8 ms·

Three opposing view points concerning the same subject on Quora: Positive: http://www.quora.com/Peter-Thiel/What-were-the-results-of-the-first-Thiel-Fellowship

Three opposing view points concerning the same subject on Quora: Positive: http://www.quora.com/Peter-Thiel/What-were-the-results-of-the-first-Thiel-Fellowship-Class/answer/Danielle-Fong http://www.quora.com/Peter-Thiel/What-were-the-results-of-th... Negative: http://www.quora.com/Peter-Thiel/What-were-the-results-of-the-first-Thiel-Fellowship-Class/answers/1293281 http://www.quora.com/Peter-Thiel/What-were-the-results-of-th... Off topic: http://www.quora.com/Peter-Thiel/What-were-the-results-of-the-first-Thiel-Fellowship-Class/answer/Chris-McCann http://www.quora.com/Peter-Thiel/What-were-the-results-of-th... Full Question/Answers can be found here: http://www.quora.com/Peter-Thiel/What-were-the-results-of-the-first-Thiel-Fellowship-Class http://www.quora.com/Peter-Thiel/What-were-the-results-of-th...

Jd 14y ago
tl;dr: Neg: Exhaustive review of individuals showing that nothing of value (except riding on existing trends) can be shown from any applicant, except potentially in the case of the Solar Energy startup, in which money was used to hire PhDs with actual domain knowledge. Pos: Saying that everything great is under NDA and that the solar energy stuff is cool, that the youngin' in question has impressed PhDs enough that they want to work for him. No real info, expecting you to trust that good stuff is in the works.
- confluence 14y ago
  Very nice. I only have one question for you - what do you think is more reasonable - or are you reserving your judgement? Pos/Neg/Neutral?
  - Jd 14y ago
    I think the "Pos" side should be discounted as it is obviously Thiel centered PR from an employee. I think the "Neg" side should be the default, since one should not presume value until value is demonstrated. That we are still in a sense "early stage" indicates that we don't have a full picture yet and so shouldn't presume that we do. I have mixed feelings about the program in general. Entrepreneurship programs maybe useful for promoting excited entrepreneurs, but by no means are an adequate replacement for researchers or higher ed in general. In many of these cases, the entire premise is hogwash. Technical innovation comes from depth in a subject area, and you actually have to study something before you can innovate in the context of it. This is most obvious in the case of the Uncollege movement -- the person and movement are exceedingly shallow and provide nothing of value except as a publicist for other trends in online education. I'd hate to think that his applies across the board, but suspect that it is more true than not.
    - confluence 14y ago
      > since one should not presume value until value is demonstrated. That we are still in a sense "early stage" indicates that we don't have a full picture yet and so shouldn't presume that we do. Couldn't agree more. Until evidence is confirmed by multiple neutral third parties the negative (random) hypothesis holds precedence until such a time as evidence falsifies it. No presumption - merely rational scepticism there. > I have mixed feelings about the program in general. Entrepreneurship programs maybe useful for promoting excited entrepreneurs, but by no means are an adequate replacement for researchers or higher ed in general. In many of these cases, the entire premise is hogwash. Technical innovation comes from depth in a subject area, and you actually have to study something before you can innovate in the context of it. You perfectly illustrate the problem with one minded thought (as in capitalism > socialism || libertarianism > socialism). As usual a rationally weighted mix is usually best under complex situations.
      - Jd 14y ago
        Agreed. I think Thiel was probably creating a program with a knowledge of the PR the initiative would generate without much thought to long-term outcomes. Obv. he is a smart guy with plugins to higher-ed, and clearly someone who believes in the positive possibilities of innovation. In that sense, he is someone I would like to collaborate with. That said, he may have shot himself in a foot here in picking people who were good from a short-term PR perspective yet will blow up and look like idiots in the long run. I heard of Dale Stephens before, but didn't take him seriously until Thiel sponsored him. Then I subscribed to his Facebook and blog email feed. What a joke. The whole thing is tailored for a bunch of angsty underachievers and provides zero positive value. In this sense, I think Thiel has also done himself a disservice by pandering too much ultra-libertarian tech crowd which wants to see everything privatized -- the ultimate goal is a "Halliburtinization" of the US, where all governmental and public functions are provided at speculatively higher efficiency by the private sector. Obviously, as the Halliburton saga in Iraq illustrates, this is very rarely the actual outcome. Enrons and their ilk create private monopolies on markets and spike the price to their own benefit. This sort of short-sighted approach to higher ed is just a symptom of a similarly flawed way of thinking about the world that emphasizes profit (a short-term metric that is rarely the most important), instead of the other values which can be fostered within the context of higher ed. In this sense, I think the East coast Ivy League establishment often does a better job than Stanford in emphasizing some of these other elements -- for example, the library at Stanford positively sucks and it is very difficult to find the books necessary for anyone who reads widely (Cal is a bit better, but in general Californians seem not to read very much). In any case, I think Thiel needs to step up his game a bit. Initiatives are needed to make better, more well-rounded people, rather than more little entrepreneurs who want a quick buck at age 20. In his book on Stanford educational system, he appropriately references Caliban and the need to "chain the beast" so-to-speak, but it seems that he hasn't taken his own lessons to heart.

