.

2 - The person that is tired of being identified with this standard
questioning. So him dragging it out is somewhere in the middle. He can use it
to his advantage when needed but for the most part doesn't want to be
identified in this way.

3 - The snob.

~~~
pgbovine
the motivation for people i know to do that is less disingenuous ...

4 - if you say that you went to Harvard (or another well-known university),
lots of people automatically cringe and think "ugh this guy must be a snob!",
so if you're really not a snob, then the reason for avoiding specifics is so
that people don't pre-judge upon first impressions.

the responses to my article sort of exemplifies this phenomenon. lots of
readers didn't like how i 'name-dropped' where i attended school ... i was
mentioning where i went to school because it's relevant for the point i'm
making in my article, not merely to show off or brag.

oftentimes i don't tell people where i went to school because i don't want to
automatically be viewed as a snob on first impressions.

------
joe_the_user
I'm sorry but this isn't a new one for sociology...

 _I've observed that some of the people who display the greatest degrees of
elitism and snobbery are those who are technically skilled in their given area
of expertise but who do not necessarily have the most reputable externally-
recognizable marks of status._

Indeed. Those who _need to display_ elitism are those who aren't
_automatically accepted as elite_. Similarly, those who are naturally accepted
as elite, don't need make as much of an effort to display their eliteness.
This is so established that the act of _not_ attempting to show one's
eliteness is often subtler a mark of greater eliteness. And this is the basic
conundrum of elitism: how the 'old guard' defends itself against the arriviste
etc.

I'd suggest a reading of De Tocqueville, Veblen and modern signalling theory.

~~~
zackattack
Can you recommend a good book on modern signalling theory?

~~~
joe_the_user
What I have been reading recently is "Game Theory Evolving" by Herbert Gintis.
The Wikipedia articles on signaling theory and evolutionary game theory are
useful too.

------
xiaoma
> _"The smartest kids in the class had reputable externally-recognizable marks
> of status --- their top-ranked grades on exams and homeworks --- and thus
> did not need to assert their intelligence."_

Having the top grades on exams and _homework_ doesn't in any way demonstrate
that those kids are the smartest in the class. Grades are correlated with
intelligence to some degree, but much more strongly correlated with work-ethic
and compliance.

~~~
scott_s
If think you replace "smartest" with "most successful", the point he's trying
to make does not change.

~~~
Confusion
Which is still a ridiculous point: A/A+ students are not necessarily smarter,
more successful, more intelligent, whatever-you-want-to-call-it than B+/A-
students. His sole defense of that assertion is

 _if you're so damn smart, wouldn't it take you just slightly more effort to
get an A_

which I cannot characterize as anything else but a total lack of any sense of
what someone may want to do with his time, other than obtain high grades,
combined with the unfounded accusation that they all consider themselves
capable of doing better.

He completely rules out the possibility that out of numbers 5 through 15 out
of a 100, five may rather want to spend their time, let's say, starting a
company, practicing a sport or contributing code to some open source project.

That's when the real problem shows it's ugly head: they are made to feel like
they have to excuse themselves for their grades, as anything below 'perfect'
is always questioned, as the article did: "why don't you get higher grades?"

For me, the answer really was exactly as he says: because I have a fucking
life out of school. However, the intention of that answer wasn't to play down
the grades of others or to assert my intelligence. I won't deny they usually
also have a life out of school. The intention was purely and solely: to answer
the question that everyone keeps asking. I've given that answer so many times
I can only think of it shouted with the expletive in it. And then grade-
obsessed nitwits like this guy throw a hissy fit because they think I'm trying
to trump them. No, I don't bloody care about trumping you. If I cared, I would
spend my time trying to score higher grades, so I'd get into that prestigious
university. I'm not sure I would succeed, but the point is: I'm not even
trying to best you. God, guys like this still piss me off. They don't want to
accept the fact that there may have been guys that could outdo them, but
didn't bother.

~~~
scott_s
A/A+ students are, by definition, more successful at school than B+/A-
students. That's the only sense of the phrase I meant it in.

~~~
omgsean
"A/A+ students are, by definition, more successful at school than B+/A-
students. That's the only sense of the phrase I meant it in."

More successful in school. There is very little value in getting high grades
until the later years of high school. Working hard in middle school is a waste
of time. The smartest kids would do the minimum amount of work to pass their
classes and ensure they have a solid understanding of the material. Especially
when you look back and remember how much of the middle school curriculum
involved drawing bubble letters and pasting printed photos on to Bristol
board.

