Peter Thiel's $100k offer to skip college is more popular than ever(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Peter Thiel's $100k offer to skip college is more popular than ever
https://www.wsj.com/finance/peter-thiels-100-000-offer-to-skip-college-is-more-popular-than-ever-162e281b
131 comments
The optimal path (at least if you're not going into a regulated/gatekept profession, or not from a very poor/disadvantaged background on a full ride, or using the university program as an immigration pathway) seems to be:
1) Get accepted to a top school
2) Enroll and then drop out (figure out the minimum for your school to consider you a dropout -- I think you probably have to register and take classes for a semester, but you may be able to simply not pay the bill)
3) 20 under 20 (or just do a startup/get a job/continue with life directly)
You get >50% of the value of the school (proxy for an IQ test, basically, although with the decline of testing this is less obvious -- still, even without rigorous testing, many people, especially those far from academia, consider "accepted to top school" to be valuable.)
I basically did this (out of necessity; I couldn't afford to pay for MIT), but it's worked out well, and it's worked out pretty well for other people I know. With dropout you need to distinguish between "dropped out to do X, or for decent extenuating circumstance" vs "too much drugs", though, when looking at stats.
You get >50% of the value of the school (proxy for an IQ test, basically, although with the decline of testing this is less obvious -- still, even without rigorous testing, many people, especially those far from academia, consider "accepted to top school" to be valuable.)
I basically did this (out of necessity; I couldn't afford to pay for MIT), but it's worked out well, and it's worked out pretty well for other people I know. With dropout you need to distinguish between "dropped out to do X, or for decent extenuating circumstance" vs "too much drugs", though, when looking at stats.
That’s not a strategy - it’s just selection bias.
No,OP is arguing that conditioned on being able to get into a good school, it makes sense to just drop out as that captures enough of the signaling value.
I understand what they are saying and I’m saying the outcomes they are referring to are simply selection bias.
Everyone knows about the dropout billionaires (Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, etc.), but nobody knows about the many people who dropped out to make a startup and failed. The majority of people who try startups fail.
Unless you have a time-sensitive breakthrough idea, I think it’s better to take a pragmatic approach and at least finish college so you have a backup, or at least work on a startup in college, and then drop out if you become successful, not before.
Unless you have a time-sensitive breakthrough idea, I think it’s better to take a pragmatic approach and at least finish college so you have a backup, or at least work on a startup in college, and then drop out if you become successful, not before.
And the replier to OP is arguing that just because it worked for OP and a friend doesn't mean it's a good strategy. This is selection bias.
I also think of it as a survivorship bias and some correlation/causation violations: Me and my successful friends (I don't hang out with unsuccessful people) have similar stories, therefore our choices are a pattern which can be followed to our successes.
I could say "every successful engineer I know either abuses drugs or has in the past" and it could fundamentally be true for me and the group of people I know. But would you agree with me if I said that abusing drugs is a smart strategy to succeed?
I also think of it as a survivorship bias and some correlation/causation violations: Me and my successful friends (I don't hang out with unsuccessful people) have similar stories, therefore our choices are a pattern which can be followed to our successes.
I could say "every successful engineer I know either abuses drugs or has in the past" and it could fundamentally be true for me and the group of people I know. But would you agree with me if I said that abusing drugs is a smart strategy to succeed?
Selection bias is the primary value of many universities -- Harvard graduates 98% of its students: https://college.harvard.edu/resources/faq/what-harvards-grad...
The prestige is conferred by acceptance.
Comment is saying that many people know this and the prestige of acceptance is often good enough without requiring the time investment of completing the degree (which clearly isn't threshing out poor performers).
Choosing to be in the 2% shows intelligence to me!
The prestige is conferred by acceptance.
Comment is saying that many people know this and the prestige of acceptance is often good enough without requiring the time investment of completing the degree (which clearly isn't threshing out poor performers).
Choosing to be in the 2% shows intelligence to me!
> Enroll and then drop out (figure out the minimum for your school to consider you a dropout
Stanford considers everyone who has completed three quarters (equivalent of two semesters) of a degree program alumni, and they are eligible for `@alumni.stanford.edu` accounts. <https://alumni.stanford.edu/help/alumni-email-faqs/>
Stanford considers everyone who has completed three quarters (equivalent of two semesters) of a degree program alumni, and they are eligible for `@alumni.stanford.edu` accounts. <https://alumni.stanford.edu/help/alumni-email-faqs/>
Isn't this a bit too cynical? Is there nothing of value that can be, you know, learned at MIT? What about the social aspects of being in college?
You can absolutely get value out of being at a good school (I'd say even a mid tier school has value) -- both academic and social. It's just...is that worth $200-300k and 4 years of your life?
There would also be value in getting a great job as a top-tier-school dropout ("intern who just loves this place and how fast everything is progressing, seems like a shame I have to go to school in September, but I'll keep in touch" "Now that I'm at school every day I miss..." "can you come back and start monday?")
I think you get an overall superior package from dropping out and doing 20 under 20, joining a top company, or doing other stuff at a top level (even if it fails) than from universities today -- particularly as universities have gotten dramatically worse over the past 30 years (and especially past 5 years), and the requirement for a degree doesn't really exist (absent immigration pathways) in cs/tech.
I'd take "my YC friends" over "my college friends" overall, too.
This all assumes a highly motivated and self directed student. I don't think university really saves "I don't know what I want to do, my parents are telling me to go to Harvard so I will"; IMO if you're 16-18 and have no idea what kind of things you enjoy you've already failed/been failed.
There would also be value in getting a great job as a top-tier-school dropout ("intern who just loves this place and how fast everything is progressing, seems like a shame I have to go to school in September, but I'll keep in touch" "Now that I'm at school every day I miss..." "can you come back and start monday?")
