on the contrary, hiring only 1% of people doesn’t mean you’re getting the best, because the people who are good only apply to a few places and immediately get in, and the bad people apply over and over again everywhere
when you get those 200 resumes, and hire the best person from the top 200, does that mean you’re hiring the top 0.5%?
“Maybe.”
No. You’re not. Think about what happens to the other 199 that you didn’t hire.
the bad people apply over and over again everywhere
In general I’d agree that this is the case, but many fellowship mentors are publicly talking about the high standard of the applicants, which is evidence against the fellowship applicants just being the bad people cycling through the process over and over again.
I’m sure there’s some non-zero number of applicants who should not be accepted because they don’t meet the bar, but I still believe there’s some number of applicants who are turned away not because they’re bad, but because the fellowship has limited capacity and they weren’t in the top-k of applicants.
on the contrary, hiring only 1% of people doesn’t mean you’re getting the best, because the people who are good only apply to a few places and immediately get in, and the bad people apply over and over again everywhere
https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2005/01/27/news-58
In general I’d agree that this is the case, but many fellowship mentors are publicly talking about the high standard of the applicants, which is evidence against the fellowship applicants just being the bad people cycling through the process over and over again.
I’m sure there’s some non-zero number of applicants who should not be accepted because they don’t meet the bar, but I still believe there’s some number of applicants who are turned away not because they’re bad, but because the fellowship has limited capacity and they weren’t in the top-k of applicants.