A large portion of the student body at every American college is "drowning themselves in pleasure and mindlessness". The simple, naturalistic explanation is that when Harvard students abandon themselves to partying and procrastination, it is for the same reason that students at Boston University or Colorado State do it: i.e., they're young, horny, and on the loose for the first time in life, and their mental circuitry for self-regulation isn't fully wired up yet. But this account does not satisfy the Harvard man, who is at pains to distinguish his habits of procrastinton as themselves the mark of a Harvard man, a proof of belonging to an elite order.
Why are people lazy and self-sabotaging? Because they're human. They want to do pleasant things more than they want to do unpleasant things.
It's just school. A few years down the road people don't care about most of what you did there. Better enjoy the ride as much as you can without torpedoing your career.
My now-deceased mother earned her bachelors [UTSA] in her early-50's, and always commented how "few of my classmates attend office hours and even fewer seem to care about what we're learning."
Lady: they're just trying to survive while all these intoxicating chemicals [hormones, drugs, rage] pollute their very existences.
Not the GP, but emphatically and obviously yes. There's the "reads a new book once per week" type of discipline that the average ivy leaguer tends to have, and there's the "wakes up at 4AM to go to the job they don't like despite how much their back hurts" discipline that the working class are obligated to develop.
So you're saying the sweat of a coal miner is equivalent to the sweat of an Einstein ("genius is one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration")?
People who attend institutions considered "elite" have on average been told since early childhood that they are part of the elite.
In my experience, such people tend to have less self-discipline and fewer inhibitions than regular folks. That's a natural consequence of knowing that nothing truly bad can ever happen to you, no matter what you do.
> IQ is highly associated with self-control and discipline.
I'd like to see a citation for that, especially for the idea that the self-control/discipline associated with high IQs transfers over to non-academic aspects of life, which is what's in question here.
> Delay behavior in both sexes was also correlated positively with IQ and with Q-sort-derived indexes of ego resiliency and ego control. The relationship between ego control and delay behavior was particularly strong after both IQ and ego resiliency were partialled. These results were interpreted as reflecting the fundamental importance of both cognitive skillfulness and impulse control for adaptive delay behavior in situations that contain strong motivational inducements.
This study doesn’t measure academic related delayed gratification. I’m surprised to be asked for a source. This has been settled science for decades.
I'm pretty sure they're conflating a higher likelihood of determining an action precluding risk factor prior to action with actual self control and discipline....
It's more just that the smarter you are the more likely you are to both recognize the existence of the risk factor as well as "do the math" before your impulses induce action.
And this explains the question pose as well. They don't self-sabotage. They just "jump through academic hoops" ... but not through their own effort, or only with great assistance. This help they get just really breaks for most in the university years.
They don't self-sabotage, they just lose their advantage.
That’s quite the opinion. Do you have any evidence to back that up? Countless studies have found that SAT scores are highly correlated with intelligence. Both “g” and IQ, which are roughly equivalent for this context. For example: https://www.psychologicalscience.org/pdf/ps/Frey.pdf?origin=...
I don't think anyone would argue otherwise, the controversy is that IQ test results can be increased significantly by training.
But that discussion ultimately boils down to what intelligence really is... You either subscribe to the believe that it's essentially something you're born with or something that can be improved by training.
IQ tests fundamentally cannot measure for the former definition, but I does a decent job for the latter.
The user I replied to is clearly arguing that SATs do not provide any correlation with IQ. They called the proposition “bullshit.”
As for your question, g is very difficult to improve through training. Almost impossible in adulthood. The only studies I am aware of which indicate an ability to improve IQ score over time are those which allow participants to repeatedly take similar IQ tests. This enables the respondents to practise the type of question and answer faster and more accurately. Obviously this would produce an inaccurate result, over-estimating the intelligence of the individual.
To draw parallels with the SAT, I see evidence that repeated attempts reveal gaps in one’s knowledge and skill, and these are prerequisites for the test. This permits the individual to study those areas and practise the kinds of skills required to improve their score. Given this, we should acknowledge that the SAT is not a perfect analogue for IQ tests, but in aggregate, they do yield striking correlation. To tie this to my premise above, it is highly likely that the average Harvard student has an above-average IQ.
And I think we've gotten quiet far from the context their statement was made in.
The premise was that intelligence increases self control/delayed gratification.
From this, we've extrapolated that havard students will have on average a higher self control, because they've had the the privilege of a much better education, which caused their IQ scores to be quiet high.
Personally, I'd agree that this extrapolation is flawed, because both factors are only correlated with no causal link.
I provided a study which shows high correlation. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
I don’t agree with your summary of the premise. It doesn’t follow that more training means higher IQ scores, but I acknowledge it could mean higher SAT scores for individuals. Just not in aggregate.
Correlation is not causation and is meaningless for extrapolations. The only thing it provides is interesting data to discover the causality through further study.
But I guess you're too far gone into narcissism to understand how dumb this has gotten.
It’s my understanding that a lot of people who could make the cut for Harvard etc but do not due to resource constraints (limited student numbers, limited finances).
These people then go on to other universities. So yes I believe you’ll find all levels of self-discipline across all the universities.
The difference is there are some 3000 universities in the US. I guarantee you, the vast majority of students who could make the cut at Harvard are not attending a college ranked at 1500. So when you compare an average student at Harvard, maybe there's no significant difference between that student and students at the top 100 (or pick a number, 100 seems high frankly, I've studied in universities ranked around 20, 50, 100 and the differences in the average student and course difficulty was quite big between the 20 and 100) ranked universities, but there's certainly a difference between that student and the average college student.
