But if the founders/companies are selecting for people from top schools, regardless of whether or not that is rational in itself then it still makes sense for students to try and go to top schools.
I don't disagree about the rationality of students aiming for those schools. But it's a vicious cycle. The complaint that "college is too expensive" is only true if people only go to expensive colleges. But "college" in general isn't really all that expensive. Some colleges are, and the problem is that this has been where top-companies have been traditionally recruiting from. My assertion is that if top companies stop using "expensive schools with gamed USNews rankings" as proxies for "places to find good employees", then students won't feel as much need to go to those overpriced schools in the first place.
That's true, but this particular problem is not representative of the value of college in general.
I would have no objection if Peter Thiel and others were saying "hey maybe it's not worth all that debt for you to go to a top school." But that's not what they are saying. The message is "college is not worth it at all."
And Thiel might be right that some people don't need college--and those are the people he wants to fund. But that is a tiny tiny slice of humanity.
Do we really want tech to be like pro sports or music, where millions of kids make bad life decisions because they assume they'll make the big time? If Jay Z told high school kids they don't need college because they can become hip hop superstars like him, you would probably mock him. But that is exactly the same as saying that kids don't need college because Zuckerberg.
> I would have no objection if Peter Thiel and others were saying "hey maybe it's not worth all that debt for you to go to a top school." But that's not what they are saying. The message is "college is not worth it at all."
And if that's not a reflection of the SV reality warping bubble I don't know what is. If it's not Tier-1, you may as well not even bother because no-name state school is the same as a G.E.D. in this world view.
Didn't Zuckerberg attend Harvard?
I think that part of the appeal of these elite schools is the filtering system that you have to go through in order to be even offered a place there, very high grades and extra curricula achievements.
It wouldn't surprise me much if "Dropped out of Harvard" is better to have on a resume than "Graduated top of class in community college".
But isn't that kind of the problem? Somebody like Zuck doesn't bother finishing, but FB culls mostly kids who graduated top-tier.
And Dropped out of Harvard probably is better than graduated top of class in a CC, because these aren't fully comparable places. I'd much rather hire a person who finished their education in local state school than the person who couldn't be bothered with 4 whole years in one of the most competitive admissions schools in the country.
Thiel has been pretty open that he has more of a political problem with higher education: he thinks it turns people left-ish, and therefore he sees it as an obstacle to the advancement of libertarian politics in the next generation. I'm not sure whether it does or doesn't help people's careers is really the main question for him.
... then it still makes sense for students [who specifically want to get into the startup scene and/or want to get a shot at very specific employers] to try and go to top schools.
That's not the same as saying it makes sense for all students across the board to try for those schools.
It's nice to have options especially with the most presigeous companies and I don't think it's just the startup scene.
In the UK it's not uncommon for the top universities to have more potential employers turn up to a careers event than potential employees. That's a nice situation to be in.
