/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8087452
im not applyin the term at all. """""elite""""" uni's are everything i stand against (not the uni's but the classification). not so much "oxbridge" which is a historical term and because oxford and cambridge have similarities very different from other UK uni's, but "russell group" and "ivy leagues" turn my stomach because thats literally defined by the members. they're not groups. they're clubs.

aaaaanyway, my point is that if we get past that disclaimer and call hard-to-get-into universities """"""elite""""" then its silly to think that those same people who worked very harder to get into hard-to-get-into universities (analytically true) would not also work harder when they are actually IN university (synthetically true).

theres very little anecdotal evidence for, as i say, few people go to more than one university.

but i describe four mechanisms by which the inductive leap is probably. i havent got any statistical evidence because statistical evidence is everything /sci/ is against (haha) but seriously i wonder if anyones looked into that.

anyway, appeal to your own experience. if you've ever been in a class/position which is
1. difficult to get into
2. has more competition and hence
3. you are more expendable
4. has a higher level of """""prestige""""""
5. was given to you because of your work ethic
6. is filled with other hard working people hence forcing you to work harder to standout for good reasons/ not standout for bad reasons
7. is artifically made harder because it needs reputation as a "difficult class" and because
8. its students can take it without complaint
cont