I think you get an overall superior package from dropping out and doing 20 under 20, joining a top company, or doing other stuff at a top level (even if it fails) than from universities today -- particularly as universities have gotten dramatically worse over the past 30 years (and especially past 5 years), and the requirement for a degree doesn't really exist (absent immigration pathways) in cs/tech.
I'd take "my YC friends" over "my college friends" overall, too.
This all assumes a highly motivated and self directed student. I don't think university really saves "I don't know what I want to do, my parents are telling me to go to Harvard so I will"; IMO if you're 16-18 and have no idea what kind of things you enjoy you've already failed/been failed.
Sounds neurotic imo. You are supposed to enjoy those 4 years.
Sounds like the parent is enjoying his chosen life path even more? Or certainly more than paying for 4 years at MIT.
Not everyone is lucky enough to have rich enough parents to get a full ride, or to have poor enough parents to qualify for a free ride.
Not everyone is lucky enough to have rich enough parents to get a full ride, or to have poor enough parents to qualify for a free ride.
Well I’m irked by asking if it is “worth” 4 years. You should want to live in your life. Especially at a wonderful school like MIT.
College friends are probably diverse. YC friends sounds like a bunch of similarly neurotic people.
College friends are probably diverse. YC friends sounds like a bunch of similarly neurotic people.
Do you not understand the concept of paying for large sums by yourself? (or paying off the loans for that sum)
It would not be that wonderful because of this burden, hence the comment.
It would not be that wonderful because of this burden, hence the comment.
> You can absolutely get value out of being at a good school (I'd say even a mid tier school has value) -- both academic and social. It's just...is that worth $200-300k and 4 years of your life?
Most undergraduates at top schools aren't going to come anywhere near paying $200-300k. The top schools almost all have very generous aid programs that cover most of the cost by scholarships. Here's some data for MIT [1].
[1] https://sfs.mit.edu/undergraduate-students/the-cost-of-atten...
Most undergraduates at top schools aren't going to come anywhere near paying $200-300k. The top schools almost all have very generous aid programs that cover most of the cost by scholarships. Here's some data for MIT [1].
[1] https://sfs.mit.edu/undergraduate-students/the-cost-of-atten...
Your link doesn’t show what percentage of undergrads receive aid. I would imagine that the vast majority of MIT undergrads come from households making >$225k, and so would receive perhaps some but not much aid. Still paying $52k / yr according to your link
> I would imagine that the vast majority of MIT undergrads come from households making >$225k
Median family income for MIT students is $137k, per this article: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobilit...
Median family income for MIT students is $137k, per this article: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobilit...
> IMO if you're 16-18 and have no idea what kind of things you enjoy you've already failed/been failed.
Please. College is a chance to gain exposure to things you otherwise never would know existed. I knew what I enjoyed doing going into college, but I found a lot more.
Please. College is a chance to gain exposure to things you otherwise never would know existed. I knew what I enjoyed doing going into college, but I found a lot more.
Insights, I think, but not really exposure.
> IMO if you're 16-18 and have no idea what kind of things you enjoy you've already failed/been failed.
I'm sorry, but that is narrow-minded to the point of absurdity.
I'm sorry, but that is narrow-minded to the point of absurdity.
what's 20 under 20?
I don't have much again Thiel's program but US college is only four years. People talk as if that's an eternity. At 22 you're still basically a kid. If you are a genius of geniuses, you can even speed run college and finish sooner.
That said, the article is talking about the big picture and missing all the important details. These Thiel fellows think that Thiel's connections and network, which is basically SV startup scene aristocracy, are worth more than what connections than can gain at a top-10 US college. They probably aren't wrong.
I don't really have a strongly held opinion on college vs. not-college anymore, but...
> At 22 you're still basically a kid.
22 is not a kid. 22 is a grown ass adult, and there are a lot of people who have their shit together long before that. We seem to keep trying to push up the age when a person gains the ability to make their own decisions and be responsible for their own actions. People were leading armies at that age not very long ago.
Back on topic: I'll just add that earnings-wise, due to compound interest, money saved earlier in one's career is worth far more than money saved later. "Sitting out" for your prime four earning years is only worth it if the education would provide a similar or greater boost.
> At 22 you're still basically a kid.
22 is not a kid. 22 is a grown ass adult, and there are a lot of people who have their shit together long before that. We seem to keep trying to push up the age when a person gains the ability to make their own decisions and be responsible for their own actions. People were leading armies at that age not very long ago.
Back on topic: I'll just add that earnings-wise, due to compound interest, money saved earlier in one's career is worth far more than money saved later. "Sitting out" for your prime four earning years is only worth it if the education would provide a similar or greater boost.
> We seem to keep trying to push up the age when a person gains the ability to make their own decisions and be responsible for their own actions.
No, we seem to keep trying to push down the age when a person loses the ability to acquire further education.
Thiel himself got not just one but two degrees from Stanford. Are you going to criticize him for not having his shit together? Let's be honest, he's opposing college now purely for ideological reasons.
> People were leading armies at that age not very long ago.
Ok, but have you considered that war is actually bad?
No, we seem to keep trying to push down the age when a person loses the ability to acquire further education.
Thiel himself got not just one but two degrees from Stanford. Are you going to criticize him for not having his shit together? Let's be honest, he's opposing college now purely for ideological reasons.
> People were leading armies at that age not very long ago.
Ok, but have you considered that war is actually bad?
> Thiel himself got not just one but two degrees from Stanford....
> ...
> ... he's opposing college now purely for ideological reasons.
But maybe his ideological criticisms are valid.
And maybe the college environment has changed since he was there.
And maybe the value proposition for a talented person has shifted.
