Hard-Core Career Advice For A 13-Year-Old
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
Encouraging a 20 year old who is well educated, just without that final degree to quit and start their own thing is far different than telling your 13 year old daughter to quit school.
And saying that multi-millionaires have a diverse set of income streams does not mean that their first million did not come from a more focused effort in one specific area.
I'm not arguing that higher education is for everyone - clearly, it is not. But saying that nobody even needs a high school level of education is not a claim I am going to support.
My advice to a 13 year old is more along the lines of, keep learning, keep having fun, enjoy your teenage years, make teenage mistake while you still have the support structure of your parents (whether you like it or not), and just enjoying being young without too many responsibilities. There is no need to rush teenagers into adulthood.
> keep learning, keep having fun, enjoy your teenage years
Didn't learn squat from 5-10th grade. 11th and 12th I got into AP curriculum with fantastic teachers. I still talk to them. But you need fantastic instructors, the kind who would have been professors if they were not so selfless to work in public education, to make that happen.
It won't happen for 99% of children. I got incredibly lucky my last two years.
But the inbetween? The monotony of public educators with tenure, in the years between when I had learned the "basics" (arithmetic, reading, national and global history) <aside, I do need to mention that home ec and cooking were amazing classes to have in 6th grade, and were an exception to a multi-year rule> was a void. I spent my days playing Neverwinter Nights and learning NWScript (and thus basic C) to build campaigns for a multiplayer persistent world I was constantly on. This was in the years before World of Warcraft, which consumed the later years, and with those an education in Lua and engine hacking.
It is always incredibly harmful to assume schooling == learning. Even the social aspect is wrong - its an artificial setting. Bullying only exists as a pandemic when you are forced by law to be next to your bullies eight hours a day. The rest of us have the freedom to leave those people behind. You acquire no real world social experience in public education, just look at how out of whack everyone is their freshmen year when suddenly you are interacting with people voluntarily and can pick and chose your associations for the first time in your life.
It was not fun. It was not enjoyable. It was a purgatory. And I now have a 12 year old brother whom I can see the exact same thing happening to. And it will happen to millions of children every year until someone puts their foot down with the authority to do so and say this machine we grind the creative spark and imagination out of the younger generation in needs to stop, because I was lucky, and most are not.
I would plead for a better school rather than dropping out, though. It's depressing that apparently even Altucher who is supposedly a millionaire can not find a decent school for his kids.
Totally agree with the first part. School is only a waste if you go a mediocre school. There are plenty of excellent public and private schools available in the US. And most of the people browsing HN during working hours can afford the neighborhoods where those schools are located. Fixing the broken schools in less affluent areas is a more difficult problem.
I also find is astonishing that somebody who graduated from Cornell, then pursued a PhD at CMU would advocate for their own child to drop out of school at age 13. It's truly flabbergasting. Is he really asserting that he would be in the same, or better, position today had he skipped 4 years of high school, 4 years of undergraduate at one elite university, and then another handful of years at a second elite university? I'm calling shenanigans.
That would be very nice indeed, but the way the current education system is structured, engaging a child's mind seems to be the educators' last priority. I can't remember another time in my life when I was so bored and restless as middle/high school.
People always talk about wishing they were kids again. Not me - the mere thought of having to sit through all those dull and mundane lectures makes me shudder.
If you're going to school and majoring in something without a career path, don't whine there aren't businesses lining up at your door with 6-figure salaries just dying to hire you.
She graduated in 2011 and is still continuously whining about how she can't find a job in her field (which is dying) and no one is hiring (in the areas she wants to live in) and she doesn't understand why people aren't lining up to hire her (despite the case she did zero interning or networking while in graduate school) see in case you didn't notice she got a Master's degree (and has zero soft or social skills) clearly that means she should just have a job handed to her!
Education is a good jumping off point for a lot of people and for a lot of jobs. However at some point education stops being an additive process and starts being really self-serving. Additive education is like going to school to be a doctor- you learn and you learn and you learn and you learn and at the end of it you have learned enough in a controlled environment to go off and be a doctor on your own. Self serving education is like getting a PhD in Medieval Literature- the only thing you can do with that degree is either go off and teach Medieval Literature to other students or maybe, MAYBE get a job as a historian in Medieval Literature.
I imagine schools would howl about how they have no possible way of knowing what might make their students more valuable in the future while at the same time becoming noticeably less likely to steer their lower-income students into a Marxist Film major and more toward something in healthcare, accounting, or engineering (if qualified) or maybe a 2-yr tech or trade specialty if engineering is too much of a stretch.
I knew many people in college that seemed to still have this idea in their senior year. They had given absolutely no thought to the employment process and how the degree in their chosen major was going to help or hinder.
