> 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 stumbles into Harvard and the like. That tier of school is an aim for both the child and parent from birth (probably before birth for the parents). Acceptance into these schools is the product of hard work (that I am not trying to detract from) and a financial investment (on behalf of the parent). Sure, there are some very intelligent people who take up residence in these schools, but for the VAST majority it was the hard work that got them there, not brilliant work. So yes, students who get in but don't attend can go on to be successful. However, that is a reflection of their work ethic more than their intelligence.
SO being at that tier of school doesn't guarantee intelligence, just being outside of the tier doesn't exclude intelligence. At best it shows that you can work hard and probably had a bankroll of some sort.
> 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 universities is higher? It's almost a farcical thing to argue against. For one thing, IQ correlates with SAT scores pretty heavily and SAT scores at elite universities are much higher. [0]
> That tier of school is an aim for both the child and parent from birth (probably before birth for the parents).
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.
There's a small population of crazy Manhattan elites who are obsessed with preparation and education status, but that's far from being everyone who goes to a top school. Most of my friends were people who just happened to be very intelligent and (in many cases) hard working.
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.
> 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.
It seems fairly clear to me that YC would be well served to select for hard work and determination, probably before intelligence, but if they can find all three, why wouldn't they stack the deck in their (and the applicant's) favor?
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.
No no no...
First, your "objectivity" is not objective, at best it is a common assumption.
Second, nobody stumbles into Harvard and the like. That tier of school is an aim for both the child and parent from birth (probably before birth for the parents). Acceptance into these schools is the product of hard work (that I am not trying to detract from) and a financial investment (on behalf of the parent). Sure, there are some very intelligent people who take up residence in these schools, but for the VAST majority it was the hard work that got them there, not brilliant work. So yes, students who get in but don't attend can go on to be successful. However, that is a reflection of their work ethic more than their intelligence.
SO being at that tier of school doesn't guarantee intelligence, just being outside of the tier doesn't exclude intelligence. At best it shows that you can work hard and probably had a bankroll of some sort.