Ask HN: Ideal path after college for a technical founder?
21 comments
After hanging around the startup community for a while, it's become clear to me that the best thing for personal development and expected value is getting in as an early employee/founder at a company that will both give you a big equity stake and pay you a slightly below market to market salary.
I don't particularly recommend grad school unless you know exactly why you want to go.
I don't particularly recommend grad school unless you know exactly why you want to go.
Work at a startup. Personally I learned more, in a shorter period of time, while working at a startup than I did during any comparable stretch of time spent in college. That experience will be indispensable regardless of what path you later follow.
I would agree even if it weren't self-serving (coughgazehawk.com/jobs/cough)...I worked in industry for a year before starting my own company, and I'm really grateful for it (my team was awesome!). At the same time, my experiences at larger companies (internships), while useful, didn't give me nearly the experience and exposure to different parts of businesses that smaller companies do.
My theory is the smaller the better, but I only have ~3 data points to support that.
My theory is the smaller the better, but I only have ~3 data points to support that.
Learn on someone else's dime. Find a job at a company that has an interesting product, try to pick the smallest company possible. You'll learn a lot of stuff, work on something that kinda/sorta interests you, meet new people (possible co-founders, investors) and get a paycheck to do it.
I'm a marketing guy and I got my start in a jr marketing position at a small company (~40 employees). I got to play around with their money and resources to build up my own skill set. I use those skills now on my own projects and client work, and I picked up a ton of tips on things like running a business/hiring/sales techniques/etc. I also met a ton of awesome people, some of which I'm still really good friends with.
Go in with an open mind and try it out for at least a couple months, if you really don't like it then you can always leave and find another place or get to work on your own idea. P.S. Don't burn bridges, ALWAYS bites you in the ass (had to learn the hard way).
I'm a marketing guy and I got my start in a jr marketing position at a small company (~40 employees). I got to play around with their money and resources to build up my own skill set. I use those skills now on my own projects and client work, and I picked up a ton of tips on things like running a business/hiring/sales techniques/etc. I also met a ton of awesome people, some of which I'm still really good friends with.
Go in with an open mind and try it out for at least a couple months, if you really don't like it then you can always leave and find another place or get to work on your own idea. P.S. Don't burn bridges, ALWAYS bites you in the ass (had to learn the hard way).
There is no set path for these things, but if there was an ideal path it would probably be working as an early employee < 15-20 at a startup. While at the Startup you get real-life experience working at a company, you meet new people and mature. Maybe you stay 1,2, or 3 years, then you go off and do something on your own. Meeting/Networking is crucial because your co-founders have to be good matches.
Grad school would be great if there is a purpose. ITP would be good if you want to be a founder that leans product/design. Stanford/MIT would be good if you want to lean more in technical.
Y-combinator is the startup-MBA. It is an amazing program that I would recommend to any entrepreneur at any stage (college undergrad, grad, 1-10 year, or older). My issue with someone from college jumping right into YC is lack of life experience and technical experience. There are exceptions to that rule, and PG does a great job in picking those young entrepreneurs that can handle it. So if you feel you have what it takes, apply.
Grad school would be great if there is a purpose. ITP would be good if you want to be a founder that leans product/design. Stanford/MIT would be good if you want to lean more in technical.
Y-combinator is the startup-MBA. It is an amazing program that I would recommend to any entrepreneur at any stage (college undergrad, grad, 1-10 year, or older). My issue with someone from college jumping right into YC is lack of life experience and technical experience. There are exceptions to that rule, and PG does a great job in picking those young entrepreneurs that can handle it. So if you feel you have what it takes, apply.
I just realized, I only gave you descriptions for your options, although I did give my suggestion (work at small startup).
If you have a great idea and feel comfortable with the entire web stack, apply to YC or other comparable programs. If that doesn't work out, then work at a small startup. If you can't get that, maybe you go to grad school. Thats probably my best advice.