Assuming that they do, does it significantly change the patterns and tendencies of actions among that age group? I think the distribution of behavior should be intact even if you just sample among Harvard students.
I studied at Harvard and the answer is that they want to pretend to be so smart and talented that they don't need to work. The image is of the effete aristocrat who enjoys life without lifting a finger.
Think of George W. Bush: Got into Yale (Harvard too!) because his blue-blood line always did. Mediocre grades. Lots of alcohol and drugs. (Quit that later.) Avoided Vietnam with the cushiest fun job as a fighter pilot who never flies out of Texas skies (and mostly skipped that too). Led some companies funded by his rich family. President twice.
I believe you and the author are describing two different types of students. The author describes students who want to work and succeed but are unable to cope with "real-world problems rather than contrived academic examples," whereas you seem to point to students who want instead to luxuriate in their self-perceived social class.
I haven't read everything here but Harvard students probably play signaling games where one might also want to signal that they are wealthy enough to not to work for money.
The wealthy raise their kids so that they will naturally signal this.
The university is more like a playground to meet connections and signaling that you are not focusing on work but socializing may be beneficial.
Sure there are people like you paint. But this is a wide psychological phenomena that comes up in all spectrums of privilege. Impostor syndrome, the “gifted kid” memes with chronic anxiety, and here students who start flailing once the non-structured life of adulthood creeps up on them.
Sprezzatura is the name of this. A "certain nonchalance, so as to conceal all art and make whatever one does or says appear to be without effort and almost without any thought about it."
> A 2019 National Bureau of Economic Research working paper by Peter Arcidiacono found that 43% of students admitted to Harvard College were either athletes, legacies, members of the "Dean's" or "Director's" lists of relations of donors or prominent figures
More than you think. Each high school, back in my day, have a quota that can get into Ivy League. They can’t accept everyone that is smart other else it will be in the tens of thousands. Every year, there would be 1-2 that go into even though they were borderline. They got in because their family donated a million dollar building. They didn’t even make it a secret. I went to an elite college prep school. The really smart ones I know got in through scholarships to help balance the scales. It’s just business at the end.
It's not an either/or. Very few people have the connections necessary to get into elite schools with, say, a 1.0 GPA in high school (or an equally terrible performance on whatever your preferred measure of merit is). But Harvard is filled with merely moderately above average legacies who would have otherwise ended up at a good state school or equivalent.
Some are born with goals, some find their own goals, and some have goals thrust upon them.
Being a smart kid can be hard. Parents, teachers and peers see that mythical attribute "potential" and push you in directions to reach it.
Get A's in school? Gotta be a doctor or lawyer. (OK, that ages me, today they'd be pushing for programmer.)
Graduating college with a degree you never wanted must be depressing for the person who sees it as a work-prison and a life sentence. Better to fail, to drop out, to disappointed all, to get a chance to start over.
The very lucky few, and I count myself among them, have both potential and the freedom to find their own path - the thing that provides pleasure - where people pay you to do what you love. And adults around you who accept that, even if it's not a high-prestige occupation. (Programming in the 80s wasn't the career choice it is today.)
Ivy league students don't get there by themselves. A life-time of adults help you, pay for you, drive you around, push you. To those whom much is given, much is expected. And the weight of expectation can sit very heavy.
> Ivy league students don't get there by themselves. A life-time of adults help you.
See, this is what I do not get. I got without excessive effort into a top university in Europe. I never had to be taken care nearly this much. Learned calculus at 14-15 by buying an old book in a used book store. Learned programming at around the same age by reading C++ tutorials and doing programming competitions (ACM style, but easier). Ran in various science competitions, here indeed teachers helped me by giving me books, exercises and guidance, with greater or smaller success. Most of my university peers had similar histories. I believe I would be admitted to an Ivy school if I were American, based on my professional experience with people that studied there.
What gives? Is it the last >=2 decades that changed the picture too much? Is it somehow an exclusively American problem? Where are the self-motivated kids, why aren't they taking most spots in those schools? Did something systematically kill the motivation?
The slight (or perhaps not so slight) neurosis and coping mechanisms like "I wasn't even trying, so I didn't fail" imply that those kids are way, way past their comfort zone. Being this far out is very unhealthy, can even be lethal.
> I believe I would be admitted to an Ivy school if I were American, based on my professional experience with people that studied there.
The admission rates are very, very low. I have no problem believing you could follow the studies there, but so could most people who applied. In the US the advertised admission rates are in the single digit percents, and that is after people who have a leg up from having parents who attended the school and various others.
So you end up with a bunch of kids who need to have absolutely top grades, with ridiculous extracurricular activities like publishing research or starting a business. You end up having to give up your entire childhood to do things to have a chance at one of these schools.
Where does self-motivation go? Well if you already know you're going to be a programmer, your motivation is to code, that's how you get good at it. But you also need to be doing your other classes like literature and French plus running your charity. You'll be reminded of this by helpful teachers and parents.
Admission rates are heavily dependent on how easy it is to apply, how many times you're allowed to apply, how likely a student thinks their chances are, basically heavily dependent on the college application process, which is very different in different countries. E.g, I think Indian IITs have <1% acceptance rates but you probably don't have to shell over a $100 to apply.
