The alumni page reads as such: Harvard, Harvard, MIT, Harvard, Harvard, CalTech. So, question, is there any point in applying to something like this if you didn't go to Harvard, MIT, or another similarly high-profile school? Is the alumni makeup simply the result of who applies, or is it who is chosen (perhaps some kind of signaling used by the gatekeepers), or something else?
One of my biggest complaints against the tech industry is its rampant credentialism. Limiting capital to just the top few schools in the country is plain terrible business strategy because there is absolutely no evidence that going to a top 10 school vs a top 50 school leads to greater enterpreneurial success. I mean, who cares about Steve Jobs (Reed) and Michael Dell (UT Austin), right? We should fund Mark Pincus (Harvard) instead.
Or Gates (Harvard), Sergey/Brin (Stanford), Wozniak (Berkeley), Zuckerberg (Harvard), ...
Why do you propose top 50 as a cutoff, why not give the same funding to someone in a school barely making the top 500? If not, isn't that just credentialism?
Credentialism also leans on alumni preference--if someone in your family is a big donor at Harvard and got you in in spite of lousy scores, they might also make your company succeed through favorable loans, connections, etc., in spite of your lousy contribution, etc.
Because they are hypocrites. They talk about making tech accessible for everyone and how anyone can be an entrepreneur, etc.. yet they will only support people from tier institutions. You have to work much harder to get the attention if you aren't from top tier institutions. Not that I blame them but they should stop pretending they are about the greater good and all that happy jazz.
> In an effort to use a standard and straightforward structure, we provide this capital via an uncapped convertible instrument modeled after the Simple Agreement for Future Equity (SAFE) financing documents. In addition, Highland will have the option to invest up to $250k in the first $1M you raise in excess of the aforementioned $20k note.
1) The word "note" only appears one time on the page, so what does "aforementioned" mean? Is this a debt instrument?
2) The "Simple Agreement for Future Equity (SAFE)" appears to be unavailable, or atleast is not linked anywhere in the document linked by HN (summer.hcp.com).
HC doesn't claim to use any of those documents, only one "modeled" after them.
The fact that they don't link to, or even describe (except in the most obtuse terms), the documents they refer to should be a huge red flag to anyone considering this offer.
Also, how can something that has no less than five versions [including a "primer"] of 6+ pages of dense wording which refer to federal laws from the 1930's be described as "simple"?
Ageism is easier to pull off when you pretend it's something else.
I suspect they'd be fine with someone 18-24 who isn't a student being in the program - after all, they almost certainly expect you to drop out and focus on your startup fulltime if it gets traction.
If you're not comfortable with lying on the application, just enroll in online classes somewhere - voila, you're now a student! (Of course you still need to be an otherwise impressive candidate.)
On a related note, I'm toying with a new investment thesis: "old" entrepreneurs (above, say, 35) strike me as an interesting arbitrage opportunity. They seem wildly undervalued by silicon valley. Anyone want to start a syndicate with me to explore this idea?
Many "older" entrepreneurs are simply building businesses and quietly earning success. Let's be real -- $20K is significantly lower than unsecured credit lines many established adults have. This is pitched to students for the same reason that a paper route is pitched to elementary school kids: because it's so meager of a benefit that, from a relative perspective, it only appeals to them.
So, maybe that 73% consists of the quiet ones
being successful.
If you want a mentor to guide you to start
a US Main Street business, say, auto body repair,
grass mowing, landscaping, a pizza shop, etc.,
then there is no shortage of good sources.
But where did the founders of Microsoft, Intel,
Cisco, Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. find
comparable mentors, that is, people who
had already done something quite similar and
could provide good advice? Yes, there was
advice, but nothing nearly so accurate as what
could get for, say, a pizza shop.
Net,
if are building one of the companies VCs
really need, then there isn't any mentoring
that is very close to the need. So, net,
for building a $1+ billion or, now, $10+
billion company in information technology,
largely just f'get about mentoring.
I think it's, "we provide this capital via an uncapped convertible instrument" [which we won't link to or provide you with until some time in the future].
