Friday readings: The internet will save us all, and how to get into Harvard (hint: no big ears)
As part of my new work habits, I try to spend Friday afternoon reading stuff I've come across during the week. Here are some of the things I read today.
Not only is the internet making you smarter - in fact, it is the only thing capable of saving our society. Thus argues David Eagleman in a speech given to the Long Now foundation in April (thanks to Sandboxer Eddie Harran for the link!). The internet can help the spread of diseases by enabling telepresence and telemedicine, prevent the loss of knowledge by digitizing everything, and allow more people to collectively work on a problem. I don't agree with all of Eagleman's ideas on how the internet is saving us - his case that the internet can prevent tyranny is especially weak - but the speech is very good food for thought, and I recommend reading through the whole PDF transcript, not just the short summary.
In a brilliant article that was published already 5 years ago, but that I have just discovered* and read, Malcolm Gladwell explores the logic of the admission processes at Ivy League universities. Contrary to other elite universities, Ivy League schools don't just select the best students from High Schools, but instead have a heavy emphasis on the "character" of applicants. Gladwell compares the Ivies - who had started to change their admissions policy in the 1920ies in order to prevent too many jews from entering - as smart managers of what essentially are luxury brands:
"The endless battle over admissions in the United States proceeds on the assumption that some great moral principle is at stake in the matter of whom schools like Harvard choose to let in—that those who are denied admission by the whims of the admissions office have somehow been harmed. [...] Élite schools, like any luxury brand, are an aesthetic experience—an exquisitely constructed fantasy of what it means to belong to an élite —and they have always been mindful of what must be done to maintain that experience."
* As a side note: I have been trying to remember where I discovered the link to the Gladwell article, or who sent it to me. I have become pretty good in keeping track of stuff I want to read or have a closer look at later - but in this process of "bookmarking" (it involves several tools) usually removes the information on where I got it from in the first place. I feel like this loss of information is a problem, seeing as many of the articles / studies I read come to me through my "social graph". Not only would I like to attribute the finding to a source when I post it here (or somewhere else); linking the finding to a source would allow me to better assess the relevance of the source for myself (meaning: should I pay more attention to what the source is saying / posting?). How are other people dealing with this?
