The arguments for the Thiel Fellows to pursue this opportunity and the current debate for the overall college "bubble" have little in common. While they touch on a similar subject of (not) going to college, I don't see how a very narrow fund for 20 of the brightest and most capable teens in America has anything to do with the current status quo for the average young person who is going to college. I think they're very separate debates and it's too bad that the conversation has been sidetracked in this way.
Thiel is certainly not encouraging everyone to become a Fellow of his program. As far as I'm aware it is a connected but distinct branch of his education reform platform. If you visit the Meet the Fellows page of the program's site [1] and browse through, you will see that each and every one is highly accomplished and likely to succeed regardless of Thiel's patronage. Like his funding of Seasteading or Aubrey de Grey's research, it is much more an investment in his personal beliefs and attempting to further humanity (with his name on it) than it is meant to be a large-scale alternative to university.
What he seems to be aiming for is less information asymmetry via increased education on the costs AND benefits of education for those considering attending university, and more of a marketplace for degrees, if they are to be treated as investments. For example, allowing lenders to offer lower rates for those entering STEM majors or people who have demonstrated high aptitude scores, or making information on job placement broken down by degree more readily available.
On the topic of the overall bubble, I think the main problem is that the demands of the marketplace are not effectively filtered into pressure to select certain majors. Thus you have the current absurd situation where there are as many STEM students as there were 30 years ago, but the number of liberal arts majors has skyrocketed.
Not everyone can work in publishing and theater.
Also, it's a shame how 60 Minutes, a main stream cultural bellwether if there ever was one, eviscerates Thiel. He's one of the few practical visionaries around, and his thesis that the American cultural status quo is indeterminately (rather than determinately) optimistic about the future is bolstered by the treatment they give him.
I don't think they did a good enough job. They didn't call him out when he gave as examples 3 total outliers, Gates, Jobs and Zuckerberg. Ditto for saying college costs $250,000 for 4 years. Public colleges aren't anywhere near that cost.
Harvard "full list" is 62,950 and nobody pays that unless they are from a wealthy family.
Syracuse which I would think is typical of private colleges would be about 200k for 4 years.
Many public schools are easily maybe 18k per year room and board for in state students. That is way less than "250k".
I agree. The statement that plumbers make as much as doctors is insanely inaccurate. I think Thiel needs to find a new plumber, because he's clearly overpaying.
While I've not run the numbers, when you adjust for the costs and lost wages from:
* 4 years of undergrad
* 4 years of medical school
* 3+ years of residency
And the potential upside for a plumber who starts his own business or perhaps branches out into general contracting, it would not surprise me if total lifetime wages adjusted for education expenses were fairly close.
This is a commonly made false comparison: employed physician vs. self-employed plumber. You've combined two jobs (plumber + small business manager), then assumed that the plumber is better than competent at both. This will not compare favorably at the margin if you compare e.g. to a surgeon who opens a plastic surgery practice, or uses his surgical skill to found Intuitive Surgical.
Either compare averages or admit that there's no point comparing when you already know the outcome you want.
For what it's worth, I agree it's a poor comparison. I posted as much to ponder how it might have arisen during the interview as to address the GP's statement "that plumbers make as much as doctors is insanely inaccurate"
Yes. Shows what a bubble he lives in. That statement really bothered me (was just discussing that last night with my wife when I replayed the story) and I think it obviously showed Thiel's lack of preparedness for the interview. Imagine going on 60 Minutes and not being prepared. It shows the halo he has around him from talking to people who rarely challenge him. Reminds me of shit I can get away with at a family gathering that would never fly on HN!
Anyway the job (and prestige) of a doctor is vastly different than the "average" plumber or tradesman and comes with a whole host of psychic benefits. And the skills (mechanical and being grimy all day) are much different for plumber than Physician.
As someone who goes to a state school, sometimes I feel like being in college is detrimental to my learning. I'm surrounded by students who don't care, and it can be tough to overcome "the crowd." Looking back, I'm not sure if it was a good idea to save money and go to state school, as opposed to going to an expensive school with motivated students. I guess time will tell...
Expensive schools don't necessarily have motivated students, especially not at the undergrad level. I've met just as many morons from the Ivy Leagues as I've met from state schools (and brilliant people, too). Cost has little to do with desire to learn or focus for an 18-year-old to twenty something.
Does anyone happen to know if all the fellows are American? I cannot seem to find this info online.
Quibbling detail, I know. But I had the impression the competition was not just limited to the U.S. (Which in no way "argues" the above point. I tried to let it go. I really did. Curiosity killed the cat and all that.)
Absolutely not; a fair number of them are from Europe, and some from Asia. (I am one of the "mentors" who get to vote on finalists, and help them out after they're in). Out of 40, maybe 15-20 were non-US born, and maybe 10 were non-US citizens.
It's hard to start and actively run a company in the United States if you're not American citizen especially if you don't even have a bachelors degree to get a H1B visa from your own company.
Here are some question for PG (or any of the YC partners):
How many of the YC founders are college dropouts?
How many of the YC founders that had successful (by whatever definition you'd like) exits were college dropouts?
And lastly, how do you feel about college education in general? Do you agree with Thiel, that it is not a good use of time and money? Is college education a big factor when choosing companies for YC?
The stats don't matter because college has been the default choice of young people for decades. The winners in life usually go to college, so the best companies will usually be founded by college graduates. The point is that college isn't adding much, certainly not $250k, towards the success of those founders. And it may be even more detrimental to society than the debt - so many of New York and Chicago's best and brightest were steered to banks and hedge funds, for example.
YC funds a lot of founders who are young and have not finished college.
(I'm not YC) But, interesting and related to this entire conversation. I forked to the article in the NY Times circa 1996 that you were quoted in (from your profile):
"Dartmouth, one of the most academically competitive colleges in the country, has long had a reputation for encouraging computer use by students. It now has the new distinction of being one of the most e-mail-intensive, delivering about 250,000 electronic messages a day to 5,000 students and 3,000 faculty and staff members, or more than 30 messages apiece."
And, in fact, I spent many hours at Wharton in the late 70's early 80's with a Dec-10 at the computer center and CRT's.
Had I been a college dropout of course I would have never had that opportunity which led to so many things (computer only being one thing).
I would probably have had the same opportunity (with computers of course) at a public college so cost didn't have to be a factor.
The situation of course depends greatly on the individual circumstances of course and there is no question that it is applicable to people beyond the professionals (Doctors etc.) that Thiel seems to acknowledge as having to spend the time and money.
Ya, circumstance is still important. It all depends on what you want to do and what you have access to.
If you want to be a web or mobile developer, why do you need to go to school? What can they offer you that free (or even cheap for pay) online courses can't?
If on the other hand, you're interested in biotech and need access to the equipment and knowledge only available at a university, by all means go for it! But if/when the day comes when that kind of knowledge is ubiquitous, like internet tech became, I hope you'll reconsider.
Now, the two economists have updated the study with new
data, more detail -- and the results are even more
compelling. In the abstract, they report: "When we adjust
for unobserved student ability by controlling for the
average SAT score of the colleges that students applied
to, our estimates of the return to college selectivity
fall substantially and are generally indistinguishable
from zero."
In this view, college is just an imperfect, expensive proxy for your SAT score. And the reason this proxy exists is because of the Griggs vs. Duke Power ruling, which prohibits companies from administering SAT-type tests of general reasoning. It may not be coincidental that the explosion in college prices began around that time.
If it turns out that a three hour SAT at $100 can replace a four year college degree costing $250,000 in terms of its predictive value for an employer - and the Dale/Krueger study sure seems to show this - then yes, Peter Thiel is on to something very big, and you may want to short higher-ed. Or at least Sallie Mae.
This is missing the point. The indicator colleges provide occurs upon admittance. Dropping out is perfectly fine, because you can still say you went to (MIT/Harvard/Stanford). And therefore were good enough to get the degree, but had better things to do.
Thiel's case seems to be around 2 points: college is overpriced, and the diploma is overrated (specifically the B.A., though this is not mentioned in this interview). Wadhwa consistently seems to be missing the point here in his counterarguments; Thiel is not promoting anti-intellectualism, he's simply bringing light to these issues. Because of rising costs, we can't continue to put education on a pedestal; it needs to be treated like any other paid good or investment.
I tested out of High School a year early and moved to Los Angeles to focus on only what I wanted to do: Act, write, direct. I'm probably not representative of everyone in technology without a college degree, but nevertheless, when I realized Dream #1 wasn't happening, I tool my tech experience in retail to the start-up world, and then settled in to a decent career, which is only getting better with time. Part of me agrees with all this, but with a grain of salt. It's not the path for everyone. Put me in a room of geeks and I can hold my own; put me in a group of more well-rounded folks, fans of opera and the like (tongue in cheek, folks), I couldn't hold my own and would be bored to death. But that's not just due to personal taste, but a total lack of exposure.
My mother never encouraged me to go to school and I spent all my time in my room reading SciFi and Fantasy novels. But I was very smart, and now that I have a kid of my own, I see that same intelligence in her and, guess what, I'm sending her to college. No matter what. She'll have opportunities to do great things, and I wouldn't fault her for pausing college to work on a start-up company, but I would fault her for not finishing school, even if it took a decade or two. See, I want her to be able to sit in that room with all the socialites and hold her own, as easily as she could in a room full of geeks. That said, until the United States improves its view of education and makes some radical changes, my daughter will NOT be going to college in the States. Maybe University of Helsinki? :)
Good luck to all the Thiel Fellows. I think it is needed, for both an _alternative_ and as a reminder to folks in the States that there is a serious problem with the education system...
