Is that really the point worth focusing on here?

I think those ratios are more telling than the observation that people are indistinguishable _after_ your interviewing filter. Especially in the context of this topic.

Given that MIT grads are objectively superior to the rest of us that didn't get into any elite schools in basically every dimension I'd wager it's fairly high.

With that said, the Square interview process isn't as algorithmic as most tech or finance companies and is instead more collaborative, so the raw IQ most MIT grads would use for their Jane Street interviews probably doesn't apply here.

> Given that MIT grads are objectively superior to the rest of us that didn't get into any elite schools in basically every dimension I'd wager it's fairly high.

Genuflect when you say that fella.

You jest, but is it not accurate?

Your belief that somebody who got into MIT is “objectively superior” in “basically every dimension” compared to someone who didn’t is one of the cringiest thoughts I’ve seen expressed on HN and that is saying something.

I honestly thought (and still hope) that I missed the sarcasm.

Rich parents does a lot of lifting there.

Stephen Smale scored a Wolf Prize, a Fields Medal, a Sloane Fellowship and a slew of other accolades off the back of mediocre grades at the University of Michigan (a fairly decent public research uni I've heard but not as far as I know an "elite" school).

Looking around there's many a high achiever that missed out on a US Ivy League placing.

Don't know if Smale is a good example to use, since he did this 75 years ago! Back then the CUNY schools had similarly impressive graduates due to quotas at the elite schools. And Michigan is also a public ivy, though I'll concede it's more achievable to get into Michigan compared to Princeton (far more egalitarian in this regard).

I'll be honest, I'm sure there are some high achievers that missed out, but I haven't met a single one. Most very high achieving people I know that didn't go to top schools at least got into one (and usually multiple). I don't think there's any hope for my class of people.

You mean like Steve Jobs who, by your definition, didn’t go to a top school, but is more highly regarded than 99.99% of graduates of top schools?

Reed is a pretty selective and well regarded school, unlike the schools I got into.

It’s nowhere near the stature or notoriety of Princeton, Harvard, Yale, etc. It feels like you’re moving the goalpost.

Anyway, maybe you should change the way you measure yourself.

How else would I? Seems pretty clear how society views people like me

I don't know what subset of society you live in, but the university you attended is not commonly brought up in America. If you're referring to your intellectual aptitude rather than the credentials attached to your name, just try to be a good person and do the best you can with what you've got.

> but the university you attended is not commonly brought up in America.

yes, it is, and it's seen as a proxy for intellectual aptitude

And clearly since I have no intellectual aptitude...

I’ve lived in America all my life, and it isn’t commonly brought up in my American peer group.

You’re also conflating the perception of intellect with the actual possession of it. It seems like you don’t have much confident in your measure of either. Maybe find a therapist. Help with this is beyond the scope of HN comments.

There are countless people who have not attended a top tier college, e.g. people who might be regarded as “intellectually inferior” who are richer than you and I. Meditate on that.