Even though it should have been very obvious to me that I should do something with computers, in high school I decided I wanted to be a physicist because it "sounded fun". It took me 2 years of college to realize I was terrible at it, and there were absolutely zero career prospects on the other end of that degree. It seemed I was destined to make coffee for a PHd for the rest of my life for maybe $20k a year. Then one day I was writing some code after school like I'd done every day of my life, and the lightbulb turned on and I felt pretty stupid about it. Luckily 2 years into a physics major is a good time to switch to comp sci.
But who is handing out the correct advice to young people today? Is it getting to them? Are they processing it?
Is this actually true, though? This kind of makes it sound like everyone who went to college in the 70s and 80s was on easy street, but I don't know if that's reality or nostalgia.
Every other person had interned/worked, and had a full-time position.
But this was engineering, and I think I was lucky to go to school with a bunch of really bright people, because I learned a lot from them. I have no doubt it's different in other areas.
We should probably stop looking down on people who do this (by choice or by necessity) and just embrace the fact that much of HN's readership is extraordinarily lucky that their job is their passion. Maybe if we taught that it's okay to have a job you dislike so long as it affords the things you do like, people would stop complaining that they didn't pull a winning lottery ticket like they were "supposed" to do.
We should stop pushing the myth, yes, but we should not fall into the opposite extreme. The situation is in reality quite complicated and there are far more choices than "do what you love and be bankrupt" and "do what you hate and make money", and, for once, the complication works out in your favor.
Job seekers: Make a list of your interests and talents. If you don't have a list, either think harder, or start trying some new things, stat. Order them vaguely by how much you like them. Now, go down the list, look out in the world, and ask what kind of living you can expect to make with that skill/talent/interest. Be realistic; for example, some musicians may make millions upon millions, but the median outcome is fairly poor. And be realistic about your level of talent/interest/dedication.
Most people really ought to be able to find something that is both at least sort of interesting and at least sort of economically viable. After all, in the US, even "median" income is a pretty good outcome, especially if you don't hate your job.
I practice what I preach. Technically, in a perfectly-aligned-for-jerf world, computer programmer is my second choice of job. My first-place job would be a music composer, preferably for games. (That's not just because "games are cool", but I actually like the idea of trying to create soundtracks that match up with the desired moods, and especially at the time games had much more interesting soundtracks than movies.) However, a sober and realistic examination of my skills, interests, and talents, matched up with my assessment of a rather high likelihood of total failure as a musician, along with the incredibly small number of slots available even under the best of circumstances, led me to discard that option, no matter how passionate about it I was. Everything in the 15 years since I graduated with my computer science degree has only reinforced my belief that I would have been a miserable economic failure as a composer. (It isn't necessarily "lack of talent", but that my talents led in a not-very-lucrative direction.)
In the basement studio I can afford to have because I make a good living, I have a framed dollar on the wall. I call it "The last dollar I made as a musician".
If I had just done what I loved out of high school, I would have watched TV between efforts to get together with girls and alcohol.
Really? You don't see anything wrong with that?
People drop the art major line constantly, but it's whole swathes of the sciences, engineering etc. that are out of work now.
It was either that, or bump the Chemistry over to Chemical Engineering, and that seemed like too much extra work on top of CompSci.
One of the factors that will contribute to the collapse of higher education in the US is the disconnect between the degrees granted and the available jobs that require that specific degree. The universities are offering a gross disservice by blithely allowing students into a degree program before sitting their naive asses down in front of someone who will tell them in great detail how difficult it will be for them to actually get a job in their chosen field.
If they're fine with working retail and food service, fine, let the students in. If they want to pay off their loans, perhaps suggest a related but more remunerative field of study. Instead of Chemistry, why not try Chemical Engineering? Instead of Library Science, perhaps Computer Science with an emphasis on databases? Instead of Art History, maybe look into conservation and restoration, or perhaps try the business school for help managing galleries and museums? Otherwise, they're doing no better than offering expensive classes in buggy-whip manufacture. That field can now support maybe one whole person, who would probably also need to be Amish. A university does not need to teach that one guy. He can apprentice himself to the previous buggy-whip maker.
Chemical engineering is a booming field (although maybe a bit less with oil prices down lately, I've been out of the loop for a couple years). Chemistry isn't.
This is happening all over the sciences. Drug companies routinely have jobs open (while they're laying off senior research staff elsewhere...), but good luck getting one of those jobs as a new PhD grad. It's almost as hard -- perhaps harder -- to get a "scientist" position at a drug company as it is to get a faculty position in academia. Think about that.
The math field is being cannibalized by tech and finance, and the only sciences doing at all well are those with direct applications to healthcare or war materiel.
So if you throw the existing 'M' in with the 'T', and replace it with an 'H' for Healthcare, then fold the remaining part of the 'S' into 'M' for Military, we might have a "METH shortage".
