Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YC at Columbia, Harvard, MIT, Stanford, UPenn

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 98 posts

Re: YC at Columbia, Harvard, MIT, Stanford, UPenn

#61

Post by eli_gottlieb »

morgante wrote: post #40
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's simply objectively true that students at elite are on average much smarter than students at other schools, and more ambitious. P(smart | elite school) != P(elite school | smart)

Sure, but do you disagree that P(smart|elite school) > P(smart)? I feel like people on HN have a giant chip on their shoulder when it comes to top schools. They're filled with lots of very smart students and ignoring that is ridiculous. Nowhere do I pretend that all smart kids are at top schools, or even that the majority is. But if I wanted to select a school to go to with the highest average IQ it would definitely…

>Sure, but do you disagree that P(smart|elite school) > P(smart)?

I expect it to be only negligibly higher, but in the case of some elite schools like MIT or Georgia Tech, I do expect the elite kid to have received a better education.

I mean, I got my master's at the Technion, so I'm one to bag on elite schools, but still. My experience was that the people weren't innately smarter than everyone else, but they had been given a bunch more background coursework and research experience when they completed their official degree level.

Re: YC at Columbia, Harvard, MIT, Stanford, UPenn

#62

Post by John23832 »

morgante wrote: post #49
John23832 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's simply objectively true that students at elite are on average much smarter than students at other schools, and more ambitious. They're much more likely to have a viable YC application. In fact, students who get into elite schools but don't attend them still far out-perform students who never got into one. No no no... First, your "objectivity" is not objective, at best it is a common assumption. Second, nobody…

> SO being at that tier of school doesn't guarantee intelligence, just being outside of the tier doesn't exclude intelligence. You continue to argue against straw men. I never said everyone at top schools is smart, nor did I claim that everyone who is smart is at a top school. Just that the average IQ at a top university is higher than at a random one. Do you have any evidence to disprove that the average IQ at elite…

The argument that I was making is that the determining factor for getting into this tier of school (aside from luck) is your hard work and determination. Intelligence comes after that. Sure, there is a minimum level of competency. The world's best ditch digger isn't getting into Harvard, all they know how to do is dig ditches.

If you want to make the argument that there is a concentration of intelligence around top tier campuses, sure (though that makes less sense when you realize that the average state school is 4x the size of Harvard and the like). However, I argue that what got those people there was primarily their determination to be there in combination with their competency (competency which was learned by the way, not inherent to the student/person).

> Oh give me a break. Have you ever been to an elite university? Do you know anyone there? My parents sure as hell weren't thinking about my college acceptances when they conceived me. I certainly didn't work hard to get there.

While I did not go to a to a top tier school (I was offered and couldn't ironically, due to money), I work very closely with people who did. Those people possess a drive that took them to success. Sure "from birth" was a hyperbole, but I'm sure you didn't just finish your SAT and say "well I guess I'll go to {top tier}". I'm sure it was premeditated. If you went yourself that is.

Re: YC at Columbia, Harvard, MIT, Stanford, UPenn

#63

Post by pitt1980 »

morgante wrote: post #54
pitt1980 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Columbia has 8,410 undergraduates University of Illinois has 32,878 undergraduates the 75% SAT score for the college of engineering at University of Illinois was 1530 (no writing, so out of 1600) https://admissions.illinois.edu/Apply/Freshman/profile the 75% SAT score at Columbia was 2330 (including writing so 2330 * 2/3 = 1553.33333333 https://undergrad.admissions.columbia.edu/classprofile/2019 ----------------- the…

> University of Illinois has 32,878 undergraduates That's a fair point. It'd be interesting if YC could do some sort of data analysis on attendance for their events at a big state school vs. an elite school. > Illinois students aren't filtered by exactly how generous a discount the financial aid office Most elite universities are need-blind. Spreading these myths does a disservice to smart, poor kids. Thinking they c…

I should probably have left out the last point as it was a distraction from the overall point

whether what's dissuading them from going to ivy league schools are myths or not, the larger point, is that big state schools tend to have pretty (statistically) good critical masses at the top of them

Re: YC at Columbia, Harvard, MIT, Stanford, UPenn

#64

Post by pitt1980 »

grmarcil wrote: post #60
pitt1980 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Columbia has 8,410 undergraduates University of Illinois has 32,878 undergraduates the 75% SAT score for the college of engineering at University of Illinois was 1530 (no writing, so out of 1600) https://admissions.illinois.edu/Apply/Freshman/profile the 75% SAT score at Columbia was 2330 (including writing so 2330 * 2/3 = 1553.33333333 https://undergrad.admissions.columbia.edu/classprofile/2019 ----------------- the…

Is Illinois really a good choice for contrast with Columbia? Yes it is a state school, so it has less elite-sounding brand than Columbia, but UI actually outranks Columbia in most STEM fields.

