What Happened to the Thiel Fellows(backchannel.com)
backchannel.com
What Happened to the Thiel Fellows
https://backchannel.com/inside-peter-thiels-genius-factory-7bf38303c7be#.fjc1bmv7x
20 comments
Neither is the contempt that moves people to say things like:
> “It’s really the worst when school comes up,” Backus said. “It’s offensive, the way people ask about it.”
"Offensive" is a loaded word, and I wouldn't choose it were I to make a similar statement. But I could make a similar statement, because I'm also familiar with the prejudice that a lot of people have toward those of us who have not completed, or indeed begun, a course of tertiary education.
I'm not a wildly successful entrepreneur, of course. I'm not even an entrepreneur, and I sure as hell don't have a billionaire in my corner. I'm just a redneck with some smarts who's had a whole lot of luck, and managed to parlay those things into an uninspired but solid software engineering career. It surprises me to see that people who are wildly successful entrepreneurs have run into the same prejudice that I've long since grown accustomed to encountering. The old saying is that "nothing succeeds like success", but apparently there are some folks with whom that's just not so.
> “It’s really the worst when school comes up,” Backus said. “It’s offensive, the way people ask about it.”
"Offensive" is a loaded word, and I wouldn't choose it were I to make a similar statement. But I could make a similar statement, because I'm also familiar with the prejudice that a lot of people have toward those of us who have not completed, or indeed begun, a course of tertiary education.
I'm not a wildly successful entrepreneur, of course. I'm not even an entrepreneur, and I sure as hell don't have a billionaire in my corner. I'm just a redneck with some smarts who's had a whole lot of luck, and managed to parlay those things into an uninspired but solid software engineering career. It surprises me to see that people who are wildly successful entrepreneurs have run into the same prejudice that I've long since grown accustomed to encountering. The old saying is that "nothing succeeds like success", but apparently there are some folks with whom that's just not so.
An alternative view is: "If you're already successful, everything you could learn at a college you can also learn out of college (see: the internet)".
That would be an incorrect view.
First, few are so motivated that they'd devote years to self-learning at the same scale as university provide. Next, it would be difficult to put together a cohesive curriculum for yourself because you don't know what you don't know. Relatedly, understanding the arc/trajectory to pick it difficult, and to do it all alone with no guidance means there's no one qualified that you can ask questions from on the daily. It also ignores the value of mentorship, learning from your peers, and being inspired and pushed by your environment. It also is isolating and does not give you any social benefits, business or personal networks.
First, few are so motivated that they'd devote years to self-learning at the same scale as university provide. Next, it would be difficult to put together a cohesive curriculum for yourself because you don't know what you don't know. Relatedly, understanding the arc/trajectory to pick it difficult, and to do it all alone with no guidance means there's no one qualified that you can ask questions from on the daily. It also ignores the value of mentorship, learning from your peers, and being inspired and pushed by your environment. It also is isolating and does not give you any social benefits, business or personal networks.
You can be motivated without going to school. It would take seconds to find curricula from major universities. You can find most textbooks for free on Libgen. You can talk to people over the internet and find better mentors than people you'd find in your local university. It's not isolating any more than going to the university and staying in your dorm reading textbooks is.
So, yeah. It seems like a completely correct view. My guess is that it will only become more and more correct with time, as the internet provides all the building blocks that colleges provide currently. The knowledge is already there. Credentials are there for some professions (Github > sheepskin). Networking is probably the hardest part, but hardly sounds undoable.
So, yeah. It seems like a completely correct view. My guess is that it will only become more and more correct with time, as the internet provides all the building blocks that colleges provide currently. The knowledge is already there. Credentials are there for some professions (Github > sheepskin). Networking is probably the hardest part, but hardly sounds undoable.
Pirating textbooks can be done in college or not in college, just as you can buy textbooks in college or not. But if you're not in college, then you most likely won't know what to buy, and certainly won't have anyone to explain it all to you in depth.
It is difficult for most to self-motivate 4+ years worth of self-study in isolation. Few would do that on their own. Further, getting a random stranger to mentor you for any real period of time is a difficult proposition without anything in return. Typically this only happens in extreme cases such as if you are a superstar and "worth their time."
