undefined | Better HN

0 pointskemiller20024y ago0 comments

Better prepared I would say. There are plenty of kids that don't get the opportunity to show how smart they are. They grow up in the projects, have to work nights to help their family, some have to join gangs to survive. You swap they're upbringing with someone who's parents got to spend 100k on their high school education, provide them the things like a car, so they don't have to ride the bus a hour to and from school, and they'd be a lot different. It's really easy to be a lot smarter when you have a support system that nudges you along the way. Now agreed, there are some kids that really are smarter, but mostly it's about being prepared to handle that rigor.

0 comments

andreilys4y ago

It ultimately comes down to nurture vs nature.

My opinion is that nurture affects nature, so yes if we optimize childhood development it would naturally lead to better outcomes.

However I do believe people have a “natural” ceiling based on genetics. Meaning that no matter how great your nurture environment is, you could never become a top NBA basketball player or a Nobel prize winner.

Now I’m not saying MIT is either of those things, but it’s certainly difficult to get in and not simply a by-product of your “nurture” environment but some interplay with your “nature”. Although I’m sure with a timely $20M gift from your parents your chances of getting in would increase substantially, regardless of your qualifications.

rfrey4y ago

Although I wouldn't contest your opinion about "ceilings" etc, because I don't know much about it, I would contest that elite universities select from a pool that is above most people's top end. I suspect the average intelligence of Harvard, MIT, or Stanford students is higher than the national average but still within the first deviation - in other words, most people in the population who are interested in university are probably "smart enough" by nature to succeed at one of these schools.

Socioeconomic factors playing a role (even a majority role, in my opinion) in access to elite education isn't about $20 million gifts. It's about living in neighbourhoods that have good primary and secondary schools; it's about living around peers who think going to university and even elite universities is normal and achievable; it's about being able to afford "personal rounding" activities like organized sports or music lessons; it's about being rich enough to be able to afford to give volunteer hours.

This "privilege" doesn't make those people bad or invalidate how hard they worked, but we should avoid thinking their success is due to some innate, "natural" superiority like just being smarter.

gmadsen4y ago

while I agree, that very smart children can be victims of their childhoods, not everyone can prep their way into MIT. that is why Harvard and Yale are more prestigious, its more associated with the powerful, not purely the most academically inclined.

To be clear I grew up fairly poor myself with no support system, but not that bad with violence, just trailer park poor, you can tell smart children at a very young age, kindergarten it will be obvious if a student is mathematically gifted(for whatever that is worth, it is certainly not the end all be all indicator of future success).

my point is that MIT will have a higher percentage of mathematically gifted students, because it isn't something that can be prepped for.

I guess I would be curious on how much a difference it really is , if you could completely control for environment, but even then the difference still exists.

ctvo4y ago

> my point is that MIT will have a higher percentage of mathematically gifted students, because it isn't something that can be prepped for.

What are you talking about? The requirements to get into MIT are not mathematical genius. It's above average quantitative skills. And you can prep for the standardize math requirements quite easily. All of my high school friends did, and some managed to get into MIT.

gmadsen4y ago

you obviously have a pretty strong bias. I didn't say its a requirement, I said they would have a higher percentage of gifted students.

Also the requirements are not "above average", a math SAT of 750 is in the 95% percentile of SAT takers, which is already below average for MIT. Even then, the "average" student isn't even taking a college readiness test. You are grossly overestimating what average is.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

andreilys4y ago

It ultimately comes down to nurture vs nature.

My opinion is that nurture affects nature, so yes if we optimize childhood development it would naturally lead to better outcomes.

rfrey4y ago

This "privilege" doesn't make those people bad or invalidate how hard they worked, but we should avoid thinking their success is due to some innate, "natural" superiority like just being smarter.

gmadsen4y ago

my point is that MIT will have a higher percentage of mathematically gifted students, because it isn't something that can be prepped for.

I guess I would be curious on how much a difference it really is , if you could completely control for environment, but even then the difference still exists.

ctvo4y ago

> my point is that MIT will have a higher percentage of mathematically gifted students, because it isn't something that can be prepped for.

gmadsen4y ago

you obviously have a pretty strong bias. I didn't say its a requirement, I said they would have a higher percentage of gifted students.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse