YC at Columbia, Harvard, MIT, Stanford, UPenn
blog.ycombinator.com
blog.ycombinator.com
[0] Apparently they did in their Winter Tour last year, my mistake.
http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-gradu...
Silicon valley would be better served (and better serve others) when they stop giving hand service to the same schools they they went to and the people who think and act exactly like them.
And I have to ask: If the Ivies/MIT/Stanford aren't the only schools that matter, why call them out in a post that's distinct from the winter tour post?
I can't imagine the amount of crying from the community if the hosts of the site would take special privilege to pin their posts at the top. (I'd be fine with it, as it's their house, but I think they actually are better served to only take a small privilege with the jobs and show posts and otherwise leave the site to the users to vote/curate.)
Sure, but you're arguing against a straw man.
It's simply objectively true that students at elite are on average much smarter than students at other schools, and more ambitious. They're much more likely to have a viable YC application.
In fact, students who get into elite schools but don't attend them still far out-perform students who never got into one.
P(smart | elite school) != P(elite school | smart)
I feel like people on HN have a giant chip on their shoulder when it comes to top schools. They're filled with lots of very smart students and ignoring that is ridiculous.
Nowhere do I pretend that all smart kids are at top schools, or even that the majority is. But if I wanted to select a school to go to with the highest average IQ it would definitely be an elite school.
It's not like everyone is buying their way into elite schools. I certainly didn't, nor did many of my classmates.
I expect it to be only negligibly higher, but in the case of some elite schools like MIT or Georgia Tech, I do expect the elite kid to have received a better education.
I mean, I got my master's at the Technion, so I'm one to bag on elite schools, but still. My experience was that the people weren't innately smarter than everyone else, but they had been given a bunch more background coursework and research experience when they completed their official degree level.
No no no...
First, your "objectivity" is not objective, at best it is a common assumption.
Second, nobody stumbles into Harvard and the like. That tier of school is an aim for both the child and parent from birth (probably before birth for the parents). Acceptance into these schools is the product of hard work (that I am not trying to detract from) and a financial investment (on behalf of the parent). Sure, there are some very intelligent people who take up residence in these schools, but for the VAST majority it was the hard work that got them there, not brilliant work. So yes, students who get in but don't attend can go on to be successful. However, that is a reflection of their work ethic more than their intelligence.
SO being at that tier of school doesn't guarantee intelligence, just being outside of the tier doesn't exclude intelligence. At best it shows that you can work hard and probably had a bankroll of some sort.
You continue to argue against straw men. I never said everyone at top schools is smart, nor did I claim that everyone who is smart is at a top school. Just that the average IQ at a top university is higher than at a random one.
Do you have any evidence to disprove that the average IQ at elite universities is higher? It's almost a farcical thing to argue against. For one thing, IQ correlates with SAT scores pretty heavily and SAT scores at elite universities are much higher. [0]
> That tier of school is an aim for both the child and parent from birth (probably before birth for the parents).
Oh give me a break. Have you ever been to an elite university? Do you know anyone there? My parents sure as hell weren't thinking about my college acceptances when they conceived me. I certainly didn't work hard to get there.
There's a small population of crazy Manhattan elites who are obsessed with preparation and education status, but that's far from being everyone who goes to a top school. Most of my friends were people who just happened to be very intelligent and (in many cases) hard working.
I don't understand what you are so hung up on.
[0] http://www.psychologicalscience.org/pdf/ps/Frey.pdf?origin=p...
If you want to make the argument that there is a concentration of intelligence around top tier campuses, sure (though that makes less sense when you realize that the average state school is 4x the size of Harvard and the like). However, I argue that what got those people there was primarily their determination to be there in combination with their competency (competency which was learned by the way, not inherent to the student/person).
> Oh give me a break. Have you ever been to an elite university? Do you know anyone there? My parents sure as hell weren't thinking about my college acceptances when they conceived me. I certainly didn't work hard to get there.
While I did not go to a to a top tier school (I was offered and couldn't ironically, due to money), I work very closely with people who did. Those people possess a drive that took them to success. Sure "from birth" was a hyperbole, but I'm sure you didn't just finish your SAT and say "well I guess I'll go to {top tier}". I'm sure it was premeditated. If you went yourself that is.