If all you do is stay in your dorm and never venture out, then you're not getting much out of what the university offers, so that's not particularly relevant. You can also just not attend any classes either but that's not much of a comparison.
You're also ignoring majorly important components such as opportunistic learning from peers, being motivated by your environment, and having others guide you through subject matter when you don't know what you don't know. The internet cannot replace any of that as effectively.
It is difficult for most to self-motivate 4+ years worth of self-study in isolation. Few would do that on their own. Further, getting a random stranger to mentor you for any real period of time is a difficult proposition without anything in return. Typically this only happens in extreme cases such as if you are a superstar and "worth their time."
If all you do is stay in your dorm and never venture out, then you're not getting much out of what the university offers, so that's not particularly relevant. You can also just not attend any classes either but that's not much of a comparison.
You're also ignoring majorly important components such as opportunistic learning from peers, being motivated by your environment, and having others guide you through subject matter when you don't know what you don't know. The internet cannot replace any of that as effectively.
Guess what, people in college don't know either what textbooks you should buy. Maybe they're the teacher's favorite textbook, or a textbook the teacher wrote him/herself. Will that be the best textbook for you? Maybe. Maybe not.
Regardless, as mentioned before, if you think colleges do choose the best textbooks, you can find what textbooks they're using very easily.
My experience is that the best thing you can do is sample many textbooks and keep the ones you like best and are most likely to learn from.
That few people are willing to self-motivate for 4 years doesn't invalidate the possibility of doing it. I would also question the necessity to study for 4 years to learn most subjects.
The point about staying in your dorm is that if you're studying (i.e. not going out with your friends), it doesn't matter whether you're doing it at home or in a college dorm. You can socialize in other ways.
Serendipitous learning happens outside of colleges too. Etc. Etc.
Having been through college, and having learned a lot of things on my own, the only thing I think (some) colleges provide is just sheepskin prestige. If you want to work for a company that screens based on what university you went to, don't make the mistake of skipping that part. Learning-wise? I don't think it makes much of a difference.
Regardless, as mentioned before, if you think colleges do choose the best textbooks, you can find what textbooks they're using very easily.
My experience is that the best thing you can do is sample many textbooks and keep the ones you like best and are most likely to learn from.
That few people are willing to self-motivate for 4 years doesn't invalidate the possibility of doing it. I would also question the necessity to study for 4 years to learn most subjects.
The point about staying in your dorm is that if you're studying (i.e. not going out with your friends), it doesn't matter whether you're doing it at home or in a college dorm. You can socialize in other ways.
Serendipitous learning happens outside of colleges too. Etc. Etc.
Having been through college, and having learned a lot of things on my own, the only thing I think (some) colleges provide is just sheepskin prestige. If you want to work for a company that screens based on what university you went to, don't make the mistake of skipping that part. Learning-wise? I don't think it makes much of a difference.
Everything you say is true, but you can still do it if you're that way inclined. As long as you don't mind poverty and social exile :-)
Career-wise this has been a terrible life choice for me and I advise people to go to college for precisely the same reason you do. On the other hand career and material gain are only one aspect of life, I can't say with conviction that I really wish I'd done anything differently.
Career-wise this has been a terrible life choice for me and I advise people to go to college for precisely the same reason you do. On the other hand career and material gain are only one aspect of life, I can't say with conviction that I really wish I'd done anything differently.
[deleted]
If you aren't personally motivated devote years of self-learning to complex and deep topics, you should stay in school and get a Phd?
Yeah, that was Bill Gates' answer. He takes "classes" all the time. @4:35
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-10-17/the-david-ru...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-10-17/the-david-ru...
In my mind it's a question of what the purpose of college is, implicitly there's two sides to the argument:
One enters college to better themselves and for the purpose of a collaborative education.
One enters college to improve their ability to interact with the world in a meaningful fashion.
For those in the former camp, college is a means to an end. Those in the latter value the aspects of a collegial environment that you can't get elsewhere when learning. I find myself in both camps, I'd love to return for a PhD but it's such an economically poor decision that I don't.
One enters college to better themselves and for the purpose of a collaborative education.
