This spends too many words justifying the stale "real hacker" tradition of dunking on education, and kindof ignores the problem of how to measure something so subjective as learning.

So people who are good at tests get ahead. We get that you're not interested in grades. We all know people who play the game and win, not sincerely engage with their job or education or whatever.

But I'd like to hear from pg / other people in YC how they think they are "hacked". What do their successful applicants actually optimise for when "delight" and even "growth" are just as subjective as "learning"? After all they fund lots and lots of companies and founders, many of whom make no returns. How do founders keep their funding "success" long past the point it was deserved?