5 ms·

I have to partly disagree with him there. My schools included MIT and Brown. And I generally really liked the students at both. And I would hire many of them

by neilv 3y ago

I have to partly disagree with him there. My schools included MIT and Brown. And I generally really liked the students at both. And I would hire many of them. But I've also hung out in other circles that attract smart people, where I'd selectively hire first, before prioritizing random people from the fancy-pants schools. And I've worked too many places where some of the smartest and most accomplished people came from BFE schools. Also, note that undergrad programs have gotten insane with the gaming and the hoop-jumping. Even worse than when it was helicopter parents merely sending kids to prep schools, SAT prep, and the checkoff extracurriculars (e.g., "volunteering"). And that insanity can select for what you don't want to hire, to do actual work. If you want "How to Start Google [where everyone focuses on the entrance exam, and then on gaming their promotions]" then you absolutely should hire Stanford students, who had to exercise very similar thinking to get into Stanford at this point. Or, if you want to run a startup investment scam, where you need to apply some similar thinking of the appearance of accomplishments, and knocking down ducks lined up for you. But if you want to solve problems, or build something that's not just headed for a financial exit, then Stanford-track kind of thinking seems probably counterproductive. Imagine getting a new hire at an early startup, and they innately think that their job is to knock off sprint tasks, and have other appearances of performance. And when you try to explain thinking about the organization's goals, and that their job is to help the team collectively achieve that... they think you're just spewing empty platitudes, like they were taught to spew for college application personal statements and job interviews. You would've been so much better off hiring the scrappy person from the community college who hasn't had Stanford-track BS baked into them since grade school.

throwaway444441 3y ago
You sound like the kind of person I'd actually want to start a business with. Maybe cofounder matching should be a HN feature instead of a tinder clone.
- carabiner 3y ago
  [flagged]
ra0x3 3y ago
Wow super insightful comment. Particularly this excerpt: > If you want "How to Start Google [where everyone focuses on the entrance exam, and then on gaming their promotions]" then you absolutely should hire Stanford students, who had to exercise very similar thinking to get into Stanford at this point. I realize that this applies to Google post-2015, but do you think it also applies to early Google? Where you actually had to get things done?
- cmrdporcupine 3y ago
  First few employees at Google? Stanford yes because that's where they got the business/investment connections. Clearly, because L&S both came from that background as did family, and the whole Susan W's garage thing, etc. etc. After that? Actually building the thing? Not really? Jeff Dean: University of Minnesota, B.S. Computer Science and Engineering (1990) University of Washington, Ph.D. Computer Science (1996) Tho I guess Sanjay was more "ivy league" (correct me where I'm off thing, I'm Canadian and don't understand the American obsession with "brand name" on schools): Cornell University (SB, 1987) MIT (SM, 1990; PhD, 1995) I guess Urs was Stanford, though. But I would insist that 1996 is a lot different from 2024. And, honestly, pardon me, but YCombinator isn't funding the next Google. They're trying to fund the next Uber or whatever. I don't get the impression they have the guts to invest in kind of long-play deep tech infrastructure like a Google. It all seems like "X but for Y" Web2.0ish companies.
  - all2 3y ago
    > It all seems like "X but for Y" Web2.0ish companies. This has been somewhat frustrating for me to see. I'm curious what you think actual moonshot companies look like? Are we talking novel medical tech? Advancements in aerospace? I'm specifically ignoring AI, though a few companies in that sphere will be moonshots. What does the future look like to you?
    - bdw5204 3y ago
      Not the one you asked the question to but I'd say some examples would be: Robotics (either to automate household drudgery or to eliminate terrible jobs nobody wants to do) Space colonization Terraforming (to reverse climate change which imo we are not going to solve via the austerity nonsense politicians and green activists keep pushing) Detecting and countering AI generated spam (if this is not solved, AI could easily make "Dead Internet Theory" a reality) Solving problems created by companies seeking profitability over the good of society. For example, dating which has been FUBARed by dating apps seeking to maximize active users. Problem here is there's no profit in it if you do it the right way for society. Fast, safe, reliable mass transit in the US (i.e. disrupt Greyhound and/or build high speed rail more competently than California's mismanaged disaster) Addressing homelessness, mental health and drug addiction. Many of these would probably be best funded by a government staffed by the best and the brightest like we had between the 1930s and 1960s (think Manhattan Project, Marshall Plan and Apollo Program) not the crooks and incompetent buffoons that seemingly staff the government nowadays. But some of these could be companies or non-profits. I'd personally love to start a company in one of these spaces (or something similar) but don't have runway so I'd either need it funded or a co-founder who's wealthy enough to also fund my living expenses until it is funded.
debacle 3y ago
You're comparing a hand picked group from one school to the median at another. The most successful student at your average community college will likely be more successful than the median MIT grad, but that doesn't prove your point.
slashdev 3y ago
Very insightful and accurate take IMHO.
carabiner 3y ago
Notably, you didn't attend MIT or Brown for undergrad, just terminal master's degrees. The selection process for undergraduates at those schools is about 100x more rigorous than that for MS programs.
- neilv 3y ago
  Why notably? I don't think we're communicating well, if that's what you latched onto. Are you suggesting I didn't also interact with undergrads when I said I liked the students there, or is this borderline ad hominem? Perhaps the meta-relevance is that some people fixate on the prestige and exclusivity of these things, and fight aggressively to acquire that for themselves, and to preserve that status. And some other people help perpetuate superiority myths, including in hiring.
shuangly 3y ago
So I think the statement is more like statistically in good universities you're more likely to meet other great engineers and cofounders. It of course doesn't mean all students from good universities are better from scrappy people community college. When it comes to reality, I'm a startup founder and how would I screen people? If someone went to Stanford it's a strong good signal. If another guy went to community college but has exceptional technical skills of course I'd hire him than an average Stanford graduates. School or past experience is just one signal but it's a strong signal.
- neilv 3y ago
  > When it comes to reality, [...] If someone went to Stanford it's a strong good signal. I just said why I don't think it's currently a good signal, in reality. Unless the reality is last-decade VC-growth startups, where the priority was appearances, from top to bottom.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
drBonkers 3y ago
> when you try to explain thinking about the organization's goals, and that their job is to help the team collectively achieve that... they think you're just spewing empty platitudes, like they were taught to spew for college application personal statements and job interviews. Me in my first job.
survirtual 3y ago
This is an accurate take and I am glad to see it being voiced.

