Peter Thiel: $100k grant to 20 founders who drop out of school(thielfoundation.org)
thielfoundation.org
Peter Thiel: $100k grant to 20 founders who drop out of school
http://thielfoundation.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14:the-thiel-fellowship-20-under-20&catid=1&Itemid=16
12 comments
Olin College is one pioneering example. However, the main problem with the startup education + credential approach is that the barriers to such a school offering an accredited credential are overwhelming.
However, imo traditional universities also support founders and grant them a credential. Students typically have a lot more free time than if they were employed (depending on their major). It's just that the student would also have to be incredibly resistant to peer pressure.
However, imo traditional universities also support founders and grant them a credential. Students typically have a lot more free time than if they were employed (depending on their major). It's just that the student would also have to be incredibly resistant to peer pressure.
Olin College was amazing; I wish I'd been a year or two younger so I could have been part of the founding class.
They did backpedal a bit on the "free for everyone", unfortunately.
They did backpedal a bit on the "free for everyone", unfortunately.
That just seems like a bad idea. Aren't successful dropouts an edge-case?
Successful founders are already edge cases, and these grants won't be handed out to the stereotypical "dropped out to play World of Warcraft" population. If someone is capable and driven enough to attract these sort of awards, I wouldn't expect their (dis)taste for formal education to have much effect on their odds of success.
I think the real point here is that they are making bets on the young and idealistic kids that haven't been tarnished by years of drudgery, beauracracy, and being told that they can't do things. So they do whatever wild ideas interest them, and if any one of those kids happened to be right about something that more 'educated' people would consider idiotic, it's a massive win. Kind of like the old DARPA approach or Google's 20% time. In that respect going after dropouts would make a lot of sense, since those are going to be the types that care less about following the establishment and will be more likely to execute genuinely novel ideas.
I think the real point here is that they are making bets on the young and idealistic kids that haven't been tarnished by years of drudgery, beauracracy, and being told that they can't do things. So they do whatever wild ideas interest them, and if any one of those kids happened to be right about something that more 'educated' people would consider idiotic, it's a massive win. Kind of like the old DARPA approach or Google's 20% time. In that respect going after dropouts would make a lot of sense, since those are going to be the types that care less about following the establishment and will be more likely to execute genuinely novel ideas.
I'm 30, and I've worked at various corporations, both small and large, for 5 years. I've never once been told "I can't do things". Not once. Rather the opposite - I've worked with people who went on to found start-ups, and I've learned a great deal from my colleagues.
The larger question is: should a person in a position of power be encouraging young people to drop out of school? It strikes me as irresponsible.
The larger question is: should a person in a position of power be encouraging young people to drop out of school? It strikes me as irresponsible.
Really like this part:
"Because education seeks to impart past knowledge, when you are trying to create a technological breakthrough, you have to create new knowledge, and there is no way to teach that. There was no course at University of Arizona on ‘‘how to cure aging.' Hopefully, this program will allow others to work on ambitious projects themselves, before they've taken on a crippling amount of student debt,”
"Because education seeks to impart past knowledge, when you are trying to create a technological breakthrough, you have to create new knowledge, and there is no way to teach that. There was no course at University of Arizona on ‘‘how to cure aging.' Hopefully, this program will allow others to work on ambitious projects themselves, before they've taken on a crippling amount of student debt,”
I'm curious how he expects people to study "how to cure aging" without first becoming "knowledgeable in biology". Scientific breakthroughs are rarely made by people who aren't familiar with the existing state of the science they work in ("past knowledge").
There's definitely ways besides university courses that you can pick up that past knowledge (Einstein spent about 10 years studying physics in a sort of unofficial study group before he set off in his own radically new direction). But surely you have to pick up at least the equivalent of an undergrad science degree worth of past knowledge somehow. Thiel sounds sort of like a messianic-futurist religious figure if he really thinks otherwise.
It's possible it'll work anyway, because presumably his grants don't actually require people who receive them to refrain from studying past knowledge. ;-)
edit: It looks like that quote is actually from William Andregg, not Peter Thiel. Andregg doesn't seem to take it too literally, though, because his own company's job openings have pretty detailed past-knowledge requirements ("The chemist should have a deep theoretical as well as practical familiarity with essential analytical techniques such as NMR, LCMS, elemental analysis, UV-Vis, and others. An understanding of surface chemistry/analysis, and experience working with nucleic acids in monomer, oligo, long, single stranded, and double stranded forms would also be valuable.").
There's definitely ways besides university courses that you can pick up that past knowledge (Einstein spent about 10 years studying physics in a sort of unofficial study group before he set off in his own radically new direction). But surely you have to pick up at least the equivalent of an undergrad science degree worth of past knowledge somehow. Thiel sounds sort of like a messianic-futurist religious figure if he really thinks otherwise.
It's possible it'll work anyway, because presumably his grants don't actually require people who receive them to refrain from studying past knowledge. ;-)
edit: It looks like that quote is actually from William Andregg, not Peter Thiel. Andregg doesn't seem to take it too literally, though, because his own company's job openings have pretty detailed past-knowledge requirements ("The chemist should have a deep theoretical as well as practical familiarity with essential analytical techniques such as NMR, LCMS, elemental analysis, UV-Vis, and others. An understanding of surface chemistry/analysis, and experience working with nucleic acids in monomer, oligo, long, single stranded, and double stranded forms would also be valuable.").
> There's definitely ways besides university courses that you can pick up that past knowledge
And the amount of damage done by universities is now so severe that I've switched from telling people "Don't try following in my footsteps" to telling them "Okay, maybe you should get the hell out of school."
And the amount of damage done by universities is now so severe that I've switched from telling people "Don't try following in my footsteps" to telling them "Okay, maybe you should get the hell out of school."
I guess I haven't found much outright damage myself, though maybe I got lucky. Whether it was the best or most cost-effective way to learn stuff (not counting the employability value of the degree) is another question, but my comp. sci. degree imo was a reasonably useful way of learning some CS basics. Some of the choice of topics was arbitrary and would've been different at another school, but it's all stuff I should eventually have learned anyway.
That's interesting. What do you recommend they do instead? [I know you're an autodidact, and so am I - apparently you're a lot better at it than I am though]
It's romantic to imagine you can make breakthroughs without a solid grounding, so the image is promoted, and occasionally you get people like this with a handle on a lot of money who subscribe to the image.
What if someone has a good mentor in a field that helps them along to way in selecting what to study? For the most part someone who isn't a graduate should be able to access the same papers as people doing post grad, given enough motivation and a bit of guidance I don't see why they couldn't get to the top for their field.
cargo culting
Why? I'm toying with idea of applying, but why is it cargo culting?
I would love it if someone allowed me the time and the intellectual freedom to make things instead of filling in tiny, dark circles on a piece of paper as proof that I'm worthy enough of a future as judged by some vague overlord.
I want to learn and understand things thoroughly, but I will not learn anything to pass some exam. So, for someone like me, but smarter and more driven, this might actually be a net win. I fail to understand how this might be a cargo cult.
I would love it if someone allowed me the time and the intellectual freedom to make things instead of filling in tiny, dark circles on a piece of paper as proof that I'm worthy enough of a future as judged by some vague overlord.
I want to learn and understand things thoroughly, but I will not learn anything to pass some exam. So, for someone like me, but smarter and more driven, this might actually be a net win. I fail to understand how this might be a cargo cult.
You should apply. Out of curiosity, what's your age? Have you dropped out?
18. I'm yet to enter college as I took this year off to figure stuff out and work on something...
On the other hand, I doubt that I will apply. I just don't think that I'm good enough for such programs, and why add more noise?
On the other hand, I doubt that I will apply. I just don't think that I'm good enough for such programs, and why add more noise?
It's your job to apply if you feel you could put the grant to good use. It's their job to pick the candidates that qualify based on their internal criteria. Don't try to do their job for them - they're much better at it than you. At best, you're depriving them, yourself, and the world from a potential breakthrough. At worst, you'll get a polite rejection letter.
I guess, you're right. I will do it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thanks!
You don't know what a college program is like yet, it won't be all about scantron multiple choice questions. It should be hard, and you should get exposed to alot of material you hadn't been exposed to. Some of it will be stupid, but that will be a small percentage.
Yes - you could theoretically learn all the stuff you need to learn off of something like opencourseware - but will you?
And there's some cool stuff that will be much harder to learn on your own because you don't have the equipment. The 2 I have in mind are FPGA design, and feedback control systems (balancing pendulums, levitating metal balls with magnetic fields, autonomous race cars)
Yes - you could theoretically learn all the stuff you need to learn off of something like opencourseware - but will you?
And there's some cool stuff that will be much harder to learn on your own because you don't have the equipment. The 2 I have in mind are FPGA design, and feedback control systems (balancing pendulums, levitating metal balls with magnetic fields, autonomous race cars)
Curiously enough I have made something analogous to your metal ball levitation. I put most of my school year into it, learnt a lot through OCW and it worked.
A good college program is like that, but where I live college programs are about reading books, sitting in lectures and getting good grades. I just have this funny feeling that it isn't for me. That said if I had to choose between MIT and Peter Thiel then I would choose MIT hands down no matter what.
A good college program is like that, but where I live college programs are about reading books, sitting in lectures and getting good grades. I just have this funny feeling that it isn't for me. That said if I had to choose between MIT and Peter Thiel then I would choose MIT hands down no matter what.
Exactly what I was going to say. He might as well give 20 kids $100 000 each to get dorky haircuts hoping that they each become the next Bill Gates.
I think it's a really stupid idea to link a grant to dropping out of school. If an idea is worth a $100000 grant, why does it stop being worth that money as soon as someone turns 21 or has a degree?
I did drop out of school and I don't regret it. Many dropouts are very successful, many more are not. And to be honest, I would sue that guy if my kids dropped out of a computational biology program to go write some social picture upload site in PHP.
The odds of some web startup working are non zero. But the odds of doing something more interesting later with that degree are also non zero. Computational biologists can create social picture upload sites as well, even when they're over 20 believe it or not.
I did drop out of school and I don't regret it. Many dropouts are very successful, many more are not. And to be honest, I would sue that guy if my kids dropped out of a computational biology program to go write some social picture upload site in PHP.
The odds of some web startup working are non zero. But the odds of doing something more interesting later with that degree are also non zero. Computational biologists can create social picture upload sites as well, even when they're over 20 believe it or not.
College-aged people are grown-up enough to live their own lives. I know it would be painful to see one's child getting involved with PHP, but in the end that should be their own choice to make.
Absolutely, I just don't want some rich guy bribing them to drop out. If they develop a great passion for a startup idea, I will provide that grant myself after a period of time and after a rigorous debate.
What the heck do you think Peter Thiel's evil motives are here? He's trying to help those people and disagrees with you about how best to help them.
I would hope the point of the foundation is for people whose parents cannot provide the grant after the rigorous debate.
The discussion prior to applying for the grant is a function of your family, not of the grant. Though I would also think that Peter would only fund people who have worthwhile ideas.
The discussion prior to applying for the grant is a function of your family, not of the grant. Though I would also think that Peter would only fund people who have worthwhile ideas.
My initial reaction was that I agreed with you - but then I considered that an awful lot has changed in the 20+ years since I graduated with a CS degree (and indeed I dropped out from the latter stages of a PhD to co-found a startup).
I have an 11 year old son and his school has started to talk about University (mostly as vieled threats of - if he keeps his attitude to homework up he won't get into a good University etc.). By I do keep asking myself what the value of a degree is - I enjoyed the course I did immensely but I have to say that I've never regretted dropping out of the PhD I was doing, so why should this not apply to a first degree?
I suspect that, on balance, that if my son was 19 and got this offer I would say "go for it" - the experience, the opportunity and the exposure you would get is likely to be worth far more than any purely academic qualification.
I have an 11 year old son and his school has started to talk about University (mostly as vieled threats of - if he keeps his attitude to homework up he won't get into a good University etc.). By I do keep asking myself what the value of a degree is - I enjoyed the course I did immensely but I have to say that I've never regretted dropping out of the PhD I was doing, so why should this not apply to a first degree?
I suspect that, on balance, that if my son was 19 and got this offer I would say "go for it" - the experience, the opportunity and the exposure you would get is likely to be worth far more than any purely academic qualification.
What if it turns out you're a lousy entrepreneur and still want to solve hard problems? Without a degree, you're forced to be an entrepreneur. They won't employ you to work on interesting problems without any kind of formal education. Not having a PhD isn't quite the same.
It is all about risk/reward - I would assume that nobody hands out $100K without a large degree of due diligence. So by crossing that hurdle you probably have gained enough of a reputation that would equal (or exceed) the value of a CS degree.
I would also guess that most universities would allow you to put your course of hold for a year or two - keeping your options open.
I would also dispute the question about whether you need a degree (or even a higher degree) to work on "hard problems" - to me, basic aptitude, ability to self learn and sheer drive are far more important than academic qualifications of any kind. The only area where higher degrees are an absolute requirement being a few exceptionally picky employers and academia itself.
I would also guess that most universities would allow you to put your course of hold for a year or two - keeping your options open.
I would also dispute the question about whether you need a degree (or even a higher degree) to work on "hard problems" - to me, basic aptitude, ability to self learn and sheer drive are far more important than academic qualifications of any kind. The only area where higher degrees are an absolute requirement being a few exceptionally picky employers and academia itself.
I really want to agree with you as I don't have a degree. Still I don't see why dropping out of school or being under 21 should be a precondition for a grant. That reeks of politicking.
Learning is a life long process. I would very much encourage my kid to do it - they would get to bring a passionate idea to fruitition, get exposed to running a company and get mentored by very smart entrepreneurs.
If it doesnt work out, I'll still pay for them to finish their degree the next year.