If you want to argue that ambition and hard work are also essential to getting into a top school, I won't dispute that. I'd also say those are both essential qualities for successful founders.
It seems fairly clear to me that YC would be well served to select for hard work and determination, probably before intelligence, but if they can find all three, why wouldn't they stack the deck in their (and the applicant's) favor?
I didn't get into any elite schools - are you saying I should stop trying?
Top schools scrape off a tiny cohort of the wealthiest and best college-prepped among the smartest. The other 97% of the smartest are, well, not at top schools.
University of Illinois has 32,878 undergraduates
the 75% SAT score for the college of engineering at University of Illinois was 1530 (no writing, so out of 1600)
https://admissions.illinois.edu/Apply/Freshman/profile
the 75% SAT score at Columbia was 2330 (including writing so 2330 * 2/3 = 1553.33333333
https://undergrad.admissions.columbia.edu/classprofile/2019
-----------------
the top 25% of a place like university of Illinois (and a lot of other big state schools like it), probably represents a critical mass of intelligent young people that would be pretty competitive with ivy league schools
---------- ----------
also, while ivy league school give out generous amounts of aid, Illinois students aren't filtered by exactly how generous a discount the financial aid office wants to give on at 55k a year tuition (I suspect the top 25% does pretty well scholarship money wise at Illinois too)
That's a fair point. It'd be interesting if YC could do some sort of data analysis on attendance for their events at a big state school vs. an elite school.
> Illinois students aren't filtered by exactly how generous a discount the financial aid office
Most elite universities are need-blind.
Spreading these myths does a disservice to smart, poor kids. Thinking they can't possibly get in, or afford it if they do, dissuades many of the underrepresented students from applying. That's part of why I push back so hard when people try to spread bullshit or the notion that you can only go to Harvard if you're rich.
> I suspect the top 25% does pretty well scholarship money wise at Illinois too
I can tell you that elite universities were a lot more generous with scholarships for me (smart, poor kid) than any lower tier schools.
whether what's dissuading them from going to ivy league schools are myths or not, the larger point, is that big state schools tend to have pretty (statistically) good critical masses at the top of them
Only goes so far. They don't offer aid to students wishing to take SAT prep courses. Admissions criteria include vague things like oddball extracurriculars. It's an interesting coincidence that wealthy people tend to engage in the same activities that top schools consider signals of a "well-rounded" applicant.
There are plenty of "oddball" extracurriculars that rural poor students can engage in. My admissions essay was literally about hiking with an ancient backpack covered in duct tape.
I looked up some articles about SAT prep, reports say preparing for the test increases scores about 25 points on average. I'm not sure whether that was from the 2400 or 1600 test.
At every state school whose scholarship packages I'm familiar with (granted sample size of 3, plus antedotally maybe 5 or so more), an applicant with your SAT scores would have almost certainly been offered a full ride, probably with a stipend as well
% of students from top 1% by income ($630K) UPenn - 18.7% Stanford - 17.5% Harvard - 15.1% Columbia - 13.4% MIT - 5.7%
% of students from the bottom 60% by income ($65K) UPenn - 16.5% Stanford - 18.6% Harvard - 20.4% Columbia - 21.1% MIT - 23.4%
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/18/upshot/some-c...
But they're not. They're showing up at a few places, then doing other things. Fair enough, I think. It's not their job to do otherwise and you don't own their time.
People are (rightfully) pointing out that if you go to a the same 10 schools, you will by definition lack a diversity of thoughts and perspectives.
Anyway this has already been argued above. They did announce it last time.
I agree. I'm pointing out that YC can't be everything to everyone (that would be extreme) and elite colleges are kind of their thing (for worse, I think). It just strikes me as a whiny thing to complain about.
It, should, give YC a more diverse exposure as well?
I assume GGP was posting the "at no cost" threshold and that doesn't mean that $125,001 in assets and you get no help.
It's been a long time since I appli d for financial aid, but I do recall that other kids in college (though perhaps not college-bound) was definitely a factor in financial aid calculations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...