One enters college to improve their ability to interact with the world in a meaningful fashion.
For those in the former camp, college is a means to an end. Those in the latter value the aspects of a collegial environment that you can't get elsewhere when learning. I find myself in both camps, I'd love to return for a PhD but it's such an economically poor decision that I don't.
People often focus too much on what is technically possible, and not enough on what's likely, given social and psychological realities. "Possible" isn't really possible if it requires an unusual psychology to work.
That isn't a very empathetic perspective. Consider perhaps that it has nothing to do with ego and nothing to do with thinking that college has nothing to teach you. Instead, it might be the case that these individuals think either or both of:
1) Yes, college could teach me a lot, but my resources (time and prime years) are finite, and I'm willing to make a tradeoff that forgoes some valuable elements in favor of an arrangement that helps me achieve my personal goals
2) College is not an option for me because it's incompatible with the reward centers in my brain and things like entrance exams, prerequisites, and the rigor and structure of academia are environments in which I flounder, not thrive.
There are many experiences in life that have value, but it is up to each individual to decide for themselves what they should pack into a few short years. It could just as easily be argued that the egoism is on the other side of the table for being so dismissive of alternative paths to success.
1) Yes, college could teach me a lot, but my resources (time and prime years) are finite, and I'm willing to make a tradeoff that forgoes some valuable elements in favor of an arrangement that helps me achieve my personal goals
2) College is not an option for me because it's incompatible with the reward centers in my brain and things like entrance exams, prerequisites, and the rigor and structure of academia are environments in which I flounder, not thrive.
There are many experiences in life that have value, but it is up to each individual to decide for themselves what they should pack into a few short years. It could just as easily be argued that the egoism is on the other side of the table for being so dismissive of alternative paths to success.
On the one hand I think college's value is overstated.
On the other hand I think a lot of people who promote the mentality described in this article seem driven mostly by ego stroking ("I'm so smart and motivated I don't need college I just learn on my own") and remain ignorant.
Still this is an obviously great opportunity for any young person and is well worth exploring. College is a fine fallback if you "fail."
On the other hand I think a lot of people who promote the mentality described in this article seem driven mostly by ego stroking ("I'm so smart and motivated I don't need college I just learn on my own") and remain ignorant.
Still this is an obviously great opportunity for any young person and is well worth exploring. College is a fine fallback if you "fail."
For example: I have an undergrad degree in computer science. I hope to one day be successful enough to get an MBA from MIT or Harvard. Both $100,000+ for a two year program.
That may sound funny because if I can afford that tuition without a giant lifestyle change (like selling my house)[1] it means I've already made it, so why do I need to even get the MBA? In fact the average salary for an MBA grad from one of those schools is not that much more than I make as a CTO.
For one, I enjoy the challenge, the joy of learning, and the feeling of accomplishment. In short, it's a trophy. A luxury. For me at least.
[1] It would certainly be easier if I was a early 20-something going full-time with no wife, no kid, and no house. But that is not the reality I live in. For someone with those things going back to school when your employer doesn't pay for it (in my case my employer is my own startup) is a big deal.
That may sound funny because if I can afford that tuition without a giant lifestyle change (like selling my house)[1] it means I've already made it, so why do I need to even get the MBA? In fact the average salary for an MBA grad from one of those schools is not that much more than I make as a CTO.
For one, I enjoy the challenge, the joy of learning, and the feeling of accomplishment. In short, it's a trophy. A luxury. For me at least.
[1] It would certainly be easier if I was a early 20-something going full-time with no wife, no kid, and no house. But that is not the reality I live in. For someone with those things going back to school when your employer doesn't pay for it (in my case my employer is my own startup) is a big deal.
I'm curious why you would do an MBA if not for career advancement. I can see someone going back to school to study something like mathematics/literature because they love the subject but not MBA.
> I can see someone going back to school to study something like mathematics/literature because they love the subject but not
I happen to like business! Kind of like if I decided to go into Medieval Literature. That fact an MBA is useful to my career is second to that I enjoy it.
With that said, if it does help me grow my next company larger without having to hire a CEO, or if it gets me a CTO job at a fortune 100, just a nice bonus.