What is the downside?
If it doesnt work out, I'll still pay for them to finish their degree the next year.
What is the downside?
Good if it works out like that. But what's the point of linking the grant to dropping out?
It makes a political statement that may or may not be appropriate, and helps him target the funding. I personally think it would be morally hazardous as an investment, but it is hard to fault as a grant. The requirement may simply be to avoid having kids continue with their schoolwork on the side.
>>>And to be honest, I would sue that guy if my kids dropped out of a computational biology program to go write some social picture upload site in PHP.<<<
That's precisely the problem. Writing a social picture upload site in :gasp: PHP has become a well trodden path of sorts. A supposedly sure shot guarantee for something vague and undefined. I think that the problem with trends is that the minute something becomes a trend. It stops being something worthwhile 15 minutes before that.
What's so shocking and wrong to walk off the well worn path? If they actually choose to use the $100,000 to work on something meaningful then the world might actually be a better place.
Of course, you say they don't know the basics yet! That's the interesting thing. When you learn something in the heat of passion then you burn through the same material at a rate faster than you could have ever dream of. You learn through trial and error. Understand things at a deeper level to make stuff work. Why is that so wrong?
Instead of some dumb exam your trial now lies in your creation. It either works. Or, it doesn't. Period.
Wasn't this the entire point of having an education in the first place?
That's precisely the problem. Writing a social picture upload site in :gasp: PHP has become a well trodden path of sorts. A supposedly sure shot guarantee for something vague and undefined. I think that the problem with trends is that the minute something becomes a trend. It stops being something worthwhile 15 minutes before that.
What's so shocking and wrong to walk off the well worn path? If they actually choose to use the $100,000 to work on something meaningful then the world might actually be a better place.
Of course, you say they don't know the basics yet! That's the interesting thing. When you learn something in the heat of passion then you burn through the same material at a rate faster than you could have ever dream of. You learn through trial and error. Understand things at a deeper level to make stuff work. Why is that so wrong?
Instead of some dumb exam your trial now lies in your creation. It either works. Or, it doesn't. Period.
Wasn't this the entire point of having an education in the first place?
I don't need to be convinced that learning can be much much more intense than it usually is in school.
So, should you not celebrate such an endeavor?
No, everything about it is nonsensical. Learning can be much more intense than in school just as working can be much more intense than in some 9 to 5 job. It's not a matter of age at all.
Getting a degree has other benefits. You might develop a passion for something you didn't know before. Something that's not as approachable as PHP. Something harder. Instead of a one off payment, a degree might enable you to fund your own startup whenever you have that great idea or develop a passion for something.
What if that social picture upload site bores you after a while or doesn't make you rich and you'd rather write algorithms to find patterns in cancer genes? Where will Peter Thiel be when you decide you want to go back to uni to study theoretical physics because you hate PHP?
Getting a degree has other benefits. You might develop a passion for something you didn't know before. Something that's not as approachable as PHP. Something harder. Instead of a one off payment, a degree might enable you to fund your own startup whenever you have that great idea or develop a passion for something.
What if that social picture upload site bores you after a while or doesn't make you rich and you'd rather write algorithms to find patterns in cancer genes? Where will Peter Thiel be when you decide you want to go back to uni to study theoretical physics because you hate PHP?
I understand.
My point is that I don't want to write a bunch of idiotic code to serve up images on the web no matter how much money that would bring. I would rather write algorithms that simulate the cellular environment as you said, but in this case wouldn't it be better to follow a path like this? Using the money to focus on what you need to learn and working with people who actually know what they're talking about?
It's fine if you get into an awesome college like MIT and Stanford where you can do something analogous to this through UROPs, but what about those kids who can't afford it? Wouldn't this be a golden opportunity to them?
Yet again, just like in college it depends on what kind of person you are. If you want to just chase dollars then you really might be better off in school, but if you want to work hard on hard problems and actually make a contribution. Then this just might be the best thing in the world. For example, where I live an undergrad doing research is unheard of. It's pure sanctimonious nonsense. Students are expected to mug up for exams get good grades, get a job then go do their masters. Or, do a MBA and then.... Well I guess you get the drift.
What happens to someone passionate in a grind like that? For someone like that Peter Thiel's endeavor might actually make a lot of sense.
My point is that I don't want to write a bunch of idiotic code to serve up images on the web no matter how much money that would bring. I would rather write algorithms that simulate the cellular environment as you said, but in this case wouldn't it be better to follow a path like this? Using the money to focus on what you need to learn and working with people who actually know what they're talking about?
It's fine if you get into an awesome college like MIT and Stanford where you can do something analogous to this through UROPs, but what about those kids who can't afford it? Wouldn't this be a golden opportunity to them?