~~~
ghshephard
Really? Walk through the curriculum starting around the 3rd grade onwards - It
basically sets up a foundation for future learning in all disciplines.
Reading, Writing, Arithmetic - I remember the precise instant (3rd grade) that
I was introduced to the concept of a negative number. It blew my mind. And
science classes theory in seventh and eights grade were awesome - if I hadn't
been grinding I probably would have never learned about umbra's and penumbras,
angle of reflection, etc... as well I did.

I think you get out of any experience (Sports, School, Start Ups) what you put
into it. And I have to agree - the entire point of the article, that people
who haven't been able to demonstrate "success" in school, do tend to be a bit
more defensive than those who have. I don't know if this applies to other
fields (Sports, Startups) - but it's certainly seen in schools with regards to
academic achievement. (BTW, We can all agree to hate the valedectorian who not
only graduated with a perfect 4.0 GPA, but also spent close to 30% of her
final two years of high school traveling Europe, preparing for the winter
olympics, and participating in the debate club)

------
psyklic
The author writes about himself, "Coming from two universities with world-
renowned Computer Science departments (MIT and Stanford) and having worked at
a top-tier software company (Google) as well as at several less high-profile
companies ..."

Meaning, of course, that he is not elitist -- he just had to share these
crucial facts about himself.

~~~
numair
I think the tide has really turned against name-brand institutions, leaving
people such as the author in a position where they feel they have to defend
themselves and their "prestige." This manifests itself in some peculiar ways,
as we can see from this piece...

~~~
rdr
agreed, university reputation matters a lot less nowadays than it did in the
previous generation ... nowadays anyone with a good idea can start up a tech
company and get rich. nobody cares about ur college name

------
codexon
It is probably true that people who scholastic reputation will try to make up
for it in other ways. However the problem is that there may be too much
authority placed in these usual standards of achievements.

Philip forgets that people with academic credentials like himself are being
smug when they complain about others. If your academic credentials represent
you so well, why should it bother you if someone is simply acting?

Another disingenuous behavior he describes is hiding that you went to a
reputable school like Harvard.

The reason people are afraid of living up to "artificially higher"
expectations is because their school's reputation really is artificially high.
What these type of people want is to have the "Harvard" reputation when it
suits them, and the average Joe culpability should they ever fail. They want
to further perpetuate the image of superiority that Harvard/Stanford entails
without letting the public correct their perception that going to one of these
top schools does not make you a Godly Genius.

~~~
scott_s
I don't think hiding you went to a prestigious school has to be disingenuous.
I can be, but it doesn't have to be.

I have a purple belt in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. This is a mid-level rank, but
it's also the point where a competitor is considered advanced. In tournaments
that don't use belt level but Novice, Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced, I
compete Advanced. If I talk to a stranger about BJJ, I never start out with "I
have a purple belt." I am going out of my way to avoid sounding like a
braggart. I am not worried about failing to live up to my rank, but I am
worried about appearing like a jerk.

~~~
codexon
What you are saying is completely different from someone asking you "What
college did you go to", and responding vaguely "Boston" when most people just
say the name of the school.

~~~
pgbovine
yes, "Boston" would be a disingenuous reply to "What college did you go to".
But it would _not_ be a disingenuous reply to "Where did you attend college?"
Some people I know say "in China" or "in Canada" ... "in Boston" is just as
legit of an answer, and often one that makes people not roll their eyes at you
nearly as much as if you say "HAHHHHHHH-VARD!"

~~~
codexon
Its also customary to say which college you attended if they ask you "where".
I also don't know anyone that says HAHHHHHHH-VARD, STANNNN-FAHD or M-AHH-
TTTTT. This pseudo-snobbery is all in your head.

If you keep hiding the fact that you are from a top school in order to
dissociate fallibility with Stanford, this sort of sentiment will continue.

~~~
scott_s
You guessed that he avoids mentioning his school by name to avoid the high
expectations along with it. To operate that this guess has to be true is, at
best, disingenuous.

~~~
codexon
This is not a guess. This is factual evidence as publicly admitted by many
people like Conan O'Brien.

And I should add that I also went to a top school, so its not like I am making
this stuff up.

~~~
scott_s
That's _anecdotal evidence_ , and you're assuming it also applies to this
person.

~~~
elblanco
I'm going to go out on a limb here and theorize that, since the start of this
topic you've consistently taken Mr. Guo's side, pedantically pointing out
rules and etiquette, deflecting from what he actually said, not responding to
actual quotes from his writings and posts and your general literal mindedness,
that you are indeed one of the name-brand school graduates that he feels is
victimized by the boorish snobbishness of the tier-1+n school grads.

Spank me if I'm wrong. But it's the only thing that adds up.