Also, a lot of MBAs are a little smug when they talk to Software Engineers. Like "You need me." It would be nice to throw that back at them. Granted I know us Software Engineer throw it the other way just as often. Every technical founder things they don't need a business founder. And every business founder thinks they can outsource the job of technical founder.
I happen to like business! Kind of like if I decided to go into Medieval Literature. That fact an MBA is useful to my career is second to that I enjoy it.
With that said, if it does help me grow my next company larger without having to hire a CEO, or if it gets me a CTO job at a fortune 100, just a nice bonus.
Also, a lot of MBAs are a little smug when they talk to Software Engineers. Like "You need me." It would be nice to throw that back at them. Granted I know us Software Engineer throw it the other way just as often. Every technical founder things they don't need a business founder. And every business founder thinks they can outsource the job of technical founder.
[deleted]
You can't imagine someone being as interested in business as others are in math?
Often employers foot the bill
Yeah, unfortunately to do that I would have to leave startup life and go work for a corporation which is not a tradeoff I'm ready to make.
Startups are just baby corporations. You want to be the business equivalent of a kindergarten teacher. I don't mean that in a pejorative way, mind - sounds like a perfectly sensible career path to me if that's what you enjoy.
I remember Bill Gates said in an interview that he still regularly takes online courses on subjects such as oceanography. People still love to learn, just, I don't think a formal college environment with grades and exams is necessarily a pre-requisite for learning. There are so many alternative mechanisms out there.
You can learn a lot casually. On the other hand, it is considerably less effective:
* Many people talk about forgetting things as soon as the test is over, but why would they remember it even that long without a test?
* A formal course is more than just reading the textbook; it's a guided tour by someone who is a professional teacher as well as someone working in the field. (Yes, some are bad. Most are at least middling and some a very good.)
* And then there is the whole issue of things you wouldn't study on your own if you weren't required to. A CS degree, for example, is more than a bunch of CS courses.
* Many people talk about forgetting things as soon as the test is over, but why would they remember it even that long without a test?
* A formal course is more than just reading the textbook; it's a guided tour by someone who is a professional teacher as well as someone working in the field. (Yes, some are bad. Most are at least middling and some a very good.)
* And then there is the whole issue of things you wouldn't study on your own if you weren't required to. A CS degree, for example, is more than a bunch of CS courses.
> Many people talk about forgetting things as soon as the test is over
It could be argued that when learning specifically for a test people tend to forget things asap, because things learned this way now carry with them a spirit of something being forced on you.
>but why would they remember it even that long without a test? If you learn something that bores you, sure. But I claim that when you learn not for a test you would properly inspect things and their domains and try to get insights into them, their necessity to the object being studied and so on.
>but why would they remember it even that long without a test? If you learn something that bores you, sure. But I claim that when you learn not for a test you would properly inspect things and their domains and try to get insights into them, their necessity to the object being studied and so on.
I think you are missing the point by oversimplifying what Thiel actually says.
He isn't talking against all kinds of education. He is talking against large parts which is mostly things that could be taught via self study.
He isn't talking against all kinds of education. He is talking against large parts which is mostly things that could be taught via self study.
It's kind of a big claim, that the most important thing that people got from Thiel Fellowship was the network. If that's really and truly the case, then how is this different from the universities of old?
I don't mean that as a challenge. I really do mean to pick it apart. You can argue that this one is more meritocratic. It's also blatantly clear that it had an admissions committee of one.
Edit: And as someone else pointed out, you don't get the hard skills training that you get in university.
I don't mean that as a challenge. I really do mean to pick it apart. You can argue that this one is more meritocratic. It's also blatantly clear that it had an admissions committee of one.
Edit: And as someone else pointed out, you don't get the hard skills training that you get in university.
I think university networks are overrated a bit. When you're just one of thousands of graduates you need to bring more to the table than just having the same alma mater. All your peers are trying to leverage the same connections to fit through a skinny pipe.
For every one time I leverage my college network I have 10 where I leverage my network I built after college.
For every one time I leverage my college network I have 10 where I leverage my network I built after college.
