undefined | Better HN

0 pointstheRealMe3y ago0 comments

You’ve reversed the question, which would have made me answer something differently. You said “what percentage of US centimillionaires attended these 8 universities”. If THAT was the question I potentially would have guessed lower than 35%.

But the way that I understood the original question was “what percentage of centimillionaires attended the 8 universities which produced the MOST centimillionaires”. When you pick the subset that produced the most of something out of a group, you should expect the subset to be over represented compared to the group. Sort of like the Pareto principle.

Also, part of the reason that I was surprised it was so low was that the numbers in the article were intentionally picked to invoke a reaction from the reader, and so if I’m coming from the angle of “let’s see how much wealth these fatcat elitists are hovering up!!” Then I’m a little surprised it’s only 35%.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

lapcat3y ago· 2 in thread

However you frame the question, "these 8 universities" or "the 8 universities which produced the MOST centimillionaires", neither "lower than 35%" nor "I’m a little surprised it’s only 35%" is an actual numerical percentage. This is not a percentage either: "you should expect the subset to be over represented compared to the group."

However you want to frame the question, what were your priors, and why? You haven't said what exactly you would have guessed. I had no priors for either framing of the question.

Stepping back, the point is that putting the disparity of wealth into numerical terms is important because otherwise we generally have no measure of wealth disparity, just a vague recognition that some people are wealthier than others. It's unclear why you or I or anyone would have prior % estimates, based on no empirical studies, only vague impressions of society. There's a point to studying things empirically and comprehensively, which is to teach us things we didn't know before. I'm skeptical of any claims that "This is nothing new or surprising", as if laymen magically had intuitive access to these empirical facts.

Also, what's notable about those 8 universities is not just that they produced the most centi-millionaires but also that they're very difficult to get into and obscenely expensive. Access is extremely limited. And of course they have "legacy" admissions. We know that wealthy and well-connected people go there, and we know that ambitious kids want to go there (as evidenced by their very low acceptance rates).

theRealMeOP3y ago

Why are you so hung up on pinning me to some specific predetermined percentage number? All I said was that I WOULD HAVE thought something different (note: not “DID”, aka I didn’t go through some intricate calculation beforehand to determine exactly what I thought).

I have no interest in discussing with you why or why not some off-the-cuff comment on something I might have thought if I put some thought into it, was wrong.

lapcat3y ago

> Why are you so hung up on pinning me to some specific predetermined percentage number?

Because your comment was very dismissive. It began,

> So? Is this supposed to make me angry or something?

And your comment about the percentages was seemingly trying to justify this dismissive attitude:

> Tbh that’s actually lower than I would have expected

By the way, it's important not to take the existence of centi-millionaires for granted. The moral of the story isn't necessarily "Centi-millionaires should be spread out among more universities." Rather, the question is why we have and support these elite institutions seemingly designed to produce extreme disparities of wealth in the hands of a few people.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse