Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Technical innovation comes from depth in a subject area, and you actually have to study something before you can innovate in the context of it." I think you are making three assumptions that can be disputed: 1. The only place to gain a depth of knowledge is a traditional university; and 2. The best time to gain this depth of knowledge is between the ages of 18 and 22; and 3. You need to innovate to have a successful…
I would argue that the problematic conflation exists in the original program, insofar as the 20 under 20 program is often described as a potential replacement for higher ed. As far as I see things, there are a whole bunch of extra factors which are much more extensive than your three categories and which require a much more rigorous analysis. For example, how do we foster innovation in specific subjects? For instance…
I have never had that impression from Thiel himself, though others have certainly spun it that way. He seems very much in favour of traditional formal education, unless your life goals are to have a career; in which case he promotes focusing on that instead.
The problem, as you describe, is that many people enter college for four years of their life and come out having gained nothing. Four years of being in the working world would have put them in the same standing, plus they'd have valuable experience to propel them into better jobs. They aren't there for the positive reasons to be in college, they are there because they don't know anything else and that is unfortunate.
There really is no one solution for everyone, and Thiel seems to be promoting that by showing there are other options. The only effective way to do push that on the masses is to attack the idea that college is the "one true way."