And maybe the mere presence of offers like Thiel's also increases the acceptability and therefore the "signalling" value proposition of a first year drop-out strategy.
> ...
> ... he's opposing college now purely for ideological reasons.
But maybe his ideological criticisms are valid.
And maybe the college environment has changed since he was there.
And maybe the value proposition for a talented person has shifted.
And maybe the mere presence of offers like Thiel's also increases the acceptability and therefore the "signalling" value proposition of a first year drop-out strategy.
Maybe he's doing it for selfish reasons.
> But maybe his ideological criticisms are valid.
No.
> And maybe the value proposition for a talented person has shifted.
That much is true, since college costs have increased dramatically since Thiel attended. If he cared about that, maybe he should offer to pay for people's student loan debt or finance some scholarships. Or promote government-paid higher education for all, like with pre-college education.
No.
> And maybe the value proposition for a talented person has shifted.
That much is true, since college costs have increased dramatically since Thiel attended. If he cared about that, maybe he should offer to pay for people's student loan debt or finance some scholarships. Or promote government-paid higher education for all, like with pre-college education.
4 years is super long
especially when the first 2 are basically worthless, colleges earn the most money on the first 2 years because it take less resources and are incentivized to get people to drop out within that time frame.
plus most people had professions by the time they were 14 before the school system became normal, its actually humiliating and frustrating to not have any real skillset other than filling out worksheets by the time you're 21
plus with the cost being so high, the years feel much worse
especially when the first 2 are basically worthless, colleges earn the most money on the first 2 years because it take less resources and are incentivized to get people to drop out within that time frame.
plus most people had professions by the time they were 14 before the school system became normal, its actually humiliating and frustrating to not have any real skillset other than filling out worksheets by the time you're 21
plus with the cost being so high, the years feel much worse
> plus most people had professions by the time they were 14 before the school system became normal
Serf?
Serf?
> 4 years is super long
It really, really isn’t.
> its actually humiliating and frustrating to not have any real skillset other than filling out worksheets by the time you're 21
If that’s all you got out of college, it sounds like the problem was not college.
It really, really isn’t.
> its actually humiliating and frustrating to not have any real skillset other than filling out worksheets by the time you're 21
If that’s all you got out of college, it sounds like the problem was not college.
> If that’s all you got out of college, it sounds like the problem was not college.
correct, college is a luxury turned bureaucratic requirement, the problem in some peoples life is their family or abuse or trauma. they have every right to want to get out of their situation without waiting 4 years to get something they could rightfully earn in 1 or 2, or even learn on the job
correct, college is a luxury turned bureaucratic requirement, the problem in some peoples life is their family or abuse or trauma. they have every right to want to get out of their situation without waiting 4 years to get something they could rightfully earn in 1 or 2, or even learn on the job
> plus most people had professions by the time they were 14 before the school system became normal
yeah and we as a society decided that child labor is bad and attempted to craft social conditions that would allow children to be comfortable and to learn instead of toiling in a mine.
yeah and we as a society decided that child labor is bad and attempted to craft social conditions that would allow children to be comfortable and to learn instead of toiling in a mine.
not every job was dangerous, child labor in mines showed up in the industrial revolution
prior to that children were taught things that genuinely didn't put their life in danger, because they needed to contribute to their family or community's survival
prior to that children were taught things that genuinely didn't put their life in danger, because they needed to contribute to their family or community's survival
I disagree, the energy you have at that age is unparalleled. If you spend it on entrepreneurship, your chances of success are much higher. People consistently underestimate what it takes to build an innovative new company, young very bright people can do it. If they wait til 25/30, they will have lost some of the spark required. It can also take a decade, so start at 25, you are looking at success by 35. Start at 19, by your mid 20s you are in a very good place.
Energy isn't everything. Having worked for (and known others that worked for) younger founders, the judgement of young founders can be terrible. They're more prone to hype and more likely to panic if something doesn't go as expected. A lot of effort gets wasted on bad decisions.
Early 20s energy is really something else. I can’t even begin to imagine what would be possible if I could somehow send to my 22 year old self my present day 35 year old brain.
Energy vs wisdom. Young people like to take 10 actions when only one is needed. Sometimes that works out and other times all those actions are expensive
One huge advantage of being young is the unparalleled ability to take risks. There's nothing more anti-fragile (that gains from losses) than a 20-year-old living with his parents.
Only if you are born rich with unlimited retry attempts
Why do you need to be rich to develop software?
Cause food and housing ain’t free.
> the energy you have at that age is unparalleled.
Energy is useless without the skills, knowledge, network, money, economy etc. Look at all the 25 year olds in India who never went to college and is having trouble even making 100$s a month.
Energy is useless without the skills, knowledge, network, money, economy etc. Look at all the 25 year olds in India who never went to college and is having trouble even making 100$s a month.
> if you spend it on entrepreneurship, your chances of success are much higher.
as nice as this sounds, considering that vast majority of new businesses fail, I'm not sure that this is true
Those darned over-the-hill 25 year-olds! It's about time that they, too, were marginalized by techbro ageism.
Take care of your health, and maybe this mystical spark will last longer. Giving you the benefit of increasing knowledge and experience, to direct that energy most usefully (i.e., towards a viable business, not towards a ZIRP/hype VC investment scam powered by the confidence of coked-up 20 year-olds).
Avoid drugs, avoid bad stress, get good nutrition, good exercise, good sleep, keep learning.
Take care of your health, and maybe this mystical spark will last longer. Giving you the benefit of increasing knowledge and experience, to direct that energy most usefully (i.e., towards a viable business, not towards a ZIRP/hype VC investment scam powered by the confidence of coked-up 20 year-olds).
Avoid drugs, avoid bad stress, get good nutrition, good exercise, good sleep, keep learning.
