Before They Were Successful, These People Were Rejected(online.wsj.com)
online.wsj.com
Before They Were Successful, These People Were Rejected
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704211704575139891390595962.html?mod=rss_Todays_Most_Popular#printMode
52 comments
Actually they could do better. They are selecting students depending on SAT results and I really doubt they are reviewing in depth the achievements, situation of the student.
I'm not sure about that, unless you're talking specifically about undergrad at Yale and Harvard. The prof at my previous laboratory worked on the admission committee for the MIT and told us that having research publications done before graduate studies was a large factor. So was doing special stuff like going to Africa and building a library, getting a grammy award, etc. Everyone who applies has excellent grades, so they can't really use them to distinguish people.
I have a good friend who's been part of the MIT admissions process in times past (on a time available basis). They look at lots of things.
Before the SAT changes in 1994 that made them worthless, they found that class ranking was strangely enough one of the best predictors of future success (MIT does longitudinal study of the admissions and resulting success of failure, the number one imperative is to accept no one who they don't think can do the work (which is a pretty high bar for MIT, with it's core math and science requirements)).
And, yeah, having an almost published paper probably helped me (I sent the original draft with a note that half the results were unusable due to a contaminated culture that was only discovered after the work). Plus a well designed (structured programming) program (this was back in 1979).
My SAT (very high verbal, OK but not so much for MIT math) and class standing weren't too great, but they correctly said yes. My friend said that being from deep in flyover country certainly made a difference in terms of a desire for geographic diversity.
Anyway, a bottom line today for MIT is that if you can do the work, you have a raw 1/3 chance of acceptance (self-selection of applications is fierce).
The very most important thing you can do is to demonstrate to them that you're a "go-getter", the sort of person who naturally does projects and the like. Mens and manus (mind and hand) as the school motto goes.
Before the SAT changes in 1994 that made them worthless, they found that class ranking was strangely enough one of the best predictors of future success (MIT does longitudinal study of the admissions and resulting success of failure, the number one imperative is to accept no one who they don't think can do the work (which is a pretty high bar for MIT, with it's core math and science requirements)).
And, yeah, having an almost published paper probably helped me (I sent the original draft with a note that half the results were unusable due to a contaminated culture that was only discovered after the work). Plus a well designed (structured programming) program (this was back in 1979).
My SAT (very high verbal, OK but not so much for MIT math) and class standing weren't too great, but they correctly said yes. My friend said that being from deep in flyover country certainly made a difference in terms of a desire for geographic diversity.
Anyway, a bottom line today for MIT is that if you can do the work, you have a raw 1/3 chance of acceptance (self-selection of applications is fierce).
The very most important thing you can do is to demonstrate to them that you're a "go-getter", the sort of person who naturally does projects and the like. Mens and manus (mind and hand) as the school motto goes.
Before the SAT changes in 1994 that made them worthless
I've heard this a couple times, but there is not much reasoning to back this up. Having taken the SAT after 1994 and receiving a high score, I think it is a bit disingenuous to claim that the SAT after 1994 are useless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT#1994_changes
The mean SAT score remained virtually unchanged, while the removal of antonym questions and non-multiple choice questions seems to be an improvement. There were many times where the analogy questions were quite ambiguous, I could think of a dozen reasons to support each answer.
I've heard this a couple times, but there is not much reasoning to back this up. Having taken the SAT after 1994 and receiving a high score, I think it is a bit disingenuous to claim that the SAT after 1994 are useless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT#1994_changes
The mean SAT score remained virtually unchanged, while the removal of antonym questions and non-multiple choice questions seems to be an improvement. There were many times where the analogy questions were quite ambiguous, I could think of a dozen reasons to support each answer.
It seems to me that the SAT results of the applicants are so good, they can't only use SAT results to select students.
When Stanford rejected me for undergrad years ago, they essentially said not to feel so bad because thousands of those who were rejected were valedictorians, had perfect or near perfect SAT scores, etc..
When Stanford rejected me for undergrad years ago, they essentially said not to feel so bad because thousands of those who were rejected were valedictorians, had perfect or near perfect SAT scores, etc..
SAT results count for very little these days. At universities like Harvard, a perfect score will not get you in.
Even at University of Michigan, a state school, a 1360 on the SAT is worth the same as a 1600: http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:mZNMh_wonTIJ:www.umich.e...
Even at University of Michigan, a state school, a 1360 on the SAT is worth the same as a 1600: http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:mZNMh_wonTIJ:www.umich.e...
That's not current information about Michigan, dating from before both the Supreme Court case about affirmative action there and before the subsequent voter initiative than banned consideration of race in admission there.
Yes, but it wasn't meant to be current information about how race admissions are done. If a 1600 was indistinguishable from a 1360 in 1999, I doubt it's much more significant now, considering that schools have been moving away from using the SAT more and more.
> They are selecting students depending on SAT results
Your summary is simply wrong. There are obviously limits to how much you can learn about a person’s life from school records, test scores, application essays, recommendations, and lists of achievements, but these schools care a lot about getting the most ambitious and accomplished students they can, and spend extraordinary effort reviewing applicants.