Either that or you are a tier-1+n school grad who's been guilt tripped by this
article into rethinking your prior maltreatment of the elite school kids.

~~~
scott_s
This is old by now, but you should be able to see from my profile that I am at
a large, middle-of-the-road state school. Note that I haven't actually
defended the authors position, only clarified what he said. I'm not sure if I
agree with his position. But I've seen very little discussion on what he
actually said. I've spent all of my time explaining what he did and did not
say. I've spent no time (that I can think of) defending the position he took.

I also like to avoid long, drawn on point-by-point posts, and try to keep
things focused by responding to a person's thesis.

Pointing out etiquette has nothing to do with this article, and everything to
do with liking HN as a place for civil discussion.

------
rauljara
I think it is true that the most insecure tend to exhibit the most elitism;
elitism being defined as going out of your way to put down another group you
consider inferior. The author, however, goes out of his way to condemn this
sort of elitism, basically succumbing to the same elitism he is condemning.
Just as I'm basically doing, going out of my way to write this comment. I
think the thing to realize is that comparing yourself to others in a
better/worse than relationship is a pretty human thing to do, even if it isn't
good. It should be avoided and maybe even corrected, but it shouldn't be
condemned or used as a way to put people down, lest you succumb to it
yourself.

------
Confusion
People from reputable universities don't need to vocally assert their
capabilities, because the mere mention of their university is enough for
people to acknowledge their capabilities. On the other hand, people from more
obscure universities need to vocally assert their skills and experience in
order to obtain the same recognition of their capabilities. This is just a
plain fact of society and asserting your skills and experience is _not in any
way_ arrogant or elitist behavior. He completely confuses being vocal about
your capabilities with vocally downplaying the capabilities of others, for
instance the capabilities of people from reputable universities. He seems
completely unaware that people can feel the need to assert their capabilities
without in any way wanting or trying to downplay the capabilities of others.

------
sofal
I haven't noticed anything to suggest that elitism is more prevalent among
those without elite credentials. Two distinguished professors from my school
come to mind. Both of them have very impressive track records and yet both of
them are on opposite ends of the arrogance spectrum.

I think it comes down to how comfortable you are with yourself. If you
constantly wish you were higher up in the food chain, there's a good chance
you are an elitist, and getting elite credentials likely won't satisfy you
anyway.

------
parse_tree
The author sounds like a real jackass. Who else would be so concerned with the
alma mater, "intelligence", or "technical skill" of other people that they
feel the need to write an article about it.

------
dill_day

      When you are content to be simply yourself
      and don't compare or compete,
      everybody will respect you.
    

\-- Lao Tzu

~~~
Eliezer

      When everybody respects you,  
      Without need for you to compare or compete,  
      You will be content to be simply yourself.  
    

\-- Eliezer Yudkowsky (that's right - ELIEZER YUDKOWSKY)

------
daveying99
I think the guy has some smart points. But the fact that he has the MIT dome
picture on his blog counters the point that if you're a high achiever from a
top-tiered university, you don't need to show external signs of achievement...

~~~
zackattack
I imagine that when you go to a place like MIT where life is like "getting
kicked in the balls repeatedly", your alma mater becomes an important part of
your identity.

~~~
jgrant27
This gave me a good laugh !

These same people also tend to bring this mind set with them to wherever it is
they end up working. They seem to have a huge need to "kick others in the
balls repeatedly" to feel better than others.

Have you ever noticed how no matter what topic(it could even be about
fingernail clippings) is being discussed with these types the conversation
almost always degrades into them having to make repeated points to prove that
they are right and you are wrong. Apparently this indoctrinated part of their
identity is what they call 'education'. I guess they also need this to justify
the 100-200k of debt they have after graduation and the calls they will
receive for the rest of their life from their alma mater each year for
donations.

------
fogus
Unfortunately where I went to middle/high school there was very little elitism
built around GPA and test scores. However, everyone just instinctively knew
that the most dangerous bullies were _not_ the most popular kids, but instead
the kids just below them in the social heirarchy. The top tier were generally
secure in themselves, but those below were always looking for an edge to get
into the pantheon.

~~~
zackattack
Indeed, pg addresses this in his essay on why nerds are unpopular in school.

Here's my question: does bullying ever give an edge into the pantheon?

~~~
fogus
No. But that never stopped those guys from bullying. If they understood this
then they may have been at the top.

------
spiralhead
Interesting article but I am not convinced outward expressions of elitism have
much of a correlation with one's academic background. In my experience, the
most talented and creative individuals are modest, hard working and often
quiet while those lacking demonstrable talent are the ones who make the most
noise. I'd wager talent has little to no correlation with academic background.

------
richardw
What's the motivation for writing the article?

