5 ms·

When expensively educated, fashionable young graduates start showing up in your field, you're in a bubble. - Kevin Marks I fully attribute the increase to

by dstein 16y ago

When expensively educated, fashionable young graduates start showing up in your field, you're in a bubble. - Kevin Marks I fully attribute the increase to The Social Network movie coinciding with the ballooning of Facebook's market cap. Flipping tech startups is the hot new get rich quick scheme. Just like flipping houses and subprime mortgages before it.

gersh 16y ago
There isn't be a bubble until Facebook IPOs. If there were really a bubble, Facebook would have IPOed already.
- SoftwareMaven 16y ago
  Facebook hasn't IPO'd because there is no value for them to do so. They have enough liquidity on the secondary markets to keep employees happy and they are able to keep investments coming through alternative means. All an IPO would do would be to increase their paperwork.
  - wyclif 16y ago
    Don't forget an IPO would also require Facebook to disclose numbers they'd rather not while they still have liquidity. That's another major reason.
  - hga 16y ago
    Indeed, plus legal liability etc. etc. etc. The longer they wait, the better it might end up for the rest of us. The SEC suffered major embarrassment when Americans were dropped from Goldman's (?) recent Facebook investment vehicle and is at minimum looking to revise the current rules which date back to 1935. That's not going to fix SarBox, but maybe, just maybe that sort of bad attention/publicity will help.
warfangle 16y ago
He kind of addressed the difference between what's happening now and what happened in '99. ~10% who wanted to get rich doing it back then, versus people actually getting interested in the stuff now.
- rgarcia 16y ago
  His reason for why people are "getting interested" now seemed very weak to me: Most have majors in other areas but recognize, probably correctly, that having programming skills will likely increase their chances of gaining employment in their own field. I would say this was just as true in the 90s as it is today.
  - ahlatimer 16y ago
    That's the reason he gives for people initially going into CS, but he says that, once they get there, they tend to really enjoy the material. Apparently it wasn't so in the dot com bubble; people freely admitted to hating the material.
    - roc 16y ago
      It may help that they "broadened" their requirements. That is, before when kids showed up to get rich, they struggled through the advanced math and hated it. Now when kids show up to get rich, they expect the advanced math, but see easier/more-engaging routes through things like web, UX or media spurs.
      - xiaomai 16y ago
        I hope that's not true of a university like Stanford. I know it's not true for my school (which is nowhere near Stanford in terms of prestige or name-recognition).
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
  - Goladus 16y ago
throwa_way 16y ago
I'm not worrying. The fact that the market is being flooded with lots of (likely less skilled, because let's face it, fad majors attract fad-following types that aren't really as much interested in the subject matter as much as making money) programmers means I can charge a premium for my skills. Edit: Of course, you better damn well be sure that your differentiation from the rookies is fairly obvious to the casual viewer of your resume.
- jquery 16y ago
  It's the mediocre programmers that should be scared.
meterplech 16y ago
I think people who got into programming very early in life can be naturally condescending against those who found it later. There is some reason behind this: if you were programming Basic at 6, made your first mini game at 8, and had your first webapp in the dotcom boom at 14 you probably have a ton of programming experience that those who learned later don't have. But, it still seems odd to me. Most fields want to encourage smart, young, undergrads to enter them. Sure, they might have shallower passion for the field at first, the point of the article was that many people were developing real love for the field. While Stanford undergrads are expensively educated and (maybe?) fashionable, they are also incredibly smart. Most importantly, learning programming isn't like selling subprime mortgages. For someone to buy your startup you must have added some value to the world. Trading subprimes arguably does not, or has a net negative effect.
- sixtofour 16y ago
  "For someone to buy your startup you must have added some value to the world." Not necessarily so. All it takes is the buyer or investor to believe he'll make money. There were a lot of dot coms back in that bubble that had no business existing, yet everyone wanted to throw money at companies that added nothing to the world but paychecks.
gammarator 16y ago
"Overheard: 'I'd like to thank Zuck for brainwashing the entire world. I say I'm a Harvard student working on a web app, and they write me a check.'" http://twitter.com/#!/ataussig/status/45288519748427776 http://twitter.com/#!/ataussig/status/45288519748427776
sedachv 16y ago
...and this is why I'm starting an MBA this year.

by dstein 16y ago

gersh 16y ago

There isn't be a bubble until Facebook IPOs. If there were really a bubble, Facebook would have IPOed already.

