Comment by byrneseyeview | Hacker News Reader

Comment by byrneseyeview | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

So wouldn't those people drop out earlier? If you strip out the emotional content of your post, it's quite banal: the price of a product (college) is going up, so people who buy the product (students who pay full tuition) have less money, and since money is a transportable, transferable form of freedom, they're less free.

" In fact, most graduates want to find stable jobs to pay off their debt -- startups are not really on most graduates' radar."

That's irrational. If they're already way in debt, shouldn't they want to take more risks? Why the hell would you do something boring for ten years to pay off your debt, when you could do something fun for one year and have a 10% chance of more than paying off your debt. Also, employers are impressed by people who start their own businesses.

" Businessweek had a survey of the top ten desirable places to work for new graduates -- three were govt. agencies, one accounting firm, google, etc."

Right, because Businessweek can't say "The best place for you to work is that company you start in your apartment with your pals," because 1) that doesn't appeal to BW's audience, and 2) startups are small and varied, so it wouldn't make sense. It's like taking a survey of the most popular restaurants (McDonalds, Burger King) and using that as proof that the swanky new sushi place down the street is an awful place to eat.

> If they're already way in debt, shouldn't they want to take more risks?

1. They took basically zero risks before, so it would not be "more".

2. And screw up their credit history/get creditors chasing them?

> So wouldn't those people drop out earlier?

Because they couldn't predict the future? Not everyone who does a startup knew their path since they were 2 years old.

"So wouldn't those people drop out earlier?"

No those people would not drop out earlier, because they likely did not know they wanted to be startup founders until they had enough technical knowledge and/or more importantly built those relationships with students around them which led to the creation of a startup in the first place. Perhaps your experience has been different in which case I cannot argue with that.

"when you could do something fun for one year and have a 10% chance of more than paying off your debt"

For precisely that reason -- that the likelihood of success is only 10%. And it often takes more than a year to build something meaningful.

"Also, employers are impressed by people who start their own businesses."

This is not always true. It depends on the role the employee is being hired into.

So you're saying that college, while expensive, is still worth it? I don't get your argument. For a given student, either college is too expensive to be worth it, and people will drop out early, or it's cheap enough to be worth it, and people will finish. Only one of these things can be true, and there are obvious conclusions depending on which you pick. So which is it?

"For precisely that reason..."

Did you miss what I said above? If you're already broke, why is getting broker a problem? What do you have to lose if you have less than nothing?

Can you give me some detail on your 'depends on the role' comment? I didn't realize this; when I recruit people (IT/quant finance), employers respond more favorably to entrepreneurs than to people who worked for someone else. Where did you hear otherwise?

"So you're saying that college, while expensive, is still worth it? "

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying. You meet like-minded people there who are excited about technology - potential co-founders. You learn about technology.

I've been through 3 universities, and the relationships I have built at these institutions have helped me to this day. I'm running a startup btw.

What was the point of your original post? It looks like you were saying "It is better to have a college education than to spend that time or money in any other possible way." But you keep saying that like it's a bad thing, and talking about how college reduces your chances of starting a startup because it's so expensive. If college increases your chances of starting a startup, and you want to start a startup, your original post doesn't make sense. What were you trying to say?

What I was saying is that paying for the education that gives you the tools to start a startup is one of the biggest impediments to starting one.

I'm really having trouble following this. You're saying that your odds of success after getting an education are higher than before. But that, uh, getting an education makes it harder to start a startup. You see the contradiction.

Is this like saying "If you're going to be a programmer, you'll do better to buy a computer. But if you buy a computer, you'll have to get money, which leaves you less time to be a programmer!"?

Regarding the businessweek comment, I can only say that if the desire and willingness to start companies was a meaningful trend, it _might_ have been noted as an option.

I would disagree with this: "1) that doesn't appeal to BW's audience" starting businesses _does_ appeal to businessweeks audience. ;)

But that's not a 'place to work'. It's like having a list of the top twenty restaurants, with #3 as "Your kitchen, assuming you go to culinary school and are a talented cook and have the time to cook and..." it doesn't give any real information.

I wouldn't be surprised if BW's readers were less entrepreneurial than average. It's a magazine about big business, not about doing business.

Betting against people being (even irrationally) risk averse is probably not a safe bet.

Was that deliberately self-referential?

Was this deliberately self-referential?

Whoa. This guy had the same question: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=63066

Reply on news.ycombinator.com