I think that the distinction between the two kinds is rather artificial, from the applicant's perspective. Both involve estimators of your ability, be it your a

I think that the distinction between the two kinds is rather artificial, from the applicant's perspective. Both involve estimators of your ability, be it your ability to take an exam, or your ability to write an application. Both are more-or-less correlated with something important (being good in math; being a good potential entrepreneur). And both estimators are rewarded for being good. Teachers get a raise, investors get money. Why should one rejection be personal, and the other not? In fact, the incentive to be accurate seems much larger for investors than for teachers. Thus, I would be much more bummed about being ignored by a smart investor, than about being given an F by a 9-to-5 teacher.