Being "educated" != having a college degree. What was missing from the piece was any mention of the difference. Vivek Wadhwa was portrayed as someone who believes "you gotta have that piece 'o paper to make it in America." Also, the piece was somewhat disingenuous in that it kept harping on the supposed risk those dropping out were taking even though it later mentioned that most in the program easily could re-enter college. It's like those saying that the 18 year-old LeBron James was giving up his chance for an education when he chose the NBA over college. Perhaps Thiel could have defined opportunity loss for the audience (sarcasm, of course).
Going to college is like BUYING a house. That's what the market has overbought. Everyone needs a house, but renting is an option. Renting is being self-educated; for the purposes of how much you learn, either can be adequate -- renting clearly covers the low end better, but I know a lot of rich people who rent super expensive properties, too.
Being entirely uneducated is being homeless; no one is advocating that.
A better analogy might be that going to college is more like rent-to-own. The rates border on usurious and the terms draconian, and should at any point you miss a payment or choose temporarily relocate, you stand to lose everything you have paid to date.
That's true, but doing so leaves you in the same position as any high school graduate with regard to being able to list a degree on your resume. When companies are able to filter based on what you have learned X years of coruses might be a distinction, but in the present system it is only possible to have a very coarse-grained view, and in the current system
has_degree = lambda years, total: years == total
has_degree(3,4)
=> False
Edit: Renamed method attended_college method to has_degree to better reflect functionality.
Not necessarily true. I 'attended' college for 4.5 years, completed 140% of the required credits to graduate but I'm technically 3 classes shy of my degree. I left school in 2003.
Suffice it to say, I don't think has_degree can be implemented as a one-liner.
That's true of many things, and often those that can shouldn't. It does, however, capture the sentiment of those who believe that not having a Bachelors degree renders you an unemployable member of the lowest castes of society.
Of course everyone must know someone who has attended Uni/college and dropped out. I know a guy who I would classify as smarter than me. Dropped out in his third year, didn't help that he was dyslexic.
My wife went to undergrad for 3 years and has an undergrad degree. You're program doesn't account for credit hours or degree specific degree requirements.
And if you have an extra hour, its well worth it to listen to Thiel in this more recent debate on the broader issue: Peter Thiel and George Gilder debate on "The Prospects for Technology and Economic Growth"
Not a big fan of that piece. There are different kinds of education... going through one channel that people believe to be the largest and most correct, isn't always right for everyone. However, it is a small minority of people that can recognize that that specific path isn't right for them at the end of High School (U.S. model). I went through 4 years of "upper education" knowing I was going to be a coder from the start and in the end of it all I do believe that I would have be a better programmer if I had not gone through all those years of college and just started coding for someone else's ideas. However, from a social standpoint, I would not trade those 4 years back for a million bucks. They are great memories and although I feel I lost those years in hard core coding advancement - I gained a lot of skills for navigating the world. I was also lucky enough to get a free ride. For people looking back with $200k in debt, I can understand their underwhelming. Different strokes for different folks for different situations and kudos to people like Thiel who bring that to the surface and make people critically think about the path before them before they undertake it.
The question I'm asking myself is: Is there a different way to do things that would get you the benefits that you got out of those 4 years without the downsides? Would it be possible to make your coding progress and get the social benefits and memories and all that kind of stuff?
I'm not sure what the answer is, but I know that there are more possibilities out there than 1) follow the traditional US college path and 2) don't go to college and start working full time straight away.
Totally agree on more possibilities, and honestly the whole "hand shaking class", etc presented in this piece isn't real world education to me. The kind of real world stuff I mean is much more primal than that.
Part of the problem is the way information is delivered. The model of "plop your ass in a chair and hit record as your professor speeds through PowerPoint" is insane and mind-numbing. It breeds students that are more interested in manufacturing the correct output for assignments than actually understanding the material being presented.
There also tends to be a finality to grading that is disjoint with the actual amount of information learned. When you fail a homework assignment and finally understand what you did wrong, THAT'S where the learning actually occurs. Unless that student is able to resubmit that homework in some other form, the grade will never reflect that "Aha!" moment.
The last line sums up most of what I disliked about this piece: "where only big ideas flourish and school's out for everybody".
Safer tries to suggest that Thiel is advocating against college for everybody, or any field. What I take from Thiel's stance is that college has become less of a place of learning, and more of an inefficient credentialing mechanism.
