Live data from Hacker News

Paul Graham: News from the Front

paulgraham.com

71–80 of 128 posts

Re: Paul Graham: News from the Front

#71

When I was taking an education theory class we had to do simulated admissions. We had to do three applicants every ten minutes, which works out to just over three minutes per app. In that amount of time you can quickly scan over the grades and SATs, and maybe read the first paragraph of each essay if you're lucky. The other thing I learned is that the real admissions officers got statistics updates twice a day for th…

Athletes also largely got pre-approved by the department they were applying for

As ridiculous as this is at a fundamental level, you know damn well that the athletic recruiters take long, careful looks at all the potential players, unlike the academic recruiters.

basically zero correlation between college GPA and value created for the company

I'm a GPA skeptic myself, having blown off every class (including the important ones), but this is easily explained: If a company puts weight upon GPA, then any low-GPA students they happen to hire likely had some manifest achievements that got them in. Such achievements are more important than GPA one way or the other.

Re: Paul Graham: News from the Front

#72
I was amazed initially (though that quickly faded) how few truly "smart" undergraduates there were at MIT in the 9 years I hung around there. I put smart in quotes because I really don't like that word, but I don't have a great substitute either. Obviously they were smart enough to get in. But most were significantly lacking in at least one necessary area to be labeled "smart" IMO (often several), including intuitiveness, creativity, being a self-starter, analytical thinking, breadth and depth of knowledge, intellectual curiosity, etc.

Putting exact numbers on it is difficult due to the self-segregation at MIT and subjectivity obviously at play. However, I would say perhaps 30% fall into the seriously lacking category, another 30% in a substantially lacking category and another 25% in a good but not great category (perhaps lacking only one major thing). That leaves only 15% or so of people I came across I would say were "smart" in the sense described above. When you move to people with the essential qualities necessary to work successfully at a really early stage startup, I would say it drops to 7% or so. I'm not saying found one, just work at one as one of the first employees. When you move to people with all the founding qualities, the % probably drops to 1-2%. I know this first hand after trying to start companies with people in the "smart" category.

The above has really hit home other times as well. Here are two more occasions. First, when graduating, 62 people in my class out of about 1,080 (~6%) were inducted into Phi Beta Kappa. I was shocked at a) how many of these people were my friends at MIT; b) how many of these people I had come across (given that I didn't meet all 1,080; and c) that this list included pretty much all of the people I had previously labeled "smart" myself in my class that I had come across.

Second, my wife taught statistics at MIT for several years. One time a kid came up to her complaining about an exam grade and told her it was not possible to have gotten an A on this exam. He said all his friends studied real hard and yet they all ended up with Cs and Ds. To which she replied, actually roughly 30% of the class got As. The point is, they were completely self-segregated by "smartness" and didn't even really know it.

All that being said, an MIT degree really does go a long way in terms of impressing the average person/company. I have done independent consulting and applied for jobs where they basically stopped researching me when they saw MIT. That is the rule, not the exception. And that was in Boston. Now that I live in PA, it seems even more shocking to people to come across someone from MIT. Given the above, and in agreement with PG, this behavior is unwarranted. I of course am thankful, but it also annoys me that so many people are free-riding on the name.

Re: Paul Graham: News from the Front

#74

When I was taking an education theory class we had to do simulated admissions. We had to do three applicants every ten minutes, which works out to just over three minutes per app. In that amount of time you can quickly scan over the grades and SATs, and maybe read the first paragraph of each essay if you're lucky. The other thing I learned is that the real admissions officers got statistics updates twice a day for th…

Athletes also largely got pre-approved by the department they were applying for As ridiculous as this is at a fundamental level, you know damn well that the athletic recruiters take long, careful looks at all the potential players, unlike the academic recruiters. basically zero correlation between college GPA and value created for the company I'm a GPA skeptic myself, having blown off every class (including the impor…

I won't argue that the athletic recruiting isn't a bit ridiculous, but in general the academic standards are probably more fair and transparent than the regular admissions process. Each team has its GPA published each semester for all to see, and in general the number of recruits a team is allowed to bring in is highly dependent on whether or not the previous recruits have been succeeding academically. Of course each individual athlete is also highly monitored, and if GPA dips below a certain level then it's even worse than if you were a normal student. Not to mention the random drug testing that no other students are subjected to, the prohibition against putting certain types of photos in your Facebook profile, the mandatory diversity/alcohol/sex training sessions, etc. Apparently it's no longer even allowed to smoke cigarettes or use any other tobacco products.

