
Peter Thiel gives new class of students $100K to forgo college - jackyyappp
http://venturebeat.com/2012/06/12/thiel-fellowship-2012/
======
confluence
Reminds me of that great quote I heard about Rhodes Scholars:

    
    
      A Rhodes Scholar: someone with a great future behind him.
    

The same type of _lax logic_ can be observed in the world's infatuation with
the dramatic rise of Japan in the 80s, dubbed the "Japanese Miracle". This
logic can be seen, repeatedly, throughout human history, with more recent
examples being Communism in the 60s, the "Asian Tigers" of the 90s, and the
"New Economy" babble of pretty much every single human period. Indeed, I'm
seeing the same kind of statements about China and India as the "New World
Powers".

Here's the reasoning (if you want to call it that):

 _Look at that growth rate! If this keeps up - sooner or later they'll be
stronger than America!_

    
    
      Sigh
    

Start low enough (19 year olds anyone?), and any growth will look enormous
(startups; this applies to you too). If they kept at the growth rate you claim
we'd end up with India and China being greater in size and scope than the
entire universe.

 _Look everyone! This kid got into MIT at 14 years old! Extrapolate that out a
few years - he'll clearly be too awesome for us mere mortals to even
comprehend!_

I mean really, that's honestly how people think. They never check back on said
prodigy 10 years later, who has become, just as one would expect, a moderately
accomplished human being (reversion to the mean). Indeed many just plain flame
out and disappear from sight (a sad fact).

 _Woo extrapolation! It works right? Come on, I mean it's not like these
systems are complex at all!_

    
    
      Statistics guy just shakes his head in complete disgust

~~~
jeffchuber
ironically Peter Thiel has quoted that quote about Rhodes scholars in the
class he is teaching at stanford.

~~~
confluence
I had no idea :D.

Do you have a link or can you quote in context. I may have more in common with
Peter Thiel than I first thought - or not :D.

~~~
dirtyaura
Class 4: [http://blakemasters.tumblr.com/post/21169325300/peter-
thiels...](http://blakemasters.tumblr.com/post/21169325300/peter-thiels-
cs183-startup-class-4-notes-essay)

------
stanfordkid
I took Thiel's class at Stanford and I can tell you that Thiel is kind of a
nut. He has a lot of very smart, very on point things to say -- however he is
either gravely misinformed or pretty much delusional in his views of broader
academia and its role in the proliferation of technology. You can see this
tangibly from his founders fund investments in the bio sciences sector. Thiel
views everything through the lens of incentives and grossly "overfits" this
methodology to academic research arguing that the incentive to publish and be
peer reviewed is responsible for the break down of truly ground breaking
research. So instead he throws money at equally delusional (but somewhat
qualified) PhDs in advanced fields for which he seems to have little grasp
for. You see the same patterns in the people selected here -- ideas that sound
"cool" as if from a sci-fi novel but tangibly very distant from real markets
and profits.

I doubt his fund gets deal flow from serious silicon valley technology firms.

------
adammichaelc
The posts on this thread remind me of that quote, "To avoid criticism do
nothing, say nothing, be nothing."

I would bet good money that none of the critics below have done anything of
much weight or significance.

There are two kinds of criticism, the kind that builds and the kind that
criticize just to criticize.

The difference is in the intent.

Critics who build are giving feedback because they want the hearer to reach
their full potential and be better, "You are almost there, but I see a few
things that you could do to really take this to the next level. Don't settle.
Really take this thing to the ground and do it right."

Critics who criticize for the sake of criticizing usually have nothing really
useful to say. They don't care about the individual or institution they
criticize. They usually have nothing of value to add. They are like spectators
at a football game, who cheer or boo because it's fun. For these people,
disagreeing is not done with the intent to help, but only with the intent to
disagree. It's a waste of energy.

~~~
confluence
> _I would bet good money that none of the critics below have done anything of
> much weight or significance._

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_accomplishment>

> _There are two kinds of criticism, the kind that builds and the kind that
> criticize just to criticize._

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma>.

> _Critics who criticize for the sake of criticizing usually have nothing
> really useful to say_

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem>.

> _full potential and be better, "You are almost there_

They say that they are going to change the world!

I'm here to tell them that they aren't that special:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4085569>.