by neilv 3y ago

throwaway444441 3y ago

You sound like the kind of person I'd actually want to start a business with. Maybe cofounder matching should be a HN feature instead of a tinder clone.

carabiner 3y ago
[flagged]

ra0x3 3y ago

Wow super insightful comment. Particularly this excerpt: > If you want "How to Start Google [where everyone focuses on the entrance exam, and then on gaming their promotions]" then you absolutely should hire Stanford students, who had to exercise very similar thinking to get into Stanford at this point. I realize that this applies to Google post-2015, but do you think it also applies to early Google? Where you actually had to get things done?

cmrdporcupine 3y ago
First few employees at Google? Stanford yes because that's where they got the business/investment connections. Clearly, because L&S both came from that background as did family, and the whole Susan W's garage thing, etc. etc. After that? Actually building the thing? Not really? Jeff Dean: University of Minnesota, B.S. Computer Science and Engineering (1990) University of Washington, Ph.D. Computer Science (1996) Tho I guess Sanjay was more "ivy league" (correct me where I'm off thing, I'm Canadian and don't understand the American obsession with "brand name" on schools): Cornell University (SB, 1987) MIT (SM, 1990; PhD, 1995) I guess Urs was Stanford, though. But I would insist that 1996 is a lot different from 2024. And, honestly, pardon me, but YCombinator isn't funding the next Google. They're trying to fund the next Uber or whatever. I don't get the impression they have the guts to invest in kind of long-play deep tech infrastructure like a Google. It all seems like "X but for Y" Web2.0ish companies.
- all2 3y ago
  > It all seems like "X but for Y" Web2.0ish companies. This has been somewhat frustrating for me to see. I'm curious what you think actual moonshot companies look like? Are we talking novel medical tech? Advancements in aerospace? I'm specifically ignoring AI, though a few companies in that sphere will be moonshots. What does the future look like to you?
  - bdw5204 3y ago
    Not the one you asked the question to but I'd say some examples would be: Robotics (either to automate household drudgery or to eliminate terrible jobs nobody wants to do) Space colonization Terraforming (to reverse climate change which imo we are not going to solve via the austerity nonsense politicians and green activists keep pushing) Detecting and countering AI generated spam (if this is not solved, AI could easily make "Dead Internet Theory" a reality) Solving problems created by companies seeking profitability over the good of society. For example, dating which has been FUBARed by dating apps seeking to maximize active users. Problem here is there's no profit in it if you do it the right way for society. Fast, safe, reliable mass transit in the US (i.e. disrupt Greyhound and/or build high speed rail more competently than California's mismanaged disaster) Addressing homelessness, mental health and drug addiction. Many of these would probably be best funded by a government staffed by the best and the brightest like we had between the 1930s and 1960s (think Manhattan Project, Marshall Plan and Apollo Program) not the crooks and incompetent buffoons that seemingly staff the government nowadays. But some of these could be companies or non-profits. I'd personally love to start a company in one of these spaces (or something similar) but don't have runway so I'd either need it funded or a co-founder who's wealthy enough to also fund my living expenses until it is funded.

debacle 3y ago

You're comparing a hand picked group from one school to the median at another. The most successful student at your average community college will likely be more successful than the median MIT grad, but that doesn't prove your point.

slashdev 3y ago

Very insightful and accurate take IMHO.

carabiner 3y ago

Notably, you didn't attend MIT or Brown for undergrad, just terminal master's degrees. The selection process for undergraduates at those schools is about 100x more rigorous than that for MS programs.

neilv 3y ago
Why notably? I don't think we're communicating well, if that's what you latched onto. Are you suggesting I didn't also interact with undergrads when I said I liked the students there, or is this borderline ad hominem? Perhaps the meta-relevance is that some people fixate on the prestige and exclusivity of these things, and fight aggressively to acquire that for themselves, and to preserve that status. And some other people help perpetuate superiority myths, including in hiring.

shuangly 3y ago

So I think the statement is more like statistically in good universities you're more likely to meet other great engineers and cofounders. It of course doesn't mean all students from good universities are better from scrappy people community college. When it comes to reality, I'm a startup founder and how would I screen people? If someone went to Stanford it's a strong good signal. If another guy went to community college but has exceptional technical skills of course I'd hire him than an average Stanford graduates. School or past experience is just one signal but it's a strong signal.

neilv 3y ago
> When it comes to reality, [...] If someone went to Stanford it's a strong good signal. I just said why I don't think it's currently a good signal, in reality. Unless the reality is last-decade VC-growth startups, where the priority was appearances, from top to bottom.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

drBonkers 3y ago

> when you try to explain thinking about the organization's goals, and that their job is to help the team collectively achieve that... they think you're just spewing empty platitudes, like they were taught to spew for college application personal statements and job interviews. Me in my first job.

survirtual 3y ago

This is an accurate take and I am glad to see it being voiced.