SoftwareMaven 16y ago
Facebook hasn't IPO'd because there is no value for them to do so. They have enough liquidity on the secondary markets to keep employees happy and they are able to keep investments coming through alternative means. All an IPO would do would be to increase their paperwork.
- wyclif 16y ago
  Don't forget an IPO would also require Facebook to disclose numbers they'd rather not while they still have liquidity. That's another major reason.
- hga 16y ago
  Indeed, plus legal liability etc. etc. etc. The longer they wait, the better it might end up for the rest of us. The SEC suffered major embarrassment when Americans were dropped from Goldman's (?) recent Facebook investment vehicle and is at minimum looking to revise the current rules which date back to 1935. That's not going to fix SarBox, but maybe, just maybe that sort of bad attention/publicity will help.

warfangle 16y ago

He kind of addressed the difference between what's happening now and what happened in '99. ~10% who wanted to get rich doing it back then, versus people actually getting interested in the stuff now.

rgarcia 16y ago
His reason for why people are "getting interested" now seemed very weak to me: Most have majors in other areas but recognize, probably correctly, that having programming skills will likely increase their chances of gaining employment in their own field. I would say this was just as true in the 90s as it is today.
- ahlatimer 16y ago
  That's the reason he gives for people initially going into CS, but he says that, once they get there, they tend to really enjoy the material. Apparently it wasn't so in the dot com bubble; people freely admitted to hating the material.
  - roc 16y ago
    It may help that they "broadened" their requirements. That is, before when kids showed up to get rich, they struggled through the advanced math and hated it. Now when kids show up to get rich, they expect the advanced math, but see easier/more-engaging routes through things like web, UX or media spurs.
    - xiaomai 16y ago
      I hope that's not true of a university like Stanford. I know it's not true for my school (which is nowhere near Stanford in terms of prestige or name-recognition).
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- Goladus 16y ago

throwa_way 16y ago

I'm not worrying. The fact that the market is being flooded with lots of (likely less skilled, because let's face it, fad majors attract fad-following types that aren't really as much interested in the subject matter as much as making money) programmers means I can charge a premium for my skills. Edit: Of course, you better damn well be sure that your differentiation from the rookies is fairly obvious to the casual viewer of your resume.

jquery 16y ago
It's the mediocre programmers that should be scared.

meterplech 16y ago

I think people who got into programming very early in life can be naturally condescending against those who found it later. There is some reason behind this: if you were programming Basic at 6, made your first mini game at 8, and had your first webapp in the dotcom boom at 14 you probably have a ton of programming experience that those who learned later don't have. But, it still seems odd to me. Most fields want to encourage smart, young, undergrads to enter them. Sure, they might have shallower passion for the field at first, the point of the article was that many people were developing real love for the field. While Stanford undergrads are expensively educated and (maybe?) fashionable, they are also incredibly smart. Most importantly, learning programming isn't like selling subprime mortgages. For someone to buy your startup you must have added some value to the world. Trading subprimes arguably does not, or has a net negative effect.

sixtofour 16y ago
"For someone to buy your startup you must have added some value to the world." Not necessarily so. All it takes is the buyer or investor to believe he'll make money. There were a lot of dot coms back in that bubble that had no business existing, yet everyone wanted to throw money at companies that added nothing to the world but paychecks.

gammarator 16y ago

"Overheard: 'I'd like to thank Zuck for brainwashing the entire world. I say I'm a Harvard student working on a web app, and they write me a check.'" http://twitter.com/#!/ataussig/status/45288519748427776 http://twitter.com/#!/ataussig/status/45288519748427776

sedachv 16y ago

...and this is why I'm starting an MBA this year.