4 ms·

Just finished W24 batch with no Ivy/FAANG background. Everyone I met in our batch was very friendly, curious, and razor-sharp. Many people have credentialed ba

Just finished W24 batch with no Ivy/FAANG background. Everyone I met in our batch was very friendly, curious, and razor-sharp. Many people have credentialed backgrounds, many people do not. I generally buy YC’s justification that many of the smartest people happen to go to Stanford/Ivy which is why they are over-represented.

dgfitz 2y ago
I don’t think you can make that argument in good faith: “many of the smartest people happen to go to Stanford/Ivy”. I think you _can_ say that many smart people go to Stanford/Ivy.
- sokoloff 2y ago
  In the usage above “many of” I read to mean “smart people are significantly over-represented” at those places rather than anything stronger.
_akhe 2y ago
> the smartest people happen to go to Stanford There's no way this is even possible, let alone true. This might be a hot take but if you're under the age of 25, it's likely that you know very few things total. And the things you do know, you're just not going to have a master level of understanding of in your 20s yet nor the drive to focus on it the way it needs, especially with other social pressures at play. What is extremely high in your 20s is your ambition - your loftiness of ideas and goals and your expectations of yourself - these can land you exceptional jobs, opportunities, and get you to a great starting point, but that's not the same as intelligence and ability. For manual labor work, there's a definite peak - college age and the years just after. But for knowledge work, math, programming, business, politics, etc. being older is almost always an asset - you get better at things, you get smarter, your networks grow, you become an adult among the children and are far more aware of timing and can predict and speak on things with more accuracy. You simply know more. Besides that, I don't think raw intelligence is selection criteria for a good founder anyway. It has a lot more to do with your particular situation - how well you're situated to pull it off, which can mean many things. In terms of personal qualities it probably has more to do with determination and obsession (work ethic) than intelligence, especially these days where information is so cheap and available.
- jasperstory 2y ago
  Ah sorry for clarity I didn't mean "currently attend", and agree "smartest" here was probably excessively casual. I think there's different benefits at different ages, and agree on importance of determination and obsession. A good market is the only thing that might be more useful.
- b112 2y ago
  There is a lot of variance in how words are used, so I'm not going to say you're wrong here. However, my usage of the following words deviate from yours: * intelligence - raw intellect, having absolutely nothing to do with anything ever learned * smarts - synonym for raw intellect, but often more on the 'crafty' side of raw intellect * ability - short for 'capabilities', and is a merge of 'intelligence' and 'learned information'. Information is useless without intellect, and intellect is vastly reduced in capability without learned information. Ability is a metric for these two conjoined. 'Skilled' fits here too. So from where I sit, you never get "smarter" as you age. You do however grow your abilities, you may become "wise", and skilled. By the way, agree 100% with the context of what you're saying. And just passing on term usage from another geolocation.
  - foldr 2y ago
    That's fine, but then measuring 'raw intellect' is like measuring 'raw strength' when you're selecting members of a soccer team. It will help, no doubt, but it's one of many factors.

dgfitz 2y ago

I don’t think you can make that argument in good faith: “many of the smartest people happen to go to Stanford/Ivy”. I think you _can_ say that many smart people go to Stanford/Ivy.

sokoloff 2y ago
In the usage above “many of” I read to mean “smart people are significantly over-represented” at those places rather than anything stronger.

_akhe 2y ago

> the smartest people happen to go to Stanford There's no way this is even possible, let alone true. This might be a hot take but if you're under the age of 25, it's likely that you know very few things total. And the things you do know, you're just not going to have a master level of understanding of in your 20s yet nor the drive to focus on it the way it needs, especially with other social pressures at play. What is extremely high in your 20s is your ambition - your loftiness of ideas and goals and your expectations of yourself - these can land you exceptional jobs, opportunities, and get you to a great starting point, but that's not the same as intelligence and ability. For manual labor work, there's a definite peak - college age and the years just after. But for knowledge work, math, programming, business, politics, etc. being older is almost always an asset - you get better at things, you get smarter, your networks grow, you become an adult among the children and are far more aware of timing and can predict and speak on things with more accuracy. You simply know more. Besides that, I don't think raw intelligence is selection criteria for a good founder anyway. It has a lot more to do with your particular situation - how well you're situated to pull it off, which can mean many things. In terms of personal qualities it probably has more to do with determination and obsession (work ethic) than intelligence, especially these days where information is so cheap and available.

jasperstory 2y ago
Ah sorry for clarity I didn't mean "currently attend", and agree "smartest" here was probably excessively casual. I think there's different benefits at different ages, and agree on importance of determination and obsession. A good market is the only thing that might be more useful.
b112 2y ago
There is a lot of variance in how words are used, so I'm not going to say you're wrong here. However, my usage of the following words deviate from yours: * intelligence - raw intellect, having absolutely nothing to do with anything ever learned * smarts - synonym for raw intellect, but often more on the 'crafty' side of raw intellect * ability - short for 'capabilities', and is a merge of 'intelligence' and 'learned information'. Information is useless without intellect, and intellect is vastly reduced in capability without learned information. Ability is a metric for these two conjoined. 'Skilled' fits here too. So from where I sit, you never get "smarter" as you age. You do however grow your abilities, you may become "wise", and skilled. By the way, agree 100% with the context of what you're saying. And just passing on term usage from another geolocation.
- foldr 2y ago
  That's fine, but then measuring 'raw intellect' is like measuring 'raw strength' when you're selecting members of a soccer team. It will help, no doubt, but it's one of many factors.