13 ms·
The Forbes ‘30 Under 30’ Hustle
- wimgz 7y agoNon paywalled version anyone?
- kkhire 7y agothere's no question people on this list have accomplished cool things. but it's lame that people are gaming their way into it, degrades the award imo
- dharmon 7y agoFor some perspective, think of all the notable people you can name. Not just the huge names, but people from your particular field / sub-field, etc. How many made this list and similarly useless ones? Like the Academy Awards, sometimes the out-group is better company. Even though he's an ass, I find Taleb's approach amusing. Copied from his webpage: > (Please refrain from offering honorary degrees, awards, listings in "100 most...",& similar debasements of knowledge that turn it into spectator sport).
- misiti3780 7y agoHe's an ass for sure, but his commentary is spot on. Refreshing to hear in this fake-ass world we now all live in.
- coldtea 7y agoI think his main issue is being a little narcissistic and boastful, plus likes to be provocative and even insult. But I'd take all those from someone with actual substance and talent as Taleb, than the barrage of fake-ass (as you call it) PR content and pleasantries, on this fake-ass world we now all live in. In fact, I actively dislike the non-flaws (or just "admitted flaws" they're now "overcoming") "wholesome" all-too-decent people and writers, who never want to dirt their hands and have it good with everybody, and mostly produce trite of the TedX variety...
- o09rdk 7y agoEh. I admit I have a complex with Taleb. It's not just his narcissism per se, although there's that too: he's just wrong about a lot of stuff, and other times fails to recognize how old his ideas are. He gets over his head sometimes, assuming because it sprung forth in his head there haven't been 100s of other people working on it over the years who addressed whatever idea he had decades ago. Other times he's spot on. Usually it's not anything actually new, but he deserves some credit for being such a bulldog about it.
- andreilys 7y agoCurious to hear which of his points you think are wrong?
- o09rdk 7y agoI don't follow him regularly unless something he's saying comes up somehow, at which point I kinda look into him again. He's famous for lambasting psychology, some of which is deserved, but some of which is just ignorant. Earlier this year he started complaining about psychologists ignoring long-tailed/skewed distributions, which is so absurd and widely written about I don't even know where to start, as it's a basic corollary of a lot of modern models. He also selectively miscites literature; god forbid he should do a systematic meta-analysis. More of my concern is reinventing the wheel. I think he deserves a lot of credit for drawing attention to wrong models and assumptions in economics but model misspecification has been a topic that's been written about for decades in the statistics literature (e.g., "all models are wrong but some are useful", sandwich error estimators, pseudolikelihood ratio, model averaging, the work of Dawes, etc.). I agree with the general point he's making with these types of things, but his discussions would be a lot more interesting if he gave credit where it's due, expanding on others' past work rather than burying it. Mostly I wish he'd tone himself down a bit, to get his signal:noise ratio in a better place. But then maybe he wouldn't draw attention to some of these issues.
- maerF0x0 7y agoIMO the insidious part is that it's both ageist and a relative (vs absolute) competition. Ageist because someone 31, 41, or 51 could achieve great things for humanity, yet doesnt deserve our accolade? And strange because if 200 find a way to revolutionize the lives of billions. We still have to pick 30? Why not celebrate everyone who markedly improves the lives of 10% of the planet or some other absolute measure?
- throwaway66920 7y agoI mean... it’s a magazine, not a global authority.
- _bxg1 7y ago> And strange because if 200 find a way to revolutionize the lives of billions. We still have to pick 30? Why not celebrate everyone who markedly improves the lives of 10% of the planet or some other absolute measure? I mean, you could say this about anything. The Nobel Prize has limited slots. Nobody's saying those are the only people on earth worth honoring. I'd say the real problem is putting too great an emphasis on youth and hustle. Who makes their magnum opus in their 20s? Why would you even want to? Most people's greatest accomplishments happen in their 30s and 40s, even 50s. Setting up early burnout as something to aspire to feels pathological.
- mLuby 7y agoYou make a good point. Because most people don't do interesting things until they're out of their 20s, it makes those who do unusual and therefore newsworthy. But being newsworthy has (monetary) value so this list, which used to be a metric, has become a target, and per Goodhart's Law is therefore no longer a good metric. I predict another such list will arise, make those chasing 30<30 look foolish, and the cycle will begin anew.
