
Peter Thiel's College Dropouts: How's That Working Out? - ca98am79
http://www.inc.com/jillian-donfro/peter-thiels-college-dropouts-one-year-checkup.html
======
dave_sullivan
I kind of crashed the awards ceremony where they introduced all the fellows
and I ended up meeting a bunch of them.

I was surprised how many were straight out of high school (no college). They
generally struck me as bright but immature (not in an obnoxious way--more in a
"what do you expect, they're 17!" kind of way.) Most of the businesses didn't
strike me as businesses so much as super ambitious senior projects.

I really do agree with the general idea behind the program--college is a
ripoff because you can learn the same stuff and build a strong network without
going. I think the program's aims might have been better served by having
these kids work for a startup (maybe one of thiels?) with an investment
guarantee after 3-5 years or something.

------
ruggeri
I met one the Thiel fellows. His employ? He gives talks about skipping
college. It was inane; I don't think I've ever met a more transparent circular
argument.

I've also met people who dropped out or never went to school, and did amazing
stuff during that time. Nobody paid them to do it, though.

The problem with children is that they haven't been around the block. Giving
them money just for being young and eager only further distorts their warped,
child's view of reality. Put me down as not a believer.

~~~
shantanubala
Not to mention, college is one of the easiest ways for a person to meet other
smart people. Not everyone can afford to be in the Bay Area. A smart student
can get a full-tuition (and often more!) scholarship at a solid state
university with a little bit of effort.

Join a few interesting clubs, hang around the dining halls, and pretty soon
you can find other hackers, or even just awesome people to talk to.

If we're truly going to be investing in _teams_ rather than just investing in
ideas, I would place at least _some_ additional value to people who met and
worked together in college. It's an experience that's hard to replicate in
most places in the US, and seems to allow for strong teams to pop up.

------
confluence
Three opposing view points concerning the same subject on Quora:

Positive: [http://www.quora.com/Peter-Thiel/What-were-the-results-of-
th...](http://www.quora.com/Peter-Thiel/What-were-the-results-of-the-first-
Thiel-Fellowship-Class/answer/Danielle-Fong)

Negative: [http://www.quora.com/Peter-Thiel/What-were-the-results-of-
th...](http://www.quora.com/Peter-Thiel/What-were-the-results-of-the-first-
Thiel-Fellowship-Class/answers/1293281)

Off topic: [http://www.quora.com/Peter-Thiel/What-were-the-results-of-
th...](http://www.quora.com/Peter-Thiel/What-were-the-results-of-the-first-
Thiel-Fellowship-Class/answer/Chris-McCann)

Full Question/Answers can be found here: [http://www.quora.com/Peter-
Thiel/What-were-the-results-of-th...](http://www.quora.com/Peter-Thiel/What-
were-the-results-of-the-first-Thiel-Fellowship-Class)

~~~
Jd
tl;dr:

Neg: Exhaustive review of individuals showing that nothing of value (except
riding on existing trends) can be shown from any applicant, except potentially
in the case of the Solar Energy startup, in which money was used to hire PhDs
with actual domain knowledge.

Pos: Saying that everything great is under NDA and that the solar energy stuff
is cool, that the youngin' in question has impressed PhDs enough that they
want to work for him. No real info, expecting you to trust that good stuff is
in the works.

~~~
confluence
Very nice. I only have one question for you - what do you think is more
reasonable - or are you reserving your judgement? Pos/Neg/Neutral?

~~~
Jd
I think the "Pos" side should be discounted as it is obviously Thiel centered
PR from an employee. I think the "Neg" side should be the default, since one
should not presume value until value is demonstrated. That we are still in a
sense "early stage" indicates that we don't have a full picture yet and so
shouldn't presume that we do.

I have mixed feelings about the program in general. Entrepreneurship programs
maybe useful for promoting excited entrepreneurs, but by no means are an
adequate replacement for researchers or higher ed in general. In many of these
cases, the entire premise is hogwash. Technical innovation comes from depth in
a subject area, and you actually have to study something before you can
innovate in the context of it.

This is most obvious in the case of the Uncollege movement -- the person and
movement are exceedingly shallow and provide nothing of value except as a
publicist for other trends in online education. I'd hate to think that his
applies across the board, but suspect that it is more true than not.

~~~
DaniFong
I am not an employee of Thiel. -- Danielle Fong.

~~~
DaniFong
I'm a mentor; officially for two fellows, informally for another 6. Atop this,
they move in my circles. It's a pro-bono relationship -- I'm working with them
because I'm excited about them and what they're doing.

------
dinkumthinkum
I thought these wunderkinds were supposed to change the world. :) No one
argues that these are bright people, the problem is I think this "fellowship"
was a lot of hype to promote an idea that ... I don't know, where's the fruit?
Sure, there are autodidacts, but as I always say, they are outliers.