Your summary is simply wrong. There are obviously limits to how much you can learn about a person’s life from school records, test scores, application essays, recommendations, and lists of achievements, but these schools care a lot about getting the most ambitious and accomplished students they can, and spend extraordinary effort reviewing applicants.
Heh, amusing this comes to me right after my rejection to MIT, Caltech, Olin and Harvey Mudd.
Don't worry, man. University is mostly for credentializing 9-5 schmucks. Wherever you end up, use it as cover to do something awesome.
It's not over. I got rejected from nearly everywhere I applied as a freshman, then transferred to Cornell as a Sophomore where I'm now a very happy junior.
Looking back I'm actually very glad I transferred as opposed to entering as a freshman. I've instead taken so much more advantage of opportunities compared to where I went my freshman year (UCLA) after essentially getting to 'restart'.
I did get into UCLA though. I am going to be hearing from Berkeley tomorrow, but I think I'll go to UCLA. I really, really like Los Angeles, and know a lot of security hackers there.
Heh, I also transferred, but Cornell was the only school that didn't accept my transfer application.
don't give up.
Let me tell you something about college admissions. I felt a lot of pressure to apply to elite schools, and I was rejected by all but one of them. I also got into a well-respected "party school" which would have been perfect for me; besides being tons of fun, on the beach, where one of my best friends from high school was going, plus it had some kick ass programs where you worked closely with professors. I ended up attending the "elite school" so my ego could get some validation of its "Youuuu're smart!!" narrative. It's the only decision I could have made at the time so I try not to beat myself up over it but four years later I know that I would have done things differently.
Let me tell you this, you may find yourself more motivated to do excellent work and learn amazing things if you are a big fish in a small pond.
Let me tell you this, you may find yourself more motivated to do excellent work and learn amazing things if you are a big fish in a small pond.
Aren't most party schools "big ponds" though? But I guess being a big fish in a big pond is even better.
the talent pond
Out of curiosity, which school is this? (I mean the party school)
It could be UCSB. It's on the beach and the College of Creative Studies is pretty kick ass.
correct
It's a beautifully useless metric since no employer gives a hoot that you did not get into Harvard. They might be impressed that you did, but I've yet to be in a hiring interview where the candidate has been responsive, intelligent and knowledgeable and a glance at their resume led to the question 'well, with all that talent, how come you did not go to Harvard?'. Nobody gives a whit about how good you were at competing in the Ivy League admissions process. People do care about how well you can contribute to their business.
It's not that the employer cares about your failure to get into Harvard; it's that they may be impressed with the Harvard grad more.
I have seen cases where, given a choice between candidates, an Ivy-leaguer picked another Ivy-leaguer solely on that basis. You could argue that such a manager would be an idiot (and you'd be right) but the brand-name-school phenomenon affects even smart employers like Google and Microsoft. Someone with MIT, Stanford, or Waterloo credentials rises to the top of the resume pile more often.
I have seen cases where, given a choice between candidates, an Ivy-leaguer picked another Ivy-leaguer solely on that basis. You could argue that such a manager would be an idiot (and you'd be right) but the brand-name-school phenomenon affects even smart employers like Google and Microsoft. Someone with MIT, Stanford, or Waterloo credentials rises to the top of the resume pile more often.
There are places that do care. Google, for one. The entire finance industry (look where that got them!). Law, academia.
A top degree can make a big difference for the right kind of person, in certain fields. But doing something awesome usually makes a bigger difference, even there.
A top degree can make a big difference for the right kind of person, in certain fields. But doing something awesome usually makes a bigger difference, even there.
What I've come to realize about the "elite" universities is that they can make an average performer into a slightly above average performer, but the people that are really going to stand out from the crowd will stand out no matter where they go to school.
College admission is very much up to chance. My graduate school applications went to 10 very mediocre schools with money for teaching fellowships, all located in nice relaxing places. I figured they'd leave me alone and I could concentrate stress-free. My parents gave me $75 to apply to Yale since I otherwise refused. Got into Yale, but got rejected by 8 out the 10 other schools.
I think that undergraduate admission is more chance than graduate. By the time you enter graduate studies, you have a lot more time to distinguish yourself from other applicants.
I applied to ten Australian Universities that looked interesting without much real knowledge of their relative prestige. I got rejected by 8. The one I went to turned out to be the consistent no. 1 in the country. Until about my third year, I dismissed all of this as insider nonsense assuming that every Uni says this about themselves.
Admittedly, I don't think they really knew what to make of my application being one of presumable very applicants with those qualifications. In my case, it probably was close to random.
Admittedly, I don't think they really knew what to make of my application being one of presumable very applicants with those qualifications. In my case, it probably was close to random.
> The one I went to turned out to be the consistent no. 1 in the country.
For technology or business?
If the former, RMIT or ANU?
For technology or business?
If the former, RMIT or ANU?
ANU. I was talking about overall rankings. Not really sure how they calculate it.
eg http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/hybrid.asp?typeCode=14...
