Thiel's Unicorn Success Is Awkward for Colleges
Peter Thiel’s fellowship program, which pays young people to skip or leave college and start companies, reignites debate over the value of traditional higher education versus entrepreneurial fast tracks. Commenters note that the fellowship’s apparent “unicorn” success owes much to extreme selectivity, existing privilege, and Thiel’s network, making it hard to compare fairly with mass institutions that must serve millions of students and diverse goals. The exchange broadens into whether college is primarily about signaling and gatekeeping, how well it prepares people for careers and citizenship, and what alternative models—apprenticeships, bootcamps, or billionaire-backed programs—can realistically scale.
Paywalls and Access
- Multiple comments complain about paywalled news on HN and worsening experiences even for paying subscribers (upsells, nagging, more ads).
- People share workarounds like Firefox reader mode and archive sites to bypass paywalls.
Thiel Fellowship Outcomes vs Colleges
- Many note the basic comparison is skewed: a tiny, handpicked group with capital and elite networks vs millions of average college students.
- Some highlight the fellowship’s reported unicorn rate (~11 of ~900) as extraordinary for startup formation, especially given only $100k per fellow.
- Others stress this says little about college’s broader mission (educating masses, training professionals) and resembles Y Combinator more than a university.
- Several point out lack of a control: unclear how these fellows would have fared if funded while staying in college, or if tuition were paid instead.
Selection, Elites, and Networks
- Repeated claim: fellows are often already privileged (wealthy or finance-connected families, early multimillion-dollar raises), so the fellowship brands and networks winners rather than creating them.
- Counterpoint: elite colleges and scholarships also select from a small, advantaged slice and confer powerful networks; Thiel’s model is a difference of degree, not kind.
- Networking and targeted talent cultivation are described as longstanding practices in politics, entertainment, and music.
Value of Startups vs Societal Benefit
- Disagreement over whether unicorns inherently “add a billion dollars of value to society.”
- Critics argue company valuation and profit do not reliably track social benefit; examples include exploitative pharma pricing and harmful social media or gig-economy models.
- Others respond that large firms must provide some benefit within the rules society sets, though tradeoffs and negative externalities are inevitable; debate continues without resolution.
Role and State of Colleges
- Several see college as “broken but still useful,” especially as a gatekeeper to professions (medicine, research, elite firms) and a key hiring filter.
- College is framed heavily as signaling: a diploma as proof of persistence and a reputational shield for employers, with prestige especially valuable in law/consulting.
- Others emphasize non-academic value: personal growth, friendships, networks, and memorable life experiences.
- Critics argue universities try to do too much (cultural reproduction plus preprofessional training) and end up offering costly, diluted curricula, with the humanities particularly precarious.
Credentials, Hiring, and Alternatives
- Discussion of degrees as crude but convenient hiring filters; better alternatives (skills-based evaluation, open exams, apprenticeships) are proposed but acknowledged as resource-intensive.
- Some argue modern online learning, bootcamps, and new communities make four-year degrees less obviously optimal, especially given cost and opportunity cost.
- There is tension between advising young people to take the “safer” college path vs exploring riskier routes (startups, fellowships) with potentially higher but uncertain upside.