That may be it, under-supply of schools. What's required there besides perfect, or near perfect SAT scores?
Also, I've always wondered why so few Americans decide to study in Europe. I understand some might not be able to afford the remote study, but this doesn't explain everything. Language is not a problem, every top university offers all, or almost all master's level courses also in English.
I imagine this is a generalisation, some of the elite universities in Europe require 2 year prep programs before you can even apply (e.g. France) which doesn't sound easier than top American ivies?
That's quite some difference, especially if we consider that Harvard has special tracks for legacies and various others. What's the real admission rate? 2%?
For other European unis I don't know what exactly the criteria are for being elite.
I've always had a problem with admission rates, since they obviously depend on self-selection (and supply of schools).
Germany is a good example here, they have a wide spectrum of schools starting already past primary education (around 10 years old). Many of those schools, those of the "mid" and especially "lower" rank do not bash into children's heads that they absolutely must go to a good university or they will be a failure. As a result those kids do not apply there, instead they go into internships and get a job. Overall there is a continuum that a) reduces pressure on people that probably shouldn't study medicine or law, b) gives better education to talented children by putting them together in more aligned groups.
Crucially, the admission to those schools past age of 10 is not zip-code based. Admitting children by zip-code past the very first school where you learn how to sit, read, write and multiply numbers is nonsense.
A process like this will result in a higher university admission rate, all else being equal, including the "true difficulty" of getting into a specific university.
Just go with national / global pool for the denominator. There are about 4 million high school graduation age children in the usa. Probably about 80-100 million world wide. About 20000 ivy league spots per year. So you need to be about one of 5 in a 1000 in the usa. Maybe 1 in a 1000 globally after adding global equivalents of us Ivy League schools. basically top 0.1 to 0.5 %.
The admission rate alone doesn't tell you if, as a candidate, I have more chances of getting into this or that university, because it doesn't say anything about who applies. There might big differences between the pools of applicants.
Oxbridge's admissions rates are not the lowest in the UK; schools no one outside the UK has heard of, like Warwick, have the lowest, and their admissions rates are still two to three times higher than the Ivies'. In many countries, universities admit all applicants that meet the qualifications. An example is Switzerland, where ETH Zurich—by every measure, among the world's finest universities—admits every Swiss with a Matura (university-track high school diploma) who applies.
People do get kicked out of ETH, the selection is after admission, not before (as opposed to e.g. most US universities), at least when you enter right after high school. So it's not comparable. Granted it's still easier to "get into", but that won't get you much if you can't graduate.
Another thing to consider is that the pool of applicants might be different between universities. 1% admission rate tells you a very different story whether 100% or 10% were decent applicants in the first place.
> I believe I would be admitted to an Ivy school if I were American, based on my professional experience with people that studied there.
They do take exceptional students from poorer backgrounds in many cases. But the biggest qualification for Ivy League places is your prestige and how rich you are. They want Names and old money to be admitted and try to keep the riff-raff out as much as possible. They accept poor but extraordinary students because they can becomes Names in the future to enhance the reputation of the establishment. Don't ever believe it's anything to do with you personally.
> Gotta be a doctor or lawyer ... today they'd be pushing for programmer.
Where are you getting that from? Parents and teachers still push for doctor or lawyer for smart kids. Only if doctor or lawyer is unattainable would they suggest programmer. Furthermore, everybody still perceives doctors and lawyers to have higher status than programmers. Just look at TV shows from the 80s vs recent years: The high prestige characters are still doctors and lawyers, and also business leaders, sports figures, and military, but never programmers or engineers.
Doctors get 200k minimum in almost any community which is why the profession is coveted. You basically never see a poor doctor in the USA. This is because of intense regulation of residency spots.
Honestly, if you are a smart American kid who likes research get an MD and/or an MD/PhD. That way you aren't competing with the foreign grad student labor pool. The MD is the golden ticket. Of course if you hate medicine it isn't.
Lawyers are more variable and a lot of the work is rote contracts.
Programming is more of the wild west since you can practice without a license as they say.
Forget about status, I would rather not subject my kid to the constant catchup treadmill; jquery then, SPA yesterday, AI today, god-knows-what tomorrow, its like a never ending thing - its not enough to be stressed by work all week long, now you need to spend the couple of days of break also on learning the next flavor of the month.
Sure lawyers have to catchup with changing laws and doctors need to catchup with new medical breakthroughs but I doubt it is as much drinking from the firehose as programming is.
I am 45 and I had to catch up on a lot of things. I started programming in 1995 and my language of choice was Pascal 5.5.
Catching up is hard, but it is also "gym for your brain". Plenty of people grow complacent and mentally lazy, because they do not face any additional demands over their careers. It is even possible that mental training postpones dementia.
In my experience with my interns, many of whom graduated from Harvard like me, some students at all universities suffer from burnout from their strenuous childhoods. So I sympathize that some kids need to chill a little. I wouldn’t call it self sabotage, but I understand the author is just trying to understand their classmates better.
I’m not sure if a cry for help / agitating at the university will matter. I’m not sure it’s so easy to blame parents either.
Lowell, Palo Alto, Amador Valley, Mission Viejo and Lynbrook are so ridiculously stressful. And that’s just in the Bay Area in California. Some parents from here send their kids to Exeter and Andover, which also really work the kids to the bone. Is Nightengale Bamford “easy?” Dalton and Trinity? Ultimately as long as there are so few spots for so many kids with genuine cognitive gifts, parents, students and teachers will deem insane competition in high schools rational. And that will manifest in mental health issues - ranging from quirks to crises - later in life.