- _bxg1 7y ago> Because most people don't do interesting things until they're out of their 20s, it makes those who do unusual and therefore newsworthy. But I'd say that the peak accomplishment of someone who peaks later is probably better than the peak accomplishment of someone who peaks early. So in that sense we're celebrating the wrong thing.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- sjroot 7y agoIt’s kind of mind-boggling that people keep themselves up at night over this. Seems like it requires some level of egomania.
- brtt 7y agoIt absolutely does. An ex-boss of mine who tried for years got himself on one of these lists and it took a lot of effort and resources just so he could bring it up in every introduction call/meeting he made to clients.
- magashna 7y ago>How a 102-year-old magazine publisher created a frenzy among millennials eager to make its annual list. Do people under 30 even read Forbes? Or magazines? The MIT Tech Review seems more focused and also does a "Innovators under 35" list
- MuffinFlavored 7y agoI'm 26 and the only thing I read are HN comments. I don't even read the articles. :)
- andrewbinstock 7y agoI often do the same thing. Which really says something about HN. I can't think of any other forum where I regularly read the comments, much less read them first.
- MuffinFlavored 7y agoI feel like it keeps me very well-educated on modern day topics because it provides usually balanced argument points for both opposing parties. I wish there was something like a LeftVsRight.com that had the user base of HackerNews where citizens uneducated on politics could go to see viewpoints from both of the two major opposing political parties.
- ineedasername 7y agoI dunno, even on HN when something vaguely political comes up the discussion can go pretty wrong. Not, like, Reddit wrong, but still wrong.
- programmertote 7y agoDitto. Nowadays, I found that it's easier to just go straight to HN comments and determine if I should spend time reading the articles posted here. :) Of course sometimes, I end up spending more time reading comments, but at least, I feel like I am better informed to judge the articles if I decide to read them after reading the comments here.
- knzhou 7y agoI like to think of this kind of game like dark matter. In some theories of dark matter, there are entire "dark sectors", families of particles that only interact with each other, that harmlessly pass through you all the time. Similarly, you have to care about prestige to get prestige -- but if you don't care, the loss doesn't hurt at all. It just passes by harmlessly, like so much noise.
- windsurfer 7y agoIt's been relatively agreed upon that dark matter can't interact with itself very much either, since it forms a spherical cloud around galaxies instead of the more expected disk shape, and dark matter clouds passing by each other don't seem to slow down or be affected in ways other than gravitation. More info: https://www.space.com/40219-dark-matter-feels-only-gravity-maybe.html https://www.space.com/40219-dark-matter-feels-only-gravity-m...
- knzhou 7y agoIndeed, it's possible that dark matter has no interactions with itself. But also, a little bit of interaction makes the detailed galaxy stuff come out a bit better, so the jury's out on it.
- JohnJamesRambo 7y agoIt’s ok it’s likely the 30 under 30 don’t affect each other either.
- traviswingo 7y agoUnfortunately, this list is a total joke. I know someone who made the list last year, and it's literally their only accomplishment. They spent so much time trying to look good on paper that they've yet to accomplish anything real in life. Their resume _looks_ great though...
- MuffinFlavored 7y agoHow can you be worth $30m but not have accomplished anything? Edit: I'm dumb, this isn't what 30 under 30 means.
- magashna 7y agoHave rich deceased parents.
- MuffinFlavored 7y agoI would hope journalists do a bit more research than "you were born with $29,999,995 to your name and you have since earned $5 in your time alive. Welcome to the club!"
- Reedx 7y agoOne would hope so. But they often don't, especially when the goal is clicks.
- ineedasername 7y agoAny advice on how to do that? I mean, my parents are alive so I'll need to wait (or something) but they don't have any money to speak of. I could try to make that much and then give it to them, but it seems needlessly complex given the end goal. How does one go about getting rich parents? Asking for a friend.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- 7y ago
- mkagenius 7y agoIn India its worse. People have to apply themselves. How ridiculous is that -- imagine Einstein applying, hey I should get noble prize for this, this and this.
- gowld 7y agoIt's the same with the US awards.
- tylermenezes 7y agoI was on the Forbes 30 Under 30 list this year, and five alums from the org I run have also made the list over the years, as well as two friends of mine. They are all are pretty reasonable people who have done cool things. I'm not surprised they were able to find a few that were crazier, though. It's not substantially different from an obsession with getting into YC or raising VC money. I've done both of these things as well, and I met many of the same people. They will always find something to be obsessed by. And for what it's worth, all the recognition I've gotten over the years has never really translated to much of a business advantage, but it's still pretty neat to be recognized for something you've been putting a lot of work into.
- permutation-- 7y agoI enjoyed reading your articles below: https://tyler.vc/dropping-out https://tyler.vc/dropping-out https://tyler.vc/education https://tyler.vc/education https://tyler.vc/dropping-out-revisited https://tyler.vc/dropping-out-revisited Is there anything you would have done differently in your career trajectory / educational path if you started over?
- tylermenezes 7y agoThanks! :) It's been a while since I've written anything so I'm glad to hear you thought they were interesting! More than anything I wish I'd explored more "unrelated" fields like bio, finance, medicine, cooking, (...) when I had the free time of a student. There are a lot of very interesting problems that don't fit neatly into a single career path. But it's much harder to make time for learning for the hell of it at 28 than it was at 18.
- andrewbinstock 7y ago30 Under 30 is a lot like Mensa--the only benefit of getting in is so you can tell others you got in.
- newguy1234 7y agoSounds very similar to ivy league schools :)
- gnicholas 7y ago> Fast Company has compiled a list of the most innovative companies, charging applicants fees between $495 and $1,000 to be considered. I find this pretty distasteful, at least in the startup context. They’ve repeatedly approached me (after covering my startups) to apply. I’ve asked them if we can have the fee waived since they’ve essentially pre-vetted us, but no dice. It might make sense to suck it up and pay them since we probably have a decent shot of getting selected, but I’ll never do it.
- syedkarim 7y agoIs there a tangible value to being on that list?
- gnicholas 7y agoI would guess there are two possible benefits: 1: publicity from being on the list, which FastCo presumably promotes at least once during the year (and probably leave up during the year) 2: being able to say you were selected for FastCo's list, which presumably gives you cred among certain groups. I do wonder if you might be held in lower regard by people who are aware that the competition costs so much just to enter.
- JohnJamesRambo 7y agoI for one will never forget what it means now that I know they paid a bribe to be on it.
- ansible 7y agoIt is bribery, yes. It doesn't seem too expensive as far as marketing costs go.
- gnicholas 7y agoI would actually be interested to know what percent of companies that pay to enter are included on one of the lists. If a large percentage of companies are honored, then it seems like a pretty transparent pay-to-play. This means the list is pretty worthless. OTOH, if a small percentage of companies are honored, then that means lots of companies are paying non-trivial fees and getting nothing in return. I believe the money is used to pay the people who review the applications, but unless those people have to be paid hundreds of dollars per application, or unless they have a high degree of redundancy in application review, the application fees wouldn't make sense. Basically, it would mean the list is a money-maker for them because they're accepting fees from so many unqualified companies. Either way (pay-to-play or revenue source), it definitely leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Frankly, it'd be cool if they offered a way to crowdsource the selection process, where each company that applied was given 10 companies to rank. As long as the 10 given to each person were randomly selected, it would be difficult/impossible to game the system and upvote friends. Also, companies could be given applications from other lists (I think there's a social-impact list and a general-purpose innovation list) to make sure there are no conflicts.
- GhettoMaestro 7y agoAlternative title: The 30 most insufferable douchebags to avoid.
- brootstrap 7y agoI feel like based on my own life accomplishments i should be on the 30 for under 30. Married, child, successfully living as an adult for a few years now. THAT is a real accomplishment.
- PragmaticPulp 7y agoI know two people on the “30 under 30” list. Both of them are incredibly charismatic and charming in person. Their Instagram and Twitter accounts churn out constant brand building material. They both have pseudo-startups with noble causes and vibrant websites. Their startups have a list of impressive advisers, including B-list senators and industry executives. However, neither of them have made any progress on building an actual business. One of them has supposedly been developing the same simple product for almost 7 years now, but they’ve never been able to produce even a proof of concept prototype. I thought I was missing something for the longest time, until I let go of the idea that they were really trying to build a company. They’re not. They’re building their personal brand, and succeeding wildly thanks to publications like the “30 under 30” list that have an insatiable appetite for underdog success stories. Surely some of these companies are legitimately successful with great business models, but they’re mixed into these lists with the brand builders who know how to game the system. I’d be interested in reading an honest “Where are they now” follow up series that checks in with these founders at the 5-year mark after they make this list to see who the real successes are.