I do find the education focused ones interesting, in "oh boy" sort of way.
We're just taking something as dogma (anti-college) and just running with it,
where we're going I don't know. There's no "there" there. I feel like this
view is so prevalent in our world of computing because there are really 1)
many outliers that are great autodidacts and brilliant programmers (but not as
many as is claimed) and 2) there are also many that believe they don't need
any kind of education because they saw a YouTube on making RoR apps and follow
JS blogs but I don't think the rest of the world is really like this.

~~~
jeffdavis
"We're just taking something as dogma (anti-college) and just running with it,
where we're going I don't know. There's no "there" there."

You could say the same thing in reverse: it's just opting out of the pro-
college dogma.

Colleges have a huge amount of overhead like land, buildings, bureaucracy and
enticements like fancy campuses and perks; much of it for students studying
soft subjects with a lot of grade inflation. It's all paid for by government
incentives and a trillion dollars in student loan debt.

A lot of studies say that college degrees are still worth the cost, but I'd
like to know if such studies control for the self-selection of college
students. Is it that college puts people on the path toward success or that
people on the path toward success tend to choose college? Also, do the various
majors independently justify their costs, or are political science majors
lumped with engineers?

Today, I'd still probably choose college if I were 18 again (in engineering or
one of a few other subjects). But ten years from now, I hope there are better
alternatives available (which will make the colleges better, too), and college
will just be one option that can survive without government subsidy.

Such a change will also improve the liberal arts and soft subjects at
colleges. Right now, such subjects are diluted by a lot of people that just
don't know what to do, and think that those subjects are easier and leave more
time to party. When those people are no longer encouraged by easy money and
enticed by fancy campuses, or fear the stigma of not going to college, then
the softer subject classes will be left with serious thinkers.

------
10char
Very interesting that they didn't mention James Proud's Giglocator exit. Maybe
they didn't reach out/he decided not to participate in this article, but if
you're going for the revenue angle then it should be noted[1]

There are also two fellows in YC right now and are literally days from
launching their startups.

(disclosure: I'm a Thiel Fellow)

[1]: [http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2012/06/20/skip-
school-s...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2012/06/20/skip-school-sell-
company-meet-the-thiel-fellow-who-just-turned-a-profit/2/)

~~~
bentlegen
This reads like Giglocator existed before Proud was selected as a Thiel
Fellow.

> Proud’s early attachment to GigLocator led to his decision to forego a
> university education long before the Thiel’s 20 Under 20 program had even
> been thought up.

------
espadagroup
Interesting how the author choose to profile only fellows whose ventures had
no revenue. Kind of like a indirect finger poking.

~~~
trimbo
Are you aware of any that have revenue? If so, please reference it.

~~~
espadagroup
The author earlier in the article referenced the fact that a handful had
revenue.

------
TimGebhardt
Anyone else find it funny that 2 of the 5 are working on education related
projects?

------
Jd
I believe the title is wrong. Virtually none of the applicants were
"dropouts," although some were accepted to prestigious colleges and decided
not to go. The program was envisioned as an alternative to college, and most
applicants were pre-entry.

~~~
jere
If that's true, the "College thing he doesn't miss:" detail is also highly
misleading, since it too implies they used to be in college.

~~~
PakG1
If you look at the bios of the kids, a bunch of them already had degrees and
were in higher level university programs before they entered Thiel's program.

~~~
Jd
What is "a bunch" ? 30% ? I still don't think it makes sense to refer to them
as dropouts unless over 50% were enrolled in a college at the time of
application and left a higher-degree program in order to do the program.

~~~
PakG1
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I wasn't saying this is why we can call them
dropouts. I was trying to say here's more reason why they shouldn't be
considered dropouts. And specifically, I was adding to the refutation for the
"college he didn't miss thing".

------
vph
This model does not scale!

Few college dropouts are bright up to be selected carefully to go through this
process. To do this en mass would be a disaster.

~~~
johnnyjustice
Incorrect, a bunch of students with failed/successful experience is better
than a bunch of students who go to college, because they were "suppose" to.

I think its best to opt for more freedom, when it comes to picking who they
want to spend their adulthood. These new paths aren't for everyone but that's
why we should consider this an alternate solution, not a one size fits all
one.

~~~
vph
>Incorrect, a bunch of students with failed/successful experience is better
than a bunch of students who go to college, because they were "suppose" to.

Not all college students attended college because they are "supposed to". Even
for those who attend college because they are "supposed to", it is arguable
that they will end up being better than choosing not to go to college. If
someone has no idea what he wants to do in life, it's arguable that going to
college is better than not going to.

The truth is that people like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg are
rare. Most people need a formal education. It's arrogant to think that you can
design better alternative than an educational framework that has existed for
years to educate the mass.