My freshman year, I couldn't decide if I should major in something that 'made sense' or if I should dive into film. I decided to talk to the school guidance counselors. They encouraged me to get into film, spouted off statistics ("85% of people don't hold jobs in their major!"), and encouraged me to follow that passion.
Well, I didn't realize at the time that, yeah, maybe 85% of the population didn't get their job because of their degree, but it's because the jobs they got were service-industry.
It's definitely my fault for trusting them with that kind of decision, but I believed they were authorities on the subject. Anyway, I'm back to programming now, so I guess I'm part of the 85%.
Who's telling high schoolers this? I don't think it's ever been true in recent history. Unless they're applying lowest-common-denominator logic?
College is an easy choice—especially the stigma around those that don't go to college. There's also that ridiculous fact about how much college-educated people earn over their lifetime. What that doesn't take into account is the entire world changed after 2007.
EDIT: Wrote a bit more about why people think they need to go to college a couple years ago. http://solomon.io/experience-deficiency/
People have always, and will always, complain about terrible jobs. That doesn't mean they made a stupid mistake which had an obviously better path. It just means they have a bad job.
It took me two years of rambling around and finally I went back towards what I was always good with, computers. Flash forward 6 years later and I'm a developer who is making a comfortable living. I'm glad I have my degree in econ, I love the field, but I do feel like there is window of us who did get screwed as we made choices on the current economy, not the future economy 4 years later.
Your stats background could prob make you a lot of money if you could shift into data science. The stats + programming would be a good fit.
not exactly. One of the key points in this article is that certain "meta-skills" are as important, or moreso, than field-specific skills. You don't need a degree or formal education for most fields (outside of medicine, law, and engineering.) You can make a pretty decent living doing all sorts of things, if you can solve other peoples' problems, get stuff done, and handle pressure.
You probably don't learn those things majoring in art history. But you might learn those things working as a janitor while you're paying your way through an art history degree.
And most of the people that make the decision to go to college do it before being old enough to vote, drink, and a bunch of other things that as a society they are deemed to be unfit to do.
Of course people should be more aware of this,but instead of blaming people,finding ways to improve the system helps everyone. I strongly think colleges should have a legal requirement to disclose employment data to anyone picking any major.
Just because 'developer' as a job seems to be a good match for people who graduated from computer science or software engineering programs (and honestly, in some cases I'd dispute whether that's the case, too) doesn't mean every job should have a four year degree program that feeds directly into it, or that if your four year degree doesn't slot you directly into a workplace role it has no value.
Contrast that with a string of recent CS graduates I've interviewed this year. 80% or more have been woefully unprepared for work in the field. I'm not sure what they're being taught, but it certainly isn't anything remotely like computer science in the business world.
Point being, if you're a mediocre student, your job prospects aren't that great, regardless of major. And if you're actually smart, the jobs are out there.
I fully agree with the mediocrity part though.
A few have been unable to discuss basic CS concepts to the point they should get refunds from their colleges. These were mostly smaller liberal arts schools.
Most are unable to work through basic design problems on the whiteboard (not programming and don't require couplex algorithms). I'm not looking for perfect answers - I just want them to talk through their thought process and ask intelligent questions.
So I think it is not the choice of major, but the associated expectations. They would still require some creative thinking to create their jobs.
What I saw several times, for example, was people studying to become journalists. This was a couple of years ago when I was still a student myself. When I asked them about their goals, they mentioned writing for some popular newspaper.
It boggled my mind that they would be studying journalism and not have their own blog and be unaware of the developments in media...
What we need is more trade schools, without the stigma that they are somehow a lesser choice than a university. Rather than being judged on how many prestigious scholars and elite businessmen graduated, their main criteria is typically job placement after graduation. That's good news; it aligns their interest to properly prepare you to have a professional career after graduation.
Nothing inherently wrong with any of those professions, except very few people are successful at them. Not to mention the prerequisite of a high net worth to become an accredited investor.
But maybe this is actually advice for a single 13 year old with a sizeable security net.
The moral of the story is ride the right coattails, don't be afraid to do some sketchy shit, and then if you luck out and get some money, then spend a bunch of time giving fairly dumb advice that has nothing to with your own success.
"One of the most dangerous illusions you get from school is the idea that doing great things requires a lot of discipline. Most subjects are taught in such a boring way that it's only by discipline that you can flog yourself through them. So I was surprised when, early in college, I read a quote by Wittgenstein saying that he had no self-discipline and had never been able to deny himself anything, not even a cup of coffee."
Every book on and by famous/rich/successful people I've ever read touches on the subject on discipline and it can all be summed up with this: motivation, curiosity and drive fade away - in the end, only discipline is left to get you through the hardest mile.
