If the author had just shredded the document and written a generic article about prestige without mentioning his associations, I fear that title would do less well.
But yeah I agree with your point that buying/selling a piece of paper doesn't transfer the knowledge, friendships, networks that one can build in college.
Which in my experience is something that people who went to these institutions will do, constantly. Goes down incredibly well in countries where the the idea of tiers has yet to catch on.
We could use some perspective on what's likely to happen next. It's not coming from that source.
And that perhaps one's gross yearly income is not the ultimate and best measure of personal success.
Or they need to maintain their income to continue their lifestyle.
I am not particularly passionate about my job as a sysadmin. I don't hate it, but it would be nice to just spend all day skateboarding or playing Starcraft.
But, I have aging parents to take care of. Housing prices have skyrocketed around me. This is what I need to do to maintain a certain level of security, and indeed luxury, for myself and my close family.
And this isn't weird.
Go back 3-5 generations to when half of the population was employed in agriculture. Was everyone passionate about cows? Potatoes?
The reality is, I have a better shot at following my passion by trying to get into FAANG and working there for 10-20 years so that I can then pursue the things that I am personally passionate about.
> "The basic algorithm divides points by a power of the time since a story was submitted. Comments in threads are ranked the same way."
> "Other factors affecting rank include user flags, anti-abuse software, software which demotes overheated discussions, account or site weighting, and moderator action. "
I’ve found this to be true of job titles, too.
Yes, on one level that's fraud, and selling prestige fraud is a grift.
But inclusion and amplification rely on the same emotional operation of using one's platform and assets to jump start a story for others. So in the most generous telling there is some credit here for the intent.
But only some.
Whatever one thinks of Harvard, whatever one thinks of the prestige industrial complex, the actual proposal here is not a transaction any responsible person should participate in on either side. And if I were the issuer, if I were Harvard, I would revoke this credential.
And then we would see the true weight of this prestige proof in the eyes of its former holder.
He offers to rewrite the name with that of the buyer.
And while the paper "belongs" to him, in reality that paper is a credential issued by Harvard, and the source of truth for credential holders is Harvard, not the holders/subjects.
All colleges maintain lists of credential holders.
An attempt to verify the ownership and subject of the credential- which happens quite often, many mid to high level employment offers, all background checks, etc, perform this verification- using the buyer's name, fraudulently rewritten on the piece of paper- will fail.
Issuing fraudulent credentials of various kinds and advertising them as valid...is fraud.
And if you don't think so...I've got a bridge to sell you.
Cheers.