This made me laugh! My point is that there are 18 year olds, rare as they are, that are ready to start companies and navigate that level of complexity.
Nonsense. Go look at this very site’s startups and you will see it’s not true
Thiel's program is an embodiment of the Texas GOP platform from 2012.
> Yes, you read that right. The party opposes the teaching of “higher order thinking skills” because it believes the purpose is to challenge a student’s “fixed beliefs” and undermine “parental authority.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2012/07/01/texas-go...
> Yes, you read that right. The party opposes the teaching of “higher order thinking skills” because it believes the purpose is to challenge a student’s “fixed beliefs” and undermine “parental authority.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2012/07/01/texas-go...
I don't get this obsession with skipping college. When you finish college, you're still a "kid" as in totally young and nothing to loose. There's absolutely nothing lost time-wise in the greater scheme of life. Peter Thiel is playing on the insecurity of these young people like they will loose out on something if they don't do this.
The debt a lot of kids incur certainly sets them back. Even community colleges have absurd tuitions now.
I studied biochem and computer science in college. The biochem parts I absolutely could not have learned at home without a lab and domain experts teaching me. The computer science bits, not so much. I was already programming by college and was doing capstone-level work in my freshman courses. I suspect this is true of many students who get started with learning their field in high school.
I get the sense that for many degrees that are not hands on with labs and equipment, a university setting is unnecessary.
None of my "connections" from university mattered. I made it much further by making my own outside of classes. So, at least anecdotally, I can't buy that argument either.
I studied biochem and computer science in college. The biochem parts I absolutely could not have learned at home without a lab and domain experts teaching me. The computer science bits, not so much. I was already programming by college and was doing capstone-level work in my freshman courses. I suspect this is true of many students who get started with learning their field in high school.
I get the sense that for many degrees that are not hands on with labs and equipment, a university setting is unnecessary.
None of my "connections" from university mattered. I made it much further by making my own outside of classes. So, at least anecdotally, I can't buy that argument either.
It's not necessary the knowledge but the social experience which makes it worth for many. You can always become part of the corporate world later. Though i'm aware that not everyone is given those chances.
> When you finish college, you're still a "kid" as in totally young and nothing to loose.
A lot of kids walk out having lost quite a bit of money to tuition.
Worse, the degrees they paid a small fortune for won't provide them jobs to payoff that debt.
A lot of kids walk out having lost quite a bit of money to tuition.
Worse, the degrees they paid a small fortune for won't provide them jobs to payoff that debt.
> I don't get this obsession with skipping college.
From a political standpoint, many colleges are "liberal" institutions, and people don't want to be involved with that.
From a political standpoint, many colleges are "liberal" institutions, and people don't want to be involved with that.
So Thiel is paying the top % of a generation to get brainwashed with his agenda?
I think the point is not to get brainwashed to any specific agenda but your own…and not to come out of college with a $100k debt for what many people is a degree that often has very little to do with the career they end up pursuing.
[deleted]
Nailed it
> Thiel explained in a 2009 essay that he had come to "no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible", due in large part to welfare beneficiaries and women in general being "notoriously tough for libertarians" constituencies, and that he had focused efforts on new technologies (namely cyberspace, space colonization and seasteading) that could create "a new space for freedom" beyond current politics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel
> Thiel explained in a 2009 essay that he had come to "no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible", due in large part to welfare beneficiaries and women in general being "notoriously tough for libertarians" constituencies, and that he had focused efforts on new technologies (namely cyberspace, space colonization and seasteading) that could create "a new space for freedom" beyond current politics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel
[deleted]
Which "people"?
As the article says: "College is not for everyone" but I think the article should be more balanced because there are areas of study that you (most people) could only grasp going to college. It is not the same studying operating systems in college, do the study and the practice, "suffer" exams that just reading information on Internet. There is a pressure and specific topics when you study that produces a deep effect in the brain and makes you click.
I also think there is a third way with open universities and new pedagogical material. For example, when cybersecurity started gaining tractions, a friend was concerned about having more people understanding how to develop exploits and put exercises online [1]. It started with relatively easy exercises and moved to advanced ones.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20150123211322/http://community....
I also think there is a third way with open universities and new pedagogical material. For example, when cybersecurity started gaining tractions, a friend was concerned about having more people understanding how to develop exploits and put exercises online [1]. It started with relatively easy exercises and moved to advanced ones.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20150123211322/http://community....
yes. college should be for everyone. alot of american public colleges have open to the public libraries and continuing education classes for adults.
Thiel is a neo-nazi allegedly in minecraft who wants to attack the intellectual class, like every nazi before him allegedly in minecraft.
Thiel is a neo-nazi allegedly in minecraft who wants to attack the intellectual class, like every nazi before him allegedly in minecraft.
[deleted]
I think colleges have purposefully positioned themselves as they are today as a business strategy, specifically ivy leagues or top tiers.
They know nearly all information is online now and taught even more effectively in many cases. And once inferior colleges and professors can also harness this and compete on near even footing on the knowledge front. That was not the case just 15 years ago.
So they now lean into an area that they think the internet and those who harness it cannot compete. They lace every discipline with philosophy and sell it as an ivy league education. But really they're just bamboozling people with an inferior education and destructive cognitive habits.
They know nearly all information is online now and taught even more effectively in many cases. And once inferior colleges and professors can also harness this and compete on near even footing on the knowledge front. That was not the case just 15 years ago.
So they now lean into an area that they think the internet and those who harness it cannot compete. They lace every discipline with philosophy and sell it as an ivy league education. But really they're just bamboozling people with an inferior education and destructive cognitive habits.
They are selling the name, and the connections (you will become friends with the child of a billionaire / high status individual, possibly a student who is a high status individual themselves already).
