Comment by nmrm | Hacker News Reader

Comment by nmrm | Hacker News Reader

This matters because the Thiel Fellowship program has a political backdrop, and is motivated by/supports the "you don't need college" message.

That message, should an average American (not a Thiel fellow) take it to heart, is demonstrably and empirically not in their self interest. Period.

Thiel Fellows are some of the brightest of the bright; of course not attending college won't hurt them in the long run. And accepting a prestigious fellowship will certainly help, at the very least in the short run. So the fellowship makes a lot of sense, and no one claims fellows were hurt just because they return to academia.

However, the fact that 1/2 of recipients of a very prestigious award (and the associated money/opportunity) decided it was in their best interest to return to university is important. It's important because it cast a pretty serious shadow on Thiel's view of college as unnecessary (or over-rated or not in most people's interest... however you want to hedge his claim.)

So while Thiel fellows aren't hurt per se, anyone else listening to the "don't go to college" advice can consider this a rude wake-up call.

So. That's why it matters.

BTW: recently talked with a HS student who got into Harvard (low income, so full ride), but some startup guy was pressuring him to not go to college and instead take a dev job paying $40k. I consider these sort of people scum. I don't know if they are assuaging their insecurities or what, but I don't know how you can look a youth in the eye and tell them to get a day job making web apps (for someone else) instead of going to Harvard for free for four years. Especially when the free tuition alone costs more than the offered salary. Scum.

You're right, but I still think Thiel is on to something. At first I agreed that it was about a 'you don't need college' message, which I thought was a sort of a bad idea for the same reasons as you.

But after hearing him speak at length about his ideas in person my impression is that he feels college as it currently exists is not serving people that well, and he's frustrated by the lack of viable alternatives as much as anything else, so he's attempting to establish alternative career paths by subsidizing people who are willing to blaze new trails. Likewise I realized that his economically libertarian views are not so much a position of 'don't regulate' as a wish for a flatter and more responsive regulatory system.

College is still a good financial proposition in terms of having a net positive effect on lifetime earnings, but it has become commoditized in some very unhealthy ways that don't serve the public or students well. I thought MOOCs might be an answer to this but they;re not quite there yet, raw knowledge acquisition is only part of the equation.

Sure, there are problems with higher ed. Esp w.r.t. cost.

Popularizing a myth that skipping out on college is a rational self-interested choice for most actors is ethically dubious, especially when the people you're convincing are kids (who you aren't simultaneously handing 100k to). I think it's fair to say that the effect of rhetoric counts as much as intent.

Any deeper argument about the structure of US higher education is really beside the point.

edit: removed some thoughts about the matter that's beside the point.

Seems like the criteria use to select Thiel Fellows is the same criteria used by top schools. Probably the reason why many return to school, because they have that option available to them.

A better experiment would be something similar to the movie "Trading Places" where they pluck disadvantaged youths from the ghetto, trailer park, or whatever. Send them through a mentorship program or real internship and see if they can become productive citizens. I believe Xavier Neal is on the right track with his School 42.

"pluck disadvantaged youths from the ghetto, trailer park, or whatever" ... "see if they can become productive citizens"

Wow, just wow.

Facts regarding social mobility in the US will back up my claim.

And condescending remarks from the tech sector will only perpetuate the stereotype that we're out of touch and condescending assholes to those that aren't "one of us"

You picked an extremely loaded way to express something that's presumably meant to be uplifting.

I think it's only loaded if you want it to be. People from economically depressed areas are... economically depressed. People from ghettoes and trailer parks are typically underprivileged and tend not to do economically as well as others. If doing economically well were not important or a measure of success, well, we would not be worrying about economic success...

I believe it's a matter of tact, not a matter of fact

"However, the fact that 1/2 of recipients of a very prestigious award (and the associated money/opportunity) decided it was in their best interest to return to university is important."

Where did you get that from? The quotations and paraphrases from the article don't indicate any real decision to me. Just people (wisely) keeping their options open.

I don't understand. What's wrong with my original sentence?

About 1/2 are returning to college: (However, the fact that 1/2 of recipients of a very prestigious award (and the associated money/opportunity)).

No one is forcing them: (decided)

Presumably they made the choice by deciding it would benefit them to do so (because it keeps their options open, maybe, and maybe other reasons as well): (it was in their best interest to return to university).

I don't see the flaw is reasoning here. Help?

From the article:

"...said at one point or another in our conversation that they’d consider going back to college after they are done..."