Yet again, just like in college it depends on what kind of person you are. If you want to just chase dollars then you really might be better off in school, but if you want to work hard on hard problems and actually make a contribution. Then this just might be the best thing in the world. For example, where I live an undergrad doing research is unheard of. It's pure sanctimonious nonsense. Students are expected to mug up for exams get good grades, get a job then go do their masters. Or, do a MBA and then.... Well I guess you get the drift.
What happens to someone passionate in a grind like that? For someone like that Peter Thiel's endeavor might actually make a lot of sense.
I don't deny that it could be an opportunity for someone. But to provide that opportunity, the stipulation that you need to drop out of school is completely unnecessary. It excludes other people who might have good ideas and passion as well. This is Peter Thiel making a point about the education system. I get that point, but I don't like the way he makes it.
The issue this. If someone likes to solve hard problems but isn't a good entrepreneur he/she needs a degree. Just look at who Google hires. Or Halcyon Molecular, the company mentioned in the article (http://halcyonmolecular.com/team/positions-available/). We need many more people solving hard problems than we will have good entrepreneurs. Getting that degree means to leave a door open that you can walk through if it turns out you're a lousy entrepreneur but still want to solve hard problems. That said, it's better to drop out of school than be totally frustrated by it. It's better regardless of whether you get a $100,000 grant or not.
[Apparently Paul Graham doesn't like our debate though. It's a flame war apparently, even though I didn't think it was. That's why it takes longer and longer and loooonger for the "reply" link to appear]
The issue this. If someone likes to solve hard problems but isn't a good entrepreneur he/she needs a degree. Just look at who Google hires. Or Halcyon Molecular, the company mentioned in the article (http://halcyonmolecular.com/team/positions-available/). We need many more people solving hard problems than we will have good entrepreneurs. Getting that degree means to leave a door open that you can walk through if it turns out you're a lousy entrepreneur but still want to solve hard problems. That said, it's better to drop out of school than be totally frustrated by it. It's better regardless of whether you get a $100,000 grant or not.
[Apparently Paul Graham doesn't like our debate though. It's a flame war apparently, even though I didn't think it was. That's why it takes longer and longer and loooonger for the "reply" link to appear]
Nah. If my guess is right then it's an exponential function of some sort. You know, the deeper nested the reply the greater the power of some f(x) and longer the time it takes for the reply to hit. There is a way around it though. If you directly link to a comment. A reply box automatically appears.
You know, what I haven't mentioned so far is that I want to go back to college someday and learn everything I can for the sheer pleasure of it. Perhaps, even get that oft dreamed of PhD. So, yes I understand your point, but don't you think that it will be a net win to apprentice under people like Peter Thiel?
He can teach anyone a lot about how to actually get around the entire changing the world charade. If it doesn't work out then fine you have a line on your CV re-enter college and apply whatever you've learnt over there. In a lot of ways that would be the most fruitful thing to do as real knowledge really lies between intersections of concepts. It's like one line of thought represents this plane on which we can walk, but the weird stuff always happens in the intersections of planes. Two, three or more concepts meeting and making shapes that confound us. If you really want to do something with your life then training under someone like that would be like magic.
He could probably teach me more about navigating that space than 90% of the college professors out there. So, in a way it's still a net win, don't you agree?
You know, what I haven't mentioned so far is that I want to go back to college someday and learn everything I can for the sheer pleasure of it. Perhaps, even get that oft dreamed of PhD. So, yes I understand your point, but don't you think that it will be a net win to apprentice under people like Peter Thiel?
He can teach anyone a lot about how to actually get around the entire changing the world charade. If it doesn't work out then fine you have a line on your CV re-enter college and apply whatever you've learnt over there. In a lot of ways that would be the most fruitful thing to do as real knowledge really lies between intersections of concepts. It's like one line of thought represents this plane on which we can walk, but the weird stuff always happens in the intersections of planes. Two, three or more concepts meeting and making shapes that confound us. If you really want to do something with your life then training under someone like that would be like magic.
He could probably teach me more about navigating that space than 90% of the college professors out there. So, in a way it's still a net win, don't you agree?
Ah, brilliant I didn't know that direct link trick :-) I know it's some function that determines when the link appears, but PG wrote that function (presumably) with some intention that I don't really understand. Some very crude form of stopping flame wars I would have suspected.
I don't know that it's that simple to go back to uni any time you want. You need the funding, you need to be admitted, you need to find the motivation, and depending on your age, some carreer paths might be closed at that point.
That said, I agree that it could be a great experience being coached by Thiel and his guys. Personally I would definately prefer that to a university degree. If kids learn that much though, why can this not be done in cooperation with some university so those kids get a degree afterwards? I feel a bit strange making the case for formal education as I'm usually on the other side of this debate and I dropped out of school the day the law let me.
