So you would expect similar [technology startup] success rates between a YC participant and a BCompSci with 1st Class Honours?
It's not a question of passion, it's a question of goal orientation. My experience is that results-oriented environments (like YC) have better outcomes than status-oriented environments (anyplace that confers come thing called a "BCompSci with 1st Class Honours").
> It's not a question of passion, it's a question of goal orientation.
Could you elaborate?
> My experience is that results-oriented environments (like YC) have better outcomes than status-oriented environments (anyplace that confers come thing called a "BCompSci with 1st Class Honours").
My experience is that successful people are successful. Name a traditional predictor of success and lots of success people don't have it in the background. YC just goes on the same pile.
Personally, I wouldn't participate in YC. To me it seems that the principal advantage of YC isn't that you get $x thousand dollars. It's that you will belong to a somewhat influential old boys network.
Define "success rate," because there's successful people out there from all walks of life. Larry and Sergey are clear examples of the academic route. Steve Jobs is not.
I think you're trying to put things in nice little buckets when the truth is that the world's a messy place. Also, it feels like you'll suffer from confirmation bias, as well. Maybe you're just thinking about the latest single-page-web-app startup. What about places like Bose, which came out of MIT? Or really any of the myriad companies that have been born out of academia.
Rate would be tech startup successes per student. Of course I agree that the rate for academic environments would be greater than zero, and some great companies too.
You're already comparing unlike samples. The base rate for startup success is constrained by ... starting a startup. Folk who rock up to the YC offices are already self-selecting into that group.
I think a better measure would be wealth net wealth at particular intervals -- 5 years, 10 years, 25 years, 50 years.
Worth noting that the "1st Class Honours" thing is just the level of a degree in some places (e.g. the UK). I can appreciate it sounds funny to some people, but then grade point averages and summa cum laude sound odd to me! :-)
In the Australian academic system, most degrees are taught as a 3-year program.
Some students are then invited to take an honours year, during which they will take postgraduate courses and undertake a research project.
That I earned "first class" means I earned a distinction for my project and maintained a distinction average for my coursework.
The difference with the US system is that the honours year is meant to prepare you to move directly into a PhD without needing further coursework. In the US system, when you take a PhD you do some coursework first and can terminate early with a Masters.
Basically you're just arbitrarily attaching "status" and "results" labels to things.
It's an argument I can't win, because by raising my own achievements by way of disclaimer[1], I am "bragging", which is a "status orientation" on my part.
But the fact that I worked towards a measurable goal in a structured way according to a plan of my own design -- that somehow isn't results-seeking behaviour?
[1] because usually, these discussions boil down to an argument between people with a degree and people without a degree -- and there's a strong correlation between the pro-degree/contra-degree camp and who has a degree.
It's not a question of passion, it's a question of goal orientation. My experience is that results-oriented environments (like YC) have better outcomes than status-oriented environments (anyplace that confers come thing called a "BCompSci with 1st Class Honours").