5 ms·

The blindness to privilege that’s tied up in the part about why you ‘need’ to go to a good (by which he means highly selective) school… > if you want to start

The blindness to privilege that’s tied up in the part about why you ‘need’ to go to a good (by which he means highly selective) school… > if you want to start a startup you should try to get into the best university you can, because that's where the best cofounders are... > The empirical evidence is clear on this. If you look at where the largest numbers of successful startups come from, it's pretty much the same as the list of the most selective universities. Is it at all possible that the people who are able to take a gamble on founding a startup rather than getting a job are also disproportionately drawn from the wealthy class that is also able to afford the privileges necessary to get their kids over the admissions humps needed to get into highly selective schools? Because in spite of the suggestion that getting into these schools is a matter of ‘doing well in your classes’, Graham knows and acknowledges in his footnote that he knows full well that’s actually not what these schools are selecting for anyway: > US admissions departments make applicants jump through a lot of arbitrary hoops that have little to do with their intellectual ability. But the more arbitrary a test, the more it becomes a test of mere determination and resourcefulness. ‘Mere determination and resourcefulness’? Or the background, finances and support and time necessary to make the grade in terms of non academic achievements, volunteer work, experience, extracurriculars, etc? But even if you get in through academics plus determination and resourcefulness… will you also have the resources to take a risk on turning a project into a startup? This is cargo cultism. Yes, successful founders are disproportionately drawn from high end selective schools, because they are disproportionately drawn from the community of people who come from a background of privilege, and are academically bright. Such people naturally tend to end up at Stanford or MIT or wherever. But getting in to Stanford or MIT doesn’t magically make you into a member of that privileged class.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
93po 3y ago
The overwhelming influential factor of people who start successful businesses is that they have a tremendous amount of resources relative to the average person. I would guess that easily over half of all successful medium to large size businesses started with someone who had a big leg-up.
- lupire 3y ago
  That's what he said. "Resourcefulness". Money is a resource as much as brainpower or grit or creativity.
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    'Resourcefulness' generally means the personal quality of being good at problem-solving, improvisation, or whatever in situations where you don't have resources. I've never heard it associated with someone who was well supplied with external resources.
drcongo 3y ago
I find most of his posts over the last few years to be an exercise in ignoring privilege. It's a very long time since I read one that felt grounded.
- lupire 3y ago
  I think you changed more than he did.
cmrdporcupine 3y ago
Yep > ‘Mere determination and resourcefulness’ ... is actually really a test of class position. Your motivation to pursue and pass those artificial goalposts is in most cases going to be directly co-related to the values and expectations that the people who surround you have. Mommy and daddy and their friends at the country club expect it. CS education is good all over the place, not just Stanford or MIT. And CS education pulled out of books and through self-reading is also great. But knowing that said person went to Stanford is a signifier to the VCs that said person is acculturated into the class and culture of capitalist administration. More mind boggling is seeing them admitting to the "cargo cultism" (which I'd just call "class bias") instead of the usual ideological cover of entrepreneurialism and the "American dream."
berkes 3y ago
In "Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting by in America" Barbara Ehrenreich poses that universities are (in my words) merely a fictional moat, "invented" by the new class that became rich through education and work, rather then before through ownership and capital. "Education" nor "work" can be passed through generations. If I am a very gifted lawyer, this is not something I can pass on to my daughters or suns (but a castle or land can be). Yet you can employ your network and power to get your daughter or suns into "highly selective" universities. Where, once they are in, being smart (e.g being a gifted lawyer) matters less than "being in". So, indeed, "cargo cultism" and privilege. And, I would add, a problem and cause of why the startup world is so shortsighted, monoculture (non-diverse) and dogpiling on similar problems, yet ignoring others entirely. (disclaimer: I too, however, am the typical priviliged bearded white male that "does computers" since late eighties though)
- jdthedisciple 3y ago
  I like your poetic metaphor of sons as bright stars ...
  - berkes 3y ago
    English isn't my native tongue. Sometimes stupid mistakes slip through. Apparently this one sounds like a metaphor. It was just a mistake, though.
    - jdthedisciple 3y ago
      Ofc, was just a light-hearted comment :-)
- berkes 3y ago
  On rereading my notes: the book by Ehrenreich is "fear of falling".
dmurray 3y ago
> But getting in to Stanford or MIT doesn’t magically make you into a member of that privileged class. The essay (intentionally, no doubt) doesn't pick a side in this fight. It's very clear on why you should go to the best university: not because it will make you the best founder, but to meet the best co-founders. > And if you want to start a startup you should try to get into the best university you can, because that's where the best cofounders are. It's also where the best employees are. When Larry and Sergey started Google, they began by just hiring all the smartest people they knew out of Stanford, and this was a real advantage for them. It doesn't matter whether elite universities are meritocratic or terribly unfair: either way, they've been the source of very many successful companies over the last 30 years, and Paul Graham is betting on that continuing to be the case. (Unlike Peter Thiel, for example, who is telling kids to drop out).
- jameshart 3y ago
  Yes, I know PG isn’t picking a side in that ‘fight’. He’s pretending it doesn’t exist. He’s suggesting that anyone with the resourcefulness of a founder, who has access to that college network, could have an equal opportunity to find the magic combination of cofounders and ideas to make a Google. My point is that his empirical evidence and continued willingness to bet on startups that emerge from that path does not justify his claim that that path is the open for everyone to take. If you are among the stratum from whom startup founders and cofounders will most likely be drawn, then sure, 100%, these schools are a networking opportunity which will help you on that path. Great place to meet cofounders. If you aren’t, going to these schools will not make you magically able to take the financial risks needed to become a founder; they might make you among the smartest people some founders know, and get you a gig working for one.
- lupire 3y ago
  Not unlike Peter Thiel. Gates, Jobs, Dell, Page, Brin, Zuckerberg are all dropouts.
dasil003 3y ago
You're right that PG ignores the privilege and selection bias at play in all stages on the funnel to Google-scale success. I'm okay with that though, because calling out all the statistical realities does not lead to actionable advice for young people; it tends to devolve into hand-wringing and complaining about what "we" as a society should do, but very few are actually empowered or incentivized to address. And, at the end of the day, if you're looking for a single place to find good co-founders, it's hard to argue there is any better place than Stanford or MIT. I think Paul's advice on balance is decent, even for folks starting from less privilege. That said, I think the biggest risk for ambitious young people reading this is black and white thinking about getting into the right school. Successful founders are relentlessly resourceful, so while it's a decent plan to target a top school, I believe that how you handle rejection and refocus your ambitions says more about your long-term entrepreneurial prospects than being accepted would have. Focus on what you can control, play to your strengths, and on balance you'll get better outcomes.
ilrwbwrkhv 3y ago
Ya that is the main one. If you are born in midwest usa or god forbid, nigeria, please forget starting google.
mempko 3y ago
Exactly, it's not that good technology gets funding, it's that technology that gets funding gets good. People often get this the wrong way around. They believe you just need a good idea. No, you need social circles that can invest in your idea. Investment improves things over time. Alan Kay talks about this. That the quality of the project is the quality of the funders. You can have good ideas, but if you don't have access to funders, your good idea will not have the resources to become a great idea.
hoosieree 3y ago
Jumping through arbitrary hoops sounds an awful lot like "push hard, the door sticks".

