redschell

2096 for 2008.

Even Phillips has underachievers, though they are still pretty damn good.

You have inflated expectations because you associate yourself with like-minded, equally exceptional individuals, which, in my opinion, is one of the most terribly underrated aspects of child rearing.

Of course, I don't know if you were just naturally drawn to people of that level, or if it was something your parents/teachers facilitated, but I do believe in the notion that you are the company you keep.

I can only imagine how much higher my standards in high school would have been if I had hung with a smarter bunch.

http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/08/thoughts-from-a-former-busi...

I don't usually come across helpful posts on TC, but this one caught my eye. Basically, if you look like the stereotypical idea guy/gal, you need to put the startup dreams aside for a bit, work at an established company, gain some experience, and, here it comes, develop skills.

Now, I'd argue this guy (the TC guy) is spreading himself a bit too thin, but the idea of being the utility player on the team is pretty good. When combined with your work experience, you might be an attractive candidate. Go a step beyond that by following OP's advice and, you know, actually build something.

It doesn't need to be a home run, but it should speak for itself, and when you have something, anything really, that speaks for itself, you're in pretty good shape.

Again, there are other factors in play, but mastery is definitely important. I love running, I run everyday, but I'll never be a professional runner because I lack the skill and determination required to be a master runner. I don't even know if I'll ever be a master at anything, but I do know there are areas where I have a decent shot at it, so I know where to spend my precious time.

Wow. I hope you said something along the lines of "Well, since it means I no longer have to work with assholes like you, it feels pretty fucking good."

Here's hoping you manage to unite your vocation and avocation.

I'm worried I'll fail and never know if I failed because I was unlucky, or because I just wasn't good enough. That's what makes me uncomfortable.

I get over it pretty quickly, but it's still unsettling, if only for a moment.

Not trying to be a downer here. I'd rather the world have more aspiring doctors than talent agents, but let's also respect the march of progress, and acknowledge the cruel fate of all that stands in its way.

I really can't understand, for instance, why one of the characters here interested in producing would seek toxic employment with the dying movie studios. With platforms like Kickstarter that circumvent traditional barriers to the entertainment industry (and other creative sectors), it's hard to imagine a bright future for old, gatekeeping jobs. She would probably be better served looking for marketing or sales work at a tech company.

But hey, you're 30. There's time for a comeback. There's no age limit on making a comeback, but I don't think it would be an outrageous claim to say that bouncing back at 30 is easier than bouncing back at 50. Of course, as is the case in most things, attitude matters. A lot. You can look at your 5 year struggle as a massive loss, or as an incomparable learning experience, and that could be the deciding factor in how successful your next venture is.

Edit: Found it. http://www.paulgraham.com/love.html

But I think the edit is the most important point here. I really think community colleges, vocational training, and a focus on helping young people evaluate their ambitions in life should be a goal of our society in the coming years. Too many people clog up universities studying things like business and psychology because they've been told it's "the next step."

I believe most people would be happier and less indebted if they were given a cheaper, and arguably more valuable vocational education, job training, and a career, which would enable them to buy stuff, raise children, and stay out of debt, which is enough for a lot of people to be happy.

Furthermore, I think this would spell the end for a lot of colleges and universities I feel serve no purpose except to employ educators and swindle students. I mean, do we really need UC Merced and Cal State Stanislaus? What do these institutions accomplish? I'm sorry if this is an offensive or glib point, I readily admit I'm a bit inebriated at the moment, but I'm just not sure why we have these "in between" schools. Are these guys better off than the people at the CCs? I just don't think so.

Definitely niche, but not bad. It might be cool to have a system like that for connecting young, promising Chefs with more established ones. I don't know too much about cooking, but I bet it's hard for Chefs to convey their expertise and experience with a traditional resume.

“[Julius] Caesar served in 63 BC as a quaestor in Spain, where in Cadiz he is said to have broken down and wept in front of a statue of Alexander the Great, realizing that where Alexander had conquered most of the known world at thirty, Caesar at that age was merely seen as a dandy who had squandered his wife’s fortunes as well as his own.”

But the underlying point holds: It's not the golden ticket it used to be. It's primarily for consultants and bankers these days, and those aren't sectors that hire far and wide. They want brand names that'll impress their clients who probably attended brand name MBA programs themselves.

That sounds like a pretty solid vetting process to me, yet there's a lot of pessimism surrounding big-name consulting. I'd like to hear from anyone who's worked there or gone through this process to hear why they ultimately get such a bad rep.

I'm genuinely fascinated by this, because it really does seem like American society frowns upon people who don't own a home by a certain age, especially when children are involved, almost as if a backyard is absolutely fundamental to the child-rearing process.