I'd be willing to bet that when all those failed startup people spend a good 5-10 years thinking some more about their failures, the number 1 reason won't be "product-market fit", it'll be a lack of discipline in one or more areas (development, spending, sales).
Really it's about developing the behavioral pathways in your brain, your second nature if you will. For me, when something hard comes up, I automatically try to find a way around it or some way to accomplish the goal without dealing with the hard thing.
This is great for my creative problem solving skills since I'm able to automatically think outside the box and find workarounds to hard problems that can't feasibly be worked through.
However, when there is no workaround, actually convincing myself to do the hard work is extremely tough... my brain keeps automatically pausing and trying to find an easier way around and in those pauses I find it very easy to be distracted and a reason to put off the hard work just a little longer.
So yeah, sticking to a studying schedule would be a good way to exercise that discipline.
When you know that a task needs to be done, yet your body and your brain tell you to leave it for later, that they're too tired, that it's not worth it, etc.
When you know a task needs to be done to achieve the goal yet most of your colleagues and even part your own brain tells you to stop because... reasons, excuses.
I don't know how else to explain it, you just don't stop until the goal is reached, and long before that, motivation, excitement, curiosity, drive, and whatever else emotional factors people have will most likely have stopped...
Or you could say it was about self discipline, but self discipline is not what we traditionally think it is.
Additionally, the marshmallow study isn't the only research that shows this effect.
Won't bother sending this to my 15yo nephew.
Rather than add to the noise by podcasting/blogging, better advice would be to connect with most talented people who do what you do and learn from them. If you find that you have a platform and something to say, then do so.
"What is the name of your occupation? What are the educational requirements to work in your career?"
"So I am a writer (I write books and articles). I’m a podcaster (I’ve had 10 million downloads of my podcast). I speak occasionally. And I advise or invest in over 30 different companies."
"Oh, so you're a bullshit artist."
Being filthy rich; none.
-- Dr James Altucher, PhD.
EDIT: ^ The title was updated
The author says: And remember, there are zero formal education requirements for what I do.
While this is true for the author, it is obviously wrong for any job in Engineering, Finance, Medical, Lawyer, ...
So the idea that "Education leads to a job" is and will always remain true for these sort of jobs. What can change is How to obtain that education: Through the traditional college system or a different one.
No wonder there's a teenager suicide epidemic in the Silicon Valley...
Wikipedia mentions he attended Cornell and CMU (PhD).
Freakonomics blog says "He grew up in a middle-class family that lived beyond its means, in large part because his dad was about to hit it big with a computer business and the family was banking on that success. Then the success happened, and the family lived even larger — until the business suddenly fell apart, leaving everyone devastated.
Years later, James struck out on his own and he, too, struck it big."
http://freakonomics.com/2007/05/03/james-altucher-strikes-ag...
- Don't get (yourself|your girlfriend) pregnant.
- Don't get addicted to any drugs.
- Don't wreck my car after you turn 16.
- Take as many AP-prep classes as you can.
- Play in the band or orchestra.
- Take Spanish as your foreign language.
- Read books that are not required.
- Learn basic electronics.
- Take as many credit-equivalent tests (AP|IB|CLEP) as you can.
- Apply for all the scholarships. Yes, *all*.
- Avoid loans that can't be discharged in bankruptcy.
- When in doubt, choose the major that requires more math.
- Girls, don't get married before 22.
- Boys, don't get married, ever.
'- (Yes, I know this is incompatible advice.)
- Skip the reception; spend it on the honeymoon.
"Skip the reception; spend it on the honeymoon" implies that the boys aren't going to listen to "Boys, don't get married, ever". But that second one is bad advice anyway - getting married was incredibly good for me. Instead, I'd say "Wait forever rather than marry the wrong person."
And as in my observation, girls mature emotionally on a much more reliable schedule than boys, my advice to them is mostly to ward off the disaster that comes from trying to re-forge a boyfriend into a husband when he is clearly not ready for that yet. When he finally is ready, now he may need to get divorced before getting married. The implied advice is thus "Girls, don't get married before 22 [because it is extremely unlikely that any of the eligible men you have ever met before that time would be ready for the responsibility]."
It's very US-centric advice. And if your first language isn't English, you'll have a bit of difficulty following it anyway.
Plus I know a number of generally older adults who dont really have careers or jobs anymore. They managed to squirrel away enough savings or an income stream. Some may have major hobbies or projects you could call a vocation. Some just drift along.
This article is terrible advice as has been pointed out already by many people in this thread but I just wanted to add my two cents.
"Academic education", up to undergraduates imo, is not so much about what you actually learn, but about the learning aptitudes and social aptitudes that the experience makes you develop. I think we can all relate.
This person seems to make massive generalisations from his (rather lucky I'd imagine) personal experience.