If it was for the academicians to decide entrepreneurial outcomes, they would have done it already with Psychometric MCQ tests. Luckily, that is not the case and will never be the case. But unfortunately there are many enthusiastic chaps.(not meant for Prof Mollick if you ever see this).
As I have discussed elsewhere, GRE’isation of entrepreneurship is an unrealized dream for the academic community who lived through many GRE’s and GMAT’s thinking that MCQ tests is equal to generalized intelligence. They will never give-up so easily and this study shared by Prof Mollick is a good example; “What matters more for entrepreneurship success? A meta‐analysis comparing general mental ability and emotional intelligence in entrepreneurial settings”
If it was for psychometric tests Richard Branson as a dyslexic wouldn’t have made it to become a billionaire entrepreneur;
Richard Branson writes
“When I was in my fifties, I was sat in a board meeting being taken through some financial figures when the subject of net and gross came up. I must admit I was quite confused – I didn’t know if the results were good or bad news.”…”As a dyslexic, I thought I’d been hiding my muddling of words and numbers well for years. But I’d been rumbled. I couldn’t tell the difference between net and gross.”Branson Blog
Accumulated advantage matters :
On the other hand accumulated advantage matters. Those with accumulated advantage might provide their kids with all kinds of resources to get admission to elite universities. This can give a false sense that because of higher education they become successful. This is wrong because they already are filthy rich and that’s why they got-in in the first place.
I am ending this point with a Nassim Thaleb BS expose or Exposayyy. He writes(blogpost)
“When the results come from dealing directly with reality rather than through the agency of commentators, image matters less, even if it correlates to skills. But image matters quite a bit when there is hierarchy and standardized “job evaluation”. Consider the chief executive officers of corporations: they not just look the part, but they even look the same. And, worse, when you listen to them talk, they will sound the same, down to the same vocabulary and metaphors. But that’s their jobs: as I keep reminding the reader, counter to the common belief, executives are different from entrepreneurs and are supposed to look like actors.”