That being said, the NCAA bureaucracy is still lame.

Re: Paul Graham: News from the Front

#75

I was amazed initially (though that quickly faded) how few truly "smart" undergraduates there were at MIT in the 9 years I hung around there. I put smart in quotes because I really don't like that word, but I don't have a great substitute either. Obviously they were smart enough to get in. But most were significantly lacking in at least one necessary area to be labeled "smart" IMO (often several), including intuitive…

In response to your first paragraph, I think more people should obsess about where there kids go to kindergarten.

Not obsess about how a selective kindergarten will help them get into the right college, but about whether the environment will suppress creativity, being a self-starter, and intellectual curiosity, as most schools do. Unfortunately, schools that nurture those qualities usually cost money.

Re: Paul Graham: News from the Front

#76
post #57

Though as a reader I start sympathetic to both the thesis (it matches my priors) and the author (always enjoy PG's essays), this struck me as hand-waving. For all the talk of, "I have a lot of data" and "[w]e're just finally able to measure it," there are no supporting numbers, just general impressions. C'mon, give this topic the rigorous Bayesian treatment. How does the population of YC market-successes compare with…

We don't have enough data yet to prove anything by research paper standards, but that doesn't mean I'm saying nothing. We try consciously to ignore where people went to school; that is not standard practice; and moreover this is something I'm claiming we've changed.

Re: Paul Graham: News from the Front

#77
post #52

"The curve for faculty is a lot flatter than for students, especially in math and the hard sciences; you have to go pretty far down the list of colleges before you stop finding smart professors in the math department." I wish this would be repeated more often. I've implemented many interesting algorithms based on papers written by people at, like, Louisiana State University. Noname places.

It's also interesting how many universities kick ass in little obscure research niches. I had never even heard of Chalmers until I learned Haskell.

Re: Paul Graham: News from the Front

#78
PG: have you noticed that a) GPA matters (at any school); b) that GPA matters at so-called elite schools in particular; c) any other consistencies with regards to college activities and/or honors, e.g. Phi Beta Kappa, having had started clubs or groups, etc.?

Re: Paul Graham: News from the Front

#79
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't you fund a few (or at least one) "crazy" startups like Anybots? Because that's probably the coolest thing YC-related! Are you only interested in web stuff, or is it a lack of serious applications? Here are a few "cool" ventures I have in mind: http://www.armadilloaerospace.com http://www.intellasys.net http://www.teslamotors.com

You don't count justin.tv as crazy?

Yes, I have to agree that the technology behind justin.tv is quite interesting. Right now, it seems like it's only used by a bunch of exhibitionist and egocentric persons in a real TV fashion, but it will probably end up being used for more interesting stuff (like, say, a sailor racing across the world).

On the other hand, they'd be stupid not to go where the money is (that is, were all the MySpace generation kids are).

Re: Paul Graham: News from the Front

#80
post #75

I was amazed initially (though that quickly faded) how few truly "smart" undergraduates there were at MIT in the 9 years I hung around there. I put smart in quotes because I really don't like that word, but I don't have a great substitute either. Obviously they were smart enough to get in. But most were significantly lacking in at least one necessary area to be labeled "smart" IMO (often several), including intuitive…

In response to your first paragraph, I think more people should obsess about where there kids go to kindergarten. Not obsess about how a selective kindergarten will help them get into the right college, but about whether the environment will suppress creativity, being a self-starter, and intellectual curiosity, as most schools do. Unfortunately, schools that nurture those qualities usually cost money.

One of my biggest motivations for getting rich is so that when I have kids, I can afford to home-school them.
Post reply on HN