Safer makes the interesting point that most startups will fail, but what he seems to miss (or Thiel doesn't point out): Thiel Fellows also have a credential of a kind, and even in failure, an extremely lucrative one.
I have a degree in computer engineering and have founded a struggling startup. My one year doing my failed startup was immensely more valuable to me than my 4 years at university. But that's just one anecdote.
I have similar experiences. I feel that degrees are only relevant to employers as a means to thin the pack of applicants and only relevant to students as a way to better network and fill that check box putting them into the thinned herd.
I have degrees from a good university and I've also been working on a startup for a couple of years, I'm not naive enough to view life as anything other than a series of contiguous events that influence each other though...
Jumping in here... I'm a college student and a frequent TA. I've TAed in CompSci (which I started learning as a kid), Chemistry, and Biology. Most kids don't want to be there. They see it as a continuation of high school. I even go to a pretty awesome school. But most entering freshman go because their family and their society tell them its required. If even half of those folks didn't go, it would give college classrooms and communities a more academic, productive, and positive atmosphere that encouraged hard work and learning. Instead our country has a pathological relationship with higher education. Its a place where rich and middle class folks bump their heads against academic subjects in the day time and binge drink in the night.
Certainly not everyone's like that. Certainly college is a really useful tool for many people. Its also an good tool to climb the social ladder. But the assumption that its right for everyone in a certain social class... that's whats fucked up.
Did you apply yourself equally at both? Without making any assumptions, many people do sail through college hardly putting enough effort. If people half-assed startups the same way, starting work on the prototype two days before an investor pitch, say, that wouldn't be much of a learning experience either.
In your own startup, it feels like every stroke counts, and you are doing something you find exciting and meaningful. It's likely not that startups offer more teaching experience, it's just that you're bound to get more out of something you really dive into.
Having said that, most (all?) college curricula do not cater for people intending to do startups, but they still have a lot to offer.
Yes, I probably worked harder at my startup than at school. For people that love school, maybe that's a better choice for them, it wasn't necessarily for me.
To be fair, I think we tend to hear what we want to hear.
Peter Thiel occurs to me as someone who sees the world in stark terms. He holds a libertarian approach to society and government. Considering this, I don't think it's a stretch to assume he truly means college is mostly, if not altogether, pointless.
That said, his opinion doesn't seem to be the prevailing opinion in Silicon Valley. By and large, people (even in SV) realize that not everyone has the chops to start a company or follow their ideas to fruition, and it's essentially still a success touchstone in the minds of most.
Even if one doesn't hope to start their own company, a college degree's value is mostly in its sheepskin effect. Forgive me for not citing sources, but I've read polls that suggest that up to 63% of college graduates are in jobs that don't even require a post-secondary education.
There are industries for which it would be impossible to innovate or even participate without this, and it's unlikely someone will develop this on their own time.
Your post doesn't address not debunk the sheepskin effect, which is the observed phenomena where, among people with equal years of education, a person with a degree is paid much more than a person without.
I don't think you're incorrect about mathematical maturity, but we should tie it into the theme of the thread here: the returns to a college education. In technical fields, college is akin to job training. Consequently, it's not surprising that engineering degrees have the highest out-of-college return. This is unlike obtaining a degree in the liberal arts, where the on-the-job training supersedes the importance of a college education.
In my opinion, investing in someone's business based on their age and not the business validity of their product is a farce. The game is all about baiting bigger investors by saying 'this guy's going to be the next Zuckerberg' and sprinkling some cash on them to make their prophesy seem like it is coming true. Then it's 'keep the game going' until you can desperately gather up enough of the real innovators who went to college and learned their craft to actually build the billion dollar businesses or sell all the employees to a big corp if maybe the world changing idea part looks like it won't pan out.
All of the engineering jobs at Facebook and Paypal require a BS or MS. Why is that if the founders were miraculously able to build those companies to what they are today with no degree? Shouldn't they be hiring college dropouts who skipped databases 101 so they could 'hack'?
> All of the engineering jobs at Facebook and Paypal require a BS or MS.
While I can't speak to the latter, I for certain that at Facebook they ask for a degree or equivalent experience. I also know several people from the CS Department here at University of Washington who ended up dropping out to join the company after very successful internships. It's my understanding that they are very much a company that recruits on ability to Get Things Done more than anything else.
Most VC startups begin with a kernel of a good idea (large bubbles do as well). Now this idea is either self-supporting or supported by funding (both due to the assets of society - not that of the founder). As you are at the beginning of the wave, you ride it, and good people find their way towards you. You then hire these people for below market rates (most equity is worthless) and then use them to make you into the great success that you are.
There are no barriers to entry to becoming a "founder". You just have to be there, and be ready. The competition is low at the beginning. Hence you get drop outs who go on to succeed. The success is not because of themselves, but because of the situation around them.