I don't know that it's that simple to go back to uni any time you want. You need the funding, you need to be admitted, you need to find the motivation, and depending on your age, some carreer paths might be closed at that point.
That said, I agree that it could be a great experience being coached by Thiel and his guys. Personally I would definately prefer that to a university degree. If kids learn that much though, why can this not be done in cooperation with some university so those kids get a degree afterwards? I feel a bit strange making the case for formal education as I'm usually on the other side of this debate and I dropped out of school the day the law let me.
Meh. It's a sign that I've been playing with HN far too long.
You know nothing worth doing is ever that easy. At my age going to university is fraught with problems too and I doubt it that I will be able to get the most out of the experience as compared to the bleak old age of 25. I've just got too many issues to worth through to do anything else. It's tiring. So, this actually makes a lot of sense.
I think that it's a statement about commitment. He's blowing $100k on these kids and they better put their eggs where their mouth is. I know that it is impossible to juggle both college and something like this at once, and it would be a tiring endeavor to tie up with schools. Plus it's awesome PR. So, I guess he didn't think twice about tying up with someone.
Anyway, it was awesome talking to you. :)
Take care.
You know nothing worth doing is ever that easy. At my age going to university is fraught with problems too and I doubt it that I will be able to get the most out of the experience as compared to the bleak old age of 25. I've just got too many issues to worth through to do anything else. It's tiring. So, this actually makes a lot of sense.
I think that it's a statement about commitment. He's blowing $100k on these kids and they better put their eggs where their mouth is. I know that it is impossible to juggle both college and something like this at once, and it would be a tiring endeavor to tie up with schools. Plus it's awesome PR. So, I guess he didn't think twice about tying up with someone.
Anyway, it was awesome talking to you. :)
Take care.
See?
I can go as deep as I want as quickly as I want now.
I really think that someone should email mr. Graham about this.
edit: I just did. :)
I really think that someone should email mr. Graham about this.
edit: I just did. :)
> I would sue that guy if my kids dropped out of a computational biology program to go write some social picture upload site in PHP.
So, your kid applies for a grant because he thinks it's good for his life. The Thiel Foundation gives him $100,000. And you'd like to sue the foundation for giving your kid money that the kid applied for to do what he wants with? That's... kind of crazy to me.
So, your kid applies for a grant because he thinks it's good for his life. The Thiel Foundation gives him $100,000. And you'd like to sue the foundation for giving your kid money that the kid applied for to do what he wants with? That's... kind of crazy to me.
No, you shouldn't take "sue" too literally. I know it's totally impractical. I just think it's a stupid and completely unnecessary stipulation to _require_ kids to drop out of school and at the same time exclude everyone else who might have a good idea and a passion.
> No, you shouldn't take "sue" too literally. I know it's totally impractical.
Okay, that makes sense.
> I just think it's a stupid and completely unnecessary stipulation to _require_ kids to drop out of school and at the same time exclude everyone else who might have a good idea and a passion.
I kind of like it, myself. He's partially making a statement about the mainstream education path - personally, I think people would be better off if they worked and/or traveled from 18 to 20 or so, and then went into university with some experience and critical thinking.
I remember I went back to university some years after dropping out, and I already had experience in entrepreneurship and writing the popular company newsletter, as well as writing contracts, specs, marketing materials, and lots of communications with clients, staff, contractors, etc. Back at university, I had a required course on writing. It was taught by a young adjunct English professor who had done less writing than me whose ideas were absolutely terrible. She was big on form and rules, but didn't understand that the point of writing is to communicate. Her rules were getting in the way of communication. Luckily, I knew better, so I did what I could to get through the class but didn't let her corrode my practical writing with her rules-based nonsense. Especially in business, it's important to communicate clearly - none of the most successful people I know obey grammar and rules very strictly. I feel bad for the younger people that get exposed to such poor quality ideas before seeing how the real world operates.
Okay, that makes sense.
> I just think it's a stupid and completely unnecessary stipulation to _require_ kids to drop out of school and at the same time exclude everyone else who might have a good idea and a passion.
I kind of like it, myself. He's partially making a statement about the mainstream education path - personally, I think people would be better off if they worked and/or traveled from 18 to 20 or so, and then went into university with some experience and critical thinking.