Sounds like we really need some top universities, maybe new ones, to increase acceptance 10X or more, back to the level where they’d accept people who would’ve been accepted in 1970 with the same scores.
There already exists tons of pre existing institutions that will give a great education to those students with many gifts. The twisted thing is if your parents send you to cram school and you DON’T get into Harvard, even if you have cognitive gifts, you’re going to still be drinking heavily at Berkeley from burnout. So the institution that does receive you doesn’t get the whole You.
It’s up to the high schools to take the first step to limit the stress, which has been a consensus opinion for at least a decade. And yet, I really doubt that’s going to happen in the high schools I’m personally familiar with. Nonetheless some brands, like Montessori, have achieved this (less stress, same education) for younger students, so my hopes are high.
Add more ivy league schools to the point where they are common? Increase the size of existing schools so they accept more? Raise the value of suny schools by advertising? Luring top teachers? Syndicate top teachers content to virtual campuses branded by the Ivy League? Ban foreign students?
Employers want a ranked list. Parents want a ranked list. Schools ranked high want a rank list of the best schools. How do you get around human nature to appear better than a neighbour and a ranked list of the best schools gives parents/kids an easy template for a successful career?
This won't change the stress. It will just move to something else, as a lot of the value in university is how it ranks you compared to others and one way or another, there will be some kind of ranking system.
For me it was that my ADHD was well managed in the highly structured confines of my parental-supervised public education. Once I was put into a dorm by myself for the first time in my life and simultaneously stripped of the structure I previously depended on, I failed almost predictably. In my adult life, covid or forced working from home, has lead to the same trouble. It's hard to consistently achieve when I am by myself and can't latch onto other people's habits. Perhaps I am a parasite of humanity, but I try my best.
I think you should be careful about criticizing yourself too much (or comparing to others). You have ADHD, a real handicap.
Statistically speaking you are probably doing amazingly well if you consider how much more likely people with ADHD are to become addicted to substances, how much more likely they are to get into car crashes, how much more likely they are to end up homeless or unemployed. And I'm pretty sure statistically speaking the majority of people with ADHD does not get a college degree and is less likely to do so.
I'm not saying you should "victimize" yourself or something but it's just that nothing you mentioned surprised me when you said ADHD.
One reason I haven't heard yet is that the work gets harder.
Before I went to Oxford, I'd never run into anything mathy that I couldn't understand. I don't mean that I got it right the first time, though that tended to happen, but in high school I either just got it with no problem, or I understood the answer when I saw the explanation. This goes for both math/science class itself and math contests that I enjoyed doing. No real mysteries, either trivial mistakes or some angle you hadn't seen, but well within reach.
Then in uni I would run into problem sheets where I not only could not get the answer, I couldn't even find a page in the ten books that seemed relevant. Neither could my study partners. I'd show up at the tutorial and the tutor would throw up some equations that made it seem like a five minute job, when I'd sat in the library for 5 hours having discovered nothing. I'm talking something like a 10 problem sheet where between me and my buddies we managed 2 correct answers, 2 somewhat close, and 6 complete mysteries.
This can be a shock. People react in different ways, and one reaction is to not try.
In the end the thing to do is... study harder. When you understand these problems in depth you are no longer doing an equation fishing expedition, you actually understand what you are looking for.
This happened to me whereby HS required zero studying but uni absolutely did. I took a year out and did sh!t jobs realizing if I didn't graduate then this was what waited. Then when I started uni and realized it was hard. Very Hard. I realized I'd need to study hard or end up in said sh!t jobs. I'd never been more motivated in my life. Uni to me wasn't about finding myself and overindulgence in nonsense concepts like rite of passage. It was about getting a bloody academic degree.
>One reason I haven't heard yet is that the work gets harder.
This happened to me after breezing through a Top 100 US high school [sober] and then sleeping through most of my Top 20 US private undergrad [full scholarship, not sober]. Graduate school...
>This can be a shock. People react in different ways, and one reaction is to not try.
I left medical school in awe of money never being able to compensate for the sacrifices made matriculating into [let alone completing] such rigorous studies. Had fun, was shocked, fifteen years later I still read a lot...
> One of my friends would always say (after poor grades or job rejections) "I wasn't even trying." By his logic, if he didn't try, then he didn't really fail, because the true extent of his abilities remained untested. He would often play videos games rather than study, just so he could have a plausible excuse for failure. It would be an existential threat for him to do his absolute best but come up short.
I knew someone that fit this. Extremely smart and would often run circles around everyone. But when we landed a top-tier school she crumbled and used this exact excuse often - "she didn't fail because she didn't try."
Eventually she started showing mental illness in the form of delusions of grandeur and something else (not sure what). She claimed she was tested for "special" powers as a kid by the government - mind reading and ability to move objects with her mind. Eventually she came up with a story that she had cancer and needed to miss class all the time for chemo. She ended up getting expelled from the school because she refused to provide any documents from the doctors (ends up she lied and was cured "by a miracle" after she left school).
I've often wondered if her intelligence played a part in this psychotic break she demonstrated. I met a few others that were scary smart and clearly outliers at the school that showed similar behavior.
I don't think it's intelligence but the sudden shock that these kids struggle with.
