Looking at her Wikipedia, I see both her parents were MIT professors, and she got a math degree in 2016 from Stanford.
Maybe the lesson we're all missing here is that assigning a pedigree or a halo to people based on the exclusivity of the college they attended is a foolish way to determine their trustworthiness, potential to achieve great things, or the legitimacy of their ideas. But if we haven't learned that lesson by now, I don't think this example will teach us.
Agreed.
Interestingly Caroline Ellison, SBF, and Elizabeth Holmes all have connections to Stanford. Is something off there that they're producing prominent fraudsters? Seems unlikely. My guess is that the access to wealth and power Stanford affords is hugely attractive to individuals that are willing to break the rules to succeed (i.e. sociopaths).
Meh. I think that all it means is that people who are already fraudsters in the making recognize brand allure as something that enhances their otherwise nonexistent credibility. It really isn't that much different from self-appointed Internet gurus who market themselves at having "spoken at" some major university, when in reality they and their cronies rented a room and then exchanged sales pitches. In other words, it's basic marketing. As long as people continue to be influenced by branding, they will continue to overlook problems in sales presentation or basic ethics because their panties get wet when someone mentions an exclusive, expensive university.
Whether big name universities are "good" based on their habit of selecting only the candidates with the
parents who can pay the most for fraudulent prep companies highest grade point averages is another issue. I personally think that a better university would be the one who could make something special out of just an average student. Accepting only the "best and the brightest" and then producing a shiny, sparkling graduate isn't much of a claim to excellence.