3 ms·

I would argue that the problematic conflation exists in the original program, insofar as the 20 under 20 program is often described as a potential replacement f

by Jd 14y ago

I would argue that the problematic conflation exists in the original program, insofar as the 20 under 20 program is often described as a potential replacement for higher ed. As far as I see things, there are a whole bunch of extra factors which are much more extensive than your three categories and which require a much more rigorous analysis. For example, how do we foster innovation in specific subjects? For instance, we presumably know that with respect to atomic physics, this requires highly knowledgable people who have spent a lifetime studying very abstract subject matter, and this is most likely to be facilitated by institutions not governed by a profit motive. This is not quite as clear for innovation with respect to alternative energy, which may require any of the following: developing new types of energy, developing the technology which employs the new type of energy, or bringing an existing technology to market. The skillsets required for all of these areas are different, as is the institutional setting in which they will foster. If you take a very brilliant person who could ostensibly be working on harnessing new potential energy from the atom and put him in a program focused on entrepreneurship this would be a total mis-utilization of talent and, consequently, a huge step backwards. This is to say that business and entrepreneurship are only a solution for a certain set of problems and these are not the only problems. Also, certain subject areas require super-specialization. So you need to start early and stay focused. The means for doing this will probably depend on what the subject area is. Is "higher ed" the solution for a would-be master electrician? No, probably some combination of vocational school and apprenticeship is. Likewise for a pianist. You go to a specialized school for a specialized subject. Standard higher ed is an easy whipping boy insofar as it is often the default solution for many people who don't know what they want to do with their lives, many of whom don't actually end up taking advantage of the resources available to them and learning all that much. In a certain sense this might be a fault of the institutions themselves, including massive inflation in costs, multiplication of institutions, and failure to actually teach anything of value. However, the fact remains that for certain cases, there are no obvious better options than higher ed. In any case, I think higher ed should be looked at as a set of tools rather than a solution to a specific problem, least of all the question "what should I do with the next four years of my life?" If you look at it that way, you might find that the tools that are available for you, including potentially interacting with a number of bright and diverse people and broadening your experience in various unexpected ways will be beneficial in many ways. Case in point: I was chatting with a professor at Harvard yesterday who studied French and German before focusing on Arabic, and he was lamenting the fact that he had not had the chance to study more Sanskrit (he did study a bit) or Urdu or get his Persian up to snuff, all of which he though would have deepened his understanding and approach to life, which have some relationship to his scholarship. Of course, all of these things take time, and usually they take some form of institutional support, but as far as I see it they can be valuable if they expose you to certain ways of thinking about the world that you might not experience otherwise. For that reason, I think you are right about entrepreneurship as a possible thing to do alongside your studies or even to replace your studies, but it very much depends on the person and where they are trying to go with their life. There are a lot of very hard problems that cannot be solved in the context of a startup and indicating to the youth that this is the best option may deprive them of valuable life experience. As for the specific question of age, I agree that there is no set time to do anything in life. There are, however, natural patterns, insofar as people are not usually ready to leave the home and exist on their own until sometime in their late teens. What they do at that point probably should depend on their talent and proclivities. In that sense, I do think that Thiel's initiative may be right for some people. It is, nonetheless, billed as a solution for all sorts of problems for which it is not (much like the gazillion online education initiatives).

randomdata 14y ago
> It is, nonetheless, billed as a solution for all sorts of problems for which it is not I have never had that impression from Thiel himself, though others have certainly spun it that way. He seems very much in favour of traditional formal education, unless your life goals are to have a career; in which case he promotes focusing on that instead. The problem, as you describe, is that many people enter college for four years of their life and come out having gained nothing. Four years of being in the working world would have put them in the same standing, plus they'd have valuable experience to propel them into better jobs. They aren't there for the positive reasons to be in college, they are there because they don't know anything else and that is unfortunate. There really is no one solution for everyone, and Thiel seems to be promoting that by showing there are other options. The only effective way to do push that on the masses is to attack the idea that college is the "one true way."
- argv_empty 14y ago
  Four years of being in the working world would have put them in the same standing, plus they'd have valuable experience to propel them into better jobs. Four years of being in the working world would have had them working in the kind of job one could get with a high school education and no experience. I see a lot of people say they'd rather hire employees with four years of experience than hire straight out of college, but I don't see many who are hiring high school graduates for those first four years.
  - randomdata 14y ago
    > Four years of being in the working world would have had them working in the kind of job one could get with a high school education and no experience. Which is the exact same situation a college graduate who put nothing into their education will be in, just several years later. You can leverage your time in a post-secondary school to move immediately into a better job in the future, but it is not the default. In the meantime, the high school graduate has taken an entry level job and applied their own educational pursuits to move up the ladder at work and after four years is taking on the same kinds of jobs that someone who worked hard in college is. The moral is that learning takes time and effort. There are no shortcuts, but there is no clearly defined path either. I find it a little disturbing that this article thinks these people should be overnight successes after just one year. Let's revisit them in ten and see where they stand. I expect they will be doing just fine.

by Jd 14y ago

randomdata 14y ago

> It is, nonetheless, billed as a solution for all sorts of problems for which it is not I have never had that impression from Thiel himself, though others have certainly spun it that way. He seems very much in favour of traditional formal education, unless your life goals are to have a career; in which case he promotes focusing on that instead. The problem, as you describe, is that many people enter college for four years of their life and come out having gained nothing. Four years of being in the working world would have put them in the same standing, plus they'd have valuable experience to propel them into better jobs. They aren't there for the positive reasons to be in college, they are there because they don't know anything else and that is unfortunate. There really is no one solution for everyone, and Thiel seems to be promoting that by showing there are other options. The only effective way to do push that on the masses is to attack the idea that college is the "one true way."

argv_empty 14y ago
Four years of being in the working world would have put them in the same standing, plus they'd have valuable experience to propel them into better jobs. Four years of being in the working world would have had them working in the kind of job one could get with a high school education and no experience. I see a lot of people say they'd rather hire employees with four years of experience than hire straight out of college, but I don't see many who are hiring high school graduates for those first four years.
- randomdata 14y ago
  > Four years of being in the working world would have had them working in the kind of job one could get with a high school education and no experience. Which is the exact same situation a college graduate who put nothing into their education will be in, just several years later. You can leverage your time in a post-secondary school to move immediately into a better job in the future, but it is not the default. In the meantime, the high school graduate has taken an entry level job and applied their own educational pursuits to move up the ladder at work and after four years is taking on the same kinds of jobs that someone who worked hard in college is. The moral is that learning takes time and effort. There are no shortcuts, but there is no clearly defined path either. I find it a little disturbing that this article thinks these people should be overnight successes after just one year. Let's revisit them in ten and see where they stand. I expect they will be doing just fine.