Is the Minerva Project the future of higher education?

I interviewed over the phone a while ago with this company, and talked to the founder. I am totally forgiving of interviewer attitude, because I used to hire people myself, and also understand that bad days happen.

But this guy was so arrogant, so conceited, and treated me like the most boring person in the world that was wasting his time. He talked exclusively about himself, and how he was "making this project happen for his kid". He said his motivation for founding the company was because he didn't like any of the schools available to his child. I'm not of the opinion that people must save the planet with a startup, but when you specifically say that you're doing it exclusively to serve yourself and the uber-wealthy, I am not interested. He also abruptly put me on hold two times while someone came into his office during our interview, with no apology whatsoever. We had talked for maybe ten minutes when the second interruption happened, and when he came back on the line, I apologized and said "the culture" wasn't right for me, ending the interview.

My interview with this company is memorably one of the worst interviews I have ever had in my twenty years in the industry. There is no way in the universe I would work for (or invest in) that company.

Given the "naked and unapologetic elitism" of the institution, I hope not.

"Yet, Nelson’s goal was to train only the best of the best, a category of students he describes as being in the upper fraction of entrants to Ivy League schools."

I fail to see inspiration in the idea of a rich guy grooming 18 year olds to be future master of the universe types.

Training the elite is a saturated market already, and really, the emphasis is on networking and name branding rather than actual learning. See: Ivy league, whatever else fits that bill. You don't necessarily need a strong education to soar (though in my opinion it really helps), you need nepotism.

If you actually want kids to learn things, you need a triage system which queries the optimal engagement and learning conditions for each individual student to learn. Next, use the engagement conditions to prime the student (get them excited to learn)for the material. Then, implement those optimal learning and engagement conditions in a curricula that is 50% more complex than what you think the student can handle. Adjust as needed.

The hardest part is getting the students to be engaged/curious and setting them up with the resources and context to be an autodidact once class ends. Most graduates don't have these things before or after college, and an arbitrarily elite school isn't going to help them in and of itself. The pretension of being elite does a lot of harm to students.

The cynical attitude is that the true heights of power can only partially be reached through meritocratic advancement. Sure, you need to be at the top of your field - but there is a cultural/class/network element that only opens certain positions of power to people within certain circles.

It sounds like Minerva is explicitly avoiding the goal of creating highest-caliber professionals (the meritocracy route) - so what social/political capital does the founder/faculty bring to the table to open these non-meritocratic doors for their elite student body? If I am indeed one of these exceptional and ambitious young people, why should I gamble with this startup rather than climbing the well worn power ladder through the Ivy League?

I am into un-education, but I fail to grasp the idea, besides that it's new, different, and for a small percentage of people (but WHAT are the criteria? Being selective does not imply making a meaningful selection).

Right now (at least from this paper) it sounds more like "let's make yet another prestigious university". And what is the educational added value?

The answer to the title question is clearly "no" given they are looking to train the elite of the elite.