4 ms·

the fact that she is part of Thiel's 20 under 20, just shows the high level of selection bias for his program

by vaksel 15y ago

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
brackin 15y ago
In what way? She applied, is very intelligent and has shown her project, which the mentors must have liked. Why shouldn't she get in? It was likely nothing to do with her parents contacts or upbringing. Rather how much she had achieved and what she wanted to achieve. If you speak to all of the fellows you'll see that a lot are just startup guys and girls working all kinds of projects. No correlation in previous experiences or contacts. Anyone that can show why they deserve to be there has an equal chance of getting in.
- ericwaller 15y ago
  I think what vaksel means to say is that Thiel's 20 under 20 project will prove nothing about the value of a college education because his sample consists of 20 of the most brilliant kids around. It would be like trying to demonstrate the worthlessness of a programming course by taking 20 brilliant programmers and having them skip it before starting inevitably successful careers.
  - brackin 15y ago
    Oh I see. Think how much more they can achieve with the freedom and time they have, of course to each of these points there are disadvantages. But for those that are truly self directed and succeeded on their own accord this won't matter. I think college isn't for everyone and for those it is for, it may be very valuable. Some require this security and mentorship more than others but those that do it will allow them to learn and succeed faster. A number of them may not have realised their full potential. It's a tough one, it could be unfair to read a bio or look at the overall fellowship and just presume each of the fellows are in the same situation and making an opinion on the fellowship before we see how far they go and study each fellow individually. Many will get a lot out of it, which is the important part. Others may not have needed it but it will allow them to do what they want. We tend to leave anything complicated out of our stories because it's just easier to understand. It's hard to judge anyone or a collection of people on these brief stories. Look at startups like Pinterest which waited two years before 'Overnight success'.
juiceandjuice 15y ago
I was thinking the same thing. I feel out of place in the bay area a lot of times because I grew up in a small shitty town in New Mexico. Thinking back, I didn't know anyone with a college degree growing up besides a few of my teachers. My parents social circle was grocery store workers and oil field workers. Once I hit algebra in the 6th grade I was on my own. I probably could (should) have started college at 16 or so, but I wouldn't have really known how to manage that on my own. This girl, if anything, confirms what Peter Thiel ignores: College is a resource. If I had access to these resources this girl had, I could probably be in a similar position, but I didn't so that's why I went to college. 20 (who grew up with social, intellectual, economic and/or academic capital) under 20 doesn't have the same ring to it, I suppose.
- jasdeepH 15y ago
  Agreed, but not sure if we call this selection bias. Anyways, here's my perspective from someone who realized this even while growing up in a suburb in the Bay Area. My parents are blue collar workers (we've lived very comfortably through their hard work however), and so are a good portion of the folks in their social circle, but my city is largely made up of upper middle class and wealthy professionals, mostly tech workers. When I hit junior high/high school, I was taking the advanced classes with the kids of those professionals. I was among the more talented kids in my class, but in my senior year of high school I was working a drive-thru, while one friend had an internship at an architectural firm, getting an awesome chance to learn from a talented and successful architect (the friend's intended profession), and he wasn't the only one doing something like that over the summer. So one difference was that the other parents had connections that mine did not, and were able to give their kids a kind of exposure to the world that I didn't have. Even though the Bay Area has a wealth of resources for those interested in technology, I didn't know what existed, and nor did my parents. Nor did I know that I should have been asking around to dig these up. The girl that this post is about is undoubtedly gifted and deserves to be recognized as one of the 20 under 20. Even if I did grow up with social, intellectual, economic and/or academic capital, I probably wouldn't have achieved that. But these sorts of differences do make me wonder about how many more geniuses could launch world-changing careers if all students had access to the resources this girl did, as well as being taught how to make the most of them.

the fact that she is part of Thiel's 20 under 20, just shows the high level of selection bias for his program

by vaksel 15y ago

the fact that she is part of Thiel's 20 under 20, just shows the high level of selection bias for his program

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

brackin 15y ago

In what way? She applied, is very intelligent and has shown her project, which the mentors must have liked. Why shouldn't she get in? It was likely nothing to do with her parents contacts or upbringing. Rather how much she had achieved and what she wanted to achieve. If you speak to all of the fellows you'll see that a lot are just startup guys and girls working all kinds of projects. No correlation in previous experiences or contacts. Anyone that can show why they deserve to be there has an equal chance of getting in.

ericwaller 15y ago
I think what vaksel means to say is that Thiel's 20 under 20 project will prove nothing about the value of a college education because his sample consists of 20 of the most brilliant kids around. It would be like trying to demonstrate the worthlessness of a programming course by taking 20 brilliant programmers and having them skip it before starting inevitably successful careers.
- brackin 15y ago
  Oh I see. Think how much more they can achieve with the freedom and time they have, of course to each of these points there are disadvantages. But for those that are truly self directed and succeeded on their own accord this won't matter. I think college isn't for everyone and for those it is for, it may be very valuable. Some require this security and mentorship more than others but those that do it will allow them to learn and succeed faster. A number of them may not have realised their full potential. It's a tough one, it could be unfair to read a bio or look at the overall fellowship and just presume each of the fellows are in the same situation and making an opinion on the fellowship before we see how far they go and study each fellow individually. Many will get a lot out of it, which is the important part. Others may not have needed it but it will allow them to do what they want. We tend to leave anything complicated out of our stories because it's just easier to understand. It's hard to judge anyone or a collection of people on these brief stories. Look at startups like Pinterest which waited two years before 'Overnight success'.

juiceandjuice 15y ago

I was thinking the same thing. I feel out of place in the bay area a lot of times because I grew up in a small shitty town in New Mexico. Thinking back, I didn't know anyone with a college degree growing up besides a few of my teachers. My parents social circle was grocery store workers and oil field workers. Once I hit algebra in the 6th grade I was on my own. I probably could (should) have started college at 16 or so, but I wouldn't have really known how to manage that on my own. This girl, if anything, confirms what Peter Thiel ignores: College is a resource. If I had access to these resources this girl had, I could probably be in a similar position, but I didn't so that's why I went to college. 20 (who grew up with social, intellectual, economic and/or academic capital) under 20 doesn't have the same ring to it, I suppose.

jasdeepH 15y ago
Agreed, but not sure if we call this selection bias. Anyways, here's my perspective from someone who realized this even while growing up in a suburb in the Bay Area. My parents are blue collar workers (we've lived very comfortably through their hard work however), and so are a good portion of the folks in their social circle, but my city is largely made up of upper middle class and wealthy professionals, mostly tech workers. When I hit junior high/high school, I was taking the advanced classes with the kids of those professionals. I was among the more talented kids in my class, but in my senior year of high school I was working a drive-thru, while one friend had an internship at an architectural firm, getting an awesome chance to learn from a talented and successful architect (the friend's intended profession), and he wasn't the only one doing something like that over the summer. So one difference was that the other parents had connections that mine did not, and were able to give their kids a kind of exposure to the world that I didn't have. Even though the Bay Area has a wealth of resources for those interested in technology, I didn't know what existed, and nor did my parents. Nor did I know that I should have been asking around to dig these up. The girl that this post is about is undoubtedly gifted and deserves to be recognized as one of the 20 under 20. Even if I did grow up with social, intellectual, economic and/or academic capital, I probably wouldn't have achieved that. But these sorts of differences do make me wonder about how many more geniuses could launch world-changing careers if all students had access to the resources this girl did, as well as being taught how to make the most of them.