- whatshisface 7y agoHow do you "cash out" on brand building if your company isn't doing anything? Motivational speaking?
- Roritharr 7y agoJumping into a high paying bullshit job, being on advisory boards, networking yourself into circles where your Rolodex becomes valuable that intro's from you can get you 70% into raising VC... I've seen quite a few of these people in my area and they disgust me every time, coming from a "work is only valuable if it's hard" work-ethic family.
- puranjay 7y agoIt's an epidemic in my industry (marketing) so much so that I feel like I'm doing something wrong if I'm not out there building a personal brand. I just feel that the work I do should be all the "brand" I need to build. Yet everything around me points to the contrary.
- neom 7y agoI know some really great people on 30 under 30 who do deserve to be there. For example my friend Susan Ho[1] who is not only a formidable founder, but also worked to expose some rampant sexual misconduct in venture capital in spite of the risks. Unfortunately I suspect folks like Susan are in the minority. [1]: https://www.forbes.com/profile/susan-ho/#4e9e74c9578b https://www.forbes.com/profile/susan-ho/#4e9e74c9578b
- gist 7y ago> who do deserve to be there. ..... but also worked to expose some rampant sexual misconduct in venture capital in spite of the risks I am not seeing how that is even relevant to getting on this list and that in no way means I think the list isn't fluff. The list claims to do the following: 'annual list chronicling the brashest entrepreneurs across the United States and Canada'
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- AndrewBissell 7y agoYou don't think it takes brashness, as an entrepreneur, to speak out against VC sexual misconduct when it could put your business's lifeblood funding in jeopardy?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- evanwarfel 7y ago> “The two most coveted symbols online are an Instagram verification and being on Forbes 30 Under 30,” said Taylor Offer, founder of an apparel startup called Feat Socks, who mentions his Forbes win (class of 2018) in his Instagram bio. “It’s a mark of validation.” A little digging reveals that Feat Socks sells socks and hoodies. (https://featsocks.com/ https://featsocks.com/) >“Hell yeah, it’s better than going to Harvard or Stanford,” said entrepreneur Katelyn O’Shaughnessy, who didn’t attend either school. For what, the social validation? O'Shaughnessy's business (https://doctours.com https://doctours.com) appears to be a get-healthcare-in-another-country-and-have-a-vacation travel agency. >“I wanted to throw up at the entire thing,” said Andy Sparks, an entrepreneur who was on this year’s list, describing his reaction to the Summit, a Forbes event that celebrates the Under 30 community. “I had an existential crisis coming back from it. I wondered why I wanted to get on the list and be a part of this community in the first place.” Ah! A critical thinker. > Corporate sponsors such as The Macallan whiskey and Courtyard by Marriott pay big fees to get their brands in front of the young professionals who flock to the events. In 2016, Ocean Spray created a cranberry bog in a wading pool in Boston during the event, partly to highlight the fruit as an ingredient in cocktails. Sign. Me. UP.
- Infinitesimus 7y ago> In 2016, Ocean Spray created a cranberry bog in a wading pool in Boston during the event, partly to highlight the fruit as an ingredient in cocktails. I'll admit that part was kinda fun and silly to wade in the pool
- triceratops 7y ago> O'Shaughnessy's business (https://doctours.com https://doctours.com) appears to be a get-healthcare-in-another-country-and-have-a-vacation travel agency To be fair, that's not a bad idea or business. Medical tourism is a big industry[1] and finding trusted healthcare providers in a foreign country is a tough task. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism
- hmschreck 7y agoSomeone from my local community runs a non-profit that, on paper, sounds great, and he gets a ton of these types of awards for the work he does. Except he doesn't actually do much work. I don't mean he, personally, isn't responsible for all the success his org has, I mean his org does very little of the work they purport to do. They focus on getting a few very high-profile placements per year that they can tout as successes, but overall, not many successes that are coming strictly out of this program. Dude's also one of the types who acts like doing "so much good in the world" gives him the right to put down literally everyone else in the community.
- norisushi 7y agoI worked at one of the social platforms for many years. We had someone on one of the teams nominated (by us) and make it to the 30U30 list. We had a focused PR push to get this person on the list because it was good for the company. This person was in fact relatively junior and had no specific history that you could point to for excellence. They were a great person, but top 30 would be hard to argue. There was no explicit quid pro quo that I was witness to, but I know that we gave the magazine an exclusive interview with our CEO not long after and I heard they were related. My point is that so many of these rewards are just more of who do you know, and have little value in fact when you dig in a bit.
- ackbar03 7y agoThis seems like the smart way to go about it to be honest. I think anyone who really knows their worth wouldn't really be too fussed about making it on the list except purely for marketing reasons and those who really need it are by reasoning probably startups that are struggling on some front. Making it on the list if anything could draw ridicule from people in the same industry who don't need cheap marketing. Thus crafting up some "fake" guy to be in the list for some pr seems like a good way to get the best of both worlds
- hfksohfosn 7y agoworking for someone on this list, they’re pretty cool. while i’ve been trying to find my own footing, i can’t help but feel envious. i think the hustle is warranted, but maybe it isn’t. is it all just publicity?
- dokem 7y agoA lot of salty over-achievers in this thread..
- gist 7y agoFrom: https://www.forbes.com/30-under-30/2019 https://www.forbes.com/30-under-30/2019 > annual list chronicling the brashest entrepreneurs across the United States and Canada Implied of course that the list is arbitrary but even more ironic given it's limited to a number that makes a good headline that is counter arbitrary (if there is such a think..)
- yaur 7y agoso much whitespace... https://imgur.com/a/6c4FPeL https://imgur.com/a/6c4FPeL
- paxys 7y agoMuch like most other lists of this nature, it's recognizing the 30 best networkers and self-marketers (not that there's anything wrong with that).
- yoran 7y agoI was selected for the 2018 Forbes 30 under 30, together with my co-founder. It has brought me absolutely nothing, besides scoring some points with the in-laws. Well, it did get me spam, offering discounts for private jets. For some reason, these companies paying for ads think that Forbes 30 under 30 people have "made it". Completely untrue, running and growing my startup has been just as hard after as before getting the award.
- bitL 7y agoDid they offer you to buy a private island as well? I received that once :D
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- sncsy 7y agoI used to work with a guy who made the Forbes "30 Under 30". He had a friend who worked at Forbes. He was a low-level lawyer in a congressional office and completely exaggerated his role in the article. When we all saw it, we laughed. The guy was almost fired on the spot and had his role significantly diminished -- he was gone soon after. It's a joke.
- seem_2211 7y agoI know a few people who were put on the list of 30 under 30 a few years ago. Nothing particularly interesting has come from then since they won the award. It's one of those things, where the more personal brand building you do (speaking, posting on LinkedIn to a degree, tweeting), the more of a negative signal it probably is, with a few notable exceptions (Keith Rabois for example stands out as a VC with a good track record, yet posts a fair bit). I do sales recruiting. It's never the strongest startups, that are doing the best that have executives and VPs all posting content 24/7. To that degree, I have a friend who is a personal trainer at Equinox, who essentially said the same thing in the health and fitness world - the people who are posting the most impressive work on social media, actually tend to have fairly lagging results in the real world. Also, final point, it's not really 30 under 30, it's 600 under 30, and it's a bit ridiculous. You can't really compare someone like Kylie Jenner or Lil Uzi Vert or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez with someone who runs a startup that sells socks online.
- james_s_tayler 7y agoWhat's wrong with Lil Socks Online?
- seem_2211 7y agoThere's absolutely nothing wrong with selling socks online, and I'm happy that someone is doing it, but you can't convince me that that is innovation worth celebrating.
- sbussard 7y agoI know two people who made the list. I was pretty impressed at the time. But life goes on. Staying successful is harder. That's why some people say NFL stands for "Not For Long". Invest yourself wisely.
- santojleo 7y agoAfter reading comments on this thread I realize there’s some young potential founders following this. So I thought I’d offer my experience from 2018: My background: I spent 4 years building mailmyprescriptions.com into the lowest priced online pharmacy before half a dozen clones. In 2018 we were the highest ranked (trustpilot) and lowest priced. Read the reviews... literally saving lives and increasing quality of life. Do you know what $1-2k a year in savings is to a family with an income of $50-60k? We saved Americans over $10m last year. That’s more than what congress has done on drug prices in years. I bootstrapped the company, and eventually raised $m’s on my own from FO’s and strategics - without a network (an achievement by itself) and this is when healthtech wasn’t sexy. I also did this while starting a family and eventually got massive burn out. I left the company a few months ago. Prior to that I bootstrapped in the ad space instead of going through college and taking on the debt. So to conclude: no network, no degree, bootstrapped disruptive health startup while starting a family. The nomination: I got an email from them asking to fill out a survey and so I went through the process. (You can also self nominate - see end of comment) If they consider you then you fill out a 10-min survey and they exchange some emails thereafter if you make the cut. There’s 3-4 rounds of cuts from what I recall. There are an equal number of questions about what you actually do as the “how popular are you” questions: who invested in you, how much, notable board members, press coverage, etc. I knew based on those questions it was unlikely I would get on the list going into it. I also gave pretty short answers ( I was more worried about >60 min hold times because we had just gotten product market fit) and probably shot myself in the foot. Either way they emailed me and told me I didn’t make the last cut. I never looked at the list, and this thread just prompted me: Most of the people on the list are doing some really incredible stuff, specifically actual scientists. Founders in under-serviced markets like Africa. Etc. But there is a webmd clone that somehow raised $9m. And one person on the list is an investment associate at a notable VC. With no notable investments. If you look at each of these lists you’ll see the trend that if you have a notable VC Investment, and/or work for a notable company, and/or people from the same company keep getting on, then it becomes obvious that while there are some serious outliers on these lists: Forbes still has to serve the corporate interests and make sure some of their people are “on the list”. I’ve been trying to mentor some young founders during my sabbatical and a few of them are convinced these lists will get them more business. They are spending more time on self nominating through their network than just asking for a check for the friends and family round! They want to brag. It’s a problem with millennials and subsequent generations on social media. It’s FOMO. It’s social media envy. Let me tell you something: You WONT. You will get one linkedin bump with a few hundred views. The next day you will wake up and be the same person you were the day before. If you think it will help you raise money... the VCs know the list is rigged, they get 20-something associates on it every year, so what do they care? They produce these lists every year with more and more categories - the value of the list has been diluted to oblivion. Who’s made the list? Theranos CEO. WeWork CEO. Time is money. If you (italic)get(/italic) nominated, cool go for it. If not: don’t waste your time. Go get product market fit! Generate EBITA! Build something awesome!
- santojleo 7y agoAfter reading comments on this thread I realize there’s some young potential founders following this. So I thought I’d offer my experience from 2018: My background: I spent 4 years building mailmyprescriptions.com into the lowest priced online pharmacy before half a dozen clones. In 2018 we were the highest ranked (trustpilot) and lowest priced. Read the reviews... literally saving lives and increasing quality of life. Do you know what $1-2k a year in savings is to a family with an income of $50-60k? We saved Americans over $10m last year. That’s more than what congress has done on drug prices in years. I bootstrapped the company, and eventually raised $m’s on my own from FO’s and strategics - without a network (an achievement by itself) and this is when healthtech wasn’t sexy. I also did this while starting a family and eventually got massive burn out. I left the company a few months ago. Prior to that I bootstrapped in the ad space instead of going through college and taking on the debt. So to conclude: no network, no degree, bootstrapped disruptive health startup while starting a family. The nomination: I got an email from them asking to fill out a survey and so I went through the process. (You can also self nominate - see end of comment) If they consider you then you fill out a 10-min survey and they exchange some emails thereafter if you make the cut. There’s 3-4 rounds of cuts from what I recall. There are an equal number of questions about what you actually do as the “how popular are you” questions: who invested in you, how much, notable board members, press coverage, etc. I knew based on those questions it was unlikely I would get on the list going into it. I also gave pretty short answers ( I was more worried about >60 min hold times because we had just gotten product market fit) and probably shot myself in the foot. Either way they emailed me and told me I didn’t make the last cut. I never looked at the list, and this thread just prompted me: Most of the people on the list are doing some really incredible stuff, specifically actual scientists. Founders in under-serviced markets like Africa. Etc. But there is a webmd clone that somehow raised $9m. And one person on the list is an investment associate at a notable VC. With no notable investments. If you look at each of these lists you’ll see the trend that if you have a notable VC Investment, and/or work for a notable company, and/or people from the same company keep getting on, then it becomes obvious that while there are some serious outliers on these lists: Forbes still has to serve the corporate interests and make sure some of their people are “on the list”. I’ve been trying to mentor some young founders during my sabbatical and a few of them are convinced these lists will get them more business. They are spending more time on self nominating through their network than just asking for a check for the friends and family round! They want to brag. It’s a problem with millennials and subsequent generations on social media. It’s FOMO. It’s social media envy. Let me tell you something: You WONT. You will get one linkedin bump with a few hundred views. The next day you will wake up and be the same person you were the day before. If you think it will help you raise money... the VCs know the list is rigged, they get 20-something associates on it every year, so what do they care? They produce these lists every year with more and more categories - the value of the list has been diluted to oblivion. Who’s made the list? Theranos CEO. WeWork CEO. Time is money. If you (italic)get(/italic) nominated, cool go for it. If not: don’t waste your time.