Own all the land in America 400 years ago, and it's worthless. Wait a few generations and your descendents are some of the richest people on the planet. The founders of America look like absolute geniuses today, when it was the work of the millions who came after them that made them look like gods.
The world isn't about people. It isn't about societies. It's about complex systems, undergoing transformations with a nearly infinite number of variables, and where the slightest changes in any one of them can lead to vastly different results.
1000 possible billionaires are born everyday. Most die in the third world. The remainder come from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Cuts that to about 100. Of those 100, few are located in places like Silicon Valley. Now you are around 10. Of these 10, some go study medicine/law/engineering and disappear from the pool. Down to 1-2. Most of these guys fail.
You only hear about the successes - not the failures. The world is really fucking complex. Randomness is by far the greatest factor in people's lives.
But people want reasons damn it! There must be a secret, right?
I decided to not go to college as some of you know. I wrote a popular blog piece on the subject a couple months ago.
It's something I think about a lot, but the past year since I graduated high school, it has been an incredible experience, and I'm topping it all off with my startup being accepted into the TechStars program this summer term.
I can almost guarantee I'll have more hands on experience, a decent savings, and a steady paycheck in 3 years when my graduating high school class graduates college.
If you look at my history you can tell I've worked really hard to be where I am, I'm super focused, and I inadvertently don't have a huge social life, and I'm ok with that. I feel in high school I concentrated on doing what I love instead of going to parties, etc. I have a few close friends that I have fun with and enjoy, don't get me wrong, but I feel a lot of the high school social life is just stupid and time wasting and I spent it learning about what I do, and when I graduated I had an internship with a startup in DC waiting on me. I chose to work hard, do what I love, and stay focused and it is already paying off.
I encourage people to find what they love, learn all about it, and whatever it takes to achieve their goals is what they should do. Don't look at college as a must have stepping stone to be successful, but instead look as it in a light that answers the question: Will this help me achieve my life goals and dreams?
I'm super focused, and I inadvertently don't have a huge social life, and I'm ok with that.
Let me suggest to you that you do the equivalent of a "gap year" sometime soon. Save up a bit of money, put your stuff in storage, and head off on a grand adventure. Travel cheaply through developing countries where even meager savings will allow you access to interesting experiences. Alternatively, consider something like teaching English abroad. I learned more about the world, myself, and my own culture in a year of travel than I did in years of college and work. It's really easy to get so focused on your career track that you lose sight of the diversity and vast experiences that life has to offer. Incidentally, you'll meet a ton of very interesting people in a few months of hostel-hopping. :-)
Here are some courses that changed my life: Intro to Abstract Math, Non-Euclidean Geometry, Symbolic Logic, Music Theory, Theory of Computation, Computer Architecture, Compilers, Computer Graphics, Animation, Performance Evaluation, Critical Thinking, Linear Algebra, Elementary Physics. I was a different person after completing each of these courses. I spent about 40k total for a Bachelor's and Master's degree in Computer Science. For arming me with needed skills and establishing a broad foundation that permits me to think outside a narrow discipline when it's called for, I'd say it's worthwhile. Anything that accomplishes this is good. Right now that's college.
I concede some schools are a better value, and some majors are not going to make you financially successful. I think that should be the discussion.
I don't believe there is a definitive answer to that. Everyone is different. Some learn better in the classroom, others learn best on their own, and I'm sure there are a million variations in between.
And that's the whole point. Government has decided that there is one answer and put its financial and bully pulpit thumb on that scale. That's how it creates most of its bubbles.
One of the kids in the video says "[In college], I was challenged in things I am not interested in, but not in thins I am interested in." That's the whole point. Stepping out of your comfort zone may even be the single most important life skill. If you cherry pick the stuff you want to work on, you will never learn something new. College is a good place to learn how to hammer through "uninteresting" stuff.
It's too bad Theil mostly just complains instead of actually solving the problem by starting a group to provide an alternative credentialing mechanism.
One thing a lot of people seem to be arguing is that Thiel is only advocating certain people not go to college. Thiel in this video, and in most articles / videos I have seen him in, advocates that the reader shouldn't go to college. Does anyone have any links of specific quotes where he is advocating for some people to go to college?
Thiel, in this video, says that you should go to college if you have a good reason to go to college - like if you want to be a professor. He only suggests that you should think long and hard about why you are going to college, which is logic that is pretty hard to argue against.
Many people, especially those driven by money, don't seem to appreciate the pursuit of knowledge in itself. Our society has evolved to offer the wonderful opportunity for us to learn a variety of topics. That in itself is amazing. Every bit of knowledge need not be for applying and making money from. Schools provide a great environment to teach us a broad set of things. If the problem is that schools overcharge, fix that. Everyone dropping out of schools is not the solution.