Most ivy league kids will have succeeded in ~everything before college, and likely internalized the belief of their talent / status as top of class etc. When you put these kids into a single room, by definition only a small minority can be the smartest kid in the room / acing everything. The rest need to accept the change in status for the first time in their lives - also the first time they're away from their support network - and I guess some take this particularly badly and fail to adapt.
It's so sad to hear stories like this. I think there's a real danger with gifted young people to start to see success as the default and by extension for education to only offer modes for failure.
Unpopular opinion: as an overachiever doing mundane things like watching reality TV and smoking weed with friends led to more personal growth and self acceptance than any form of additional study.
just sitting with friends talking about life in a relaxed setting and practicing creating connections stress free really helped me improve my soft skills (and dumb TV shows to have stuff to discuss).
Of course the minute it's actual addition I totally see their point but drugs and partying really had a prolonged positive impact on my life.
Those experiences did convince me not to pursue a PhD on one hand but also to build 3 companies and code a lot more on the other.
Ordinary folk self sabotage as well, you don't have to be an over achieving ivy league student to be that way. No one likes failure and many people understand their societal worth is bound to their status/career and not to who they are as a person; hence the status anxiety and the (sometimes) self sabotaging behavior.
Absolutely. My cousin did this (not in the USA). He studied political science and spent almost 10 years "working" on his master thesis. It was always "almost done", then he decided that the topic had become obsolete and he had to start over.
His problem was that finding a job with a political science degree is hard. He could become unemployed, a failure. But as long as he didn't graduate, he was still a student, and respectable.
What the author describes is many people. Being at an ivy league school doesn't change that. In fact it might make it harder.
Through overcoming stuggle and strife we become stronger. Most of us are scared children walking around in adult bodies unaware how tenuous our grip on life is.
Dont worry about them. Focus on yourself. When you get kicked in the teeth do your best to get back up.
Created a new account to share openly since this so resonated with me…
I was told non stop growing up how gifted I was by my parents and teachers. When I didn’t get into my dream college it was earth shattering for someone receiving that level of praise. It was a personal failure.
I started smoking weed, but quickly progressed to other substances. One time I’d smoked DMT right before a final. I’d rack up lines of coke to study (with a little whiskey to take the edge off). I kept not fully applying myself for the exact reasons in the article.
It took almost a decade for me to understand having a growth mindset and I still honestly struggle with it. My big lesson here is to focus more on the process and less on the outcome.
High achievers are often burdened by the weight of expectations, and the pressure to live up to a certain brand name. Their goals and ambition are often not their own, but have been hijacked along the way by people around them and society in general. They don't always realise this themselves, but somewhere along the way they discover that it's easier to let go and find ways to escape the pressure.
Sometimes, the failure that results from this "self-sabotage" can be a good thing. It can lead to the shattering of assumptions [1] about how the world works, allowing people to redefine their self-worth, and letting them be more in tune with their own capabilities and goals without being encumbered by societal expectations.
> It was how they felt safe — it was how they could maintain the fragile illusion of never-ending perfection and success.
Indeed. Learning to take action in the face of uncertainty and failure is a major challenge for this personality type, though it's possible to unlearn that tendency with enough practice.
I wrote about a similar dynamic here [1] if it's interesting.
A bunch of Harvard grads I know have ridden that name for a decade. A small example, one was slacking off in a tech company, got laid off. They raised 1M to "do AI", with no technical skills at all. They hired a dev, six months later with no product raised a 5M seed round at a 25M valuation. No product released.
Pretty normal in the world of startups. Just take a look at the "team" page on a presentation / pitch, and you'll often see big top 10 school logos - especially if their work experience isn't all that, compared to their academic pedigree.
Avoidance is a coping strategy for perceived potential failiure. This correlates strongly with perfectionism (a misnomer as it has nothing to do with striving for the perfect, but it is the perpetual feeling that your best will not meet your minimum standards).
This is not to be conflated with a second point in the article. Once you pierce the veil on the context itself, be it academia or business or art or other things , it becomes extremely difficult for a person with moral integrity to allign themselves with the goals of that context.
Those two things exacerbate. For intance, when working towards your phd and gradually discovering that your field awards phd's for extremely sloppy and even obviously wrong work, it becomes very hard to motivate yourself to put in the very substantial required effort, especially when you perceive your own potential result as also not breaking the mold or solving the malaise.
It turns out kids at top schools are still just kids. They might have been more successful academically in high school if they’re at an Ivy, but they’re not a different species. They struggle, succeed, and fail like anybody else. Even if you’re a legacy, most legacies aren’t in that super elite tier where you can bumble through life and wind up a CEO or politician. The ones I knew were mostly middle class or upper middle class with parents who were working professionals and were not well-connected enough to get their kid a job they weren’t qualified for, if they could help them get a job at all.
It's not clear to me that Ivy Leaguers (or elites in general) do this any more or less than anyone else. I'd rather turn the question around: Why is it that some people thrive?
I feel like I've been very lucky in life. I've gotten to work on interesting and important stuff, I've enjoyed the work, and I'm genuinely looking foward to the future. But if a younger person asked me for life advice, I don't know what I would say. It's obvious that I couldn't teach anyone to do exactly what I did, and doing exactly what someone else did isn't how the world works anyway. The intersection of what you want to do and what the world needs from you can be so random.