- Buge 7y ago> “There are many franchises and temples of products and services that we offer,” said Matthew Hutchison, a Forbes spokesperson. “It is one of many in our constellation.” Those are some interesting word choices. I wonder what "temples" means in this context.
- xwdv 7y agoI was a Forbes 30 under 30 back in 2013 for working on a startup that was building a platform to help poor farmers in India obtain more favorable financing from private citizens in first world nations. The list is mostly bullshit, I’d go as far as to say you should be very skeptical of anyone on it or that bothers to mention it, as they are almost surely just brand builders. By the way, I lied about actually being on the list, but I bet if I never said that most people wouldn’t even think twice to fact check me. Funny how that works. Try throwing in a “Forbes 30 under 30” bullet point in your next resume and see what happens.
- robotstate 7y agoI hope everyone understands that this list and Forbes in general are a complete joke. I know people who have been on the list, and while they're nice people, they didn't really do anything besides either having connections to the people who make the list or being in the right place at the right time/lucky. As for the publication, almost anyone can write for it. Calling yourself a "Forbes writer" is one step above a "Medium writer".
- synaesthesisx 7y agoForbes is not a credible publication, and their 30 under 30 list is a joke - I have two acquaintances who socially engineered their way onto the list with the right narratives. One went as so far to use that status to (presumably) swindle investors as I'm told. It's a platform that appeals to people building a personal brand/narrative, and I would be extremely wary of anyone using Forbes as some sort of validation. Let's not forget how they put Elizabeth Holmes on their pedestal.
- throw_xyzyz 7y agoHM isn't much better. The first time I was banned here was for calling her a fraud who is getting away with what she's doing because of all the useful idiots who put identity ahead of substance.
- duaoebg 7y agoI know at least 3 people on this list. Pretty much everyone I know considers it to be quid pro quo. One of my friends suggested that it cost their company ~$100K in extra marketing spend to secure a spot. The other two were backed by powerful people and didn't know how much it costs but it was considered a big favor. A VC offered me a spot on the list as part of their investment in a proposed company. I presume this was also part of their marketing spend. I still think it can be valuable to be on the list. The US loves its secret and the not-so-secret societies and being in them can afford a rather nice fun life. I would generally recommend them if you can. The age requirement is more than a youth fetish, it is a way of discerning privilege and privileged people are more likely to succeed and not make you look bad. You probably shouldn't believe most of what you read in the news. For the people making investment decisions based on this list I'm sure the same people would have found some other way to waste their money.
- xzel 7y agoThis. If you know the right people and are doing something semi prestigious then you can basically buy your way in, so to speak.
- ganitarashid 7y agoI stopped reading the 30 under 30 thing when Mark Zuckerberg wasn’t on the list when he was 29. Back then, before all the scandals when he had a great image, if he wasn’t on the list then the list just didn’t make sense.
- rblion 7y agoI know a kid who aspires to be this, he is 27. Used to be in charge of a fraternity and now has a podcast about 'hustling'. He doesn't write code, design interfaces, write copy, or have a track record of building anything. He is literally a hype man for his podcast and the startup he works for. He tells everyone 'his CEO is like a modern day Tesla' but that is FAR from the truth. He is smart sure but I've met smarter people on HN and no one here would ever claim to be 'a modern day Tesla'. I don't even think Elon is that bold. They have a 'streaming platform with lower latency'.
- EAKDS 7y agoI'm the CEO of a tech-for-good startup. We employed a young woman as our new 'Head of Partnerships' last year, and she took credit for all our work to get into Forbes 30 Under 30. They wrote about her being the developer and founder of our product - in fact, she had only been hired for a few months and her previous job was as a data analyst at a large consulting firm. Forbes Asia ignored my emails and just changed the title! Incredibly incompetent and unprofessional