Hacker News Reader

Comment by jason13 | Hacker News Reader

I disagree with the writers assumption that the committees judgements are only inaccurate for the borderline cases. I think there are plenty of examples of committees judgements being wrong about candidates, that should have been viewed as outstanding.

View on HN

They're not judging the candidate, they're judging the application. The candidate might be outstanding but if the application does not convey this then the committee won't know.

With any application the you write take a step back, leave it for a few days and then look at it as if it was writen by someone else. You'll quickly see where your assumptions lie and what you've missed.

Yes, committees can do no wrong!!

Where did I say that? All I said was that you can make mistakes in borderline cases at little cost.

"There will be a few stars who clearly should make the team, and many players who clearly shouldn't. The only place your judgement makes a difference is in the borderline cases."

Jason13 is saying that there are plenty of cases where the "stars" often appear mediocre until they hit stardom, at which point it's too late to bid for their talent. It certainly makes a difference whether your team includes the stars or not, and since they often won't be obvious at the initial selection...

This is why I used picking an athletic team as an example. This is true with athletes, and I didn't want to blur together ordinary bad judgement with the specific kind of harmless miss that happens near the cutoff point.

I agree with you people should not feel bad personally when they do not make the "cut". But when people do feel bad about not making the cut...they usually are not thinking "I should have been judged as #499 instead of #501". They are more likely thinking, "I am way better than #500".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com