I wonder if the "Thiel fellowship" model is a scalable form of education? Would some portion of bright young people benefit from pursuing their most ambitious idea for two years?
It could be kind of like a gap year but applied to pursuing some ambitious idea. If it works, great. If it doesn't, returning to college would still be an option.
I hate it when they say "well, there is only one Mark Zuckerberg".
Well, there are a lot of @igorgue (me) out there; I didn't go to college, heck, I didn't even go to high school - If I had to apply to one of those factories that require a high school degree, I couldn't. But, I do have a, fairly successful, software development career, my business card reads "senior software engineer".
I'm 24, I earn more than my friends my age, I'm high-middle-class - I joke saying I'm the 2.5% instead of the 1% - I'm even foreign, and a minority. I'm 100% out of debt.
My point is, most people know they can't be Mark Zuckerberg even if they go to college, they just want to have some success. And the average joe - myself included - can do get it without going to college.
I am reading the notes taken at his !college! class posted about a few days ago. I am on the 6th lecture, and just realised that while thinking he was a douche I was quoting him, so I have to take back my negative thoughts about him and say he seems to have some good ideas and the notes are well worth a read.
Anyway, I got the impression from the lectures so far that his problem with college would be more due to the tendency for students to associate 'difficult' with 'valuable', and he was really railing against a handful of so-called elite institutions.
Arguing that you should avoid any formal training is pretty daft - you can learn a lot by yourself but self-study tends to anti-select against important-but-boring stuff (I've recently changed from self-study back to programmed-study and have to begrudgingly accept that I am consolidating my understanding of certain issues only since).
93 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 155 ms ] threadWhat he seems to be aiming for is less information asymmetry via increased education on the costs AND benefits of education for those considering attending university, and more of a marketplace for degrees, if they are to be treated as investments. For example, allowing lenders to offer lower rates for those entering STEM majors or people who have demonstrated high aptitude scores, or making information on job placement broken down by degree more readily available.
[1] http://www.thielfellowship.org/fellows/
On the topic of the overall bubble, I think the main problem is that the demands of the marketplace are not effectively filtered into pressure to select certain majors. Thus you have the current absurd situation where there are as many STEM students as there were 30 years ago, but the number of liberal arts majors has skyrocketed.
Not everyone can work in publishing and theater.
Also, it's a shame how 60 Minutes, a main stream cultural bellwether if there ever was one, eviscerates Thiel. He's one of the few practical visionaries around, and his thesis that the American cultural status quo is indeterminately (rather than determinately) optimistic about the future is bolstered by the treatment they give him.
We're in a general labor glut. There's not as much demand for anyone anymore.
I don't think they did a good enough job. They didn't call him out when he gave as examples 3 total outliers, Gates, Jobs and Zuckerberg. Ditto for saying college costs $250,000 for 4 years. Public colleges aren't anywhere near that cost.
Harvard "full list" is 62,950 and nobody pays that unless they are from a wealthy family.
Syracuse which I would think is typical of private colleges would be about 200k for 4 years.
Many public schools are easily maybe 18k per year room and board for in state students. That is way less than "250k".
* 4 years of undergrad * 4 years of medical school * 3+ years of residency
And the potential upside for a plumber who starts his own business or perhaps branches out into general contracting, it would not surprise me if total lifetime wages adjusted for education expenses were fairly close.
Either compare averages or admit that there's no point comparing when you already know the outcome you want.
Anyway the job (and prestige) of a doctor is vastly different than the "average" plumber or tradesman and comes with a whole host of psychic benefits. And the skills (mechanical and being grimy all day) are much different for plumber than Physician.
Quibbling detail, I know. But I had the impression the competition was not just limited to the U.S. (Which in no way "argues" the above point. I tried to let it go. I really did. Curiosity killed the cat and all that.)
Thanks.
How many of the YC founders are college dropouts?
How many of the YC founders that had successful (by whatever definition you'd like) exits were college dropouts?
And lastly, how do you feel about college education in general? Do you agree with Thiel, that it is not a good use of time and money? Is college education a big factor when choosing companies for YC?
YC funds a lot of founders who are young and have not finished college.
http://www.jedberg.net/article.html
And this in particular, (1996):
"Dartmouth, one of the most academically competitive colleges in the country, has long had a reputation for encouraging computer use by students. It now has the new distinction of being one of the most e-mail-intensive, delivering about 250,000 electronic messages a day to 5,000 students and 3,000 faculty and staff members, or more than 30 messages apiece."
And, in fact, I spent many hours at Wharton in the late 70's early 80's with a Dec-10 at the computer center and CRT's.