These will be immensely valuable forever as long as they keep the club largely exclusive. Everything else is just noise.
These will be immensely valuable forever as long as they keep the club largely exclusive. Everything else is just noise.
I suppose. I have old friends who are pretty up there. One of them (a very best friend and childhood friend) in a family that’s very wealthy. Think Waltons.
Never once did I lever this relationship or any others I have. I think the network thing is overrated. Wealthy and connected people mostly want to be left alone and very rarely do favors for people not independently at their level.
Also I’m trying to think how many close friends I kept from college or even in contact with. I think maybe 5 and none of them were well off or connected.
But yes, that is part of what is sold as well. Or at least the idea of it. There’s no question about that.
Never once did I lever this relationship or any others I have. I think the network thing is overrated. Wealthy and connected people mostly want to be left alone and very rarely do favors for people not independently at their level.
Also I’m trying to think how many close friends I kept from college or even in contact with. I think maybe 5 and none of them were well off or connected.
But yes, that is part of what is sold as well. Or at least the idea of it. There’s no question about that.
> About a quarter of the Thiel fellows eventually returned to college to finish their degrees, suggesting that even the dropouts see enduring value in higher education.
> Thiel says they “got way more out of it by going back” after launching their businesses.
> “The other 75% didn’t need a college degree,” he says.
I definitely don't think everyone needs a college degree and I definitely think it would do a lot of folks good to delay pursuing a higher education for at least a little while for them to figure out what they want to do. So many of my peers went to college without much of an end goal in sight. I certainly think employers should discriminate less when it comes to degrees.
I don't agree with Thiel on much but this maybe isn't as bad as it seems. However attacking the institutions and promoting successes where no secondary education was necessary seems disingenuous at best.
Everyone should be entitled to higher education. As a society I'm pretty sure it is not in our best interest to lower the bar here. Maybe if you're a politician you want ignorant constituents.
I definitely think more folks should consider community college as an alternative and that the stigma surrounding "inferior" forms of higher education is harmful.
A CEO straight of highschool that I'd want to work for would be a diamond in the rough to say the least.
> Thiel says they “got way more out of it by going back” after launching their businesses.
> “The other 75% didn’t need a college degree,” he says.
I definitely don't think everyone needs a college degree and I definitely think it would do a lot of folks good to delay pursuing a higher education for at least a little while for them to figure out what they want to do. So many of my peers went to college without much of an end goal in sight. I certainly think employers should discriminate less when it comes to degrees.
I don't agree with Thiel on much but this maybe isn't as bad as it seems. However attacking the institutions and promoting successes where no secondary education was necessary seems disingenuous at best.
Everyone should be entitled to higher education. As a society I'm pretty sure it is not in our best interest to lower the bar here. Maybe if you're a politician you want ignorant constituents.
I definitely think more folks should consider community college as an alternative and that the stigma surrounding "inferior" forms of higher education is harmful.
A CEO straight of highschool that I'd want to work for would be a diamond in the rough to say the least.
> should consider community college as an alternative and that the stigma surrounding "inferior" forms of higher education is harmful
very true; and CC captures the original intent of college which was to gain knowledge, whereas 4-year colleges are focused on a lot of other stuff (prestige, network opportunities, job opportunities, sports, college life, etc.)
very true; and CC captures the original intent of college which was to gain knowledge, whereas 4-year colleges are focused on a lot of other stuff (prestige, network opportunities, job opportunities, sports, college life, etc.)
It's really not hard to find a college willing to take your money / government sponsored student loan, especially for the type of person to get a Thiel fellowship. It's not a major opportunity these people are giving up.
It's not about these particular people or the money he's giving them, but rather the general message he is endorsing.
I’m get the feeling Thiels of today won’t make any history books. College gives you a way to learn about the people history deemed important, and learn from them. If making more money is your goal, then Thiel’s advice is probably good. But it is a one or the other. You won’t have time at your startup for that.
In What Tech Calls Thinking, there’s a part that analyzes tech college dropout culture. There was a good point that it’s this odd double bind of wanting the prestige of the school but also wanting to rebel or deny it. You want to show to everybody that you could get into Stanford but also you’re too cool for it. It’s also quite funny in that the more challenging classes occur to the end of college. Even if you’re a very advanced student, the classes are only so sophisticated in the first year or two. But I guess the idea is that these kids are genius autodidacts and therefore can learn all the material on their own? That seems plausible in some cases (CS, math) and less so in others (biomedical engineering cough Elizabeth Holmes cough)
There seems to be a false dichotomy here, where you either 1. go to school or 2. start a business fresh out of high school. At this age, a person’s frontal cortex has not even finished developing, and yet we culturally treat the moment as a final decision point that determines the outcome of the rest of one’s life. Thiel seems to sell this as option 2.; the final defense against “woke” is to abandon the institutions entirely and forge your own determined path like a little 18 year-old John Galt. But depending on how one uses the resources, it may actually provide a third option: to fuck around and experiment for a little while with low risk of life-ruining failure, while you figure out what it is you actually want to do with your life. This is a privilege afforded to many in non-US countries where gap years are the norm, or where family wealth and connections can accommodate it.
And for that matter, I did my fucking around working low stakes jobs in packing warehouses and going to house parties. Goofing off does not require 1%er priveledge.
College was sold to us as a way to enter a rarified sector of the job market, and that’s not as true as it once was, and was never as true as it was sold. But a college education is tremendously important for our democracy to exist in any meaningful way. An educated citizenry is crucial, irrespective of whether that translates to wealth (by the way, it still does translate to higher wealth over a lifetime).
