… for someone who is capable of succeeding at Harvard, FAANG, or consulting.<p>For the vast majority of the population, getting into Harvard isn’t possible. The admissions statistics show this, and there is already heavy selection bias in those who apply.<p>The author clearly learned to learn at Harvard, and has the raw materials to catch up from “procrastinating” in undergrad at Harvard.<p>I get the message. I do. But I also think a lot of our institutions and organizations are run by people who can’t get into Harvard or FAANGS, and they set up systems to give them a moat or competitive advantage that prevents raw talent from overtaking them or throwing them out. Power and influence can be achieved by force, intimidation, regulation, or inherited / collective wealth.<p>So bucking the trend is cool, but I think there is a limit it what it can do without frustrating the wrong people. Some (See Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg) are able to operate in a new field and set up a whole new thing, but most, who aren’t smart enough to get into Harvard, will see this advice and take it as an excuse for not being able to get into Ivy League schools or work at FAANGs. There’s a huge benefit from going there, seeing the competition, and knowing that one can play at that level.<p>I guess I’m commenting because I think it’s circling around this thing I’ve been thinking about, which may be more broadly applicable:<p>1) be careful who you put on a pedestal.<p>2) look for people who are gate keepers / influencers in your life. Are they fair to you? Should they be in that position?<p>3) to keep yourself from being limited, diversify the people in those roles in your life. Similar to Scott Adams, being top 80% in two areas is much easier (and potentially more profitable)than being top 1% in one very narrow field. You also are sort of carving your own way and playing in your own space.<p>Sorry for the comment length. I think the headline is sensationalist, but the content did make me think.