I think RMIT is more of a niche uni. Doesn't come in high on overall rankings. Australia has quite a few pretty average Unis with pockets in specific fields where they are the best. Makes you wonder how bad they are at everything else to bring down the overalls
eg http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/hybrid.asp?typeCode=14...
I think RMIT is more of a niche uni. Doesn't come in high on overall rankings. Australia has quite a few pretty average Unis with pockets in specific fields where they are the best. Makes you wonder how bad they are at everything else to bring down the overalls
RMIT? Really? Whilst researching things for work, I tend to run into more references to papers from UNSW than RMIT, although I tend only to see IT-related papers, not general technology. I know that RMIT is the best for Aeronautics.
Yeah, most of my RMIT knowledge has come from aeronautics students, but apparently they have a good rep in mechatronics too. Otherwise it's ANU all the way. Don't know much about UNSW.
This reminds of the Evan Williams quote from "Founders at Work" pg 124:
"luck comes in many forms -- and often looks bad at first. I always look back on the deals that we didn't do and the things that didn't work out, and realize what seemed like a bummer at the time was really lucky [...] if you have some plan and it doesn't go that way, roll with it. There's no way to know if it's good or bad until later, if ever."
"luck comes in many forms -- and often looks bad at first. I always look back on the deals that we didn't do and the things that didn't work out, and realize what seemed like a bummer at the time was really lucky [...] if you have some plan and it doesn't go that way, roll with it. There's no way to know if it's good or bad until later, if ever."
If you ever want an interesting look into the psyche of a person / have them reveal themselves, ask them to describe to you situations in which they were 'lucky'.
this sounds entirely like 'connecting the dots' from Steve Jobs famous speech.
find me a successful person who has never been rejected from something important to them... :)
I don't really see the point of this article.
Of course some people who were rejected get successful, and some who get into Harvard don't, it's not like it was possible to predict anyone success with 100 % accuracy.
It would be interresting to have the percentage of people who get into the best universities and succeed in their life, and the percentage of people who were rejected but still managed to succeed.
But we'll have to find a way to measure "success" first...
(Sorry for the spelling or grammar mistakes, I really need to improve my english)
> some who get into Harvard don't
For every Gates, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Page, or even Patzer, there are many who went to a top school who never did much or even really blew it. Part of me wants to see a post-mortem on their careers, much the way we review failed startups for "lessons learned"
For every Gates, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Page, or even Patzer, there are many who went to a top school who never did much or even really blew it. Part of me wants to see a post-mortem on their careers, much the way we review failed startups for "lessons learned"
"If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster and treat those two Impostors just the same" - Kipling.
* "The truth is, everything that has happened in my life...that I thought was a crushing event at the time, has turned out for the better," Mr. Buffett says *
I hear such things a lot ('whatever happens is for better', etc.), and in fact - agree. but it's really hard to accept a failure/rejection as a lesson or a bad-tasting-medicine at the time it happens to you...
but I guess knowing this at the very least gives motivation and helps one to remain more 'determined' http://www.paulgraham.com/determination.html (especially in the long run where your chances of giving up are pretty high)
I hear such things a lot ('whatever happens is for better', etc.), and in fact - agree. but it's really hard to accept a failure/rejection as a lesson or a bad-tasting-medicine at the time it happens to you...
but I guess knowing this at the very least gives motivation and helps one to remain more 'determined' http://www.paulgraham.com/determination.html (especially in the long run where your chances of giving up are pretty high)
Reminds me of http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1212519 ("Hey, what was the good news and what was the bad news?")
I've heard it said that comp sci students who get a 2b in honours, do better in their career than those who get a 1st. Makes sense for business (with prominent exceptions like Sergey and Larry.)
I've heard it said that comp sci students who get a 2b in honours, do better in their career than those who get a 1st. Makes sense for business (with prominent exceptions like Sergey and Larry.)
Isn't that just because in ye olden days before grade inflation relatively few people got 1sts in CS?
[deleted]
So, in summary, loads of famous and successful people got rejected from various Harvard, Duke, and Stanford schools, yet attended still attended top-tier universities and had a great experience. Not getting into your top choice for school? Hardly rejection...
Taking away someone's fear is always a good thing, but I'm afraid any conclusion from that article would be an exemplary case of survivor bias. Any conclusion other than that success is possible in spite of rejection anyway.
The mark of a successful person is how they deal with rejection, not that they've never been rejected.
As long as you keep trying and learn from your failures, chances are you will succeed in the long run.
As long as you keep trying and learn from your failures, chances are you will succeed in the long run.
One question about admission system and rejection
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1215456
Good thing for Warren that he got to learn under Graham directly. Getting rejected from med school isn't quite the same as getting rejected from college.
The other interesting thing is that Warren tried to work for Graham straight after graduation. Graham essentially said no until years later when Graham finally offered Buffett a job.
What's that say about Matt Damon and Bill Gates who essentially rejected Harvard? You must respect someone who, at such an early age, is wise enough to know that even Harvard isn't going to make them better off.
Looking back, 18 is so young. Just babies. It'd be really hard at that age to predict who among them will succeed.