Had I been a college dropout of course I would have never had that opportunity which led to so many things (computer only being one thing).
I would probably have had the same opportunity (with computers of course) at a public college so cost didn't have to be a factor.
The situation of course depends greatly on the individual circumstances of course and there is no question that it is applicable to people beyond the professionals (Doctors etc.) that Thiel seems to acknowledge as having to spend the time and money.
Yes, I agree that I would have never learned what I did about computers if I hadn't had a chance to play with them like I did at Berkeley.
If you want to be a web or mobile developer, why do you need to go to school? What can they offer you that free (or even cheap for pay) online courses can't?
If on the other hand, you're interested in biotech and need access to the equipment and knowledge only available at a university, by all means go for it! But if/when the day comes when that kind of knowledge is ubiquitous, like internet tech became, I hope you'll reconsider.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/02/23/elite-colleges-not-th...
In this view, college is just an imperfect, expensive proxy for your SAT score. And the reason this proxy exists is because of the Griggs vs. Duke Power ruling, which prohibits companies from administering SAT-type tests of general reasoning. It may not be coincidental that the explosion in college prices began around that time.If it turns out that a three hour SAT at $100 can replace a four year college degree costing $250,000 in terms of its predictive value for an employer - and the Dale/Krueger study sure seems to show this - then yes, Peter Thiel is on to something very big, and you may want to short higher-ed. Or at least Sallie Mae.
your ipad can play that file
My mother never encouraged me to go to school and I spent all my time in my room reading SciFi and Fantasy novels. But I was very smart, and now that I have a kid of my own, I see that same intelligence in her and, guess what, I'm sending her to college. No matter what. She'll have opportunities to do great things, and I wouldn't fault her for pausing college to work on a start-up company, but I would fault her for not finishing school, even if it took a decade or two. See, I want her to be able to sit in that room with all the socialites and hold her own, as easily as she could in a room full of geeks. That said, until the United States improves its view of education and makes some radical changes, my daughter will NOT be going to college in the States. Maybe University of Helsinki? :)
Good luck to all the Thiel Fellows. I think it is needed, for both an _alternative_ and as a reminder to folks in the States that there is a serious problem with the education system...
Going to college is like BUYING a house. That's what the market has overbought. Everyone needs a house, but renting is an option. Renting is being self-educated; for the purposes of how much you learn, either can be adequate -- renting clearly covers the low end better, but I know a lot of rich people who rent super expensive properties, too.
Being entirely uneducated is being homeless; no one is advocating that.
Suffice it to say, I don't think has_degree can be implemented as a one-liner.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRrLyckg8Nc
I'm not sure what the answer is, but I know that there are more possibilities out there than 1) follow the traditional US college path and 2) don't go to college and start working full time straight away.
There also tends to be a finality to grading that is disjoint with the actual amount of information learned. When you fail a homework assignment and finally understand what you did wrong, THAT'S where the learning actually occurs. Unless that student is able to resubmit that homework in some other form, the grade will never reflect that "Aha!" moment.
Safer tries to suggest that Thiel is advocating against college for everybody, or any field. What I take from Thiel's stance is that college has become less of a place of learning, and more of an inefficient credentialing mechanism.
Safer makes the interesting point that most startups will fail, but what he seems to miss (or Thiel doesn't point out): Thiel Fellows also have a credential of a kind, and even in failure, an extremely lucrative one.
Certainly not everyone's like that. Certainly college is a really useful tool for many people. Its also an good tool to climb the social ladder. But the assumption that its right for everyone in a certain social class... that's whats fucked up.
In your own startup, it feels like every stroke counts, and you are doing something you find exciting and meaningful. It's likely not that startups offer more teaching experience, it's just that you're bound to get more out of something you really dive into.
Having said that, most (all?) college curricula do not cater for people intending to do startups, but they still have a lot to offer.
Peter Thiel occurs to me as someone who sees the world in stark terms. He holds a libertarian approach to society and government. Considering this, I don't think it's a stretch to assume he truly means college is mostly, if not altogether, pointless.
That said, his opinion doesn't seem to be the prevailing opinion in Silicon Valley. By and large, people (even in SV) realize that not everyone has the chops to start a company or follow their ideas to fruition, and it's essentially still a success touchstone in the minds of most.
Then how do you explain the mathematical maturity effect that most STEM students go through in a four year program.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_maturity
There are industries for which it would be impossible to innovate or even participate without this, and it's unlikely someone will develop this on their own time.
I don't think you're incorrect about mathematical maturity, but we should tie it into the theme of the thread here: the returns to a college education. In technical fields, college is akin to job training. Consequently, it's not surprising that engineering degrees have the highest out-of-college return. This is unlike obtaining a degree in the liberal arts, where the on-the-job training supersedes the importance of a college education.