If you have a great idea and feel comfortable with the entire web stack, apply to YC or other comparable programs. If that doesn't work out, then work at a small startup. If you can't get that, maybe you go to grad school. Thats probably my best advice.
at 20? Isn't there the Peter Thiel program?
Do you have an idea worth submitting to YC? Do you have a good network of people to mine for cofounders?
I'd say that if you've got other people to work with, and an idea to pursue, then try your hand at it and go after YC and similar programs.
If you don't, I'd pick the opportunity that will add the most valuable people to your network (other people who want to do start ups, people who complement your skills, people who could become your best friends/people you'll be willing to go through hell with). That's not necessarily a startup, something like APM at Google would be killer for your network and experience, and bigger companies => more people to connect with.
Final pro-startup caveat: If you find the right people to work with, join a startup. You're only 20, and you're not short on cash. There might never be a better time.
Do you have an idea worth submitting to YC? Do you have a good network of people to mine for cofounders?
I'd say that if you've got other people to work with, and an idea to pursue, then try your hand at it and go after YC and similar programs.
If you don't, I'd pick the opportunity that will add the most valuable people to your network (other people who want to do start ups, people who complement your skills, people who could become your best friends/people you'll be willing to go through hell with). That's not necessarily a startup, something like APM at Google would be killer for your network and experience, and bigger companies => more people to connect with.
Final pro-startup caveat: If you find the right people to work with, join a startup. You're only 20, and you're not short on cash. There might never be a better time.
Final pro-startup caveat: If you find the right people to work with, join a startup. You're only 20, and you're not short on cash. There might never be a better time.
Really agree with this. There's two things you should know which you might not figure out till you're out in the workforce.
- This first is that, despite all the news about the economy blowing up and unemployment on the rails, your industry is still aggressively looking for smart people to hire. I get emails almost weekly from companies looking for people to interview. It's a hard feeling to digest sometimes (I'm in my mid twenties), but you won't be left out to dry with your skills even if you go do a startup, burn all your cash, and fail miserably.
- Understand working capital for what it is. Your age counts for a lot; lots of young people will never realize that youth is working capital that should be spent while they still have it.
I guess the last thing you want to be weary about is burnout, and understand what it is. People love to throw the word around, but they never quite put it into terms, so here it is -
What I learned is that burning out isn’t just about work load, it’s about work load being greater than the motivation to do work. It was relatively easy to drag myself to classes when I thought I was working for my own betterment. It was hard to sit at a laptop and crank out slides when all I seemed to be accomplishing was the transfer of wealth from my client to my company.
written by a former consultant of a large firm - http://tech.mit.edu/V130/N18/dubai.html
Really agree with this. There's two things you should know which you might not figure out till you're out in the workforce.
- This first is that, despite all the news about the economy blowing up and unemployment on the rails, your industry is still aggressively looking for smart people to hire. I get emails almost weekly from companies looking for people to interview. It's a hard feeling to digest sometimes (I'm in my mid twenties), but you won't be left out to dry with your skills even if you go do a startup, burn all your cash, and fail miserably.
- Understand working capital for what it is. Your age counts for a lot; lots of young people will never realize that youth is working capital that should be spent while they still have it.
I guess the last thing you want to be weary about is burnout, and understand what it is. People love to throw the word around, but they never quite put it into terms, so here it is -
What I learned is that burning out isn’t just about work load, it’s about work load being greater than the motivation to do work. It was relatively easy to drag myself to classes when I thought I was working for my own betterment. It was hard to sit at a laptop and crank out slides when all I seemed to be accomplishing was the transfer of wealth from my client to my company.
written by a former consultant of a large firm - http://tech.mit.edu/V130/N18/dubai.html
> you won't be left out to dry with your skills even if you
> go do a startup, burn all your cash, and fail miserably.
That's true, but you might develop a distaste for 'regular' jobs. Not that those will be your only option, but it might be harder to go back.