Except they do not lower the admissions requirements for poor kid that attended sub-par secondary schools. These are the exact kids that would be excluded admissions (in most cases) because third rate secondary school prep does not compare to the prep a student obtains at Phillips Exeter Academy.
Offering free tuition sound great until you realize these poor kids would have to have access to the same resources as kids in better positions to be on an even playing field. Except they aren't, but they are still judged the same. Due to that many poor kids are rejected.
I saw some good outcomes from that (friends I met there graduated and became successful who might not have gotten in otherwise), but I also some people come in un or under prepared and wash out, which in my mind is undoubtedly a worse outcome for them than "merely" not being accepted, attending another school and succeeding there.
(Tried to pm katm but could not).
Columbia University closed for snowstorm today.
Any way I can sign up?
Entirely anecdotal, maybe obvious to some, but here's what I have experienced (I'll focus on STEM students):
TL; DR I have had to visit and do on-campus recruiting. The top of top talented, skilled, smart student could be at any school. Every school has dumb as fuck kids too. But there is higher % chance the valedictorian at Stanford is smarter than the valedictorian at San Jose State. But who cares, when a cream of the crop student ends up at non-target school for whatever, they know how to work with those circumstances and get to where they want to go. I think if you know how to "disrupt" or "hack" or whatever stupid word we are using these days, it is easier to stand out as applicant from a no-name school. Good luck
1. The practical stuff: The "budget" of time and people and money to do recruiting and campus outreach is not unlimited. There are only so many hours in a day, you can't visit every school and meet every kid.
2. School visits are worth doing, for the students to learn about a company and for a company to get to know a few of the students better. Companies that do visit schools can attract more applicants and higher quality applicants.
3. The school someone went to tells you ZERO about how talented or skilled that individual is as an engineer or potential founder or employee. Zero. The best person for a job or to fund could have studied at Stanford or San Jose State or Joe Bummwarts University. There are plenty of kids at no-name schools that crush the skills of kids at top-ranked schools. (Also the whole "but the department's reputation is good" doesn't matter nor do grades tell you very much either - I don't even care if someone has a degree to be honest - but that's another story).
4. If a top company or VC or Grad school is looking for those best of the best young people; they often seem to be the type of student that can self-teach and have done so. They are frequently miles ahead of their classmates at their school and any school in terms of knowledge. They know things the schools don't even teach.
5. Unfortunately where someone went to school still matters for several reasons. I'm sorry if this offends. There are many reasons your schools makes a difference. I won't go into things like PR pedigree and friendships and alumni networks. And just to be clear there are a shitload of dumb people at every school, tons and tons of dumb people at the top ranked-schools. Spot them a mile away. But: when you are looking for the one or two or three students who are miles ahead of other people their same age, the % chance that person is going to be at a top-ranked school is slightly higher. i.e. if you are looking for the smartest kid in the sandbox, the odds the valedictorian at Stanford is smarter than the valedictorian at San Jose State is higher on average, not guarantee, but enough to say it's more likely.
6. Lastly, I'll just say in my experience when legit talented students ends up at a non-target school for whatever reason (family, cost, bad luck, whatever) they are mature and they know why they are there and they know what it means and they know what they need to do to succeed at their goal under these circumstances - these are not the students you see complaining about school recruiting being unfair. It's the idiots and the average people who complain the loudest about this :( Those talented students at no-name school are aware of how the world works and that life's not fair. They know how much better they are than their peers and they know the school they went to will not matter. They also know they will have to take a couple different steps to get where they want to go vs. target-schools kids. (it's a known secret it's actually much easier for a no-name school students to stand out). They seem to know what to do: they just keep quiet about it, they network with the people who get it and they find the other doors. Sorry. Look around. Students from no-name non-target schools get top jobs right out of school and they get funded and they get into a top grad schools all the time, every year. If you don't understand how they did what they did, that's the point. Seriously, no offense some people are more skilled and talented than others. But if you are so smart and happened to have gone to a crap school, but want to get in somewhere difficult, then figure it out, many others have before you. If you feel you need someone to come visit your school to get something you are missing the point of how this works. Good luck YC SUMMA CLASS