The Thiel's model works well for a small number of bright youngsters, who
might exceed their potentials through a customized training program, instead
of going to college to have an off-the-shelf training program. If more and
more people drop out of college, or even skip college to do this, it's going
to blow up in his face.

~~~
gersh
Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and Steve Jobs all attended college. They just
didn't finish. Yet, I think they all derived some value from the time they
spent in college.

------
mmaunder
It'd be interesting to consider the whole income statement of each individual,
rather than just the annual revenue, which no longer has the $35K per year
expense of college, while still gaining a significant education.

------
Aloisius
The vast majority of startups fail and it wouldn't surprise if the vast
majority of these kids failed. As long as their lives haven't been ruined by
the experience and they come out as well adjusted people, I say more power to
them.

Disclaimer: I dropped out of high school to start a company almost 20 years
ago.

------
wtvanhest
I wish the question was:

Any traction yet?

rather than:

Any revenue yet?

~~~
trimbo
How is traction measurable?

[edit] What I mean is, we've witnessed startup after startup with millions of
users that go bust. The only way I know of to measure "traction" of a
_business_ is revenue.

~~~
acgourley
But there are also plenty of businesses with millions of users that only get
revenue later in their life. For the first few years, traction besides revenue
is certainly acceptable evidence of progress.

~~~
potatolicious
> _"But there are also plenty of businesses with millions of users that only
> get revenue later in their life."_

No. _No_. NO. This is one of the most common stories told in the Valley, but
it's also an immense case of confirmation bias.

How many companies with millions users had no revenue for a long time and then
became immensely successful later on with a viable monetization strategy?

 _Google_. Maaaaaybe Facebook, the jury is still out on that... aaaaaand
that's about it.

The _overwhelming_ , _typical_ case for the "no revenue, all traction"
business is _death_ , an acquihire if you're lucky. The fact that there exist
a few (by a few I mean one or two) huge outliers does not represent 'plenty of
businesses', nor does it represent some kind of trend. Traction-first business
with no revenue model baked in have _always_ been the longest throws in
software business.

So no, _traction is absolutely not an acceptable replacement for revenue when
representing a business' viability_.

~~~
wtvanhest
I think you are right.

A year after getting $100,000 in seed money, they should have some revenue.
Maybe not a lot, probably not profitable, but they should have some sales.
Worst case, they should be right on the edge of releasing their product.

By year 2, no revenue would be a complete disaster for this program. Having 1
in 6 or 1 in 10 make it would also be a disaster.

~~~
randomdata
Is the goal for Thiel to see a quick return on his investment? Or is it set
these people up for a better career in the future? I have always understood it
to be the latter.

From what I have interpreted, Thiel believes that just getting out into the
world and getting to work will put you as good, if not better standing than
someone who went to college with respect to future income and employment
opportunities†. That doesn't mean they are going to be millionaires on day
one. They still have much to learn, like anyone else. One year later doesn't
really tell us anything about the success or failure of his program.

† within reason; you are not going become a doctor without the right
credentials and he openly speaks to that.

------
paulhauggis
The type of person that will succeed without college won't really need it
because they have the drive to succeed.

Most people aren't like this.

~~~
roc
The whole endeavor is lousy.

With regards to 'success', for most people the education you get in college is
secondary. What's of primary importance is networking and having that degree
on your resume to get you in the door. [1]

But networking and having something on your resume that gets you in the door
is provided automatically (and arguably in more effective doses) by rubbing
elbows with Thiel and likeminded millionaires and billionaires and being
featured in news articles.

So the 'success' of the participants should be _expected_ to be equivalent-to-
better than if they went to college just due the design of this stunt.

And it will prove _nothing_ about whether college is useful or not in the
general case. Because you can't scale "hang out with Peter Thiel and
likeminded movers-and-shakers" beyond a tiny class each year.

[1] Which isn't to say that what you learn isn't important. It absolutely is.
It just doesn't have much bearing on your business/monetary-axis 'success'.

~~~
randomdata
To be fair, it is not exactly clear if college scales either.

Around 25% of the working population have a college degree and about 50% have
post-secondary training of some kind. Only 5% of the working population earn
more than $90,000 per year and the _top 25%_ start earning at only $45,000 per
year or so. It's a livable income in many places, but that is not what we
generally consider successful in business.

~~~
potatolicious
This disappointment is based on an ancient view of the world - that those with
post-secondary educations are abnormally high achievers, and thus one would
expect greater than average compensation.

This hasn't been true for _at least_ 3 decades. Post-secondary training of
some sort, whether in a skilled trade or a degree program, is critical even if
your ambitions do not stray further than "strictly middle class".

Instead of wondering why those with post secondary education aren't rich off
their asses, I'm much more concerned about why 50% of the population _doesn't
have any post-secondary education whatsoever_ , and how in the hell we expect
to keep this population employed and competitive with that foundation.

~~~
randomdata
In my case, I simply was not allowed to study in any post-secondary school. I
applied to many, but was rejected from them all. Higher education is not
accessible to a large number of people.

I have never found it to be limiting to my career though. In fact, I feel I am
in a much better position because I was able to use those four+ years more
effectively doing my own thing which has made me more marketable than a
typical college grad.

------
witoldc
If this is the best that the top 24 pics from universities can do, I most
certainly wouldn't call this a good criticism of traditional education.

