3 ms·

The alumni page reads as such: Harvard, Harvard, MIT, Harvard, Harvard, CalTech. So, question, is there any point in applying to something like this if you didn

by glesica 12y ago

The alumni page reads as such: Harvard, Harvard, MIT, Harvard, Harvard, CalTech. So, question, is there any point in applying to something like this if you didn't go to Harvard, MIT, or another similarly high-profile school? Is the alumni makeup simply the result of who applies, or is it who is chosen (perhaps some kind of signaling used by the gatekeepers), or something else?

littletimmy 12y ago
One of my biggest complaints against the tech industry is its rampant credentialism. Limiting capital to just the top few schools in the country is plain terrible business strategy because there is absolutely no evidence that going to a top 10 school vs a top 50 school leads to greater enterpreneurial success. I mean, who cares about Steve Jobs (Reed) and Michael Dell (UT Austin), right? We should fund Mark Pincus (Harvard) instead.
- akhilcacharya 12y ago
  Agreed. I go to a pretty low/mid tier school and it seems like my options are limited if I'm interested in this subset of the industry.
- cma 12y ago
  Or Gates (Harvard), Sergey/Brin (Stanford), Wozniak (Berkeley), Zuckerberg (Harvard), ... Why do you propose top 50 as a cutoff, why not give the same funding to someone in a school barely making the top 500? If not, isn't that just credentialism? Credentialism also leans on alumni preference--if someone in your family is a big donor at Harvard and got you in in spite of lousy scores, they might also make your company succeed through favorable loans, connections, etc., in spite of your lousy contribution, etc.
company 12y ago
Because they are hypocrites. They talk about making tech accessible for everyone and how anyone can be an entrepreneur, etc.. yet they will only support people from tier institutions. You have to work much harder to get the attention if you aren't from top tier institutions. Not that I blame them but they should stop pretending they are about the greater good and all that happy jazz.

by glesica 12y ago

littletimmy 12y ago

One of my biggest complaints against the tech industry is its rampant credentialism. Limiting capital to just the top few schools in the country is plain terrible business strategy because there is absolutely no evidence that going to a top 10 school vs a top 50 school leads to greater enterpreneurial success. I mean, who cares about Steve Jobs (Reed) and Michael Dell (UT Austin), right? We should fund Mark Pincus (Harvard) instead.

akhilcacharya 12y ago
Agreed. I go to a pretty low/mid tier school and it seems like my options are limited if I'm interested in this subset of the industry.
cma 12y ago
Or Gates (Harvard), Sergey/Brin (Stanford), Wozniak (Berkeley), Zuckerberg (Harvard), ... Why do you propose top 50 as a cutoff, why not give the same funding to someone in a school barely making the top 500? If not, isn't that just credentialism? Credentialism also leans on alumni preference--if someone in your family is a big donor at Harvard and got you in in spite of lousy scores, they might also make your company succeed through favorable loans, connections, etc., in spite of your lousy contribution, etc.

company 12y ago

Because they are hypocrites. They talk about making tech accessible for everyone and how anyone can be an entrepreneur, etc.. yet they will only support people from tier institutions. You have to work much harder to get the attention if you aren't from top tier institutions. Not that I blame them but they should stop pretending they are about the greater good and all that happy jazz.