Be careful with criticizing the critical my friend. You are playing on my turf
now, and I have home side advantage.

And I leave you with this:

    
    
      Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence
    

[http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2008/01/extraordinary-c.h...](http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2008/01/extraordinary-c.html).

~~~
coob
Oh, is it linking to fallacies time?

<http://www.fallacyfiles.org/fallfall.html>

~~~
jcromartie
I really hate linking to fallacies... it's the Internet version of "talk to
the hand".

~~~
calinet6
And sometimes oh so justly deserved, such as when being verbally bitch-slapped
by someone who believes their intellectual superiority is above retort.

------
atpaino
I think Thiel is grossly underestimating the value in college, especially for
the students in this Fellowship. Thiel argues (elsewhere) that college is only
worthwhile if you have a good idea of what you hope to get out of it. I
completely disagree. For most people, college is the time that you discover
your interests and figure out what you want to do with your life.

Even for these students, who seem to know exactly what they want to do,
college is invaluable. It's not a coincidence that most of the major tech
companies of the world (Microsoft, Google, Facebook, etc.) were started while
their founders were in college. In many ways, it is the perfect incubator: you
have plenty of domain experts readily available to talk to, a good supply of
smart tech people, and no requirement that your startup make any money yet.

So, IMHO, Thiel is doing a disservice to these students by paying them to drop
out.

~~~
mindcrime
_For most people, college is the time that you discover your interests and
figure out what you want to do with your life._

Is there any evidence that attending college is the only avenue to
accomplishing those ends? I personally think that it looks that way simply
because most people go to college during the years that they "discover your
interests and figure out what you want to do with your life." Building a
startup strikes me as an equally valid way to explore possibilities, discover
interests, and figure things out.

~~~
atpaino
I'm certainly not arguing college is the only way, just the most common. I'm
sure some people may figure things out through doing a startup, but in most
cases (this Fellowship being an exception) they won't have as many resources
at their disposal as they would at a college.

------
rshlo
The "dropout of college mania" will hurt America in the long run. The most
talented young people are pursuing gold rush ideas instead of investing in
deep learning. College leads to grad schools and grad schools created phd's.
If something is broke along the chain, the result will be catastrophic in the
long run.

~~~
mindcrime
Startups are the new graduate school. Well, in some people's eyes anyway. I
can see some merit in that position, although I think there is a place for
both.

That said, I'm a huge fan of this initiative by Peter Thiel. It just gives one
group of people some more options, which is a good thing. And these folks can
always go back to college later if they choose. Nothing says college is
limited to 18-25 year olds right out of high-school.

~~~
planetguy
> Startups are the new graduate school

Sure, assuming that the only worthwhile human endeavours over the next fifty
years are gonna be "iPhone games" and "web apps that let you share photos of
your cats".

It's amazing what you can do, nowadays, with a laptop, a cafe, a collaborator
and a stack of "For Dummies" books, but there's still far more things that you
can't.

~~~
mindcrime
There seems to be an implicit assumption in what you just said, that I
strongly disagree with. You seem to be saying that startups are only capable
of tackling "iPhone games" and "web apps that let you share photos of your
cats". I see no reason whatsoever to believe that that is true.

Startups, especially the ones that manage to get VC funding, are not limited
to the world of "a laptop, a cafe, a collaborator and a stack of "For Dummies"
books."

Somebody in an earlier thread mentioned how "universities are the best source
of scientific papers," etc. as part of his argument against Thiel's approach.
But, while it's just one anecdote, I'm working on a startup (not funded by
Thiel, or anyone but the founders) and we have subscriptions to a pile of
relevant IEEE, ACM and AAAI journals that relate to the work we're doing, and
that's not even considering how much research is available on the 'Net.

Personally I see no reason that startups can't (and shouldn't) be pushing the
envelope technologically, with the caveat that certain fields would require
huge capital investments for equipment and personnel, that might be beyond the
reach of even deep pocketed investors. But not all fields fit that
description.

~~~
planetguy
I am, of course, exaggerating when I talk about all startups being web apps
and iPhone games. On the other hand, an awful lot of the startups you'll find
floating around the HN ecosystem do seem to fall into one category or the
other.

Many startups do, indeed, work on bigger problems. Batteries, solar power,
freaking space travel. But who starts these? Not people who picked startups
over university, that's for sure. To work on big real-world problems, you
generally need a pretty darn strong background in science and/or engineering
before you can even get started.

