Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski
This is just saying because Harvard and MIT get way more than any other place they have the “best” researchers. If we limited the amount any school gets maybe the researchers will self adjust?
I mean Harvard is the best is no different than white kids start on 3rd base.
|
I don't think it's just the money Ivies get that causes their high research ROI. Like it or not, in terms of hard sciences, schools at that level attract the best and brightest worldwide. A kid getting a poli sci degree from an Ivy is probably not much different than one getting a similar degree from Iowa State. But a geneticist studying bespoke immunotherapies for cancer? You and I both know Harvard's going to have more off-the-charts smart kids from a global talent pool likely to be working on that sort of thing.
Is that an incumbency bias? Sure. But it isn't going to be undone by merely giving more money to other less prestigious schools. That sort of bias is really hard to undo. Branding, credentialism, humans being aspirational, etc.
Most of life isn't terribly complex, and smart doesn't = successful. But, while a Rolex and a Timex both do the same thing with roughly the same precision, most folks will still gravitate to the one that confers the most status to the broadest audience.
