The university can't discriminate based on country of origin, which is exactly what is being proposed:
"we are particularly focused on international entrepreneurs."
It doesn't matter if you give the money to CU and then the university hires someone "international." It's still discrimination at a public institution. Personally I don't understand why they insist on having someone non-American on H1B or why they absolutely must travel to the US to start a start-up. Give someone money where they already live. Don't exclude Americans. What's so hard about that?
The Supreme Court has said that making employment decisions based on citizenship status doesn't qualify as discrimination under the civil rights act because citizenship status is not the same thing as "national origin" which is what the law prohibits discrimination on.
"having someone in the US under H1B gives them power over that person."
Wow... way to not only completely misinterpret the intent but to completely reverse it. Before this program there were exactly zero legal avenues for a not-already-rich aspiring startup founder from another country to come here with the express purpose of starting a business. Now there is one.
I'm not misinterpreting the intent. I know perfectly well the stated intent to 'help the helpless random immigrant founder.' I'm suggesting an alternative intent that needs to be discussed. And I'm not the one reversing it. In this case Mr. Feld is showing a clear preference for H1B's before having any specific foreign entrepreneur in mind.
This is the worst comment I have ever read on HN. There are already plenty of opportunities for Americans to get support for their startups. The US visa system makes it extremely difficult for foreign entrepreneurs to start businesses in the US, and Mr Feld's attempts to improve the situation should be applauded.
I see...You believe the cause is so noble that it's obvious drawbacks are beyond discussion. Then lets discuss something else. Why don't you tell us why you think it's so important for foreign entrepreneurs to start businesses in the US. Do you feel the same about US entrepreneurs opportunities in foreign countries?
When you say high paying, keep in mind the jobs you are describing are $250-1000k jobs where everything (work, risk, and blame) is delegated down to the grunt level anyway and attendance is probably 50% at best.
Warning, I'm about to make a couple of massive generalisations...
I would guess that most 40-50 year olds who already have knowledge, contacts and money don't apply to YC, probably because they don't feel that they need it.
I expect that founders at that age are more likely to be coming from a position of experience within their target industry, i.e. solving a problem that they've seen/experienced. They may not be trying to become "X for Y" but solving problem Z that a limited number of clients will pay good money to have solved.
Older founders may have more to risk, so the "go big or go home" model may not be as attractive to them.
As I said, this is a huge generalisation with a lot of guesswork thrown in. I would love to see some more detailed data so that we could draw some conclusions.
It's $120k now but yes, one 40 year old engineer working full time makes that in 9 months. Why doesn't YC offer more attractive investment, say $500k, and allow non-SV offices? Is it just the presumption that this won't lead to large returns? Is there any data to support that?
Silicon Valley culture is inherently ageist. The median age is by far the most surprising statistic to me. I would have thought it'd be at least 5 years younger. To me the ageist aspect is part of the idea that only young people should be building products for young people.
This is perhaps an insight into the types of companies YC is funding. They may just have a larger pool of B2B and enterprise companies this session.
In my case (I'm 48) I've been applying to YC (third time lucky) because I have plenty of experience, but don't have the contacts. I suspect most people outside Silicon Valley or the US don't have the kind of contacts that YC can provide, or the kind of money that is necessary to scale their business.
If companies actually tracked the exact questions that are asked and how they are asked, then bias would be easy to spot. People they want to hire get softball binary tree or linked list questions. People they don't want to hire get disqualifier questions that are not in any textbook (and not in journals either) which definitely can't be white-boarded to their satisfaction in 40-45 minutes. I've gotten both. The latter I research afterwards to make sure that it's in none of the 30-40 textbooks I have or in any journals, ACM library, Dr Dobbs, etc.
The worst are interviewers who refuse to accept a correct answer. "Oops, I didn't expect the person to have the answer so I better make it more complicated." It's so ridiculous that it's hard to believe people would sink that low. Until you've experienced it though, you won't believe. I think it suffices to say anything that deals with distribution of money, which employment does, is going to have lots of bullshit.
Couldn't agree more. These type of questions/interviews are a total waste of time, and probably poison to most development teams.
I've been on more than one interview where I know that I've hit it out of the park, and I swear that the lead dev torpedoed my prospects out of fear that somebody might know enough to call him out on his BS.
Even in the best of scenarios, I think that this type of questioning has little value. Unless it is the most basic of questions to determine if the candidate actually knows the languages that they've listed on their resumes, what value is there in testing if someone knows something can be easily looked up and/or researched in a relatively short period of time if it was really important for the task at hand?
Please don't take my comments as minimizing the high level of detailed technical knowledge necessary for some tasks... but for most I would take a humble hacker who can quickly inhale new knowledge over the goofballs who end up doing these interviews, hands down.
I've never experienced that, although I once had someone give feedback that I didn't get hired because I didn't bring a notebook and a pen to take notes during the interview. I did bring a few extra copies of my resume, mind you. Just not a notebook.
Ugg, this is hard to read. Politics and startups don't mix. I know I can't really make any logical argument about it's negative qualities without being downvoted. I'll just say hopefully some people get a trip to DC to meet the prez.
> "It would be like taking apart a brand-new 747 and discovering that the fuel line is held in place by a coat-hanger and the landing gear is attached with duct tape."
At the museum of flight in Seattle there is a 747. It's the first 747 that was built and partially taken apart (or never put together in the first place). Halfway down the interior fuselage you can seen the terrifyingly small cable pulleys that transfer pilot commands laterally to the wing control surfaces. The track in which the cable runs seemed not much deeper than the cable itself. If, say, a suddent jolt of turbulence dislodged the cable, something not good might happen. I'm sure aero engineers would say this is how airplanes have always worked and there's no chance the cable will fail. Programmers do the same thing: This is the way the database/web service/storage has always worked and there's no chance it will fail.
Why even ask it. My method is find the org chart depth with log_1.5(company size). Then divide that number by 1/2 execs, 1/2 managers. Guess the roles then go look at random people on linked-in. You can get a good feel for how the company is internally based on that.
A superbowl ad is not going to inspire the people you want to start working on advanced aircraft. The people you want are already working on advanced aircraft or are trying to get into the advanced aircraft business. You need people that know what they're doing, not the "dang that's cool" crowd.
You're also targeting future engineers. If you can make a highschool kid get into aeronautical engineering who otherwise wouldn't have, that's a strategic win. Younger people are very much in the "dang that's cool" crowd.
Look at most of the modern military commercials. They very much appeal to young people who grew up playing Call of Duty and whatnot.
1) yeah there are lots of places that like free work, but in my opinion no one with a degree should be doing that unless it's charity. How do you find small companies? Easy. Just go to places where you are likely to meet people working in your field. Seminars, meetups, conferences.
I don't know about the UK, but here I would not even apply for jobs online. That is "front door" job hunting and it is a waste of time. It is so much easier just going to an event and telling everyone I meet "I have a degree and I'm looking for work."