Paul Graham - Latest Comments in News from the Front

Re: News from the Front

jkmenon — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 04:20:32 -0000

love, make love to others!

Re: News from the Front

Roger — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:52:14 -0000

I think you're not sampling identically from different schools. The money you offer is paltry and probably unappealing for any but the least talented MIT/Stanford/MiscEliteSchool student.

Re: News from the Front

anonyman — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 12:44:22 -0000

protect your privacy online come to

www.anonyman.synthasite.com

Re: News from the Front

Alexandre — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:14:59 -0000

http://cosmicvariance.com/2...

Re: News from the Front

Alexandre — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:17:34 -0000

Another note: I am currently studying at McGill in Canada, a university which very often ranks top of the country. A huge problem with brand name college (especially concerning undergrad degrees) is that they hire professors depending on the quality and relevance of their research rather than their teaching skills. So you often end up having teacher just unable to convey information (to teach) while your friends from an easy-to-get-in, bad reputation college get teachers who perhaps don't do any research but excel at teaching the material.

However, brand name colleges attract wannabe achievers like magnets, hence the networking opportunities are I think much better than elsewhere.

Re: News from the Front

Nick — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:04:38 -0000

The essay makes the point that a large number of companies hire based on university affiliation. His point is that these prestigious universities aren't actually indicators of intelligence or ability. It seems that you had bothe the intelligence and ability to do what you wanted. It took a prestigious degree to prove that to a close minded organization which is the exact point made by the essay.

Re: News from the Front

John — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:41:17 -0000

This is not really news to those of us outside the small world of brand name colleges selling designer label degrees. We have never suffered from the delusions of grandeur under which the attendees of the most expensive schools have labored, and which is sustained by their continuous reassurance among one another. As such, we are fortunate enough to avoid the process of disillusionment that Graham is undergoing.

Paul, I'm glad you're trying to rid yourself of one type of elitism. But could elitism be a character flaw which goes beyond the price of a degree? Will a person who engages in elitism in one arena be doomed to be an elitist in other arenas as well? Perhaps, the arena of programming languages or business advising? :)

Is there a meta-flaw behind all this which blinds a person to what is obvious to many others -- that character can not be purchased, inherited or conferred?

Re: News from the Front

L. B. — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:55:45 -0000

Paul Graham's essays are awesome.

Re: News from the Front

Les — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 16:40:51 -0000

I could not agree with you more. I recently graduated from Bellevue University (an online school in Nebraska). I think I got a better education than that I was getting at Old Dominion University.

I had a manager tell me that Bellevue was not a respected institution, and that I needed to go to a recognized school. Bellevue is accedited, as is ODU, Harvard, Norwich U., etc. He went to Carnegie Mellon U., and would disagree with this article. My only question is this... Is one accreditation better than the other? For instance business schools are mostly accredited by AACSB. Bellevue happens to be accredited by IACBE. I do not see the difference at all. Bellevue was a wonderful school, and the staff were equally knowledgable and helpful, not to mention available to help anytime.

Re: News from the Front

Frank — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:00:26 -0000

Can you talk more about the criteria you use to judge candidates to fund?

Re: News from the Front

montaa — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:34:25 -0000

I think this is a bit of a logical deviation from some of Paul's other articles, specifically the one about Startup Hubs. Part of the point of that article was to show that the hubs have lots of useful people for those that are starting their own businesses.

These useful people include local angels and VCs from the financial side. From the empirical side, the local community is used to dealing with start ups. The lawyers, the consumers and the government employees are all more likely to have knowledge pertaining to start ups and how to help them, even if it is not intentional.

I would argue that colleges offer the same thing to freshmen, whether they are 17 or 31. If a person picks a college that has a reputation for something of profound interest to the student, they are more likely to find people that can guide them in the direction of bright and capable mentors and peers. The remaining student body is also likely to have a higher number of people to engage in debate with over the appropriate subject.

The "It may not matter all that much where you go to college" argument is a distinct possibility, but is not qualified enough for my liking. This statement seems to have a great deal of ambiguity to it. The social stigma attached to certain colleges can be just as important or damming as the going or not going piece.

From Paul's business perspective this article makes a lot of sense. The startups are just as likely to be started by college dropouts, graduates or post doc students as any of the other groups. My guess would be the largest group is college graduates, but I bet they do not make up a majority.

The college they went to may have a great deal of importance to the person themselves. Each individual is shaped by a combination of how they were born and what they experience in life. The colleges and the life lived while at them can make dramatic changes in a person.

The point of this ramble is to point out that Paul's logic in this essay seems to deviate a bit from his primary point about location being useful. The college experience shapes and changes a person dramatically. I think the reason a huge number of them are successful/unsuccessful in business can be attributed to their college years and what they made of them and what the college made them into.