~~~
randomdata
I'm not sure I agree with you assertion. John Carmack is a notable college
dropout who has been working on space travel.

Capital is the only thing holding anyone back from working on those things.
The reason you may see more scientists and engineers having access to the
necessary capital is because they generally have that extra special drive to
focus on that subject matter which excites investors to bring forth the money
to make it happen. Someone with the same drive, but without a degree, will
probably go just as far – they are a very rare breed though.

Any random person who wants to just start a business, any business, can go to
the coffee shop and start working away. They don't need capital from anyone.
_That_ is why people working on big problems are few and far between. You have
to really want to work on space travel, or whatever, to put forth the extra
effort to find the already rare investors.

------
csel
But ironically if I want to work for him, I need a college degree :)

~~~
confluence
See here my ironic friend: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4001377>

Isn't the world hilarious :D.

~~~
tensor
Your view is very biased. What if the successes are often random? What if in
truth many people could be founders if in the right place at the right time?
How many of those people with higher degrees go on to be successful? Even
founders?

Hell, I can point you one successful founder who went through a degree and
even a graduate degree: Peter Thiel. Yet you say:

"Of these 10, some go study medicine/law/engineering and disappear from the
pool."

Yes, the world is very complex, and you probably know less than you think you
do. As do we all. The most honest among us always remember "we do not really
understand."

~~~
confluence
Huh? Quoting out of context much?

> _Of these 10, some go study medicine/law/engineering and disappear from the
> pool. Down to 1-2. Most of these guys fail._

Well there's your Peter Thiel.

~~~
tensor
I don't think I quoted out of context. You seemed to be identifying people
being taken out of the "successful pool." Here is the context:

"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."

~~~
confluence
> _Most of these guys fail._

That's my point.

That's key. But note that I did not exclude the possibility of a Peter Thiel -
which is what you imply.

I was merely indicating that hero worship of people is rarely a good idea (for
reasons previously stated) - that is all I have to say on this topic.

~~~
tensor
That did not come across at all in your post. But thank you for clarifying. I
agree completely.

------
vph
Curious if Peter Thiel has children. If he does, did they or will they go to
college?

~~~
randomdata
I will point out that Thiel is not completely anti-college. His position on
the matter is that if you want to go to college, you should have a firm grasp
of what you hope to achieve out of it, not because you are blindly following
your peers or acting on advice from elders.

If you do have very specific goals in mind during your stay in college, $100K
isn't going to sway you away anyway. Otherwise, it is probably a blessing to
realize that there are other options available to you. Too many end up going
to college simply because they do not see any other options or believe it is
the only path to success and that is what Thiel is against.

If Thiel were to have children that decided to go to college, I am sure he
would support their endeavours. It would not go against his worldview as long
as they attended for the right reasons.

~~~
vph
Most high school graduates have no idea what college can do for them and what
they want to accomplish in life. Giving them $100K to do start-ups ain't
helping. College -- for many -- is a time of exploration. A liberal art
education provides the essential ingredients for a well-founded life. It's
more than just getting in, learn the skills and get out to get a job. Further,
college provides an environment where you meet and learn from your competitive
peers.

Thiel and you probably seem to think that colleges are like vocational
schools. But they don't.

~~~
randomdata
_Thiel and you probably seem to think that colleges are like vocational
schools._

Quite the contrary. How often do you hear someone say something along the
lines of "I'm going to school to get a good job"? If the majority of students
actually believed it was just a life-improving experience with no expectations
about future employment opportunities, there would be no problem. The reality
is that most people do consider college to be essentially a vocational school
and Thiel is working to put a stop to that mentality.

The fact is that if you _only_ want a good job, there are much better avenues
for finding that. Thiel is using his own money to demonstrate, to at least
some students, that point. Again, if there were no expectations about
employment in the process, the $100K wouldn't be all that interesting to the
perspective student anyway because a "well-founded" life would be the goal,
not money.

The fact that so many are keen to join his team speaks to the vocational-based
mentality around the idea of college that has come to be.

------
andyjohnson0
Its not clear from the article whether the $100k is shared across the group,
or each individual gets that amount.

Also, why so few women (4/30)? I'm curious about what the criteria for
selecting the group members was.

