I picked David because his achievements seemed more concrete. The "marketing" and "sustainability" stuff sounded like fluff to me. I didn't read much more of the article after I found out he chose the other guy.
It's not just that he picked the other guy, he expects everyone to agree with him, and yet like you I chose the "wrong" guy.
Explaining the "amazing" reason that everyone picks his choice seems much less impressive at that point, particularly as it mostly seems like an ad for a book.
Does anyone actually talk like this (from the comments):
It’s interesting that you mention science fairs. I actually have a chapter in my new book where I take the awe-inspiring resumes of two Intel winners, then break down, step by step, the reality of their achievement
I suspect that Hacker News has a bit of selection bias, in that most of the people here are driven, success-oriented individuals who'd like to believe that hard work makes a difference. We've already read all the articles about how success comes from diligence and practice, and that feats that seem superhuman are just the result of focused effort over time.
In my personal experience, the majority of people do not think like this. When I was going through grade school, my parents/teachers/etc. often did use words like "awe-inspiring achievements", even for fairly mundane things like getting perfect scores on standardized tests. I got into Amherst through a process very much like the article describes (I had terrible grades but had worked at an all-teenage dot-com startup and aced my standardized tests). In the "brag session" where the director of admissions lists all the awe-inspiring resumes of the incoming freshman class, she said "And one of the students passed 8 AP tests without taking a single AP class", and a murmur of appreciation passed along the crowd. Really, it's not that hard, you read a book and then you pay $75 for a test - but most of them don't know that.
I think it's great that there's more understanding going around of what achievement actually stems from. But that understanding certainly isn't universal, and in the meantime, you can hack people's perceptions of you by playing to the blind spots in their own knowledge. "Everything is impossible until I know how to do it, and then it's trivial."
That was my thought too, but a surprisingly large number of people were impressed. Which was the article's point. There's no accounting for taste, I guess. (Well, actually there is an accounting for taste, and that's what the article was about. People can be irrational and yet have perfectly rational explanations for their irrationality.)
I also choose David over Steve. Maybe it's because I have a disdain for politics.
The ability to cause havocs in UN meetings would more impressed me. Competing with the United States Post Office and then crushing them is also an incredibly impressive to me.
What I would search for, as a college admission office is people who is likely to defy authorities and be massively right. If I can get that guy into college, then that's the greatest achievement I could hope for, because this guy will have massive positive impact in this world.
I don't need Obamas people, but I would like more Talebs people in my school.
You know a lot of high school students with “massively right” unique insights into the world that no one has thought of before? Enough to make up a freshman class at a mid-sized school?
You know a lot of high school students with “massively right” unique insights into the world that no one has thought of before? Enough to make up a freshman class at a mid-sized school?
Just one guy/gal in his lifetime is what a college admission officer would hope for in his entire career.
That's all he need to cause a revolution in a field.
The problem is of course, how to find the genuine article in a pool full of candidates sprouting impressive grades and other distracting signals which are probably incidental or have nothing to do with massively right insights generators.
My guesses and your guesses is probably as good as the college admission officers. The chance of scoring a direct hit because the officer was able to correctly reasoned that this guy is what he's looking for is probably incredibly low.
The article makes the mistake of confusing "surprising" for "impressive".
Steve's accomplishments are surprising. I wouldn't have the slightest idea how he went about them; I'd have to ask to get the full story. (The article names this the "failed simulation effect".) I totally agree with you that it sounds like fluff, but it's unusual fluff.
David's accomplishments are unsurprising. I know exactly how one gets to be the captain of a varsity sports team while keeping up an interesting hobby outside of school. Impressive, concrete, but doesn't provoke any further questioning from me.
I wouldn't pick either of them just from a few sentences. I'd want to see the full essays.
The article makes the mistake of confusing "surprising" for "impressive".
Good point there. After reading your comment I reread the article, and it does seem more reasonable to replace all mentions of "impressive" with "surprising".
That being said, to an academic reviewer, surprising may very well equal impressive, especially when the transcript is read along with a thousand others ...
I chose Steve because he spent his time doing something that affects people other than himself. Most people I know have some aversion to changing the status quo. David has impressive accomplishments are of no importance to anyone but himself, so the state of things before and after David's accomplishments are more or less the same.
In other words, I'm impressed with Steve, not because I'm comparing the amount of work and effort they each put forth, but because Steve chooses to spend his time and efforts changing things.
As someone who actually goes to top school, I cannot even fathom how someone would think that being captain of a track team and learning calligraphy would be more impressive than lobby U.N. delegates.
Track captains are a dime a dozen and there is nothing "impressive" about signing up for calligraphy class. Maybe those were the easy classes at his school - I don't know. But there's nothing inherently impressive about taking calligraphy. I don't even know why you would put that on your resume unless you were going to write an essay about it.
Working with the UN as a high schooler is something that grabs the attention of an admissions officer. I'm sure his essay about the experience sealed the deal.
If "David" attended a school that was serious about athletics, getting good grades with the huge commitment of track is so much more impressive than some political BS that "Steve" seemed to get lucky with.
