Lifting has definitely played a changing role in my life. As a kid it definitely did instill the idea of working for results. It was extremely rewarding to see that when I worked out consistently and with a plan, I was stronger than my friends who went inconsistently or with poorly planned workouts. As an adult now it's more therapeutic - so much of my day is ambiguous, out of my control, or searching for how to apply my leverage instead of actually just applying my leverage. So it's very nice to have an hour of my day where I decide what I am working towards, and be able to hit clear goals largely by putting in blind effort.
I'd be curious how much of this changes once you account for a few basic fundamental things like:
* Being over 25
* Having a college degree.
The people who worry about marriage because of these stats are typically in this category. I bet just by accounting for these 2 points, the numbers would plummet to the 20s if not teens.
I don't agree with this - law students still skew more frugal than white collar adults. Definitely less frugal than undergrads - folks coming from the workforce generally have some savings, and I do think there were more students coming from an affluent background than in undergrad. But the spending pattern of the average student was still quite frugal - housing was almost always student housing, many students did not use a car, most were taking significant loans etc.
My wife attended a school ranked ~30th in the US, and was in a leadership position at her school's flagship journal, which was in a dingy room with the only amenity being a microwave.
Maybe it looks different at a T14 school, but the vast majority of journal students I know would have balked at a >$10/month subscription like this
The wide boulevards and huge open spaces in some of the touristy areas can feel empty even when there are a normal number of people there. Common problem with planned cities, they have way too much empty space and feel abandoned even when not.
I think that's the point - "pretty good" isn't good enough for a top school to want to admit you. Second year college/CS is pretty good but I went to a great high school where there were 50+ kids at that level. That's not enough to stand out in a meaningful way.
Whereas if someone was Ramanujan-level, their raw talent would be so apparent they wouldn't have this issue and would clearly stand out.
But he ignored all subjects besides math and lost his scholarship within a year. He later enrolled in another university, this time in Madras (now Chennai), the provincial capital some 250 kilometers north. Again he flunked out.
If you get into the IMO team you'll be accepted anywhere good for maths. Probably a high position in the local competition would be enough. (YMMV as my understanding is coloured by a little knowledge of the system in the UK)
> Second year college/CS is pretty good but I went to a great high school where there were 50+ kids at that level. That's not enough to stand out in a meaningful way.
It is not enough to stand out in the current system.
The parent was saying selecting the 50 kids who can handle it is a much better approach than just taking the highest overall grades.
The average A's across the board high school student can't handle second year college maths. Yet they will be placed ahead of the observably better at math kids.
Imagine if jobs worked like this - "Yes, we know you are a great developer but you don't really understand economics. Sorry".
Being well-rounded and having exposure to a bunch of topics is valuable to an extent. However, in my experience most of the people making a real difference in the workplace and academia are not particularly well rounded.
Thankfully in tech there are alternative pathways. However, for many professions there aren't and these high performers are simply excluded to societies detriment.
Being well-rounded and having exposure to a bunch of topics is valuable to an extent. However, in my experience most of the people making a real difference in the workplace and academia are not particularly well rounded.
You can only progress so much in a field of expertise before hitting diminishing return.
At some point it makes sense to broaden your knowledge and skillset.
>You can only progress so much in a field of expertise before hitting diminishing return.
I suppose how long you can progress for and how far you can progress depends somewhat on the breadth and depth of the field of expertise.
Many fields of expertise are so broad and deep that they have their own sub-fields just to make them manageable.
So you would probably be in a sub-field and then broaden your knowledge and skill-set in a related sub-field of the overall field that you are well suited to.
I'm betting it's likely you can see how your own particular field, as you are on HN, replicates this pattern.
> It is not enough to stand out in the current system.
What I'm saying is in some hypothetical system which places a great emphasis on specialization, people who are a few years ahead of curriculum are a dime a dozen and will not stand out. There were 50 kids in my high school, so how many is that nationwide?
Particularly in math, it is straightforward for an exceptional talent to stand out. Competitive math is a clear pathway/credential. If someone is not able to achieve meaningful results then it's probably just the case that they aren't as talented as they believe
> Imagine if jobs worked like this - "Yes, we know you are a great developer but you don't really understand economics. Sorry".
There are plenty of software devs who are not getting hired to the potential of their raw development skills because they cannot communicate or collaborate productively. There are also plenty of software devs who are not getting hired to the potential of their raw development skills because they don't have as much domain knowledge as other devs.
> people who are a few years ahead of curriculum are a dime a dozen and will not stand out.
I'm not sure what you mean.
High school has a much lower, but broader, bar.
The number who can handle second year college math are a small fraction of those who can get straight A's at high school.
> There are plenty of software devs who are not getting hired to the potential of their raw development skills because they cannot communicate or collaborate productively.
These are behavioural issues and not knowledge issues. We do not address these kinds of issues at high school at all.
Getting an A in English doesn't prepare you in any way to be a team player.
In my ~15 year career the only people I've seen not hired because of a knowledge gap in this space have been non-native speakers.
This resonates with me - I primarily run and lift weights, neither of which require much quick thinking or movement outside of specific patterns. So while it's not my primary focus, I do try to include a few sessions of rock climbing and pickup soccer in my week.
I've definitely noticed an improvement in my ability to "express" the strength/endurance since I started doing that (more agile, coordinated, sense of how to apply force, general feeling of fitness).
In general I feel like novelty in exercise is understudied/appreciated
Lifting has definitely played a changing role in my life. As a kid it definitely did instill the idea of working for results. It was extremely rewarding to see that when I worked out consistently and with a plan, I was stronger than my friends who went inconsistently or with poorly planned workouts. As an adult now it's more therapeutic - so much of my day is ambiguous, out of my control, or searching for how to apply my leverage instead of actually just applying my leverage. So it's very nice to have an hour of my day where I decide what I am working towards, and be able to hit clear goals largely by putting in blind effort.
reply