~~~
rdl
From what I've seen, their raw input (applicants) is only slightly more
female. They do seem to be trying to expand their reach (the first batch had a
LOT Of ivy+mit+stanford+caltech applicants).

------
antidaily
Yeah man. Get right to burning 60 hour weeks. You totally won't burn out.

------
leothekim
Why is there an emphasis on foregoing college with this grant? Why not offer
it to college seniors?

~~~
rdl
My opinion, not at all official, even though I've helped out a tiny amount
with the program as a mentor/judge:

The program basically cherry picks people who are already really successful
and very likely to be successful no matter what. It then gives them a great 2y
opportunity to work on cool stuff in lieu of college, which may work out for
them, or may just be a great experience if they go back to college or take a
job somewhere. Leaving college, instantly becoming part of a well-connected
silicon valley network, etc. is a big advantage; while leaving MIT or Stanford
may be somewhat debatable, leaving podunk u (especially if you're going into
debt while there, and not getting much out of it beyond a curriculum you can
get from the internet for free) is a more clear case.

There are basically two classes of people who don't belong in college now: the
super high achievers for whom the opportunity cost of being in college is too
high (Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook vs. Harvard, etc.), or people in marginal
schools getting little out of it.

It's easy to take people from the margins of the first category and help them
to be more successful (or just give them "parental cover" to drop out and
follow their ambition). This is nice for them and for society. More
importantly, it creates great examples to use in the debate over the latter.
Not statistically valid examples, but politically valid.

------
pitt1980
The average tuition cost is approximately $16,000 per year. Plus assume
another $10,000 in living costs, books, etc. $26,000 in total for a complete
cost of $104,000 in a 4 year period. Some people choose to go more expensive
by going to a private college and some people choose to go a little cheaper by
going public but this is an average. Also, a huge assumption is that its just
for a 4 year period. According to the Department of Education, only 54% of
undergraduates graduate within 6 years. So for the 46% that don’t graduate, or
take 10 years to graduate, this is a horrible investment. But lets assume your
children are in the brilliant first half who finish within six years (and
hopefully within four).

Is it worth it? First, let’s look at it completely from a monetary
perspective. Over the course of a lifetime, according to CollegeBoard, a
college graduate can be expected to earn $800,000 more than his counterpart
that didn’t go to college. $800,000 is a big spread and it could potentially
separate the haves from the have-nots. But who has and who doesn’t?

If I took that $104,000 and I chose to invest it in a savings account that had
interest income of 5% per year I’d end up with an extra $1.4 million dollars
over a 50 year period. A full $600,000 more. That $600,000 is a lot of extra
money an 18 year old could look forward to in her retirement. I also think the
$800,000 quoted above is too high. Right now most motivated kids who have the
interest and resources to go to college think it’s the only way to go if they
want a good job. If those same kids decided to not go to college my guess is
they would quickly close the gap on that $800,000 spread.

There are other factors as well. I won’t be spending $104,000 per child when
my children, ages 10 and 7, decide to go to college. College costs have
historically gone up much faster than inflation. Since 1978, cost of living
has gone up three-fold. Medical costs, much to the horror of everyone in
Congress, has gone up six-fold. And college education has gone up a whopping
tenfold. This is beyond the housing bubble, the stock market bubble, any
bubble you can think of.

So how can people afford college? Well, how has the US consumer afforded
anything? They borrow it, of course. The average student now graduates with a
$23,000 debt burden. Up from $13,000 12 years ago. Last year, student
borrowings totaled $75 billion, up 25% from the year before. If students go on
to graduate degrees such as law degrees they can see their debt burden soar to
$200,000 or more. And the easy borrowing convinces colleges that they can
raise prices even more.

[http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2010/02/dont-send-your-kids-
to-...](http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2010/02/dont-send-your-kids-to-college/)

[http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2011/01/10-more-reasons-why-
par...](http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2011/01/10-more-reasons-why-parents-
should-not-send-their-kids-to-college/)

[http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2011/01/8-alternatives-to-
colle...](http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2011/01/8-alternatives-to-college/)