> a college education is tremendously important for our democracy to exist in any meaningful way
this was the original purpose of college (and what liberal arts colleges still attempt to do today); but at some point (maybe starting in the 70s?) college became a place to get the skills necessary to enter the job market, until now it's basically become a prereq for almost any job that's not minimum wage so basically an extension of HS -- serves no real purpose but companies require the piece of paper so you have to have it.
(Yes there are exceptions -- tech, professional sports, acting -- but only if you are supremely talented at a young age, or very lucky, and therefore for the very very few.)
this was the original purpose of college (and what liberal arts colleges still attempt to do today); but at some point (maybe starting in the 70s?) college became a place to get the skills necessary to enter the job market, until now it's basically become a prereq for almost any job that's not minimum wage so basically an extension of HS -- serves no real purpose but companies require the piece of paper so you have to have it.
(Yes there are exceptions -- tech, professional sports, acting -- but only if you are supremely talented at a young age, or very lucky, and therefore for the very very few.)
That function of colleges is still very much alive. As part of being an accredited college with accredited programs, most kids are required to take courses in the liberal arts, even for science degrees. And a college education is a very strong indicator of a person’s support for fascism in America as opposed to our democratic norms. Still a very worthwhile endeavor that should be more accessible to more people financially.
Good thing Peter isn't interested in democracy!
> Thiel explained in a 2009 essay that he had come to "no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel
> Thiel explained in a 2009 essay that he had come to "no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel
Text-only, no Javascript:
curl -si40A "" https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/BB1iO8zk \
|grep -Eo "\"body\":\".+\"readTimeMin\"" \
|(echo "<meta charset=utf-8>";
sed 's/\"body\":\"//;s/\",\"readTimeMin\"//') > 1.htm
firefox ./1.htm
links 1.htm
links -dump 1.htmJoin the military. There are plenty of modern opportunities, you get to serve your country, and tuition is free.
Hopefully you come back alive!
You don't need college if your goal in life is to be a corporate drone. It's a huge waste of money. If your goal is to be a critical thinker with a diverse education and social experiences, college is one of the lowest barrier to entry (not necessarily best) ways to achieve that.
> You don't need college if your goal in life is to be a corporate drone. It's a huge waste of money. If your goal is to be a critical thinker with a diverse education and social experiences, college is one of the lowest barrier to entry (not necessarily best) ways to achieve that.
I'd argue the opposite: you need college to become a corporate drone (you're not getting in otherwise); forging your own path provides many more opportunities to learn critical thinking and social experiences (provided you have the guts to strike out and not stay at home working at McD).
I'd argue the opposite: you need college to become a corporate drone (you're not getting in otherwise); forging your own path provides many more opportunities to learn critical thinking and social experiences (provided you have the guts to strike out and not stay at home working at McD).
How do you become a corporate drone without a college degree? Also the primary purpose of college seems to be to create corporate drones these days, also what a lot of the student body is after.
[deleted]
alumnus, from a decade ago, who had already done the big thing they're notable for.
The ultimate red pill in my life has been working with Harvard grads, and being shocked at how mediocre they are.
The top 25% of Harvard grads are impressive. The bottom 25% are not.
My experience has been that even the lower half of Waterloo grads, in CS, are solid to good. I'd probably take the 20th percentile Waterloo grad over the 20th percentile Harvard grad absent other information.
My experience has been that even the lower half of Waterloo grads, in CS, are solid to good. I'd probably take the 20th percentile Waterloo grad over the 20th percentile Harvard grad absent other information.
Naturally, the majority of these students are benefiting from the inability to tell them apart.
Alternatives like the Thiel Fellowship might change this. The better students might choose these options instead.
This could break down traditional academia and legacy systems, leading to a more efficient society.
Alternatives like the Thiel Fellowship might change this. The better students might choose these options instead.
This could break down traditional academia and legacy systems, leading to a more efficient society.
so we just swap out a Harvard education for the handpicked acolytes of a single billionaire?
also, have we considered that optimizing for efficiency is not the best way to structure a society?
also, have we considered that optimizing for efficiency is not the best way to structure a society?
> leading to a more efficient society
Efficient at what? Producing more highly-resourced sociopaths who share Peter Theil's values?
Efficient at what? Producing more highly-resourced sociopaths who share Peter Theil's values?
The parent comment was on how impressive a portion of the graduates were.
This presumes the context of able to be successful in business.
You may not agree with the values of Peter (I know I don't agree with all of them), but the graduates are often selected for being effective at business.
If those kinds of fellowships provide a better signal, then they would be more efficient by definition.
Your comment, though, seems to come from a place of political indignation. I hope you can reflect on how those kinds of comments reflect on your own values.
This presumes the context of able to be successful in business.
You may not agree with the values of Peter (I know I don't agree with all of them), but the graduates are often selected for being effective at business.
If those kinds of fellowships provide a better signal, then they would be more efficient by definition.
Your comment, though, seems to come from a place of political indignation. I hope you can reflect on how those kinds of comments reflect on your own values.
Of course they represent my own values. Peter Thiel’s approach to business is based on creating monopoly conditions, extracting maximum value from working people, and creating widespread social misery that he doesn’t have to personally experience due to his wealth.
Is there a some other way to evaluate a normative discussion of social, business, and educational policy than by bringing values to bear?
Is there a some other way to evaluate a normative discussion of social, business, and educational policy than by bringing values to bear?
You're unfortunately correct that value creation and extraction are not always hand in hand. I also agree that monopoly conditions are bad and a huge problem right now. So probably our values align here.
To take Thiel's fellowship charitably, though, these people are both creating and extracting value. And programs like these might have a better track record of identifying, and accelerating these creators that somehow give the market what it wants. Markets aren't perfect but I'm not aware of a better system.
I am not sure Thiel's intention about talking so openly about monopoly, but I feel that effects that might align with your values are:
1. That people (hopefully regulators) are more aware of the value extracting monopolies. I know Thiel has talked very publicly against a few tech giants he doesn't like.
