Surfer is definitely a funny dude. I like his posts. It is like TV. Not rational and not logical. Kind of reminds me of Jack Hershey.
Quote from Samsara:
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.
Quote from doublet83:
Good post, and a bunch of interesting thoughts.
Personally I have been skeptical of the value of college experiences. When people are spending $150k and four years on a communications or liberal arts major, it is not clear to me that this represents an efficient use of resources for either the individual or society. However, I acknowledge, as you stated, that the intangible benefits of college are difficult to measure.
All in all, despite a moderate shift in thinking over the past few years, I think that most of society still greatly value the college experience. Perhaps some are not as religiously devoted to the idea that one needs to go to college to be successful as in the past, but this healthy dose of skepticism may be a good thing.
Also, I view colleges as generally inefficient allocators of capital, which annoys me me particularly because I view my job as an investor and efficient allocator of capital. At NYU, I saw security guards get paid six figures for simply checking student IDs, or how they remodeled their buildings every few years, all paid for by college tuitions that rose 10% every year. They are able to do this because demand is largely price inelastic, and that there is no incentive for management to be cost efficient. (I do acknowledge that NYU, as a higher end institution, may not be representative of a broader range of colleges, but I suspect this type of inefficiency exists to some degree at other schools as well.)
Still, I realize that despite its flaws, the higher education system we have in place today is, on the balance, beneficial to society.
Quote from marketsurfer:
Theil is willing and able to TEST his theory with his money In the real world.
Quote from doublet83:
Good post, and a bunch of interesting thoughts.
Personally I have been skeptical of the value of college experiences. When people are spending $150k and four years on a communications or liberal arts major, it is not clear to me that this represents an efficient use of resources for either the individual or society. However, I acknowledge, as you stated, that the intangible benefits of college are difficult to measure.
Quote from Pekelo:
That's alright but at what point do we consider the experience a success? Let's say he picks 20 teenagers, how many of them have to become bona fide success to call this test valid?
Not to mention, a 20 persons sample could be statistically invalid anyway.... So the result (whatever it will be) can be skewed in both directions. And how many years are we supposed to wait for the results? Maybe in 20 years whoever became successful would have been successful without Thiel anyway...
So questions for Thiel:
1. What is a statistically valid sample size in this kind of experience?
2. What is the selection process? Is it random? (that would be very interesting) If not random, what are the requirements?
3. Is there a control group (also selected, or randomized) to see how they succeed WITH college degrees? Unless we can compare it to a similar sample, the results might be very skewed, or irrelevant.
4. How long is the experience supposed to last, at what point in time can we call them a success or a failure?
5. The unanswered question will be: how these kids could have done with the college degree...
Just these few things suddenly coming to my mind, I am sure there are some more....
Quote from Pension_Admin:
Surfer is definitely a funny dude. I like his posts. It is like TV. Not rational and not logical. Kind of reminds me of Jack Hershey.