That's true. Then what'd happen to the Thiel Fellowship if you were to scale it the same way? I think you can likewise make the argument that it's kind of an extra-fancy MBA.
Hey, I'm part of the program.
The fellowship's community is one of the few places I've found people like me, my age, who are so obviously better than me that I feel out of place being in the same room.
As with all communities, the quality of people vary (regardless of how you define quality), but the fellowship has the highest concentration of smart young people that I've ever experienced.
I never went to university and don't have that as a point of reference, but I have a hard time believing I'd find a similarly concentrated group anywhere else.
The fellowship's community is one of the few places I've found people like me, my age, who are so obviously better than me that I feel out of place being in the same room.
As with all communities, the quality of people vary (regardless of how you define quality), but the fellowship has the highest concentration of smart young people that I've ever experienced.
I never went to university and don't have that as a point of reference, but I have a hard time believing I'd find a similarly concentrated group anywhere else.
The network is the important part, I'm given to understand, about YC.
This article and the Thiel Fellowship are implicit admissions that it's not what you know, but who. And that entrepreneurs don't need to know things, only people.
Whichmay go towards explaining why they tend not to address fundamental problems.
This article and the Thiel Fellowship are implicit admissions that it's not what you know, but who. And that entrepreneurs don't need to know things, only people.
Whichmay go towards explaining why they tend not to address fundamental problems.
The real long-term business value of an Ivy League education is also the network. So if he really was trying to replicate that, he succeeded.
But as someone who went to a non-Ivy school, and spent my 4 years getting an education that I truly feel has added a ton of value to my life, and to who I am... I just get offended at his attitude that college is for dunces. (And yes, it is my own problem if someone offends me, but that is a separate discussion). I will never claim that college is the right path for everybody, and I think that getting a job is the wrong reason to go. But the snide attitude that going to college actually makes you a lesser person, and recommending people drop out... that shows a deep misunderstanding of what higher education is really about.
But as someone who went to a non-Ivy school, and spent my 4 years getting an education that I truly feel has added a ton of value to my life, and to who I am... I just get offended at his attitude that college is for dunces. (And yes, it is my own problem if someone offends me, but that is a separate discussion). I will never claim that college is the right path for everybody, and I think that getting a job is the wrong reason to go. But the snide attitude that going to college actually makes you a lesser person, and recommending people drop out... that shows a deep misunderstanding of what higher education is really about.
Also let's be real here -- I know a lot of the fellows and all the ones I've met definitely do not qualify as geniuses. Smart, motivated, sure, but when it comes to solving real hard problems whether in physics, biotech, or AI they are by far not the first people I'd turn to. There's a reason most of them are working on knockoff consumer apps or got shunted into programs like the google brain residency.
Just another front in Thiel's continued war against education. You need an education and experience in order to make the kinds of meaningful breakthroughs we need these days; the valley pushes the college drop-out mythos a little too much.
I don't think Thiel would disagree. He is talking about things that are not hard science/engineering.
Just because you need to educate yourself you don't need an education.
Just because you need to educate yourself you don't need an education.
Thiel has no war against education. Nobody would argue against education. The argument is that there are better, or at least, alternative ways to get an education. That for some fields, the traditional college system is outmoded.
Education != college degree
Education != college degree
Right, you don't need much education to successfully run a company and make shitloads of money from it, but you do need education (a lot, in fact) if you want to truly advance science or society.
You need knowledge and smarts, one is given by your genetics the other is free online. "The liberal education" is granfalloon pushed by a rent-seeking administrative and professorial class. When we outlawed IQ tests for employment, we became unable to train engineers and other high-IQ professions in house, as minds capable of doing these jobs are rare, companies need to pre-filter before investing resources. As universities are allowed to use such tests, we use education as a proxy for IQ and conscientiousness, as we are outlawed from directly measuring these characteristics. Thus the education bubble.
Thiel is offering alternatives, and rather charitably. Is offering alternatives an act of war?
Thiel is offering alternatives, and rather charitably. Is offering alternatives an act of war?
No one is threatened by Thiel. Annoyed, yes, but threatened no. Does anyone seriously think that these Thiel payed dropouts are going to be making breakthroughs in physics, engineering, medicine? No, of course not. They'll be in soft positions where their main skill is interacting with people. E.g. CEO, managers, etc.