Re: News from the Front

AF — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 14:13:13 -0000

I think PG recently essayed on people who leave comments, like here. I take this particular essay as saying, as a prelude to a more rigorous and boring (for PG) study, that the schools that his kids came from doesn't seem to matter in their performance at startups. So asserting that you believe that "being surrounded by geniuses is important" and stopping there is not relevant, since PG has just said that empirically, it isn't. I wonder if commenters here do even a fraction of the original thoughts that PG has documented through his essays.

Re: News from the Front

anon — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 20:07:50 -0000

wow, that whole article sounds like massive self-justification from where i'm sitting. If that's what floats your boat (and to be fair, you're absolutely right about talent not being the most important thing when colleges assess your application) then fine, but the simple fact is that most companies value where you got your degree over what you studied. All I know is that when I had 4 years' experience of studying Japanese and 2 years of translation under my belt, no-one wanted to give me a job. As soon as I got an offer from Oxford (as a mature student), the civil service invited me for the easiest interview i have ever had, and then gave me a job based purely on that.

Your points are entirely valid and true, but unfortunately the prestige of the university you went to still counts for a lot in our sadly class-based society.

Re: News from the Front

Andrew — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:21:12 -0000

It's not just that it's hard to judge people when they're 17 - private schools give a huge advantage to children of alumni in admissions, so really as an employer you want people who went to Harvard but whose parents did not.

Re: News from the Front

RE — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 22:34:04 -0000

I thought this was a very well written article that raises a point worth discussing, but I can't really agree with it. It's most likely due to a slight (well, more than slight) bias on my part as a young Ivy League alum, but my biggest object to this is something that you mention not only in this essay but several of your previous writings. It's also been brought up by numerous people who've already commented, and the point of which I speak is that more "elite" schools have larger numbers of smart people, which is a huge influence on your own development.

Yes, if you're a genius with strong will, then nothing will stop you. Geniuses don't need the extra boost of sort that college education gives people. But for people who are just smart, then I think the increased exposure to smart peers, as well as potentially better facilities, really does mean a lot. Especially when you go back to your thesis statement of sorts; does college mean your life will be better? You ask that, then mostly prove that it doesn't mean much if you want to go into making a startup, which doesn't really disprove the importance of college and is too limited a subset of people (who have very much been self-selected as people have said) for it to be proof of anything.

Put another way, I feel like using college as an indicator of a person's talent and ability is much the same as trusting Wikipedia. At any point in time when you look at a popular Wikipedia article, it's not guaranteed that the information is factually correct. But for various reasons, I think it's a very useful way to get basic knowledge on a subject as well as give you a few leads on ways to find more detailed and accurate information. Similarly, a good college degree gives recruiters at least a place to start and some probabilistic (not definite) guarantee of quality.

Moreover, if you were a recruiter for a large company (I know you hate those, but they still exist and really, there aren't enough super genius hackers to write ALL the world's code) that needs to hire 100 people who, on average, will be a little bit smarter than the average developer in industry. You don't have infinite time or money, and lets say hypothetically you just have school names and GPAs of the candidates. If you weighted the developers by school prestige and GPA, do you honestly think you'd get the same average quality as if you chose randomly?

Re: News from the Front

Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:53:38 -0000

I have to say I agree with you and I even had a sociology professor that discussed this with the class. There isn't really much difference between colleges other than some have smaller classes so its easy to get more one on one time with the professor, the more 'prestigious' colleges do have people that are currently powerful in their alumni so it's easier for the students to meet them and possibly use this type of thing as a jumping off point. However, if you are an ingenious self starter you can do the same thing without paying a fortune to the brand name college.

Re: News from the Front

tree44 — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 19:59:53 -0000

so it doesnt answer my question

Re: News from the Front

Mon, 26 Nov 2007 01:26:54 -0000

Paul,
You might get a kick out of a paper by Dale and Krueger, called "Estimating The Payoff Of Attending A More Selective College: An Application Of Selection On Observables And Unobservables." See http://www.nber.org/papers/...

Apparently disadvantaged students benefit more from attending selective colleges, perhaps because of the access to the exclusive networks these schools provide.

Re: News from the Front

Dan — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 23:43:14 -0000

Even in the startup world, founders tend to have met at prestigious universities. Google - Stanford. Facebook - Harvard. Microsoft - Harvard, Stanford. I think universities provide students with a grounds at which to make friends. These friends then push them throughout life to live up to your potential.

I therefore think that the school that you go to does matter since it serves as a meeting ground to meet similarly intelligent, ambitious people. One could similarly meet such people in another environment (like a job) so long as the environment draws in the intelligent people.

Re: News from the Front

suranah — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 00:20:30 -0000

Faculty Curve in India
Well, my observations are that it is extremely steeped in India. Barring a handful few (6-8) it gets really bad even for remaining institutes in range 10-20. The lesser said about 30+ univs, the better. As for peer experience, it can also be difficult to get smart enough (or determined enough) peers even in 10-20 places.