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

93po 3y ago

The overwhelming influential factor of people who start successful businesses is that they have a tremendous amount of resources relative to the average person. I would guess that easily over half of all successful medium to large size businesses started with someone who had a big leg-up.

lupire 3y ago
That's what he said. "Resourcefulness". Money is a resource as much as brainpower or grit or creativity.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  'Resourcefulness' generally means the personal quality of being good at problem-solving, improvisation, or whatever in situations where you don't have resources. I've never heard it associated with someone who was well supplied with external resources.

drcongo 3y ago

I find most of his posts over the last few years to be an exercise in ignoring privilege. It's a very long time since I read one that felt grounded.

lupire 3y ago
I think you changed more than he did.

cmrdporcupine 3y ago

Yep > ‘Mere determination and resourcefulness’ ... is actually really a test of class position. Your motivation to pursue and pass those artificial goalposts is in most cases going to be directly co-related to the values and expectations that the people who surround you have. Mommy and daddy and their friends at the country club expect it. CS education is good all over the place, not just Stanford or MIT. And CS education pulled out of books and through self-reading is also great. But knowing that said person went to Stanford is a signifier to the VCs that said person is acculturated into the class and culture of capitalist administration. More mind boggling is seeing them admitting to the "cargo cultism" (which I'd just call "class bias") instead of the usual ideological cover of entrepreneurialism and the "American dream."