Although not Ivy League, I also suffered from a paralyzing fear of failure for part of my college career. Somewhat paradoxically, I was able to overcome it by lowering my standards, allowing me to spend time working on assignments without stress. The completed assignments then frequently earned good or better grades than I was previously worrying about getting.
I could say a lot more about specifically how I changed my habits to enable this, but this comment will have to do for now.
Certainly your conclusions and observations are accurate for many. However you have to account for the extremely smart people (who are over represented in the Ivy League) who realize (or perceive, depending on your perspective) that "success" in life isn't measured by how much money you make, how prestigious a position you hold or how much "respected" people in society value how you choose to pass the time. I've befriended a lot of extremely smart people who got degrees from Ivy League schools, held very prestigious jobs, made a lot of money and were well-respected by the upper echelons of society. Many of them have worked from dawn until dusk since they left school, are now in their 50s, and are starting to realize that all the money in the world can't bring back the 30 years they wasted pushing the wheel. Who is to judge that living in a shack on the beach is a less fulfilling and happy existence than making $30 million dollars a year being the CEO of Raytheon and profiting off of destruction, sitting in a cubicle punching out code or working as some other functionary making a good salary?
Another common reason for self-sabotage that the article doesn’t mention is ego.
Failure sucks, especially when it’s because you just aren’t good enough. But if you self-sabotage, at least you were right. You thought you’d fail and you did fail. Ego wins!
And who knows, maybe if you actually tried, you wouldn’t have failed! You weren’t not good enough after all, you just didn’t try. You totally could’ve done it if you wanted to, you just didn’t wanna.
I think it's rarely this simple, speaking as someone who actively self sabotaged through my first aborted attempt at college in a much less prestigious institution than Harvard.
Maybe that's what's at the root of it, but it's rarely what these kids tell themselves, I don't think. Much more of a discovery about how delayed consequences are when you just ignore them, and how good it feels to focus on the random highs you can get over the satisfaction of a job well done that doesn't pay off for a long time.
Before you've ever skipped class, the presumption is the world ends were that to happen. Then you get so drunk you sleep through the alarm and... wait, nothing? Nobody cared?! You can just go get drunk, miss class, and your parents don't come out of the walls to beat you???
There are a lot of kids, I think, who've been driven through their academic lives via purely "stick" incentives. When they find out there isn't a stick looming over their head immediately, and there are a lot of distracting "carrots" within short reach, it's hard to come back from.
It is a common thing among those who grow up being praised for their intelligence. If one comes to base their self-worth on their intelligence and believe it is a static quality they were born with, struggling and/or failing could demonstrate that perhaps they weren't as smart as people gave them credit for and thus decrease their inherent self-worth. They quit things if they don't immediately excel at them or just adopt the "slacker" role and put in minimal effort, brushing off their failures as merely the result of not really caring about whatever it was they were attempting. "Eh, I could have been good at [x], but it bored me" or whatever
You misunderstand, the entire article is about ego it is just not framed as such. They have a debilitating ego problem preventing them from doing anything that migh result in a hit to it.
Could be they just get tired of the falsity of their role in modern American corporate culture just like the rest of us. But when they burn out it’s more visible.
Why shouldn’t they want to have opinions and goals and have needs that aren’t compatible with what they do for a living just like everyone else?
> Why shouldn’t they want to have opinions and goals and have needs that aren’t compatible with what they do for a living just like everyone else?
The article is about people who say they want these things, but act in a way that ensures they won’t get what they claim to want.
If they’re lying and don’t actually want the achievements they claim to want, that’s hard to tell from outside. Best we can do is take their word. But you are right that revealed preferences win in the end. You are what you do.
Another observation: While skimming over the blog post and Twitter being down(ed) and somewhat itself self-sabotaged, I also followed the mentioned links in the article.
The whole experience felt so pre-social media era. Blog posts link to other blog posts which they regards as valuable and drive a discussion without ads and distraction.
It feels very early 2000th like and I enjoyed it. I still miss technorati. :)
It seems a little weird to generalize one's friend group to a supposed problem at all Ivy League[0] schools. Although, I'm sure there are students like this at most highly-ranked universities.
A lot of the social and anti-responsibility aspects of this (like telling friends that you didn't fail because you didn't even try in the first place) sounds, for lack of a better way of putting it, very late millennial and gen-Z. I was a pretty terrible undergraduate student (though I didn't succumb to the vices OP mentions), but at least I owned up to it and did my best to salvage my education once I hit a fairly deep low and recognized that I needed to make some changes if I wanted to be successful.
[0] Is this moniker even all that relevant nowadays? I attended an Ivy 20+ years ago and even then it didn't feel like it mattered much. The US News & World Reports rankings were what people cared about, and there were plenty of non-Ivy schools at the top of that list.
People forget that the Ivy League is first and foremost a sports league. It also matters what you want to study. The Ivies will generally be highly rated across subjects, but lots of schools have their specialities for which they are very highly rated.
In school getting help from others or spending money to solve your problems is basically illegal. This does not prepare you well for later. Some students have problems making that change especially if they didn't even know of the existence of that change or if they were heavily conditioned by their experience in their first twenty or thirty years.
> Although they talked about how badly they wanted to achieve, it seemed that their real goal was to guarantee failure.
Do they want to achieve or do they merely feel expected to?
I've had plenty of cases in my life where I did not want what someone expected/expects me to achieve, so my solution was/is to just never get around to it. It was a charade to maintain a reasonable level of social standing with the person expecting the thing without spending effort chasing something I did not value.
