Live data from Hacker News

Why Education Startups Do Not Succeed (2011)

avichal.com

21–30 of 148 posts

Re: Why Education Startups Do Not Succeed (2011)

#21

Figure out a way to franchise high schools to make them into coworking spaces. All teachers are remote and all teaching happens over skype. The employees on site are there only to make sure the kids dont kill each other. Offer an insane amount of subjects (this is possible since there might be only 30 kids worldwide interested in xyz, now they can take a class on it). The future of education is something along these…

Sounds inhuman.

Re: Why Education Startups Do Not Succeed (2011)

#22

Figure out a way to franchise high schools to make them into coworking spaces. All teachers are remote and all teaching happens over skype. The employees on site are there only to make sure the kids dont kill each other. Offer an insane amount of subjects (this is possible since there might be only 30 kids worldwide interested in xyz, now they can take a class on it). The future of education is something along these…

I like the idea. The role of the teacher would be to coach students (like giving them advice, monitoring progress). What was missing from the MOOC formula was real person, in the flesh accountability for learning.

Re: Why Education Startups Do Not Succeed (2011)

#23
I appreciated the point that VCs think about education differently than the masses.

Reminds me of the AirBnB guys pitching their original idea of people renting out their couch for strangers to sleep on and getting thrown out by virtually all of them. “Who would EVER want that??”

Re: Why Education Startups Do Not Succeed (2011)

#24
post #14

I understand this article is a bit outdated, but companies like Duolingo or Clever seem to prove a few of the author's arguments wrong. One would think there would be a market for Duolingo style apps for other subjects, such as mathematics, where the user is simply charged on a subscription bases. Could such a business not survive?

> but companies like Duolingo or Clever seem to prove a few of the author's arguments wrong.

Except we have no idea whether these companies are actual businesses or not (i.e. have profits). Anectodal - Clever has just as much funding and number of employees as another EdTech business I know about that also interacts with "millions of students" but is barely pushing beyond a few million dollars in revenue. This isn't enough to sustain a business with 100+ employees in the bay area.

Re: Why Education Startups Do Not Succeed (2011)

#25

Figure out a way to franchise high schools to make them into coworking spaces. All teachers are remote and all teaching happens over skype. The employees on site are there only to make sure the kids dont kill each other. Offer an insane amount of subjects (this is possible since there might be only 30 kids worldwide interested in xyz, now they can take a class on it). The future of education is something along these…

Sounds inhuman.

unlike high school? lol. you are right, being on someone schedule for idk 12 hours a day (classes + hw) is one of the most humane experiences. in my model at least you get to pick your own path and each student might get a pretty unique experience if they choose to.

what's inhuman about this btw?

Re: Why Education Startups Do Not Succeed (2011)

#26
post #8

> The average, middle class person thinks about education as an expenditure, not an investment. The way I remember it, middle class folks in Kansas City suburbs really, really care about the quality of their schools and levy property and sales taxes to fund it. Rural Ohio townships where dual earners are making 17k less than the national median for such households may not have a lot of middle class to speak of. Cost…

"1:1 tutoring is the gold standard for educational outcomes."

Is it? I'd be interested to see some data to support or refute this. I'd always assumed that students benefit somewhat from other students being around (due to observing how others learn, being pushed to be better etc.), so perhaps the ideal ratio would be in the 1:2 to 1:4 range.

If people have really figured out that 1:1 is better than 1:2, 1:3 and 1:4, I'd love to see that data.

Re: Why Education Startups Do Not Succeed (2011)

#28
post #9

The article correctly identifies consumer-facing education businesses as being incredibly difficult. I used to work in education and Chegg is the only consumer-facing company I can think of in the industry. Most other education companies have either sold or partnered with schools (Neverware, Clever, Jamf, etc). One of the interesting things with the market is that it's difficult to start penetrating districts since s…

I'd add Texas Instruments, with their graphing calculators. They have an extremely low tech product whose prevalence actually detracts from kids learning to make effective use of computation. But they've established a monopoly position by understanding what real problems they're actually solving: 1) Moderating development to within a pace that teachers and the curriculum / testing industry can keep up with. 2) Keeping cheating under control.

Disclosure: I have two kids in high school, both of whom need graphing calculators for their schoolwork. Both would prefer to use Python/Jupyter.

Re: Why Education Startups Do Not Succeed (2011)

#29
post #27

Because academic-style and bootcamp-style education is largely a bullshit. As opposed to apprenticeship which happens in real business conditions.

i would include self-apprenticeship as well since people can learn many things easily on their own now (via internet)... unfortunately taking a bad class can rapidly kill a person's interest, especially if they have already invested considerable time into the subject matter

Re: Why Education Startups Do Not Succeed (2011)

#30
post #9

The article correctly identifies consumer-facing education businesses as being incredibly difficult. I used to work in education and Chegg is the only consumer-facing company I can think of in the industry. Most other education companies have either sold or partnered with schools (Neverware, Clever, Jamf, etc). One of the interesting things with the market is that it's difficult to start penetrating districts since s…

I'd add Texas Instruments, with their graphing calculators. They have an extremely low tech product whose prevalence actually detracts from kids learning to make effective use of computation. But they've established a monopoly position by understanding what real problems they're actually solving: 1) Moderating development to within a pace that teachers and the curriculum / testing industry can keep up with. 2) Keepin…

When I was in grade school, 20+ years ago, TI calculators were legitimately an impressive high-tech product. (and in some classes or for some quizes, you weren't _allowed_ to use them). They... haven't changed too too much since then. Somehow TI got from there to here, maintaining market success the whole time, but completely changing in how they fit in the environment somehow. Odd.
Post reply on HN