I remember I went back to university some years after dropping out, and I already had experience in entrepreneurship and writing the popular company newsletter, as well as writing contracts, specs, marketing materials, and lots of communications with clients, staff, contractors, etc. Back at university, I had a required course on writing. It was taught by a young adjunct English professor who had done less writing than me whose ideas were absolutely terrible. She was big on form and rules, but didn't understand that the point of writing is to communicate. Her rules were getting in the way of communication. Luckily, I knew better, so I did what I could to get through the class but didn't let her corrode my practical writing with her rules-based nonsense. Especially in business, it's important to communicate clearly - none of the most successful people I know obey grammar and rules very strictly. I feel bad for the younger people that get exposed to such poor quality ideas before seeing how the real world operates.
There's nothing preventing your communications from having good grammar. Are you really saying that good grammar would have detracted from your communications? I'm curious.
> Are you really saying that good grammar would have detracted from your communications? I'm curious.
I am saying that, yes. Basically, the time it takes to filter a complex thought into correct grammar is frequently a waste of thought cycles.
An example - I was invited to lunch with a good friend of mine who was a broker, and with a top real estate developer in Los Angeles. The developer was an immigrant to America, and he's really rough around the edges. Mid-lunch he calls out, "Water no cold!" to the staff. (He meant no ice. They figured it out)
I'll use run on sentences if it lets me construct an idea the way I want. I'll use the dash sometimes - y'know, kind of like that, even if it's not appropriate. Sometimes I'll comma sentences together, like I did the sentence before this, even if it's not strictly correct.
As long as it reads correctly to people and ideas get across, it works. Kill floweryness. Kill fluff. When I write to my literary agent to schedule a meeting, he writes back "confirmed" - nothing else. First time I saw that, I was like, "Well, that's kind of short of him." But then when I saw how fast he responds and how much he got done, I started just writing "Confirmed." to people. Though, I capitalized the "C" and added a period, so maybe I'm not in his ballpark yet.
You gotta think what your goal is when you write - if taking the time to grammar-ize something correctly doesn't help you get that goal, forget the grammar. Communicate your message clearly, that's all that matters.
I am saying that, yes. Basically, the time it takes to filter a complex thought into correct grammar is frequently a waste of thought cycles.
An example - I was invited to lunch with a good friend of mine who was a broker, and with a top real estate developer in Los Angeles. The developer was an immigrant to America, and he's really rough around the edges. Mid-lunch he calls out, "Water no cold!" to the staff. (He meant no ice. They figured it out)
I'll use run on sentences if it lets me construct an idea the way I want. I'll use the dash sometimes - y'know, kind of like that, even if it's not appropriate. Sometimes I'll comma sentences together, like I did the sentence before this, even if it's not strictly correct.
As long as it reads correctly to people and ideas get across, it works. Kill floweryness. Kill fluff. When I write to my literary agent to schedule a meeting, he writes back "confirmed" - nothing else. First time I saw that, I was like, "Well, that's kind of short of him." But then when I saw how fast he responds and how much he got done, I started just writing "Confirmed." to people. Though, I capitalized the "C" and added a period, so maybe I'm not in his ballpark yet.
You gotta think what your goal is when you write - if taking the time to grammar-ize something correctly doesn't help you get that goal, forget the grammar. Communicate your message clearly, that's all that matters.
I agree that a message needs to be communicated clearly and that whatever aids in the message's clarity should be used (or left out).
The example from your literary agent makes sense only in the context of scheduling a meeting--the day, time, and place (or medium) you have suggested. This goes, it seems to me, to a message's completeness. Sure, your agent is efficient as long as the agent's confirmation is held in the context of your request. But on its own, the agent's message falls short.
Grammar and punctuation should aid in concise and complete communication. I love the way many authors can skirt good grammar while achieving better communication. So I agree with your conclusion. Tim
The example from your literary agent makes sense only in the context of scheduling a meeting--the day, time, and place (or medium) you have suggested. This goes, it seems to me, to a message's completeness. Sure, your agent is efficient as long as the agent's confirmation is held in the context of your request. But on its own, the agent's message falls short.
Grammar and punctuation should aid in concise and complete communication. I love the way many authors can skirt good grammar while achieving better communication. So I agree with your conclusion. Tim
I actually agree with the main point. In every one of the examples, however, the person who spoke isn't thinking about communication, but about himself.
"Water no cold!" may result in snickers amongst the wait staff, and they may not even understand. "Water, no ice please" is certainly more respectful and appropriate. Simply saying "confirmed" is easier for your agent, but it may insult the recipient by being so terse.
Use good grammar with acquaintances to show respect and professionalism. Use your own style with people who know you well to show your personality.
"Water no cold!" may result in snickers amongst the wait staff, and they may not even understand. "Water, no ice please" is certainly more respectful and appropriate. Simply saying "confirmed" is easier for your agent, but it may insult the recipient by being so terse.
Use good grammar with acquaintances to show respect and professionalism. Use your own style with people who know you well to show your personality.