2. That people (hopefully creators) think more about creating tiny monopolies. The most common problem I see business creators make is that they attack a red ocean. So maybe he calls them monopolies, but I just use the term 'niche'. They're certainly a more likely way to succeed and they create value for other people.
Anyway, Thiel is also playing political games of 'us versus them' and trying not to look charitably on the others. I felt like your comment continued that sort of damaging perspective.
I don't think only sociopaths are succeeding - in fact, our world progress is proof that cooperation and trust work very well even against cynics that exploit it, overall. I also think that most people (including those that are vocal) really want good things for humanity. They might even have similar thoughts on how to get there. But the way they talk about it and their identity group seems to get in the way.
We just get stuck in narratives that focus on differences. When we do that, we don't move the other party to our side, they just dig their heels in. And we probably agree with them much more than we think.
To take Thiel's fellowship charitably, though, these people are both creating and extracting value. And programs like these might have a better track record of identifying, and accelerating these creators that somehow give the market what it wants. Markets aren't perfect but I'm not aware of a better system.
I am not sure Thiel's intention about talking so openly about monopoly, but I feel that effects that might align with your values are:
1. That people (hopefully regulators) are more aware of the value extracting monopolies. I know Thiel has talked very publicly against a few tech giants he doesn't like.
2. That people (hopefully creators) think more about creating tiny monopolies. The most common problem I see business creators make is that they attack a red ocean. So maybe he calls them monopolies, but I just use the term 'niche'. They're certainly a more likely way to succeed and they create value for other people.
Anyway, Thiel is also playing political games of 'us versus them' and trying not to look charitably on the others. I felt like your comment continued that sort of damaging perspective.
I don't think only sociopaths are succeeding - in fact, our world progress is proof that cooperation and trust work very well even against cynics that exploit it, overall. I also think that most people (including those that are vocal) really want good things for humanity. They might even have similar thoughts on how to get there. But the way they talk about it and their identity group seems to get in the way.
We just get stuck in narratives that focus on differences. When we do that, we don't move the other party to our side, they just dig their heels in. And we probably agree with them much more than we think.
You're right, he doesn't want a monopoly, he wants to disband democracy completely!
> Thiel explained in a 2009 essay that he had come to "no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel
> Thiel explained in a 2009 essay that he had come to "no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel
That is certainly a concerning quote. It implies that he believes in an authoritarian alternative which would definitely condemn him.
It looks like it was in the context of his seasteading project idea. He didn't so much want another government as no government. And not to replace a current government but to live outside it. It does sound like a fantasy, but it was certainly not in the tone of what is implied by it out of context.
I don't know a lot about Thiel but what you said made me curious if I had it wrong and this guy was a monarchist or something. There is a lot written about him but trying to find what he actually says is harder. It seems like, right and left, people try to use him as a mouthpiece because he says a lot of crazy sounding things that are often taken out of context or not fully understood in his meaning.
He recently gave an interview in the Atlantic where he touches on his political views. It's an interesting read.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2023/11/peter-t...
Some things you might be surprised by in the interview:
1. He no longer supports Trump and sees his presidency as a disappointment. He says he is now a supporter of Biden. He also stated that he didn't think the election was stolen but did think the presidency was stolen from Gore.
2. Though friends with an authoritarianist, he says he does not believe it in. He thinks Xi and Putin types will not cause innovation or greater freedom. He specifically declined to meet with Putin on invitation and instead informed the US government of the contact.
It seems like his support of Trump in his first term was a cynical accelerationist-style idea wherein to get out of a bad cycle in government, you make it worse. This is an awful idea for a few reasons. It looks like he no longer believes it though.
Another thing I think he has been very wrong on is support of cryptocurrency. Though I admit I also thought it was a good and interesting thing over a decade ago.
I'd say the worst thing about Thiel is his pessimistic tone which is paradoxical given how very optimistic he is about the potential future.
Anyway, I don't think he's what the far right wants him to be nor do I think he is what the left makes him out to be.
It looks like it was in the context of his seasteading project idea. He didn't so much want another government as no government. And not to replace a current government but to live outside it. It does sound like a fantasy, but it was certainly not in the tone of what is implied by it out of context.
I don't know a lot about Thiel but what you said made me curious if I had it wrong and this guy was a monarchist or something. There is a lot written about him but trying to find what he actually says is harder. It seems like, right and left, people try to use him as a mouthpiece because he says a lot of crazy sounding things that are often taken out of context or not fully understood in his meaning.
He recently gave an interview in the Atlantic where he touches on his political views. It's an interesting read.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2023/11/peter-t...
Some things you might be surprised by in the interview:
1. He no longer supports Trump and sees his presidency as a disappointment. He says he is now a supporter of Biden. He also stated that he didn't think the election was stolen but did think the presidency was stolen from Gore.
2. Though friends with an authoritarianist, he says he does not believe it in. He thinks Xi and Putin types will not cause innovation or greater freedom. He specifically declined to meet with Putin on invitation and instead informed the US government of the contact.
It seems like his support of Trump in his first term was a cynical accelerationist-style idea wherein to get out of a bad cycle in government, you make it worse. This is an awful idea for a few reasons. It looks like he no longer believes it though.
Another thing I think he has been very wrong on is support of cryptocurrency. Though I admit I also thought it was a good and interesting thing over a decade ago.
I'd say the worst thing about Thiel is his pessimistic tone which is paradoxical given how very optimistic he is about the potential future.
Anyway, I don't think he's what the far right wants him to be nor do I think he is what the left makes him out to be.
