That said, the proposed rule might mean if one gets into YC/techstars, etc. they would be able to get a visa for the US easily.
The limited term and renewals do raise some flags. But I guess if you are successful with your startup in the given time period, you can apply for a green card through other categories like Extraordinary Ability, etc.
Care to explain the reasoning? It seems shortsighted to limit this proposal to people with advanced degrees, and why only from the top 50 schools in the world? How does this make sense in the context of startups?
> That said, the proposed rule might mean if one gets into YC/techstars, etc. they would be able to get a visa for the US easily.
The article mentions that this is not a visa, but parole. And with the requirement of $345K in funding, getting into YC/Techstars would not be sufficient. Startups would need to raise additional money, unless they receive $100k from the Government.
With convertible notes that are sometimes given to member companies of distinguished seed funds, I think getting to 345K isn't a stretch.
I didn't do very well at school. Wasn't for me. As soon as I left and I started work at 16, I excelled.
Now, I could choose to work for a company in London @ +£120k a year or even apply to the US. But I choose to launch my own start-up instead where my passion and technical ability can potentially lead to 7/8+ figures salary. With this, I am definitely looking at the US primarily instead of secondary!
The only requisite here is that your start-up succeeds and through the company can satisfy the required amount of jobs.
My google fu isn't great right now, but 2 examples I can think of that didn't do well at school either. I hope they are correct. Richard Branson and Sir Alan Sugar.
> A few years ago, I noticed that Britain would give a blanket visa to anyone with an MBA from a list of top international schools. How about something like that for people with Masters/PhDs (in STEM) from top-50 schools in the world.
Great. Then make this another type of visa then. Don't penalise the individuals like myself who through self-tuition and hard work can start up a company and try to make it a success without an university education and sheer will.
Your underlying point is valid--a founder having an advanced degree in STEM has little bearing on the success of a startup. So if the goal of the US is to encourage entrepreneurship, and small business growth, focus requirements on those traits that are tied to success.
Addressing the lack of STEM in the US should be a separate visa program that is appropriately prioritized for that purpose.
Which is HARD and a very small pool. The executive could pardon those people one on one if they wished, as there are so few of them. Plus, if they are accepted by YCombinator, that's a very very strong case for a O1, just need to cross a couple other Ts.
Govt shouldn't be in the business of selecting 'best people', govt bureaucracy is not the right agent for this. Markets should decide who is the 'best' and who is needed . Govt should play the role of glorified recruiting agency.
Getting a degree is not a proof enough for visas/greencards.
If the idea is to attract entrepreneurs, what would be the point? There are already plenty of options for people on traditional career paths -- and that's what an advanced degree from a top university is fundamentally all about these days. (Just ask Chinese parents.)