To me, there's always some way to feel superior by pointing fingers. I think
he's driving his own brand of elitism.

(Somebody please accuse me of the same thing, and let's see if we can
recursively create a singularity)

~~~
drats
>What's the motivation for writing the article? Well, he managed to name-drop
Stanford, MIT and Google in a short article with the nutritional value of
cardboard. Everyone knows that after the first job or two flashing a ivy-
league CV around it starts to matter what you have achieved not where you
went.

~~~
kburn
funny

------
invisible
What I find truly misleading is that he labels "name-brand universities" as a
form of adult elitism. He then goes on to explain that it is actually those
that did not attend the best schools that are outwardly elite. I have heard
stories of name-brand universities' alumni not even giving those outside of
the best schools the time of day.

Perhaps there is a cockiness to those that strive to prove themselves beyond
grades and diplomas. Sure. However, I'd heavily argue that this is not
elitism. Elitism requires grouping with those of similar backgrounds (e.g.
Harvard, Yale, MIT, whatever). You cannot be an elitist unless you claim
alumni from only your school - or brand of schools - are better than others.
The author does mention that he went to a FEW prestigious schools and so
doesn't follow his own advice on the matter.

(Elitism can also be displayed by a position that only wealthy are better [1].
This unfortunately may plague these so-called name brand schools.)

So, go be cocky and stop name dropping your prestigious university (or giving
said university/universities more weight). Then you'll stop being an elitist,
but you might just improve your former school's brand...

[1]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism>

------
jgrant27
Grades are a sign of intelligence ?

This could simply be a student's willingness to parrot whatever answers or
theory a teacher would like to hear. Ever notice that often when a student
outdoes his teacher or his teacher's favorite 'pets' then he is down-graded ?

The world's best scientists, mathematicians, physicists have all experienced
this especially when their thinking was about to improve on and/or replace the
old theories that their professors used for large grant money.

Maybe there was a good reason that it was a crime in Socrates day for teachers
to accept money from students. Does financial incentive corrupt education
outright ?

"Prestigious" schools also deny those that need tuition most when the whole
point of attending is to gain something(knowledge etc.) that they do not
already possess. These schools also pride themselves on cultural diversity but
what about the classicism that defines their admissions ? Why should a decent
degree run a student into 100-200k of debt after graduation ? Less wealthy
countries provide comparable and even better education for free. Why ?

------
petercooper
In _The Psychology of Persuasion_ the author looks at how the appearance of
authority yields big results: [http://www.takebackyourbrain.com/2007/the-
psychology-of-pers...](http://www.takebackyourbrain.com/2007/the-psychology-
of-persuasion-authority/) \- The disconnect, then, is that confidence and
arrogance are often interpreted as authority.

------
pgbovine
hi everyone, this is the author --- wow, i totally didn't expect a random rant
of mine to be posted on hacker news :) after monitoring comments for a few
hours, i finally had to sign up for an account.

First off, I should mention the context of my article: I wrote that
(admittedly not so well-written) article from personal observations I made of
technical people in various fields working in various jobs at various
companies (I don't want to name drop any further, heh). It was just my
personal observation that given two people in the same exact job position WITH
EQUAL INTELLIGENCE/SKILLS/EXPERIENCE/ETC., the one who went to a lesser-known
university was usually more vocal about announcing his/her skills and, in a
way, disparaging of people from so-called name-brand schools.

Sorry I didn't intend to make any sorts of value judgments as to how
university reputation correlates with intelligence, likelihood of success,
etc.

Now I'm gonna have some fun responding to other people's comments :)

~~~
alexgartrell
Without passing any judgement whatsoever, I'm going to leave this link here :)

[http://www.stanford.edu/~pgbovine/advantages-of-name-
brand-s...](http://www.stanford.edu/~pgbovine/advantages-of-name-brand-
school.htm)

~~~
elblanco
Ugh, finally managed to read most of the article at the link. I would have
preferred putting my hand in my garbage disposal.

It's an absolutely accurate portrayal of what's wrong in the world with
respect to the reputation that top-tier schools have and the practices of top-
tier corporations. Mr. Guo, in a few areas of self-reflection attempts to
strike a reasonable tone in the parts that don't sound like a brochure for
these name branded schools. But then we get to the section titled, _"Take-home
messages if you went to a normal, lesser-known university"_ (actually the
title, I'm not making it up) and it's a fast ride downhill from there.

