4 ms·

This is important. There's a big difference between getting started at 45 and founding your third company at 45. I don't think there is something biological, o

This is important. There's a big difference between getting started at 45 and founding your third company at 45. I don't think there is something biological, or even social that makes it hard to be a late-bloomer in tech entrepreneurship. It's just hard to develop an entirely new skillset and network in later-middle age. I think we'd mostly be skeptical of a doctor who started medical school at 45, and while the stakes for founders aren't as severe, the same principle applies.

tensor 8y ago
Well, we'd be even more skeptical of a doctor who dropped out of undergrad, never got a degree, and was promising world changing results, which is the prevailing narrative Silicon Valley seems to want to believe.
- taneq 8y ago
  There's an important difference between "dropped out of undergrad because you were failing" and "quit your course because your company succeeded so hard that finishing your course was irrelevant." You probably wouldn't be sceptical of a managing director of a medical research company who'd dropped out of med school when they reached 10+ employees.
  - tensor 8y ago
    I would be very skeptical actually. I might point to Theranos as an example of just what you describe too.
    - taneq 8y ago
      Given how many people believed in Theranos I think it's fair to say that their founder was pretty credible, despite the ultimate outcome.
jt2190 8y ago
> It's just hard to develop an entirely new skillset and network in later-middle age. To leave age out of it, the study shows that those who successfully founded growth companies already had the skillset and network to draw on. (Perhaps the older ages were due to the years it takes for someone build their skillset and network?)