Jd 14y ago

tl;dr: Neg: Exhaustive review of individuals showing that nothing of value (except riding on existing trends) can be shown from any applicant, except potentially in the case of the Solar Energy startup, in which money was used to hire PhDs with actual domain knowledge. Pos: Saying that everything great is under NDA and that the solar energy stuff is cool, that the youngin' in question has impressed PhDs enough that they want to work for him. No real info, expecting you to trust that good stuff is in the works.

confluence 14y ago
Very nice. I only have one question for you - what do you think is more reasonable - or are you reserving your judgement? Pos/Neg/Neutral?
- Jd 14y ago
  I think the "Pos" side should be discounted as it is obviously Thiel centered PR from an employee. I think the "Neg" side should be the default, since one should not presume value until value is demonstrated. That we are still in a sense "early stage" indicates that we don't have a full picture yet and so shouldn't presume that we do. I have mixed feelings about the program in general. Entrepreneurship programs maybe useful for promoting excited entrepreneurs, but by no means are an adequate replacement for researchers or higher ed in general. In many of these cases, the entire premise is hogwash. Technical innovation comes from depth in a subject area, and you actually have to study something before you can innovate in the context of it. This is most obvious in the case of the Uncollege movement -- the person and movement are exceedingly shallow and provide nothing of value except as a publicist for other trends in online education. I'd hate to think that his applies across the board, but suspect that it is more true than not.
  - confluence 14y ago
    > since one should not presume value until value is demonstrated. That we are still in a sense "early stage" indicates that we don't have a full picture yet and so shouldn't presume that we do. Couldn't agree more. Until evidence is confirmed by multiple neutral third parties the negative (random) hypothesis holds precedence until such a time as evidence falsifies it. No presumption - merely rational scepticism there. > I have mixed feelings about the program in general. Entrepreneurship programs maybe useful for promoting excited entrepreneurs, but by no means are an adequate replacement for researchers or higher ed in general. In many of these cases, the entire premise is hogwash. Technical innovation comes from depth in a subject area, and you actually have to study something before you can innovate in the context of it. You perfectly illustrate the problem with one minded thought (as in capitalism > socialism || libertarianism > socialism). As usual a rationally weighted mix is usually best under complex situations.
    - Jd 14y ago
      Agreed. I think Thiel was probably creating a program with a knowledge of the PR the initiative would generate without much thought to long-term outcomes. Obv. he is a smart guy with plugins to higher-ed, and clearly someone who believes in the positive possibilities of innovation. In that sense, he is someone I would like to collaborate with. That said, he may have shot himself in a foot here in picking people who were good from a short-term PR perspective yet will blow up and look like idiots in the long run. I heard of Dale Stephens before, but didn't take him seriously until Thiel sponsored him. Then I subscribed to his Facebook and blog email feed. What a joke. The whole thing is tailored for a bunch of angsty underachievers and provides zero positive value. In this sense, I think Thiel has also done himself a disservice by pandering too much ultra-libertarian tech crowd which wants to see everything privatized -- the ultimate goal is a "Halliburtinization" of the US, where all governmental and public functions are provided at speculatively higher efficiency by the private sector. Obviously, as the Halliburton saga in Iraq illustrates, this is very rarely the actual outcome. Enrons and their ilk create private monopolies on markets and spike the price to their own benefit. This sort of short-sighted approach to higher ed is just a symptom of a similarly flawed way of thinking about the world that emphasizes profit (a short-term metric that is rarely the most important), instead of the other values which can be fostered within the context of higher ed. In this sense, I think the East coast Ivy League establishment often does a better job than Stanford in emphasizing some of these other elements -- for example, the library at Stanford positively sucks and it is very difficult to find the books necessary for anyone who reads widely (Cal is a bit better, but in general Californians seem not to read very much). In any case, I think Thiel needs to step up his game a bit. Initiatives are needed to make better, more well-rounded people, rather than more little entrepreneurs who want a quick buck at age 20. In his book on Stanford educational system, he appropriately references Caliban and the need to "chain the beast" so-to-speak, but it seems that he hasn't taken his own lessons to heart.