> You need knowledge and smarts, one is given by your genetics the other is free online.
That works for a certain kind of learner: people who are already good at breaking down a problem into constituent parts, who are driven enough to chase down the resources they need and to figure out how things fit together, and who want to learn about the topics that are most available online.
There are a lot of other intelligent people who could do valuable things with an education, but who lack one or more of those characteristics.
That works for a certain kind of learner: people who are already good at breaking down a problem into constituent parts, who are driven enough to chase down the resources they need and to figure out how things fit together, and who want to learn about the topics that are most available online.
There are a lot of other intelligent people who could do valuable things with an education, but who lack one or more of those characteristics.
I think you're right that there is a sleight-of-hand in the modern higher educational system: given that most of the substantive knowledge is publicly available (e.g. I can download any textbook I want), they really offer something different than technical knowledge. I think that the real product is networks: if you attend a top university, you trade money to be placed with a bunch of very smart people with lots of social capital, and the credentials conferred upon graduation give you access to to other networks afterwards (professional, social, and more often than not, some hybrid of the two).
Where I disagree strongly with the above "granfalloon" critique of liberal education is that I think it's a side effect of bringing together people from geographically disperse regions and widely varying values and backgrounds and making them live and work together. Profs just offer a framework to think about it, especially relating it to a historical context.
Where I disagree strongly with the above "granfalloon" critique of liberal education is that I think it's a side effect of bringing together people from geographically disperse regions and widely varying values and backgrounds and making them live and work together. Profs just offer a framework to think about it, especially relating it to a historical context.
Agreed, that said universities could do things a lot better in many ways.
“I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.” - Twain
The trouble with modern universities is that they often conflate what are at least three separate concerns: intellectual formation/pedagogy, job training and research. Typically, when you ask someone why they want to go to college or why they did go to college, the automatic answer that they've been taught to give is "to get a job" (otherwise, you're going to "work at McDonald's"). The result, broadly speaking, is that these three concerns compete with each other, causing the university to suffer in the process.
> Abraham dropped out of the University of Pennsylvania to run Milo, which sold to Amazon by the time he was 25.
Milo was sold to eBay, not Amazon.
Milo was sold to eBay, not Amazon.
To me the premise to this argument was always incomplete. It's true that college does not matter "to some people". You can always find individuals that will be successful whether they go to college or not. There's a reason Thiel hand picked the people that would get his money. He picked the best he could find because he knew that they had a better chance to succeed. If he really wanted to prove his point, he would have picked them at random from those that were slated to go to college anyway. To me he has not proven anything, college is still important to the great majority of people and telling people differently does not help society worse yet it makes it more difficult on those that follow his advice.
The network is what really matters: you go from someone who knows professors and peers to someone who knows Peter Thiel and his peers.
I'm sure there is some meritocracy involved too, but I'm willing to bet that as a Thiel Fellow, you would learn faster than a university would allow (school of hard knocks?), while still accomplishing less than a more experienced entrepreneur. Experience matters, and being a Thiel Fellow is just a riskier but potentially faster way of acquiring it.
I'm sure there is some meritocracy involved too, but I'm willing to bet that as a Thiel Fellow, you would learn faster than a university would allow (school of hard knocks?), while still accomplishing less than a more experienced entrepreneur. Experience matters, and being a Thiel Fellow is just a riskier but potentially faster way of acquiring it.
The way I look at is that you need to educate yourself, you mostly don't need an education. All of those fellows are constantly educating themselves.
I am pretty sure Theil would agree that some things do require an education such as hard science, medical or engineering. (Although it's certainly possible without)
I am pretty sure Theil would agree that some things do require an education such as hard science, medical or engineering. (Although it's certainly possible without)
What a vapid puff piece. For example:
> It became one of the most elite credentials for young entrepreneurs.
Umm, really? "Elite" in the classical sense of "drawn out of the larger pool", sure, but in the sense of somehow being better than the run of the mill group, I don't see it.
> none of the successful dropouts ever went back to school.
Famously Michal Dell did to make his mum happy. Woz, under an alias.