Education Perception
Much could be said about the overall Indian education system to start with. People do not join universities, because they are curious or even because they want to make it really big. People go to college - because that's what everybody else does. Nobody even select majors by choice - its solely determined by what is the 'Job Value' of a specific stream. Leave liberal arts, you should see the way society perceives even somebody who peruses math or physics or even law. They are still only legible two professions in India - engineer or doctor.

Corporate Jobs
If people talk about corporate monotony in US. Dude, you can't imagine things in India, especially the IT. Employees are sheep - or rather the Indian street cow. Thinking is not allowed. Follow, conform and don't be too smart or too fast (even in work).

I went for undergrad in a 10-20 university and majored in CS/Engg. Thankfully bunked all corporate IT offers for an AI research lab. All information is either first hand account or ramblings from close friends who chose IT jobs.

Trust me, I really find most opinions about India being the next Silicon Valley absurd. It sure is/ will be a great outsourcing hub. The Indians you see in CA are not the same as those who populate the peninsula.

Re: News from the Front

Eric — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:35:45 -0000

Hi Paul:
Excellent observations. It seems college is the default career path for most of us If you REALLY know what you want to do in life, you probably don't need it. If you have no idea what you want to do in life, you probably can't afford it.
I suppose the medical arts are one of the few places that really require a degree....inasmuch as most of society takes a dim view of amateur medicine.
I learned everything I ever needed to know about electronics in high school....however we had an exceptional high school electronics class...and a world class amateur radio station to play with and learn.

My greatest life skills actually came before that time, however. We spent most of eighth grade diagramming sentences...a skill I don't believe they even teach any more. Being able to throw together a coherent sentence pretty much sets you on course for a successful life, I've found.

Re: News from the Front

seapixy — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 02:29:37 -0000

hi paul, great observations. i agree with you. it depends more on you than the university. the whole "ivy league" and "top" universities - lots of hype. it basically works like branding. top "name brand" universities = "safe bets" to many. but education is what you make of it. even if your crappy no-name university doesn't have the "specialized" library, these days you can get it online, or if you live in a metropolitan area, visit the name brand university library and use their photocopier and computer stations. that's what i did. there is one other variable i think should count for being able to go to a 'brand name' school - luck. there are more bright people than are brand name universities, and not all bright people are blessed with the sort of family situation that encourages education, especially at the name brand level. these bright people end up at the state and no name universities, but make the best of it, learning as much as possible. they may not have the ready-made, or "purchased" confidence a name brand will buy, but then again a good education instills confidence no matter what package it comes in. its just sad that our culture's education is bought and sold on name brands. most times the store brand is better than the pricey name brand anyway., and you save money too.

Re: News from the Front

Mike — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 23:25:56 -0000

In college, you typically do not work on real unsolved problems. While there will always be a market for people who can solve problems that have already been solved, the value of such a talent is low because the supply is high. On the flip side, someone who can solve real unsolved problems has a more rare and hence valuable talent.

In college you learn how to solve problems that have already been solved. It might seem that someone who is good at solving solved problems would be better at solving unsolved problems, but I don't think this is the case. Solving real unsolved problems is a skill that requires a certain lifestyle and mindset to obtain. It takes courage too.

Re: News from the Front

Wesley Tanaka — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 08:04:52 -0000

I find it easy to believe that my chance of success at starting up a web startup when I'm also the kind of person that knows about Y Combinator and also a person that makes the decision to approach you for help might not be strongly correlated with the prestige of the university I attended.

But I find it much harder to believe that university prestige is weakly or non-correlated with other measures of success in less self-selected samples of people.

I agree with the earlier commenter that numbers (or at least discussion of the numbers) would be interesting and potentially much more compelling.

Re: News from the Front

Scott Alan Miller — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 10:26:02 -0000

Paul, doesn't this essay lead to the logical conclusion that since colleges cannot differentiate between themselves in any significant way that it would follow that colleges are not offering any significant service and that even using college completion as a guideline for measuring candidates is also worthless?

For example, if colleges are not providing intrinsic value then a potential student who seeks out other smart people and is self motivated and educates themselves has every opportunity to excel with the best college graduates.

I do a lot of hiring for a major US Financial house and one of the first things that I do is attempt cover up any college experience from a potential candidate. I don't want to be influenced by the educational background as I don't trust myself to not be predujiced in favour of an MIT degree over a high school dropout. But if I can't tell the difference between those two when talking to them then chances are the high school dropout was more self motivated and self confident earlier.

I think that the real question is - Is college adding any value? I believe that those students who were going to excel didn't need college to do it. And those that were going to be party animals and learn nothing certainly didn't need college to do it. Where is the value add?