College has a specific and peculiar consumption pattern: almost everyone is under 25. This doesn't seem weird because it's pervasive and we're used to it, but it is. How many other things are only for a narrow age range of person? And how often is that an endorsement? Usually, it's the opposite. When it comes to culture, if the only people who like something are under 20, or over 60, that usually means that it sucks because things of quality are enjoyed by people of all age ranges. (Not necessarily uniformly. Most people born before 1955 didn't like Nirvana when their music came out circa 1990, but at least some could recognize the talent and creativity.) College, for as overhyped as the experience is, isn't really appealing to people over 23. Some will go, later in life, for the education (which is quite valuable, if you pay attention) but the overall product (which is what people pay $160,000, usually of their parents' money, for) isn't of interest by that age.

Advanced economies seem destined to breed immaturity and extended adolescence. You see it in the U.S., Western Europe, and Japan. It has to be that way, because the dirty secret of them is that there's low demand for workers and the only way to look like there is full employment is to delay adulthood (and hasten retirement, which is welcome if it's elective and wealthy retirement but horrible if it's age discrimination and despair).

We put people into college because most of them have no hope of getting jobs (at least, jobs appropriate to their social class) otherwise. Widespread college is the most socially acceptable way for (a) young people to stay out of a working world that doesn't want them and that they'd be too immature to handle, (b) middle- to upper-class parents to transmit connections and status under the guise of "merit"-- in reality, it's more complex than that, since academic success is a combination of factors including merit, and it's this illegibility that allows the ruse to work-- and (c) people to be fully enculturated into either their native social class, or (in fortunate but rare cases) the social class that society "corrects" them to inhabit when a lower-class child has proven extreme merit.

This is not an easy problem to fix. College has become a private safety net for middle- to upper-class children while they get to an age and level of intellectual maturity that will make them acceptable to the modern economy. It's a socially acceptable way for these kids to sit out of that game for 4 years, under the supposition (which I think is right) that the experiences that they'd have without college would be so negative as to be detrimental.

Peter Thiel's advice, in general, is bad. It applies to statistical outliers, perhaps. Even then, I'm not sure that I agree. But given that the social purpose of college (at this point) is to handle this problem of labor oversupply, the "fix" of asking young people to go directly into the workforce isn't going to work. It's just going to flood the labor market even more.