For example, I am very out of shape. Yes, it is not healthy, but the life I live doesn't require any physical capacity. I have other priorities. But if I say that, there are people who will be mad at me and increase their level of nagging. Better to show interest, and just let the lack of any success seem like failure.
There are plenty of cases where it is better to seem forgetful or incompetent than unambitious, even if you are.
Just maybe there are some unique flavors to this experience in elite schools but the general phenomenon is found everywhere on every college campus, and possibly anywhere there’s a clear transitionary period from a time of less responsibility into the realities imposed by growing into true adulthood.
There has been countless books discussing what causes this behaviour at length. The author is right, but runs a lot deeper than that obviously.
Michael Sandel in his recent book[^1] called "The Tyranny of Merit" analyses the problem at length. It's a worthy read on a variety of topics around "merit" in our society, etc. Michael Sandel is a teacher of political philosophy at Harvard and one of the most well known philosophers of our time.
Another book called "The Danish Way of Parenting"[^2] explains how to raise kids that are: (a) self-starters in the sense that they don't rely on others for goal-setting and (b) coping in a healthy and constructive way with failure.
How can someone raise a child that will have to compete against the global young intellectual elite? Private tutors are common in London, amongst those who can afford them. They fly tutors for 160 BGP/hour alongside the family to Santorini for a week or two[^3]. Imagine having to compete with these ppl for a spot to an Ivy League college. Quoting from the respective Economist[^3] article:
> Tutoring has risen in line with a cultural shift: university education is now the norm for a larger share of school-leavers than ever before. Close to half of all 25- to 34-year-olds in the 37 wealthy countries that make up the OECD now have a degree. Other countries are fast catching up: by 2030 China and India will account for half of the 300m graduates in this age group worldwide.
> Widening access has changed the nature of the competition. Despite the large rise in the number of universities, the same institutions tend to fill the top places in the international rankings. This means that education is now a global battle: far more people in a wider range of countries are competing for slots in the same few, elite institutions. Twenty years ago, America’s Ivy League universities would admit a quarter or more of all applicants. In 2020 Harvard’s acceptance rate hit a new low of 5%.
One issue that I didn't see mentioned in the article or any of the comments so far, is that all these kids who got into Ivy league schools saw themselves as overachievers / received lots of praise relative to their peers while in high school. But once you get into a top school, everyone there is like that and you are no longer special, you are just average compared to your peers.
You might have been then top student in your city/state, but when you are suddenly surrounded by top students from your _entire country_ it is statistically unlikely that you would be the best. That ought to be demoralizing to a lot of young adults whose entire sense of self-worth has been riding on being the best at academia/sports/whatever.
If you actually manage to get accepted to some Ivy, chances are you were at the very top of you class in HS. Excellent grades, excellent test, lots of extracurriculars, and all that.
The majority can't accomplish those things by just coasting through HS, and living a "normal" teenage life. Rather, it means dedicating lots and lots of your time to studying, extracurriculars, etc.
And it doesn't stop when you get accepted. So to me, it makes complete sense that some students get disillusioned - and start exploring other areas in life. It's not like the grind is going to stop when you start working - many of these ivy league grads go directly to the banking/consulting/law grinder that demands 60-100 hour work weeks.
Additionally, people in this thread keep talking about legacy status like it’s an easy in. How legacy works varies by school, but at the Ivy I attended, it gave you double the chance of getting in and only if you applied early (they showed the numbers). However doubling a 7% acceptance rate to 14% still doesn’t give you great odds.
These schools turn out thousands of graduates a year with the larger ones turning out 10 thousand or so (only counting bachelors students). In any given year, there’s A LOT of students with legacy status, and, unless your last name is on a building or you are a competitive applicant regardless of your legacy status, you aren’t getting in.
As a fan if Fantasy, this article reminds me of Lev Grossman's The Magicians. It comes from very similar experiences the author had going to an Ivy League school. It is probably the best deconstruction of the magical school (think Harry Potter) subgenre because it touches on such real human experiences.
Most of the cast are people who did well in high school and were suddenly transported into an environment where they weren't special. It turns out being transported into a magical world doesn't make your problems go away.
The article was extremely on point. We didn't dare to try. Life is much too complicated, and many retreat to the safety of the familiar. I agree with others this problem is not at all unique to Ivy League. Instead, it is rather the futility of trying, the absence of a visible goal, and the lack of direction in life that, perhaps, made an Ivy League student feel for the first time in his life that maybe there is some meaning in the non-pursuit of happiness after all.
Yale has a 97% graduation rate. This can't be a big phenomenon there. Although many take more than four years.
Now, there are good schools where a sizable fraction don't make it. UC Santa Barbara, California's finest party school, has about an 88% graduation rate, and only 72% finish in four years. Further down the food chain, there are the schools which admit almost everybody but flunk out half the freshman class.
Basically, if you do some minimal amount of work, they’ll give you a C. It’s pretty easy to graduate with a bad GPA. Private schools care a lot about graduation rates since parents don’t want to pay tuition if they see stats that say their kid graduating is a coin toss.
Or maybe they realize that once there is "Ivy League" on your resume, you pretty much cannot fail at life and will always find a good job no matter what, so might as well have a good time, instead of spending all your free time studying in pursuit of prestige.
I didn’t go to an Ivy League school, but I did go to Stanford. I assure you there are many of my classmates who failed at life, don’t have good jobs, and are otherwise don’t fit that description.