> It became one of the most elite credentials for young entrepreneurs.
Umm, really? "Elite" in the classical sense of "drawn out of the larger pool", sure, but in the sense of somehow being better than the run of the mill group, I don't see it.
> none of the successful dropouts ever went back to school.
Famously Michal Dell did to make his mum happy. Woz, under an alias.
> none of the successful dropouts ever went back to school. Bill Gates didn’t go back. Mark Zuckerberg didn’t go back. To go back would imply personal failure.
Steve Wozniak went back to school (UC Berkeley, using an alias) and finished a degree. Though I suppose he's kind of a special case.
Steve Wozniak went back to school (UC Berkeley, using an alias) and finished a degree. Though I suppose he's kind of a special case.
You have to think who says a 15 year old can't do Advanced Physics, Run a Corporation, Perform Some Surgery. There are definitely works for which hours of experience are necessary, but for most of the things we do today perhaps age is really not a factor.
If experience isn't necessary for a task, you have to ask how hard it really is and how much it should really be rewarded.
Anything that can create an alternative for universities is very valuable. Stanford tuition has doubled in the past 20 years -- so has the price of gasoline -- I don't see people suggesting government subsidized loans for gasoline.
[deleted]
Don't fix something that isn't broken.
Can the institutionalized top down approach to education have room for improvement? Yes. The education to economic output per student ratio can always improve (I don't have a number for this).
But the role diploma, degrees, certificates play as social credits that gives preferential treatment over the have-nots in terms of opening doors is understated.
Can the institutionalized top down approach to education have room for improvement? Yes. The education to economic output per student ratio can always improve (I don't have a number for this).
But the role diploma, degrees, certificates play as social credits that gives preferential treatment over the have-nots in terms of opening doors is understated.
It looks like now more of a YC for necessarily young and solo founders than any substitute for college.
Are these the blood donors?
Can we change the title to "Entrepreneurship Factory" instead of "Genius Factory"? The article is definitely not about genius. Let's not cheapen the definition any further by misapplying it.
Brilliant technical minds denied the opportunity to gain awareness of the world through liberal arts exposure, are that much more easily pushed into working towards essentially sociopathic endeavors (like making it easier to sue media outlets wealthy people don't like out of existence).
As a former literature grad student I was liking where the first clause of your sentence was headed, but then you ruined it with the sort of denunciatory name-calling ("sociopathic") that the HN guidelines ask you not to do in comments here. We're trying for a discourse in which people don't hit each other with such sticks, so please don't bring them in to conversation.
Seems to me the grandparent poster was using 'sociopathic' in a technical rather than pejorative sense, but it's true the word has become politicized. Perhaps 'hyper-individualist' would be a better representation of the philosophical dynamic at work.
I took the OP to mean "lacking in empathy, contextual awareness, and premised on a specific—and potentially very damaging—notion of capitalism." Based on the interviews I've read and the description of the Thiel fellows, this seems like a fair characterization, if hyperbole.
Rather, I think "sociopathic" is deficient in that it underplays the structural determinants of such behaviors, while placing judgment on the fellows themselves. That's not fair—they are basically high schoolers, often without the cultural capital and social analytical skills conferred by top schools.
Rather, I think "sociopathic" is deficient in that it underplays the structural determinants of such behaviors, while placing judgment on the fellows themselves. That's not fair—they are basically high schoolers, often without the cultural capital and social analytical skills conferred by top schools.
I was going for the "lacking in empathy" description completely - and in description of specific endeavors, not individual people.
Look, Gawker was absolutely terroristic. Think about it, Mr. Thiel was closeted publicly, because it was noones business, and then Gawker outed him and his personal life for financial gain. They did it to others too. Mr. Thiel has said that Gawker was an isolated case for him, and it took him years to right wrongs..
I suppose if you view college solely as a means to an end (success), then sure; however, a liberal education has value in and of itself.
But I suppose the above thinking is what we get when we make college a prerequisite for secure employment. People go to college to be successful. If you're already successful, what could you possibly learn at a college?
I want to say the self-centered egoism of believing that there is nothing you could gain from attending a place of higher learning is shocking. But it's not. Not here.