The Alistair Roberts article about status was insightful at a high level.
At a much lower level, I think there was something missing from your comparison of Pete Buttigieg and J.D. Vance in terms of status and influence. You focused on their Ivy League grad school credentials and networking, but passed rather lightly over a big difference: Ivy League undergrad for Pete vs. Ohio State for J.D. I believe (and based on a lot of data) that choice of grad school matters far more than choice of undergrad school. Which MBA program (elite vs. average vs. below average) you enter has a big effect on future earnings. Ditto for which medical school or which law school or which Ph.D. program. But going to one of the top 2 state schools in your state as an undergrad, applying yourself and earning excellent grades, being ambitious in seeking out advanced projects and internships and honors colleges within the university, all works out as well as going to a more elite university. Part of this issue is that elite grad schools are committed to casting a wide net and grabbing top students from a wide geographical spread of undergrad universities. Yale Law School wants to grab a top student from Ohio State. If they didn't, the picture would change significantly.
One problem with studying all of the above is the correlation-is-not-causation problem. Those who are more driven are more likely to choose the more elite undergrad institution. Their future success does not prove that the undergrad school was transformative. It is a matter of statistical dilution for the driven student at the state school. The average earnings for Ohio State grads might not be as high over a career as for a Yale or Princeton grad, but that has nothing to do with J.D. Vance, who is not an average Ohio State grad, so such a person need not worry about choosing Ohio State.
1. Great college guide. Already started sharing it with some people that might be interested.
2. RE: Amish
I thought this recent article was interesting, even if it's just the claims of some Guy on the Internet. Mostly rings true to me though, albeit maybe too favorable. He touches on the economics of their lifestyle.
>The first rule of being a tolerated minority that lives differently is not to get too big or too visible.
Maybe, but I think a close second must be "Don't do too many things that make your neighbors want to feed you into a wood chipper."
My understanding is the Amish are mostly pretty good about this. Though if I were them, I wouldn't permit any "Amish for Trump" banners to be flown. That puts their communities at FAR more risk than any successful furniture business might.
Interesting to compare and contrast Amish Country with, say, Salt Lake City, Moscow, Idaho, or Kiryas Joel (insular ultra-Orthodox Jewish town in NY State). I think any of them lead to rather un-PC conclusions, i.e. a certain degree of homogeneity and religiosity really helps with social capital; it's not much fun to live in one of these places if you're not part of the in-group, etc.
The Alistair Roberts article about status was insightful at a high level.
At a much lower level, I think there was something missing from your comparison of Pete Buttigieg and J.D. Vance in terms of status and influence. You focused on their Ivy League grad school credentials and networking, but passed rather lightly over a big difference: Ivy League undergrad for Pete vs. Ohio State for J.D. I believe (and based on a lot of data) that choice of grad school matters far more than choice of undergrad school. Which MBA program (elite vs. average vs. below average) you enter has a big effect on future earnings. Ditto for which medical school or which law school or which Ph.D. program. But going to one of the top 2 state schools in your state as an undergrad, applying yourself and earning excellent grades, being ambitious in seeking out advanced projects and internships and honors colleges within the university, all works out as well as going to a more elite university. Part of this issue is that elite grad schools are committed to casting a wide net and grabbing top students from a wide geographical spread of undergrad universities. Yale Law School wants to grab a top student from Ohio State. If they didn't, the picture would change significantly.
One problem with studying all of the above is the correlation-is-not-causation problem. Those who are more driven are more likely to choose the more elite undergrad institution. Their future success does not prove that the undergrad school was transformative. It is a matter of statistical dilution for the driven student at the state school. The average earnings for Ohio State grads might not be as high over a career as for a Yale or Princeton grad, but that has nothing to do with J.D. Vance, who is not an average Ohio State grad, so such a person need not worry about choosing Ohio State.
College numerical data is useful, but the "soft" comments are even more useful, especially about self-proclaimed Christian colleges.
1. Great college guide. Already started sharing it with some people that might be interested.
2. RE: Amish
I thought this recent article was interesting, even if it's just the claims of some Guy on the Internet. Mostly rings true to me though, albeit maybe too favorable. He touches on the economics of their lifestyle.
https://www.f0xr.com/p/the-amish-fertility-miracle-part?r=1h6crc&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Aaron said:
>The first rule of being a tolerated minority that lives differently is not to get too big or too visible.
Maybe, but I think a close second must be "Don't do too many things that make your neighbors want to feed you into a wood chipper."
My understanding is the Amish are mostly pretty good about this. Though if I were them, I wouldn't permit any "Amish for Trump" banners to be flown. That puts their communities at FAR more risk than any successful furniture business might.
Interesting to compare and contrast Amish Country with, say, Salt Lake City, Moscow, Idaho, or Kiryas Joel (insular ultra-Orthodox Jewish town in NY State). I think any of them lead to rather un-PC conclusions, i.e. a certain degree of homogeneity and religiosity really helps with social capital; it's not much fun to live in one of these places if you're not part of the in-group, etc.