"On top of that, some of the kids I spoke to from the previous year also said they would go back or at least might consider it at the end of their two years"

Those are the author paraphrasing the students. They don't back up the claim that half are returning to college, or that they even plan to -- the students are just keeping their options open.

If I missed a more clear quotation supporting the claim, let me know.

The author says "half of them admitting they plan to go back at a later date", but that seems to be based entirely on his interpretation. It seems clear the author is not in favor of Thiel's program, so I am not taking his interpretation for granted.

Thanks for clarifying.

If 1/2 are planning to go back at a later date, that means they've decided attending college is in their best interest. Which was my claim; I didn't say they are currently attending.

I guess it ultimately boils down to whether you trust the author's reporting; I typically assume everyone takes the article's contents as granted unless they've explicitly stated otherwise.

But in any case, "keep your options open" is not exactly the message touted by the Thiel et al PR campaign surrounding the fellowship program.

"If 1/2 are planning to go back at a later date,"

I still see no evidence of this. The statements provided do not indicate a plan to return.

"But in any case, "keep your options open" is not exactly the message touted by the Thiel et al PR campaign surrounding the fellowship program."

Fair enough.

If you got into Harvard for a full ride and don't yet have a company with significant traction and upside (see Microsoft or Facebook, the early years), you'd be silly to not accept the offer and go to school.

I don't consider the CTO a scum for making a ridiculous offer, but I would consider the student an idiot if he accepted. An 18 year old Harvard kid should be smart enough to not make major errors like this.

When Bill Gates and Zuckerberg left Harvard, it was already clear that their companies would be successful. At that point their opportunity cost of staying in school was massive. Most of us will never have this high quality problem however, so don't follow in their footsteps if you're not in a comparable situation.

> I don't consider the CTO a scum for making a ridiculous offer

It's the pressure that bothered me.

The offer is also kind-of scummy even without pressure, though. High school kids are still kids, even the really smart ones. Role models matter a lot. Also, and this is pure conjecture, I imagine it's harder to walk away from the cash when you're coming out a low-income background, even if it's the completely rational self-interested thing to do.

I hope you were able to set him on the right path.

I didn't have to.

> An 18 year old Harvard kid should be smart enough to not make major errors like this.

High academic performance doesn't necessarily indicate good judgement or emotional well-being.

Five to ten years later, that same kid will probably look back at his 18-year-old self and reflect on how he has matured since, just like most people do.

Bill Gates and Zuckerberg didn't leave Harvard permanently though. They took a leave of absence which means they'd the option to come back if things went south. Also both (and Gates especially) were from quite well off families.

> 8 of the 20 kids I spoke to ... said at one point or another ... they’d consider going back to college ... Even the ones who said they would definitely not go back ... said they might also go back.

So far so good...

> 6 of the Thiel Fellows have gone back to college so far [out of 80]

So far so reasonable...

> half of them admitting they plan to go back at a later date.

What the... I don't even... My god... facepalm

From your comment (emphasis mine):

> the fact that 1/2 of recipients

Fact? Not even.

that 1/2 of recipients.... decided it was in their best interest to return to university.

This is consistent with the author's statement that "half of them admitting they plan to go back at a later date". Just because you're not currently in college doesn't mean they've not decided returning is in their best interest.

I just assumed the author of the article was reporting facts. there's no way to no either way, so I'm not sure there's much value in speculating.

The author was not reporting facts. The article is one giant editorial. People tend to forget that TechCrunch is a blog (that evolved into a pseudo-news site).

There is value in speculating, because I've been proven correct. The author has retracted her previous statement. If you look at the article again, you'll notice that the article has been changed to remove the specific assertion that more than half are thinking about going back to college:

It now says:

>And yet, here these kids are dropping out... at least for two years, with a good lot of them admitting they plan to go back at a later date..

seems to me you misunderstand Thiel's thesis

might I suggest you re-read the MIT class startup notes..you might find some of your assumptions changing

> seems to me you misunderstand Thiel's thesis

Frankly, I don't give a damn.

What matters to me is that kids make decisions about their lives for the right reasons and with all the available information. And I like to think that Thiel, on an individual basis, wants the exact same thing. Which is why, I imagine at least, he's perfectly okay with these fellows returning to university.

But I think Thiel's (and other's) "don't need college" PR is unproductive in this respect. The nuance of the actual positions is irrelevant when that's not what is (very intentionally) communicated.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com