Unlike what linguists would have you believe language is really bendy (check out Pinker's work http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/index.html ) and you can play around with it a lot.
Which linguist worth his money doesn't believe language is really bendy?
What if your kids didn't really enjoy computational biology but were passionate about building web products?
Then they drop out of school, as I did, and don't need to be bribed to do so.
20 is arbitrary, I don't understand why they would choose 20, especially since some of the people mentioned in the article have degrees or started after 20. Also, I'd like to know when they got funded, it seems many of the [other] companies that Thiel has invested in had founders over 20.
Elon Musk dropped out at age 24 - started Zip2.
Scott Banister started ListBot at age 20.
Mark Zuckerberg started Facebook at age 20 dropped out at 20.
William Andregg no info.
Peter Thiel himself graduated (J.D. from Stanford in 1992)
Add info or submit corrections.
Elon Musk dropped out at age 24 - started Zip2.
Scott Banister started ListBot at age 20.
Mark Zuckerberg started Facebook at age 20 dropped out at 20.
William Andregg no info.
Peter Thiel himself graduated (J.D. from Stanford in 1992)
Add info or submit corrections.
This could have a great return on investment and probably quiet many of the naysayers when successful companies roll out of it.
He will likely have a lot of candidates responding to this (I sure as hell would have in college) and be able to pick and choose the top of the crop. No one else is proactively going after this huge talent pool.
And it could also be a lifesaver for would-be entrepreneurs that come out of college with $80k of debt and forced to work for someone else.
He will likely have a lot of candidates responding to this (I sure as hell would have in college) and be able to pick and choose the top of the crop. No one else is proactively going after this huge talent pool.
And it could also be a lifesaver for would-be entrepreneurs that come out of college with $80k of debt and forced to work for someone else.
It will be interesting to see what comes of these grants.
I feel that the companies that were successful when their founders dropped out of school were driven by a founder who believed so intently and was committed to his idea that he was willing to drop out and pursue it despite the lack of incentive to do so. Instead of the alternative where a halfway decent guy who just isn't that happy at school goes off to pursue some startup because someone gave him a decent amount of money which i suspect will end in failure almost all the time.
I feel that the companies that were successful when their founders dropped out of school were driven by a founder who believed so intently and was committed to his idea that he was willing to drop out and pursue it despite the lack of incentive to do so. Instead of the alternative where a halfway decent guy who just isn't that happy at school goes off to pursue some startup because someone gave him a decent amount of money which i suspect will end in failure almost all the time.
So basically $100k for some teens to build a bunch of RoR CRUD sites.
And ""Our world needs more breakthrough technologies,” said Thiel. "From Facebook to SpaceX to Halcyon Molecular, some of the world's most transformational technologies were created by people who stopped out of school because they had ideas that couldn't wait until graduation. "
Don't know about the other companies beside Facebook, but it seems that Facebook doesn't belong on that list of "breakthrough technologies"
And ""Our world needs more breakthrough technologies,” said Thiel. "From Facebook to SpaceX to Halcyon Molecular, some of the world's most transformational technologies were created by people who stopped out of school because they had ideas that couldn't wait until graduation. "
Don't know about the other companies beside Facebook, but it seems that Facebook doesn't belong on that list of "breakthrough technologies"
Facebook has some very interesting open source projects: http://github.com/facebook
Particularly interesting to me is their static analysis tool for PHP written in OCaml.
Particularly interesting to me is their static analysis tool for PHP written in OCaml.
Facebook doesn't have the same optics as Google (a friend list/profile seems much easier than search), but things like Haystack are pretty impressive.
It sounds populist. Less than 20 year old is not a sweet spot for investing in a founder. It's only good for media coverage.
I think this is stupid...most founders who dropped out of school..did so only after they got traction, an saw that the business was going somewhere.
I'm not sure...but I don't think any of the big name founders(you know those that are always brought up as examples) ever dropped out of school before actually finishing their product...and seeing early traction
I'm not sure...but I don't think any of the big name founders(you know those that are always brought up as examples) ever dropped out of school before actually finishing their product...and seeing early traction
The funny thing is, I was willing to drop out of school to work at one of those Thiel-network companies (I was interning for the summer, and my team wanted me to stay), but they told me they wouldn't hire me full-time without a degree.
I ended up dropping out anyways, but to do something else.
I ended up dropping out anyways, but to do something else.
I think a 5-6 year program to get a SB in tech entrepreneurship, where 1-2 years are spent doing smaller projects and some regular classes (as applied to those projects), and then 4 years in a co-op program with your startup and students from the first 1-2 years, would be ideal. Maybe even grant a SB/SM in 6-8 years.