it probably has scores on the high side for state schools, sure

Re: YC at Columbia, Harvard, MIT, Stanford, UPenn

#65

Post by pinnbert »

John23832 wrote: post #62
morgante wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> SO being at that tier of school doesn't guarantee intelligence, just being outside of the tier doesn't exclude intelligence. You continue to argue against straw men. I never said everyone at top schools is smart, nor did I claim that everyone who is smart is at a top school. Just that the average IQ at a top university is higher than at a random one. Do you have any evidence to disprove that the average IQ at elite…

The argument that I was making is that the determining factor for getting into this tier of school (aside from luck) is your hard work and determination. Intelligence comes after that. Sure, there is a minimum level of competency. The world's best ditch digger isn't getting into Harvard, all they know how to do is dig ditches. If you want to make the argument that there is a concentration of intelligence around top t…

People argue from lack of empathy.

Re: YC at Columbia, Harvard, MIT, Stanford, UPenn

#66

Post by paulsmith34 »

John23832 wrote: post #52
paulsmith34 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>These schools are actually some of the most affordable in the country due to their extremely generous financial aid. Poor families pay nothing and even middle class families have minimal contributions. Except they do not lower the admissions requirements for poor kid that attended sub-par secondary schools. These are the exact kids that would be excluded admissions (in most cases) because third rate secondary school…

I don't know if we should advocate lowering standards of admissions.

Which supports my point poor kids getting into Harvard are at a disavagantage. These poor rural secondary schools don't give excellent college prep for their students, even bright ones. So these bright students risk having lower SAT scores (not matching their potential) & thus would not be admitted.

Offering free tuition sound great until you realize these poor kids would have to have access to the same resources as kids in better positions to be on an even playing field. Except they aren't, but they are still judged the same. Due to that many poor kids are rejected.

Re: YC at Columbia, Harvard, MIT, Stanford, UPenn

#67

Post by paulsmith34 »

John23832 wrote: post #53
SamReidHughes wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This just ain't reality. Most kids don't get in because they took a trip to Africa. Parents that pay a ton of money on making their kids the perfect college applicant generally get a bad deal and are a small minority.

It's not about paying to pad the application. There are legit methods of expanding your kid's world/mind. Those method generally cost more money than sitting in the house all summer watching tv.

Poor kids may not have a house to sit in and watch tv all day. They are at a major disadvantage and Ivies and other elite schools don't do a good job incorporating them into their schools due to their low sat scores and poor educational training, which is due to their poor socioeconomic status. You speak as if everyone is privileged and have the same opportunities but lazy.

Re: YC at Columbia, Harvard, MIT, Stanford, UPenn

#68

Post by morgante »

John23832 wrote: post #62
morgante wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> SO being at that tier of school doesn't guarantee intelligence, just being outside of the tier doesn't exclude intelligence. You continue to argue against straw men. I never said everyone at top schools is smart, nor did I claim that everyone who is smart is at a top school. Just that the average IQ at a top university is higher than at a random one. Do you have any evidence to disprove that the average IQ at elite…

The argument that I was making is that the determining factor for getting into this tier of school (aside from luck) is your hard work and determination. Intelligence comes after that. Sure, there is a minimum level of competency. The world's best ditch digger isn't getting into Harvard, all they know how to do is dig ditches. If you want to make the argument that there is a concentration of intelligence around top t…

Sure, it was "premeditated" but that's because I always did extremely well in school and it seemed like the obvious choice. It's not like my parents groomed me to succeed or something. They were busy enough with their own work.

If you want to argue that ambition and hard work are also essential to getting into a top school, I won't dispute that. I'd also say those are both essential qualities for successful founders.

Re: YC at Columbia, Harvard, MIT, Stanford, UPenn

#69

Post by gist »

katm wrote: post #31
John23832 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a requirement that YC announcements perform well? I'm not trying to be negative, but just announce all the tours the same way and let people make of it what they will.

No requirement. But why not try something different if the first version doesn't work well?

Why can't a 'super user' just pin something at the top?

Re: YC at Columbia, Harvard, MIT, Stanford, UPenn

#70

Post by atonse »

dave_sullivan wrote: post #48
John23832 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was just going to ask this. Silicon valley would be better served (and better serve others) when they stop giving hand service to the same schools they they went to and the people who think and act exactly like them.

Yeah, but what do you want them to do? Nationwide tour of schools? Why only American schools? Why not highschools? Why schools at all; why not start hosting events in libraries? But they're not. They're showing up at a few places, then doing other things. Fair enough, I think. It's not their job to do otherwise and you don't own their time.

Why does this have to be taken to an extreme?

People are (rightfully) pointing out that if you go to a the same 10 schools, you will by definition lack a diversity of thoughts and perspectives.

Anyway this has already been argued above. They did announce it last time.

Post reply on HN