berkes 3y ago

In "Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting by in America" Barbara Ehrenreich poses that universities are (in my words) merely a fictional moat, "invented" by the new class that became rich through education and work, rather then before through ownership and capital. "Education" nor "work" can be passed through generations. If I am a very gifted lawyer, this is not something I can pass on to my daughters or suns (but a castle or land can be). Yet you can employ your network and power to get your daughter or suns into "highly selective" universities. Where, once they are in, being smart (e.g being a gifted lawyer) matters less than "being in". So, indeed, "cargo cultism" and privilege. And, I would add, a problem and cause of why the startup world is so shortsighted, monoculture (non-diverse) and dogpiling on similar problems, yet ignoring others entirely. (disclaimer: I too, however, am the typical priviliged bearded white male that "does computers" since late eighties though)

jdthedisciple 3y ago
I like your poetic metaphor of sons as bright stars ...
- berkes 3y ago
  English isn't my native tongue. Sometimes stupid mistakes slip through. Apparently this one sounds like a metaphor. It was just a mistake, though.
  - jdthedisciple 3y ago
    Ofc, was just a light-hearted comment :-)
berkes 3y ago
On rereading my notes: the book by Ehrenreich is "fear of falling".

dmurray 3y ago

> But getting in to Stanford or MIT doesn’t magically make you into a member of that privileged class. The essay (intentionally, no doubt) doesn't pick a side in this fight. It's very clear on why you should go to the best university: not because it will make you the best founder, but to meet the best co-founders. > And if you want to start a startup you should try to get into the best university you can, because that's where the best cofounders are. It's also where the best employees are. When Larry and Sergey started Google, they began by just hiring all the smartest people they knew out of Stanford, and this was a real advantage for them. It doesn't matter whether elite universities are meritocratic or terribly unfair: either way, they've been the source of very many successful companies over the last 30 years, and Paul Graham is betting on that continuing to be the case. (Unlike Peter Thiel, for example, who is telling kids to drop out).

jameshart 3y ago
Yes, I know PG isn’t picking a side in that ‘fight’. He’s pretending it doesn’t exist. He’s suggesting that anyone with the resourcefulness of a founder, who has access to that college network, could have an equal opportunity to find the magic combination of cofounders and ideas to make a Google. My point is that his empirical evidence and continued willingness to bet on startups that emerge from that path does not justify his claim that that path is the open for everyone to take. If you are among the stratum from whom startup founders and cofounders will most likely be drawn, then sure, 100%, these schools are a networking opportunity which will help you on that path. Great place to meet cofounders. If you aren’t, going to these schools will not make you magically able to take the financial risks needed to become a founder; they might make you among the smartest people some founders know, and get you a gig working for one.
lupire 3y ago
Not unlike Peter Thiel. Gates, Jobs, Dell, Page, Brin, Zuckerberg are all dropouts.

dasil003 3y ago

You're right that PG ignores the privilege and selection bias at play in all stages on the funnel to Google-scale success. I'm okay with that though, because calling out all the statistical realities does not lead to actionable advice for young people; it tends to devolve into hand-wringing and complaining about what "we" as a society should do, but very few are actually empowered or incentivized to address. And, at the end of the day, if you're looking for a single place to find good co-founders, it's hard to argue there is any better place than Stanford or MIT. I think Paul's advice on balance is decent, even for folks starting from less privilege. That said, I think the biggest risk for ambitious young people reading this is black and white thinking about getting into the right school. Successful founders are relentlessly resourceful, so while it's a decent plan to target a top school, I believe that how you handle rejection and refocus your ambitions says more about your long-term entrepreneurial prospects than being accepted would have. Focus on what you can control, play to your strengths, and on balance you'll get better outcomes.

ilrwbwrkhv 3y ago

Ya that is the main one. If you are born in midwest usa or god forbid, nigeria, please forget starting google.

mempko 3y ago

Exactly, it's not that good technology gets funding, it's that technology that gets funding gets good. People often get this the wrong way around. They believe you just need a good idea. No, you need social circles that can invest in your idea. Investment improves things over time. Alan Kay talks about this. That the quality of the project is the quality of the funders. You can have good ideas, but if you don't have access to funders, your good idea will not have the resources to become a great idea.

hoosieree 3y ago

Jumping through arbitrary hoops sounds an awful lot like "push hard, the door sticks".