Heartily agreed. Well, I think Thiel is a seedy character and one of the reasons why I spend a lot of time with my alma mater and undergraduate organizations is to undo the damages that those like him have done to this society. Also, the 20-under-20 scholars (note: I give these kids the honor of the title, but I strip it for the program) are a sample of your rather-average student at the top universities from my perspective. Interns write us a contract for $15,000, 10 weeks. I see much more brilliant and successful stories each day. And I wouldn't see why they'd quit college for $100,000. The scholars are younger than your average student, that's about it - but I think that's a silly measure - you don't remember the ages people received their Nobel Prizes; or the age when Buffet made his first billion. ***** Zuckerberg is a case of selection bias. If one wants to be successful in trading, for causative reasons and not merely a coincidence, it's better to enroll in a good college. This, too, is a case of selection bias, but from the recruiters instead - because the industry has a tendency to hire kids from the usual universities - I don't see the purpose for doing so, but that's how it works. Completing your education at a top university is not a necessary condition to success, and though the top 20 or so fund managers went to mostly average colleges, at least they went to college: Narula Columbia Business School Kuhn Harvard College Hintze Harvard Business School Chen Columbia University Cooperman Columbia Business School Odey Oxford University Hanover University of Chicago Tepper Carnegie Mellon Loeb Berkeley/Columbia Weingord SUNY Dewan/Coleman Princeton/Williams College Sandler Wisconsin Rosenstein Wharton Halvorsen Stanford Feinberg Princeton Griffiths Harvard College Lippmann University of Pennsylvania Yeary University of Chicago Zimmerman Amherst College Lastly, it's very true that the quality of instruction at a top university isn't very different from that of any other top 40 universities, especially for scientific disciplines. This is partly due to the small number of permanent positions in universities - so you have to be good to teach at any university. In fact, it is often worse: professors at these places are often more aggressive at experimenting untested teaching methods and materials on you, and if it works, it gets published in a book and other universities use it as a reference; experiments usually fail. However, being at college gives you a lot that you can't pay for even if you wanted.
Same page with you. I understand how those rare, gifted, driven people often need to believe powerfully in their exceptionalism in order to get things done. Ayn Rand's philosophy has utility for such people, and in a way, can be a good thing to motivate them to create. The problem is when they actually believe it has a wider scope, and try to model their own narcissism across society. Then you get Thiel as a seedy character, and a whole host of maladaptive, ignorant ideas about how the complex machinery of society operates. Evegeny Morozov aptly labeled the maladaptive philosophy that results <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/opinion/sunday/the-perils-of-perfection.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0">"solutionism."</a> I definitely agree with your assessment that one does not need to go to a top college to get a solid education, particularly in the sciences. For the most part, stable companies will hire based on a qualified skill set. Maybe not a path to extreme wealth, but it's often actual, productive work. That's in contrast to the "innovation" in finance that lures top performers away from productive work, or the gold rush mentality in SV where everyone says they're disrupting everything, all the time, with an iPhone app. But, really, they just want to be filthy rich at 25. There are a ton of non-quantifiable things people gain from college -- things even those who drop out don't even recognize, or have the capacity to call up consciously. The idea of treating it as a raw financial investment, with discrete trade-offs in a zero-sum environment, is risky in my opinion, to both society and the student. It makes sense for a very rare set of individuals, though. I just don't want to live in an a-historical, culturally-ignorant, metrics-driven society where no one has the capacity for critical thinking.
obviously,depending on individual circumstances at some level tuition becomes an unwise investment. ' the gold rush mentality in SV where everyone says they're disrupting everything, all the time, with an iPhone app. But, really, they just want to be filthy rich at 25."where no one has the capacity for critical thinking. " why not both? paraphrasing adam smith everybody pursuing their own interest brings about the best results for society. college graduates in the US are not exactly the epitome of critical thinkers.
college: talk to girls, public speaking, finding out what you might like, developing a passion, dealing with stress/anxiety, learning how to overcome a bad grade, failing, succeeding, and opening up your mind to new ideas. making friends, gf's, living by yourself, having roommates, etc.....and learning new cultures from others, as well as letting your mind be a sponge. all great.....but at what cost? I say $5,000 a year is fine. $40,000 a year is comical. but online will fail miserably at these metrics. the best part of school now....kids that know they must have a great job right out of school. entitlement at its finest. I think it's fine. who cares...if they won't do a bad job and wait for 100k salary, that is up to them. in life, we all learn the same things eventually....for some, it just takes longer. the problem is people who spend 10,000 on the computer and only learn how to use facebook
It might surprise you to find out that Smith was not a market fundamentalist, like Rand or von Hayek. The difference in your opinion and mine is that you likely believe in the rational agent model of neoliberal economic theory. A sort of transcendentalist dogmatism of everyone acting perfectly rational in their own interest, always knowing what their interests are. Not one one rooted in behavioral finance, that is sometimes irrational, misallocating resources in responding to bubbles and other market failures. Another Adam Smith quote: All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind. Why not both? Because the incentive skew that that particular bubble provided during the boom. It's a better skew than that of structured finance, where PhD physicists are lured by the pay to <a href="http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-03/wp_quant?currentPage=all">model fiction</a>. Ah, the epitome of critical thinking. Forgive me, I didn't realize I was looking for an epitome. And the alternative to college education, which you feel represents that epitome of critical thought, is... ??
Samsara--- you are speaking in theory-- although some of it makes sense-- Theil is willing and able to TEST his theory with his money In the real world. Testing is how the truth will be discovered, not pontificating and relying on historic precedent or what makes sense to you. Bravo to thiel who still believes in the ability of mankind to succeed without dogmatic indoctrination.
You're adorable surf. Your knack for following logical arguments is like a dog wearing a hat. That's why we all love your contributions here.
Whatever you say-- I said you do make some sense but it remains theory until tested. I'm driving to palm beach, bored, and voice posting otherwise I wouldn't respond. LOL!
You missed the part where I said that incubating a self-selected, high-potential population with resources and HNW connections ... proves nothing. Many will succeed, simply due to that selection mechanism. In other words, he's not testing a theory at all. You also don't seem to see the irony of your praise for PTJ's inspiration to create the Robin Hood Foundation. It came from seeing Gene Lang pay for... the college educations of Harlem students. Sorry, pay for their indoctrination. I think in your world, "whatever people richer than me do is right!" is a kind of doublethink.