> lots of young people will never realize that youth is working > capital that should be spent while they still have it.
I'm in my mid twenties too, and I'm sure I'll sound like an idiot when I say that youth is also social capital that shouldn't be wasted. I've spent most of my 20s with my head down on work, and I would take a lot of it back to do some more living. I'm not saying that your youth isn't working capital - it is. But always work smarter, not just harder and longer. There's no immediate prize for effort.
That's true, but you might develop a distaste for 'regular' jobs. Not that those will be your only option, but it might be harder to go back.
> lots of young people will never realize that youth is working > capital that should be spent while they still have it.
I'm in my mid twenties too, and I'm sure I'll sound like an idiot when I say that youth is also social capital that shouldn't be wasted. I've spent most of my 20s with my head down on work, and I would take a lot of it back to do some more living. I'm not saying that your youth isn't working capital - it is. But always work smarter, not just harder and longer. There's no immediate prize for effort.
The Peter Thiel grant program won't accept 20 year olds, only <20.
I'm sure, like most rules, it's mostly just a guideline to handle the common case. People have all kinds of circumstances in life, so drawing the line on an age is often something that can be explained through. As a totally unrelated example, I have a Jewish friend that just turned 27 and got an exception made for him for Birthright Israel even though the cutoff is 26.
I talked to a 20 year old and told him what you said about rules not really applying. He's exceptionally well qualified for the fellowship and two degrees of connection away from Thiel/Jim O'Neil and told me that he asked, and was told decisively that 20 year olds are out.
That's really, tremendously depressing. There's a huge list of reasons to follow rules exactly to the letter. Enforcing this one, which should be entirely about potential and not at all about an arbitrary date of birth, is inane.
Well it's called 20 under 20. Slippery slope, etc.
Thanks for asking this question! I don't have an answer for you, but I just want to say you're not alone. I'm 24 and after college, I decided to work for $big_company. Now I really think I should have worked for a startup instead. Perhaps do what rms said and form an early stage startup yourself or join someone else's.
Or try what friends of mine have told me, and just work on as many potential startup projects as you can in your free time until one of them becomes successful. A quote I saw recently: "Have multiple sticks in the fire because you never know which one is going to bring you luck." I think that's a good rule to live by.
P.S. If your interested, feel free to contact me if you want to work on something together.
Or try what friends of mine have told me, and just work on as many potential startup projects as you can in your free time until one of them becomes successful. A quote I saw recently: "Have multiple sticks in the fire because you never know which one is going to bring you luck." I think that's a good rule to live by.
P.S. If your interested, feel free to contact me if you want to work on something together.
ITP is a joke coming from a CS background. It's good for internet fameball self-promoter types and people from an design/art background.
I downvoted you, but also feel compelled to reply. There are many valid reasons to criticize ITP or to discourage certain people from going there, but you aren't criticizing, you're flaming.
Disclaimer: I come from a CS background (Stanford), but work at a company (Foursquare) where several of the non-engineering founders/early-employees come from ITP, but the engineering team is entirely non-ITP. Also, two of my closest friends have been in ITP. Other than that, I have never been personally affiliated with ITP.
The vibe I get from ITP is definitely a mixed bag of technology and art school. Coming from my background, it feels much closer to an art school than to a CS school. I have no doubt that I would be immensely frustrated in such an environment. Consequently, I've never seriously considered going there, despite the insistence of several close friends. I recognize that ITP is not for me: my technical skills would likely not improve much as a result of going to ITP, and the art-school-vibe would be both unpleasant and frustrating for me.
That said, I can see how certain people could benefit a lot from ITP. If you're an art-inclined individual that wants to get in touch with your tech side, at least enough to be able to build your own prototype without having to rely on someone else. (E.g., get rid of the "I've got a great idea and I'm looking for a technical co-founder" problem... surely everyone on HN can get behind that.) Or if you're a tech-inclined individual and want to get in touch with your art side, to explore how people interact with technology and how even simple technology can drastically change everyday behavior. I think both of these people could benefit from ITP.