All of the engineering jobs at Facebook and Paypal require a BS or MS. Why is that if the founders were miraculously able to build those companies to what they are today with no degree? Shouldn't they be hiring college dropouts who skipped databases 101 so they could 'hack'?
While I can't speak to the latter, I for certain that at Facebook they ask for a degree or equivalent experience. I also know several people from the CS Department here at University of Washington who ended up dropping out to join the company after very successful internships. It's my understanding that they are very much a company that recruits on ability to Get Things Done more than anything else.
Some people call it riding the wave.
Most VC startups begin with a kernel of a good idea (large bubbles do as well). Now this idea is either self-supporting or supported by funding (both due to the assets of society - not that of the founder). As you are at the beginning of the wave, you ride it, and good people find their way towards you. You then hire these people for below market rates (most equity is worthless) and then use them to make you into the great success that you are.
There are no barriers to entry to becoming a "founder". You just have to be there, and be ready. The competition is low at the beginning. Hence you get drop outs who go on to succeed. The success is not because of themselves, but because of the situation around them.
Own all the land in America 400 years ago, and it's worthless. Wait a few generations and your descendents are some of the richest people on the planet. The founders of America look like absolute geniuses today, when it was the work of the millions who came after them that made them look like gods.
The world isn't about people. It isn't about societies. It's about complex systems, undergoing transformations with a nearly infinite number of variables, and where the slightest changes in any one of them can lead to vastly different results.
1000 possible billionaires are born everyday. Most die in the third world. The remainder come from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Cuts that to about 100. Of those 100, few are located in places like Silicon Valley. Now you are around 10. Of these 10, some go study medicine/law/engineering and disappear from the pool. Down to 1-2. Most of these guys fail.
You only hear about the successes - not the failures. The world is really fucking complex. Randomness is by far the greatest factor in people's lives.
But people want reasons damn it! There must be a secret, right?
Sigh.
It's something I think about a lot, but the past year since I graduated high school, it has been an incredible experience, and I'm topping it all off with my startup being accepted into the TechStars program this summer term.
I can almost guarantee I'll have more hands on experience, a decent savings, and a steady paycheck in 3 years when my graduating high school class graduates college.
If you look at my history you can tell I've worked really hard to be where I am, I'm super focused, and I inadvertently don't have a huge social life, and I'm ok with that. I feel in high school I concentrated on doing what I love instead of going to parties, etc. I have a few close friends that I have fun with and enjoy, don't get me wrong, but I feel a lot of the high school social life is just stupid and time wasting and I spent it learning about what I do, and when I graduated I had an internship with a startup in DC waiting on me. I chose to work hard, do what I love, and stay focused and it is already paying off.
I encourage people to find what they love, learn all about it, and whatever it takes to achieve their goals is what they should do. Don't look at college as a must have stepping stone to be successful, but instead look as it in a light that answers the question: Will this help me achieve my life goals and dreams?
Let me suggest to you that you do the equivalent of a "gap year" sometime soon. Save up a bit of money, put your stuff in storage, and head off on a grand adventure. Travel cheaply through developing countries where even meager savings will allow you access to interesting experiences. Alternatively, consider something like teaching English abroad. I learned more about the world, myself, and my own culture in a year of travel than I did in years of college and work. It's really easy to get so focused on your career track that you lose sight of the diversity and vast experiences that life has to offer. Incidentally, you'll meet a ton of very interesting people in a few months of hostel-hopping. :-)
I concede some schools are a better value, and some majors are not going to make you financially successful. I think that should be the discussion.
So is your first job.
It could be kind of like a gap year but applied to pursuing some ambitious idea. If it works, great. If it doesn't, returning to college would still be an option.
Well, there are a lot of @igorgue (me) out there; I didn't go to college, heck, I didn't even go to high school - If I had to apply to one of those factories that require a high school degree, I couldn't. But, I do have a, fairly successful, software development career, my business card reads "senior software engineer".
I'm 24, I earn more than my friends my age, I'm high-middle-class - I joke saying I'm the 2.5% instead of the 1% - I'm even foreign, and a minority. I'm 100% out of debt.
My point is, most people know they can't be Mark Zuckerberg even if they go to college, they just want to have some success. And the average joe - myself included - can do get it without going to college.
Anyway, I got the impression from the lectures so far that his problem with college would be more due to the tendency for students to associate 'difficult' with 'valuable', and he was really railing against a handful of so-called elite institutions.
Arguing that you should avoid any formal training is pretty daft - you can learn a lot by yourself but self-study tends to anti-select against important-but-boring stuff (I've recently changed from self-study back to programmed-study and have to begrudgingly accept that I am consolidating my understanding of certain issues only since).