As a data point, I got mediocre grades (barely top 10% in my high school class at a pretty run-of-the-mill high school) while playing football (it's a year round commitment) and for some reason Carnegie Mellon chose to let me in [0]. When push came to shove I managed to put myself ahead instead of behind because I was willing to work a little bit harder than I needed to, and I learned how to do that with every miserable, awful football practice I ever went to.
In all likelihood, "Steve" isn't as mentally tough as "David", and I think (assuming a similar grade and test score standing) it'd be foolish to take Steve over David.
[0] In fairness, I had also programmed a lot and I think I was able to convey a passion for it, but I think that's pretty standard for a lot of people who didn't make it in.
> In all likelihood, "Steve" isn't as mentally tough as "David"
How can you possibly make this kind of speculative judgment on the basis of no further information? “All likelihood”? Give me a break.
I know football players who are mentally tough. I also know football players who are lazy dipshit assholes. The kids in the band, or the theater, or the debate team, or the math club, are no less “mentally tough” than the kids on the football team (unless by “mentally tough” you really mean “physically bulky and imposing” in which case you’re absolutely right).
On one hand I have evidence that "David" can force himself to train (which, for track athletes, involves running miles in all kinds of terrible weather, often until they throw up). Alternatively, "Steve" sent some emails, did some networking, and ended up in a couple sweet positions.
What I meant by "All likelihood" is that, given the information provided, I would wager more on David's mental toughness than on Steve.
What is unfair about me making that judgement based on the evidence provided?
"Show me a student making real money, and that is actually valued by the free market, and I will be impressed."
I think posts like this actually reinforce the article's meta-point, which is that people are impressed by accomplishments that fit with the person's values where it's not obvious how to accomplish them.
You (and many other readers of this site) value success in business. Even if you're currently making real money, you probably weren't at age 17, and probably didn't have much of a clue how to at age 17, and so a 17-year-old making real money is impressive.
The football player here values the skills he learned from football, and knows how difficult it was to balance them with scholastic achievement, and so he's impressed by the guy who captained the football team and yet still managed to take calligraphy and get good grades.
The college admission's officer is tasked with assembling a unique, diverse, interesting class. She obviously would not have taken the job if she didn't value uniqueness. And so when somebody shows up that doesn't fit the profile that she sees all day, and has accomplished something a little out of the ordinary, she's impressed.
Don't mistake the specific examples for the general principle. You may not share the same value system as a college admission's officer. Hell, you may not even value college. But you can still use this to impress people who have things that you want.
You (and many other readers of this site) value success in business. Even if you're currently making real money, you probably weren't at age 17, and probably didn't have much of a clue how to at age 17, and so a 17-year-old making real money is impressive.
I suspect the parent poster loath people who enjoy rent-seeking, political jockeying, and anything that scream power for power's sake.
He want to make useful products that benefit the world and make a difference. Business success, per se, is not what he's looking for. Business success is only a measure of how much he was able to make a difference in the world and how much he expand the pies for everybody.
To be fair it's not that I was a huge fan of the athletic angle, I'd be equally impressed with anything that was a time waster (and even MORE impressed if the person went out of their way to work hard at their real passion). I was more aiming to contradict the parent poster who was under the impression that track was some easy waste of time, unlike the UN stuff.
So you think the best way to judge whether an applicant might be a good addition to a college is whether he makes money in the free market? If he had been a Paid intern, that would make his experience more valuable for the college? Does someone who works at McDonald's for minimum wage have more to offer a college community than someone who has a somewhat unique volunteer experience?
And nobody's trying to impress you. These kids are trying to impress college admissions, who are in turn trying to build interesting and diverse student bodies.
there is nothing "impressive" about signing up for calligraphy class. Maybe those were the easy classes at his school - I don't know. But there's nothing inherently impressive about taking calligraphy. I don't even know why you would put that on your resume unless you were going to write an essay about it.
It gives him somewhat more direct insight, having experience with what such students are like. He clearly meant it in that light. What would he possibly get from bragging? (People who go to top schools are a dime a dozen, after all. ;-)
I thought Steve was impressive because he was uncommon. By definition, every high school with a track team has a captain of the track team; you're likely to see hundreds of Davids in a given college admissions department. It's much less likely that you'll encounter someone who worked with an NGO or the UN--even if Steve's abilities or perserverance weren't exceptional.
Still, I think there's something to the model. It is difficult to envision how one might become an advisor to a UN NGO! That was definitely a factor in my evaluation.
This is particularly exaggerated among Stanford undergrads, presumably by intent of the admissions department. I didn't do my undergrad at Stanford, but I've heard many stories from undergrad friends about the guy down the hall who didn't seem particularly outstanding or bright, until he turned out to be e.g. the #2 model airplane builder in the world. This line in particular stood out to me:
>Admissions officers would agree. They’re not looking to build hardworking and diligent classes. Instead, they want to build classes that are interesting.
The emphasis on this elusive impressive/unusual quality over raw academic prowess also explains the quality of some of the problem sets I've graded...but then, doing well on problem sets and starting successful companies (or becoming an outlier by some other metric of success) are completely different things. Stanford optimizes for the latter.