The biggest startup successes recently (Facebook, Twitter, Groupon) didn't start with any kind of technological edge. They were a simple PHP website, a basic Rails stack, or practically a static HTML site. Of course, SIGNIFICANT and SOPHISTICATED engineering effort has gone into making these sites scale to their current success, but they proved their worth and achieved traction with little engineering effort. Generally, they distinguish themselves from the pack via their softer side, by building communities and human value through good product design rather than technical prowess. The initial version of Foursquare was a tangled mess of PHP code that was clearly written by someone who know just barely enough to get the job done. You could read the code and cry. But it was enough to get them to tens of thousands of users and millions in funding.
So yes, there are many reasons not to go to ITP. But even a technical person who aspires to be a startup founder could find many reasons to go.
Disclaimer: I come from a CS background (Stanford), but work at a company (Foursquare) where several of the non-engineering founders/early-employees come from ITP, but the engineering team is entirely non-ITP. Also, two of my closest friends have been in ITP. Other than that, I have never been personally affiliated with ITP.
The vibe I get from ITP is definitely a mixed bag of technology and art school. Coming from my background, it feels much closer to an art school than to a CS school. I have no doubt that I would be immensely frustrated in such an environment. Consequently, I've never seriously considered going there, despite the insistence of several close friends. I recognize that ITP is not for me: my technical skills would likely not improve much as a result of going to ITP, and the art-school-vibe would be both unpleasant and frustrating for me.
That said, I can see how certain people could benefit a lot from ITP. If you're an art-inclined individual that wants to get in touch with your tech side, at least enough to be able to build your own prototype without having to rely on someone else. (E.g., get rid of the "I've got a great idea and I'm looking for a technical co-founder" problem... surely everyone on HN can get behind that.) Or if you're a tech-inclined individual and want to get in touch with your art side, to explore how people interact with technology and how even simple technology can drastically change everyday behavior. I think both of these people could benefit from ITP.
The biggest startup successes recently (Facebook, Twitter, Groupon) didn't start with any kind of technological edge. They were a simple PHP website, a basic Rails stack, or practically a static HTML site. Of course, SIGNIFICANT and SOPHISTICATED engineering effort has gone into making these sites scale to their current success, but they proved their worth and achieved traction with little engineering effort. Generally, they distinguish themselves from the pack via their softer side, by building communities and human value through good product design rather than technical prowess. The initial version of Foursquare was a tangled mess of PHP code that was clearly written by someone who know just barely enough to get the job done. You could read the code and cry. But it was enough to get them to tens of thousands of users and millions in funding.
So yes, there are many reasons not to go to ITP. But even a technical person who aspires to be a startup founder could find many reasons to go.
Word. If you're interested in this kind of work, look to MIT (Media Lab), Georgia Tech, Stanford (CCRMA), the UC schools (CNMAT, UCLA design, UCSD, UCSB, etc.), McGill (music tech|CIM|SRE) & Concordia (SIP|comp. arts), RPI (empac), and others. ITP is for beginners.
Presumably, a CS person isn't going to ITP for the tech education. Are there not other things for them to extract from the program?
Care to elaborate why? I've got a CS background, and I'm looking at ITP.
A few thoughts here about getting an MBA: http://steveblank.com/2010/05/10/entrepreneurial-finishing-s...
"Or do I work for a $big_company?" You may have already answered your question. A startup is not a job choice.
"Or do I work for a $big_company?" You may have already answered your question. A startup is not a job choice.
For instance, I know I'll work fervently on a side project. But should I go to grad school? (And where? Stanford for CS? NYU for ITP?) Or do I try my hand at Y-Combinator? Or do I work for a $big_company?
If it matters, I'll be 20, and will have money saved up.