50 · Autopsy of a Fan Letter

The bottleneck right now: I don't have a good system for cold outreach. What I send is basically an Instagram DM, and because the message is vague, the answers coming back are shallow. The current system: "Hello Herman! My name is Jamie Baek, and I applied for your course of Imperial EFDS last October. I truly respect your journey... First off, MASSIVE respect and props for getting into EFDS. I heard this course is technically one of the hardest, if not the most competitive, in the world — a phenomenal accomplishment. I guess it's normal to you by now, but don't forget millions dream of your school. I'm assuming you were the first batch — correct me if I'm wrong. I would really love any tips on the interviews! What were the main questions, how did you answer them, and in hindsight is there anything you'd have done differently? I'm also curious how you're liking (or stressing about) the course. Imperial is notorious for the courseload — how do you balance part-time work alongside it? If you'd be open to a short 10–15 minute call, I'd love to ask some quick questions! But I completely understand if you're busy. Thanks again Herman — true respect, you're living the dream life of millions of students!"

The anatomy: introduce myself; mention why I wanted to connect; praise (some glazing too); ask questions — but vaguely. And the diagnosis: the problem is you sound like a teenager fanboying a celebrity. There's a reason the current version is just pure shit.

Problem one: too much fanboying, too much emotional volatility — it immediately closes the door. Solution: frame the same information in a formal tone. "I applied for EFDS this year and I'm trying to understand the experience from students already in the programme." Problem two: do not frame yourself as inferior. Know your audience — Western culture rewards showing your accolades and achievements. Problem three: be sharply specific. "Would you say the interview focused more on statistics concepts or on general problem solving?" — rather than the broad "what did they ask?"

Your current message is not terrible. But it reads like a fan letter, not like someone serious. People at Imperial, Oxbridge, banks, funds respond best to clarity plus calm intelligence. Not hype. These people are working full-time, doing societies, managing courseloads with supervisions, family duties, formal dinners. You'll be treated as an NPC if that's how you position yourself. Three faults: too emotional ("MASSIVE respect," "dream life of millions"); too long — a burden, which defeats the purpose of outreach, which is getting them to simply open the door, so it must be as concise as possible; and too many questions at once. Seven questions is selfish. Why would someone managing millions a day at Citadel reply to a column of an outreach with no merit?

You want to signal: thoughtful, succinct, intellectually curious about ideas — not just careers and surface-level things — and respectful of time. That's what people reply to, and that's what opens the door.

Micro-imperfection signals authenticity. If the script is too polished, too demanding, too forward, it reads as fake. So how do we actually improve — how to sell, how to persuade — that craft is important.