I bet you’d find worse problem sets just about anywhere else. There are all kinds of reasons why 19-year-olds fuck up on problem sets, not all of them to do with lacking “academic” talent.
A better way of saying this is: “I worked a lot on X” is less interesting/impressive than “A bunch of adults acted on something I did.”
To be honest though, this article’s premise (I should figure out how to efficiently get into college) seems pretty stupid. It’s just as stupid as college counselor’s premise, and really basically the same.
Instead of “drop the 5th and 6th AP course from your schedule and put your attention toward becoming an insider”, how about trying to learn as much as you can from your classes (emphasis: learning not some irrelevant number), build cool stuff, and try to make it have a real-world impact because they are intrinsically valuable things to do?
Steve called and e-mailed reporters, eventually scoring a few big hits, including a mention in Time Magazine’s Green Issue
Okay, it was at this point where I switched and picked Steve over David.
Captain of the track team sounds impressive, until you consider that there would be 400 other captains sitting in an academic reviewer's inbox. Now I'm not really sure if this is impressiveness, but it sure stands out if I had to sift through a hundred or a thousand applications, and this one guy writes about his experience in the UN.
In the mind of a typical high school student, being a team captain is a known path with many known examples. Being a part of UN is not so obvious thus it's a risky path and it may take many failures before stumbling upon the right path.
Sure, the right path may be simple. But so are many successful start-ups ideas. Yet you can't just discredit the skills of the founders just because the ideas were simple. Because simple ideas usually came many iterations of bad ones
If I am an investor I'd invest in Steve because, he is, as PG once said, relentlessly resourceful.
Love this quote. I can deeply identify with it. I don't have to be good at something to enjoy it. And you'll improve over time, even if that's not the purpose you seek.
> When her best friend tried to get Kara to drop a difficult linear algebra class, Kara, to her friend’s horror, simply shrugged and replied, “I like linear algebra.”
The concept of failed simulation is very interesting. I wrote a post about how the capability to simulate is important to programmers and designers, where the failure to simulate is produces bad code/products.
The whole concept of highly selective schools is distasteful. I can't imagine myself in the position of choosing between prospective students for one. The selection process is highly arbitrary just like hiring. I wouldn't accept the responsibility of turning away prospective students who actually want to come to a school to learn.
How would you reorganize education? How would you distribute professors among students? Match students to the same courses? Decide which courses each student could take?
The current system has gigantic problems. But fixing it is not trivial, because such a big network is incredibly complex.
With a solid C average coming out of high school, I got into Carnegie Mellon (not Brown, though...), but wound up going to a state school that gave me a free ride for 4 years. There are lots of ways to hack the admissions process, but none of them include Japanese calligraphy (unless you become a cultural ambassador to Japan).
Ha I see. In other applications, this is the "hook", the elevator pitch. Or the quick bio when networking that gets people coming back to hear the story. I'm not quite sure how this applies to the "startup story".
There's just not a lot to go on. The SAT score is one of the few nationally comparable objective measures, and obviously measures only a specific kind of aptitude. High-school GPA is objective but hard to compare across schools, and measures only specific things as well (ability to do well in high-school classes). Essays might give you more information, but might be written by someone other than the student. You end up falling back on some sort of evidence that the student has independent interests/motivations, whether president of some club, or webmaster of some site.
Also, in the case where you have a 2 students with perfect 4.0 (or better) GPA's, both got perfect SAT scores, etc- i.e., match eachother blow for blow, the only way groupthink people have thought of to get ahead is to have extracurriculars.
Ideally GPA and SAT scores would make the distinction for us. The top X% of students would range from 3.5-4 in their GPA, or something like that. Unfortunately, grade inflation and test coaching is compacting an increasing percentage of the 'top' students into the tiny tiny bracket around 4.0 and 2400 (SAT). Greater-than-4.0 GPA's attempted to extend the headroom, but much like raising the level cap in WoW this didn't help much.
> Ideally GPA and SAT scores would make the distinction for us.
You think these are good measurements of student ability? For myself, I couldn’t complain about such a system, because (probably like many/most here) I did exceedingly well by such metrics. But to be honest, I think they are absolutely terrible.
Problem is that every other metric is absolutely worse.
When you think about it, the whole idea of rating one human being as "better" or "more deserving" than another is pretty much absurd. But universities have a limited number of spots that they can devote time and attention to, and they have to prune the applicant pool down to something manageable. People are very uncomfortable with randomness, so if a university's admission policy was "We'll pick 1 out of 10 at random", the applicants would go "WTF?" So they make up some arbitrary metrics, add in some guesswork, and try to assemble an incoming class that they feel will be as interesting as possible.
It's sort of unfortunate that their rather arbitrary decision acts as the gatekeeper to something that lots of people want - a good, high-paying, intellectually challenging job. Chalk up another one to "life's not fair".
By now it's pretty well established that college admissions are a crap shoot so why is this guy wasting time on failed simulation theory and applying it to college admissions.