Related active thread about the Thiel Fellowship: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39491968
I think he wrote some scary manifesto I was trying to find pushing technology as the solution to our problems, but I was unable to. Convenient he owns much of that tech. Also, if you consider the premise he feels burdened by government and paying taxes, and wants to dismantle democracy, he would almost certainly be discrete, as well as consider lying to get what he wants.
I had never heard of the term "Dark Enlightenment"[1] until recently, but it's rather concerning.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment
I think he wrote some scary manifesto I was trying to find pushing technology as the solution to our problems, but I was unable to. Convenient he owns much of that tech. Also, if you consider the premise he feels burdened by government and paying taxes, and wants to dismantle democracy, he would almost certainly be discrete, as well as consider lying to get what he wants.
I had never heard of the term "Dark Enlightenment"[1] until recently, but it's rather concerning.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment
We don't have to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. He has a pretty established track record of being a fully malevolent force in American society, and to the extent I think about that guy at all it would be trying to figure out how to get him as far away from power and influence as possible.
It feels to me like this statement boils down to "trust me bro," which isn't very convincing to me. But I agree, he's evil and stuff.
But that’s the point. You don’t have to trust me. The guy has an extensive and public track record.
That's not necessarily surprising; Waterloo is known for being very strong in CS, Harvard not necessarily. I'd take a CMU or Harvey Mudd CS grad over a Harvard one any day.
A well known VC told me that 1/20 is absolutely exceptional. And so they always bet on Harvard grads, in hopes they are backing one of those 1/20.
Now you're ready for the next observation. Which is to really understand the mentality of people from those institutions.
Imagine if you took these two premises as true:
1) Harvard is the most selective and high level educational institution in the world, it's full of the absolute smartest people alive. That's how I ended up here.
2) Now that I am actually here, it appears that there's a bunch of people at Harvard that honestly aren't all that bright.
You then have to pick from one of two obvious conclusions:
A) Maybe Harvard actually isn't full of the smartest people in the world.
B) Wow, since we know the dumbest person at Harvard is smarter than the smartest person at a state school, people who went to state school must be total fucking idiots.
Guess which worldview your average Harvard student tends to gravitate towards?
Imagine if you took these two premises as true:
1) Harvard is the most selective and high level educational institution in the world, it's full of the absolute smartest people alive. That's how I ended up here.
2) Now that I am actually here, it appears that there's a bunch of people at Harvard that honestly aren't all that bright.
You then have to pick from one of two obvious conclusions:
A) Maybe Harvard actually isn't full of the smartest people in the world.
B) Wow, since we know the dumbest person at Harvard is smarter than the smartest person at a state school, people who went to state school must be total fucking idiots.
Guess which worldview your average Harvard student tends to gravitate towards?
Yeah, a lot of them also have a really strong network of ivy league grads, and really only associate in those circles. What happens is they develop all sorts of ideas about "outsiders". You see this in NYC a lot. The network is where alot of the success comes from. I'm also not doubting that many Harvard students are exceptional students
I have to say that the last decade or so of my life has been one confirmation after another that the parable of “The Emperor’s New Clothes” is about the most accurate bit of folk sociological wisdom that exists.
I’ll face issue for this, because I’m sure the same people I’m about to complain about post here.
I went to a google campus for an automotive liaison trip when working at a BIG3… some smart people for sure, but a lot of kids that could barely tie their pointy elf shoes let alone had any common sense about things outside of programming.
Like… You are working on an automotive program and you have no idea which parts under the painted part are suspension? You don’t know what the transmission actually does? Guys, I just need this car backed out and the other one brought in, this isn’t concerning, you and you, swap these. Yes, there is a reason that cars have so many parts.
… it was really eye opening. Good programmers, but holy hell I wouldn’t want to be stuck on an island with any of them.
I went to a google campus for an automotive liaison trip when working at a BIG3… some smart people for sure, but a lot of kids that could barely tie their pointy elf shoes let alone had any common sense about things outside of programming.
Like… You are working on an automotive program and you have no idea which parts under the painted part are suspension? You don’t know what the transmission actually does? Guys, I just need this car backed out and the other one brought in, this isn’t concerning, you and you, swap these. Yes, there is a reason that cars have so many parts.
… it was really eye opening. Good programmers, but holy hell I wouldn’t want to be stuck on an island with any of them.
Lots of people have no interest in cars, just like lots of people have no interest in computers. Not sure that says anything about the people’s intelligence.
Plus on a desert island you’ll probably have bigger problems than what a transmission does.
Plus on a desert island you’ll probably have bigger problems than what a transmission does.
Ok. If you want to excuse one example that’s fine. I was there, and those people put all their points into programming.
That’s what the legacy rulings are about. But there will always be stupid rich failsons and faildaughters that magically find an acceptance letter and a new facility with their last name on it.
Sounds like a great reason to end legacy admissions.
[deleted]
US college requires you to understand the enlightenment roots of American democracy. Something that Thiel is fundamentally against
College is a maturing process intellectually. The thinking one does during this time is crucial. It’s not just about getting a J.O.B. Thiel has another agenda, maybe steering ppl away from ‘liberal ideologies’ because lest we forget he is a MAGA grifter
Why go to college and develop critical thinking when you can just accept the doctrine of state capitalism and make money for the big guys leeching off the state and weakening our institutions?
[deleted]
Looking at undergrad college students, I don’t think critical thinking is being developed. Entitlement and easily taking offense yes, but not being able to critically consider and evaluate competing ideas.
maybe they're taking offense because the critical thinking skills they receive from higher education enables them to understand the nuances of the world better than you do?
or maybe your "competing ideas" aren't as compelling as you think?
or maybe your "competing ideas" aren't as compelling as you think?
From what I hear, not much critical thinking is learned in college in 2024.
Who exactly have you been hearing that from?
[deleted]
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/careersandeducation/peter-th...