3 ms·
IIRC, about four years ago you made the point that if grad students can start companies, undergrads can too. Some time later, I believe you implied that you'd g
by johnnybgoode 17y ago
IIRC, about four years ago you made the point that if grad students can start companies, undergrads can too. Some time later, I believe you implied that you'd gone too far, and undergrads generally weren't as ready as you'd thought. I think one of the reasons you once mentioned was that people who'd worked for a while had experienced how much it sucked, and this made them more determined or desperate when they ran their startups.
That first point was in an essay or talk, but the second might have been somewhere else. Maybe "backtracked" wasn't the best word (backpedaled, maybe?), because I'm not saying you completely reversed your position and started rejecting all young people, but I hope it's clear what I'm getting at.
Here is the talk: http://www.paulgraham.com/hiring.html http://www.paulgraham.com/hiring.html
And this might be the other thing I'm thinking of: http://www.paulgraham.com/mit.html http://www.paulgraham.com/mit.html
- pg 17y agoCurrent undergrads do turn out to be at a disadvantage as startup founders. But because of the gravitational attraction of college, not because of their age.
- johnnybgoode 17y agoSure, but doesn't this increase the average age of YC founders, especially since you still advise young people to go to college? Put another way, rather than telling 18-year-olds to start companies, you now tell them to go to college for the experience - where, as you say, they're at a disadvantage as startup founders. I assume you wouldn't tell them to do both at the same time.