And my university (UAlberta) is having trouble with people graduating in CS, because within an hour all of higher level courses were booked so people can't take the courses they need to graduate, some people are forced to take a year off among other things.
MIT student here. I heard about this recently, and looked into it a bit as an interesting way to get some funding.
First of all, it's not like every participant gets 25K. Getting that level of funding would take some serious doing. It looks like 1-5K is more likely. Additionally, there are milestones, meetings, course requirements, and a whole lot of work required to get any significant funding. This might not be so bad for many early stage startups, but as a full time MIT student, taking on the extra workload is daunting.
In my opinion, it's not worth it. I am paying ~30K PER SEMESTER to be at this place, so I'm doing my best to focus all of my attention on learning my craft and jumpstarting my career. 25K sounds nice and is definitely nothing to scoff at, but in the broad scale it's a drop in the bucket, and requires getting all tied up in MIT's red tape (and also "Students who receive +$5K in funding will be encouraged to give back to the Fund or MIT"). There are easier ways to go about getting 1 to 25K in strings attached seed funding as an MIT student. The mentorship is potentially a good benefit, but I already receive mentorship from my professors.
I'm sure there are some students who might benefit from this, but I'm not convinced.
I'm an MIT grad (Course 6 2012) and respectfully disagree. College is a great place to start working on a startup and meet potential co-founders. PG has written about this before: http://paulgraham.com/mit.html
Also, regarding the pledge: "This pledge to give back is a personal choice and not binding and funding will not be conditional on a student signing a pledge." (https://sandbox.mit.edu/apply-3/) It sounds like a pretty reasonable program.
College may be a great place to work on a web startup, since they require less in-depth expertise than an engineering startup, and it's easier to complete missing knowledge through advisors.
ownership of Intellectual Property developed by faculty, students, staff, and others participating in MIT programs, including visitors, with the significant use of funds or facilities administered by MIT will vest with MIT.
From my reading of the policy.. it sounds like if you accept this small sum (1-5K), MIT gets the IP rights to everything you make. Good deal for MIT.
If they own the name (trademark) of your project; the content on your website and marketing materials; copyright on your code; patents... you're basically working for MIT for $1k.
MIT is toxic. I respect they supposedly have some good engineers coming out of that place, but I don't think as a school they offer much compared to Stanford, USC, etc... Most American schools are now trying to capitalize as well and attempting to beat corporations to the punch in exploiting their students, so it might be a bit unfair to just isolate MIT for that kind of toxic behavior.
Just look at their students debts for example, or "acceptance rates". That metric is abused to justify prestige in a failing educational system whose output can barely compete with _middle schoolers_ of truly developed countries, and even developing countries like China. Stanford for example has this little lottery where they select some poor bastard with chops to market themselves as a merit based school which is hilarious.
If you look at MIT, and other American schools' prestige in the global arena and take into account the state of their educational system, they are a bunch of hoaxers and fraudsters.
The meat of the quality of the output of American higher education is from the strength of foreign students, and not from American systems.
10 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 32.1 ms ] threadApparently Sam Altman is holding a talk/Q&A there on the 13th. It's an intriguing concept - I'm not aware of any similar programs at other colleges.
I find it strange not to have it.
First of all, it's not like every participant gets 25K. Getting that level of funding would take some serious doing. It looks like 1-5K is more likely. Additionally, there are milestones, meetings, course requirements, and a whole lot of work required to get any significant funding. This might not be so bad for many early stage startups, but as a full time MIT student, taking on the extra workload is daunting.
In my opinion, it's not worth it. I am paying ~30K PER SEMESTER to be at this place, so I'm doing my best to focus all of my attention on learning my craft and jumpstarting my career. 25K sounds nice and is definitely nothing to scoff at, but in the broad scale it's a drop in the bucket, and requires getting all tied up in MIT's red tape (and also "Students who receive +$5K in funding will be encouraged to give back to the Fund or MIT"). There are easier ways to go about getting 1 to 25K in strings attached seed funding as an MIT student. The mentorship is potentially a good benefit, but I already receive mentorship from my professors.
I'm sure there are some students who might benefit from this, but I'm not convinced.
Also, regarding the pledge: "This pledge to give back is a personal choice and not binding and funding will not be conditional on a student signing a pledge." (https://sandbox.mit.edu/apply-3/) It sounds like a pretty reasonable program.
But an engineering startup ? definitely not.
Quote:
ownership of Intellectual Property developed by faculty, students, staff, and others participating in MIT programs, including visitors, with the significant use of funds or facilities administered by MIT will vest with MIT.
From my reading of the policy.. it sounds like if you accept this small sum (1-5K), MIT gets the IP rights to everything you make. Good deal for MIT.
If they own the name (trademark) of your project; the content on your website and marketing materials; copyright on your code; patents... you're basically working for MIT for $1k.
Just look at their students debts for example, or "acceptance rates". That metric is abused to justify prestige in a failing educational system whose output can barely compete with _middle schoolers_ of truly developed countries, and even developing countries like China. Stanford for example has this little lottery where they select some poor bastard with chops to market themselves as a merit based school which is hilarious.
If you look at MIT, and other American schools' prestige in the global arena and take into account the state of their educational system, they are a bunch of hoaxers and fraudsters.
The meat of the quality of the output of American higher education is from the strength of foreign students, and not from American systems.