Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

You can't judge difficulty simply by the number of people who have obtained something. You need to know how many startups are seeking funding, and the number of people attempting a phd. That's the denominator I was referring to.

The average college freshman is not trying to get a phd. Picking a low starting point like that is just a way of making it appear more difficult than it is. The more appropriate number is the number of phd's attempted.



That's also the wrong denominator. The fact that a million unqualified people attempt startups because the barrier to entry is filing a $100 LLC online has no relevance on my particular chances of succeeding at a startup.

I didn't respond to your comment because the right denominator is going to depend on who is reading this thread. A Stanford CS major with a 2400 SAT whose parents successfully founded a tech startup is coming from a dramatically different pool than a data-entry drone with no college degree and no technical skills who figures that a weekend startup is his ticket to riches. The former's chances at both getting a funded startup and a tenure-track position are pretty good. The latter's chances are effectively zero. The latter falls into the pool of people who could conceivably "start" startups, but doesn't fall into the pool of people who attempt Ph.D programs.

You are not a lottery ticket.

Realistically, I think that tenured professorships and funded startups largely draw from the same pool of people and hence have the same denominators. That's why I focused more on the numerator. If you have the skills, dedication, and knowledge needed to become a tenured professor you usually (not always) have the skills, dedication, and knowledge needed to found a high-growth company, but there are more opportunities for the latter around, as well as fewer gatekeepers that can exclude you for arbitrary reasons.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: