Why wouldn't he get into Harvard? He had 1590 SAT scores and it wasn't because his parents forced him to cram. Does Harvard give you some kind of advantage that MIT does not? I'd argue that MIT grad would be much more likely to start a business than a Harvard grad.

He's never had a job outside of his own company. He's very driven. Read the autobiography.

What are you basing this on?

▲

zug_zug a day ago | parent [-]

> Why wouldn't he get into Harvard? He had 1590 SAT scores and it wasn't because his parents forced him to cram.

1600 is not enough to get into Harvard, AI estimates about 10-20% of those with perfect SATs do. I think he'd be more likely to get into MIT because he'd have extracurriculars and/or side projects that they'd value more.

> Read the autobiography.

I already have read his biography. I feel like you're getting really emotional about some pretty non-controversial claims. These aren't personal attacks if you're a big fan of his or something.

You just have to understand that there are only so many opportunities trillion-dollar companies per generation (just due to market dynamics). Being driven, having a high IQ, etc aren't as big predictors of success as having rich and connected family members.

▲

bko a day ago | parent | next [-]

Harvard is meaningless. Who cares if you get into Harvard? If you're "disadvantaged" or from the right demographic you're a lot more likely to get in.

Being driven and high IQ are much more predictive of success than having rich parents or connected family members. That could get you an internship or if your parents own a business get you a role there.

I don't know what I can do to convince you, but maybe look at people's kids and what they accomplish. In a few industries like acting it helps a lot. But the idea that desirable leadership roles or entrepreneurial success is allocated via nepotism rings hallow.

Also you have to realize that successful rich parents are often high IQ which they pass on to their children through genes. And they push hard work and education. It's a fairly non-controversial claim to say successful people work hard and are relatively smart, so I don't know what you're arguing.

	▲	ytoawwhra92 19 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Being driven and high IQ are much more predictive of success than having rich parents or connected family members. Are they? What are you basing that on? > But the idea that desirable leadership roles or entrepreneurial success is allocated via nepotism rings hallow. People in this thread are talking about structural advantages, not necessarily outright nepotism. Things like it being easier to take entrepreneurial risks if your parents are in a position to help you financially recover from personal bankruptcy. > It's a fairly non-controversial claim to say successful people work hard and are relatively smart, so I don't know what you're arguing. IME successful people have the same distributions of work ethic and intelligence as the general population. For every entrepreneur who fought tooth and nail for their success you have someone who flipped 10 coins in a row and got heads each time (metaphorically).

▲

SR2Z a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> 1600 is not enough to get into Harvard, AI estimates about 10-20% of those with perfect SATs do. I think he'd be more likely to get into MIT because he'd have extracurriculars and/or side projects that they'd value more.

The Harvard and SAT of today are not the same as when he was a teenager.

> You just have to understand that there are only so many opportunities trillion-dollar companies per generation (just due to market dynamics). Being driven, having a high IQ, etc aren't as big predictors of success as having rich and connected family members.

Having a high IQ and having a rich family member are both predictors of success. What's even more important is being lucky, but all three are critical.