An elite education is like a golden ticket, to be sure, but it doesn’t guarantee anything at all. Plenty of folks screw it up.
Twenty-plus years now after my degree and no one cares at all about where I graduated. If I don’t keep up, I’m overboard just like anyone else.
This assumes way too much, and all of it without any evidence. In particular, it assumes that my entire sense of what constitutes success and failure comes from my admittedly elite education. But it has been decades since I graduated, and I have seen a lot of life since that time.
In the decades since we graduated, plenty of my classmates have dealt with suicidal behavior, long term disabilities due to alcoholism or stronger drugs, repeated failed marriages, and a complete inability to hold down a job.
Elite education sets you up for success, but it doesn’t just hand it to you once you get it. Plenty of people screw it up big time.
The self-destructive behavior described in the article can continue in other walks of life and it does catch up. Especially as you get further away from your college days.
For sure. When the majority if your (elite school) class "meet expectation" by going to the same elite jobs, getting a normal job can seem like a failure in life - even though that job would be pretty sweet for the majority of the nation.
When I went to business school, a bunch of the grads went to investment banks, consulting firms, hedge funds, private equity, PM roles at tech firms, and the likes. At the same time, some of my classmates felt deeply unsatisfied that they "only" got offers from big 4 firms.
I’m a Canadian immigrant. I didn’t have recognizable highschool credentials. So had to go through a local college 1st year program. I had a 4.0 GPA when I applied to a Canadian university for second-year transfer program. I applied to only one school, and one program with no backups. Got in and graduated with a 4.0.
During my internships at Microsoft, I met a ton of Ivy kids. I was very intimidated and clearly went through imposter syndrome.
There was a touch of elitism which I think was their downfall. Every kid from my university got a return offer. But there were so many Ivy kids who didn’t. And it seemed like they didn’t even care, but only after they’d already knew they were not coming back. Most of those kids didn’t really make it big in my opinion, now 12 years later.
Clearly, humility isn’t a skill they teach in schools. And in many cases, especially when you’re a noob in the industry, lack of it reveals an inner Dunning-Kruger that make one unattractive.
I’ve recruited many Ivy kids over the years. There is a bimodal distribution. There are ones that are truly very smart - these tend to be humble too. Then there are those who flaunt - almost always there is no substance with these kids.
Once you’re in the industry, nobody gives a shit which university you went to or what your grades were.
>One of my friends asked an acquaintance for a referral, but was ghosted. She deleted the conversation and tried to pretend that the exchange never happened.
There's a massive disconnect between what students do at universities and actual effective learning. Universities are not sources of knowledge, they're more like knowledge middlemen that sell branded knowledge for more than what it's worth at face value. It's no wonder that students stop caring once they realize this. That's really what explains the attitudes in this article. It's not lack of discipline, it's justified disillusionment.
I think what’s described in this post is the issue for some high-achieving students (Ivy or not) when it comes to self-sabotage but there’s a few others:
My personal story involved two years of self-sabotage. However it wasn’t intentional, nor was I hiding from failure, I just didn’t know how to go about achieving my potential. School was trivial for me before college minus my freshman year of high school, in which my grades were still good, I just got assigned an inordinate amount of homework every night and was programmed to do all the assigned readings etc. By the end of high school, I figured out how to do the bare minimum necessary to succeed and get As. College…doesn’t really work that way. I worked the same way I did in high school and got anything from As to Cs based on my natural aptitude for the subject. When I did study for exams I wasn’t studying effectively. If I didn’t know how to solve a homework problem, I just skipped it and figured it didn’t matter in the wash.
That continued for me until I did work in a lab as a junior, met PhD students and postdocs, and realized I wanted to get a PhD myself because I found what they did fascinating. The last two years were very stressful for me since I had to improve my B+ GPA so I could get into a good program, but my PhD student friends showed how I should be approaching college and I managed to fix a lot of my bad habits. I remember early on expressing my doubts I’d be able to pull it off to one of the postdocs early and he said “I don’t get it, you’re a smart guy, why is your transcript fully of Bs and Cs?” The answer really was that I just didn’t know how poorly I was applying myself.
The other issue that afflicted me to a degree in my early years but afflicted many people I knew more significantly during my time as an undergrad at an Ivy was that they didn’t know what they wanted to do after. These people often had better grades than me and were studying something that they enjoyed but they weren’t thinking about their career after school. They didn’t do internships or extracurriculars that might help them figure out their interests. They spent their summers studying abroad, relaxing at home, etc. While there’s nothing wrong with those things in a vacuum, it meant that they left school with a good GPA (or not because they didn’t have a goal and thus didn’t see a need to apply themselves), a fairly empty resume, and no clue what they wanted to do with their lives. Up until this point was the tacit assumption that they were smart and went to a good school and they’d find a good job they liked at the end of the road. However, due to how they spent their college years, they had to spend a good chunk of their 20s figuring out what they wanted from their lives. During that period they worked uninspiring jobs they certainly didn’t need an Ivy League education to get and sometimes required going back for a masters to retool themselves once they found a passion.
These issues seemed quite universal. It didn’t matter what your legacy status or family background was, it was just not obvious how to make the most out of college until it was too late for many of us. This is probably equally a problem at less highly ranked schools, but given that Ivies tend to collect motivated people, our struggle to succeed is under more of a microscope.
