Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Universities Should Prepare Founders

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 333 posts

Re: How Universities Should Prepare Founders

#23

Post by rurich2747 »

rurich2747 wrote: post #16

The thing that this misses is the value of craftsmanship and the time that it takes to develop that increases based on the difficulty of the domain AND how long that domain has existed. Brand new industries don’t have depth, and may not even have high difficulty and so starting a SAAS business or Social Media startup 2008-2014 was easy from a technical point of view The difficult in it being a ‘startup’ was more abou…

Take solar or battery technology — that requires deep knowledge of materials and chemistry that you don’t get from an undergrad. And why ASML didn’t get built in the US. Or why TSMC exists in Taiwan

They lead because of a devotion to depth of expertise - not becoming a billionaire

So again, if you want sustainable hugely profitable 0-1 companies you better hope for a monopoly business, and why lobbyiny government to protect your rents is a faster alternative to PHDs, Postgrads, and long term industrial policy

Re: How Universities Should Prepare Founders

#24

Post by dang »

debo_ wrote: post #7
volandovengo wrote: post #5

Isn't it amazing that Paul Graham hasn't updated his CSS in 20 years? Paul - spend a few tokens to give me a text size I can read?

[flagged]

Please follow the site guidelines. They ask you not to post like this here, regardless of who or what you dislike.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: How Universities Should Prepare Founders

#25

Post by jspann »

(Disclosure: I'm getting a PhD in CS now)

> The hard part of startups is product: knowing what to build, and being able to build it

Funny enough, this is why I think a PhD is undervalued by many. You spend years focused on a single area, sometimes pivoting topics, and getting hands on experience with operating solo on the outskirts of a particular field.

The overall point of the degree is you learn how to learn. The nice part is you have the padded walls of university equipment, funding, and time; So failure isn't terminal, just an opportunity to figure out what didn't work.

There's a few reasons how and why this message got distorted and lost in modern academia (honestly it would be a great subject for a book). It's no mistake that better known programs and programs with ties to a stream of successful startups are also the ones where there's a culture of builders and makers.

Re: How Universities Should Prepare Founders

#27

Post by dang »

bmitc wrote: post #17
dang wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What do universities have to do with startup founders? Gross. Please don't post unsubstantive comments or shallow dismissals to Hacker News. We're hoping for curious conversation here, not bilious. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

While I agree the comment will rub the startup groupies the wrong way, I don't really think the question itself is unsubstantial, especially in comparison to the post, as the post does not address the question. And I elaborated in response to a comment to it.

I'm not concerned with "groupies", but with the quality standard on HN, which the GP post was obviously below.

Re: How Universities Should Prepare Founders

#28

Post by jmalicki »

bmitc wrote: post #18
jmalicki wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the point of a university if it not to provide education that could benefit wide areas of the human experience?

That's not what he is arguing, though, is it?

Is founding a company not a thing some humans experience?

Re: How Universities Should Prepare Founders

#29

Post by bmitc »

dang wrote: post #27
bmitc wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree the comment will rub the startup groupies the wrong way, I don't really think the question itself is unsubstantial, especially in comparison to the post, as the post does not address the question. And I elaborated in response to a comment to it.

I'm not concerned with "groupies", but with the quality standard on HN, which the GP post was obviously below.

I edited the comment to contain only the question and not commentary.
Post reply on HN