This kind of trite, patronizing, condescension is hard to find out in the
public arena. This honest externalization from an elite is only confirmation
of all the worst fears of what these folks are really thinking about you. The
joy of it is not that Mr. Guo rails against the practices he so accurately
describes but that he shrugs his shoulders, utters "just accept your station
in life _state-school_ ", and ends his piece with a section so unbelievably
arrogant, so paternal...we get this little pat on the head "be realistic
_state-school_ , you could always open some rinky-dink business in some small
town that's never heard of Google".

Here, I'll not paraphrase anymore, I'll just quote:

 _"If you are like the vast majority of people who didn't attend a name-brand
university, then I want to stress the importance of perspective. Realize that
the deck is stacked against you...To try to buck the system will likely result
in disappointment and dejection."_

 _"Another aspect of perspective is the importance of realism. It's healthy to
have dreams, but you must at the same time have a realistic career plan."_

 _"Being realistic doesn't mean being complacent, though. For instance,
starting a small local business is a great outlet for those who are aspiring
entrepreneurs. If you are the town expert on Topic X, then you can form a
small business without fear that some Ivy League brat will infringe on your
local market."_

Are you kidding me with this "why even try, you'll just end up disappointed"
rubbish?

~~~
pgbovine
thanks for the comments ... you have a good point regarding some of the
passages, i'll take them down soon or try to re-work them.

i'm glad that you understood the main purpose of that article, which is to
highlight what i've observed about top-tier schools and the hiring practices
of certain big corporations.

however, i really don't mean to sound like i'm an advertising brochure for
those schools, because i'm definitely not. again, i'm just trying to share the
experiences i've heard from my friends (who went to all different types of
schools) with regards to their job hunting process.

in part, i'm trying to express some of the frustrations that people have
relayed to me because they were definitely worthy of certain positions but got
passed up due to their lack of so-called name-brand credentials. but i see
that i've done a bad job at doing that, since i drew such negative criticism
due to my tone ;)

please email me personally if you'd like to give me more feedback on how i
could emphasize the more objective points of that article without sounding
condescending. thanks.

~~~
elblanco
I wouldn't change it at all. I think you were being honest, which is
commendable. It's a perfect example of the attitude that permeates top-level
schools, employers and social organizations. An attitude most elites won't
admit to. Yet we of the penny seats in life face it every day. The honesty,
while infuriating, is refreshing. It's not that you were quietly or subtly
ignoring those from generic schools, but that you were out and out saying what
we know you are thinking "don't bother competing, you can't hang with us".

It's the academic and professional version of the kind of trash talk you might
hear at an inner city pick-up basketball game or an 8-mile rap battle. It's
starts with why the elite are the best, and what being the best means, and
ends with why the non-elites can't be part of this group and what they should
do about it. You just had fewer insults about my mother, but the content was
the same.

It's a challenge, not much different than the challenges presented by elites
to non-elites in every capacity of life.

I suspect that much of what you see in the other article is merely the
frustrated result of having to work just as hard as the elite guy for
schooling, but then also having to beat, kick and claw their way through even
minor interactions because they are being treated like a child just like in
the example you provided in the original version of this article. It's a
vicious cycle that creates a bad environment for everyone.

------
JeremyChase
I think the author is in error to assume that all people attend elite schools
for the same reasons. Some people are honestly the best in their field and
will gravitate to the best schools, others simply desire the best pedigree,
and some people simply want to go to the best school they can.

I don't think that Ivy alumni are hesitant to name drop their school. Some are
smug; most aren't. As I have gotten further from college the conversations
generally swing toward what you are doing, rather than where you went.

The generalization about 2nd tier students is also too broad. My CS degree is
from a 2nd tier school (RIT 01), and when talking with others from similar
schools it seems like there is occasionally an elitist; but it isn't that
common.

There are plenty of people who are elitist because they have something to
prove. They may have gone to a great school, or no school at all. In the end
it doesn't matter; they are simply annoying.

------
fburnaby
This is a fun paradox: someone who graduated from {MIT, Harvard, etc.} can't
say they did, since it would be elitist. They can stop mentioning their _Alma
mater_ when they realize that it sounds elitist to mention it. But then it
just seems like they're _not_ mentioning it, as a way of signaling their lack
of need to mention it (their status is obvious). Once you graduate from any of
these schools, there's no way not to sound elitist when asked where you went
to school. You're trapped.

PS - This, of course, doesn't mean someone graduating from these schools isn't
elitist. It's just that the social exchange in which they tell you their _Alma
mater_ doesn't give you any information in regards to their elitism.

------
xilun
Is it a sort of oxymoron exercise or something?

------
enthalpyx
Wouldn't it be great if we could get to the point where the opinion of others
didn't matter so much?

~~~
sofal
The opinions of people who have resources are always going to matter. That in
itself is not a bad thing. The bad thing is ill-informed opinions.

