Item — HN Reader

The optimal path (at least if you're not going into a regulated/gatekept profession, or not from a very poor/disadvantaged background on a full ride, or using the university program as an immigration pathway) seems to be: 1) Get accepted to a top school 2) Enroll and then drop out (figure out the minimum for your school to consider you a dropout -- I think you probably have to register and take classes for a semester, but you may be able to simply not pay the bill) 3) 20 under 20 (or just do a startup/get a job/continue with life directly)

You get >50% of the value of the school (proxy for an IQ test, basically, although with the decline of testing this is less obvious -- still, even without rigorous testing, many people, especially those far from academia, consider "accepted to top school" to be valuable.)

I basically did this (out of necessity; I couldn't afford to pay for MIT), but it's worked out well, and it's worked out pretty well for other people I know. With dropout you need to distinguish between "dropped out to do X, or for decent extenuating circumstance" vs "too much drugs", though, when looking at stats.

4 comments

That’s not a strategy - it’s just selection bias.

No,OP is arguing that conditioned on being able to get into a good school, it makes sense to just drop out as that captures enough of the signaling value.

I understand what they are saying and I’m saying the outcomes they are referring to are simply selection bias.

Everyone knows about the dropout billionaires (Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, etc.), but nobody knows about the many people who dropped out to make a startup and failed. The majority of people who try startups fail.

Unless you have a time-sensitive breakthrough idea, I think it’s better to take a pragmatic approach and at least finish college so you have a backup, or at least work on a startup in college, and then drop out if you become successful, not before.

And the replier to OP is arguing that just because it worked for OP and a friend doesn't mean it's a good strategy. This is selection bias.

I also think of it as a survivorship bias and some correlation/causation violations: Me and my successful friends (I don't hang out with unsuccessful people) have similar stories, therefore our choices are a pattern which can be followed to our successes.

I could say "every successful engineer I know either abuses drugs or has in the past" and it could fundamentally be true for me and the group of people I know. But would you agree with me if I said that abusing drugs is a smart strategy to succeed?

Selection bias is the primary value of many universities -- Harvard graduates 98% of its students: https://college.harvard.edu/resources/faq/what-harvards-grad...

The prestige is conferred by acceptance.

Comment is saying that many people know this and the prestige of acceptance is often good enough without requiring the time investment of completing the degree (which clearly isn't threshing out poor performers).

Choosing to be in the 2% shows intelligence to me!

> Enroll and then drop out (figure out the minimum for your school to consider you a dropout

Stanford considers everyone who has completed three quarters (equivalent of two semesters) of a degree program alumni, and they are eligible for `@alumni.stanford.edu` accounts. <https://alumni.stanford.edu/help/alumni-email-faqs/>

Isn't this a bit too cynical? Is there nothing of value that can be, you know, learned at MIT? What about the social aspects of being in college?

You can absolutely get value out of being at a good school (I'd say even a mid tier school has value) -- both academic and social. It's just...is that worth $200-300k and 4 years of your life?

There would also be value in getting a great job as a top-tier-school dropout ("intern who just loves this place and how fast everything is progressing, seems like a shame I have to go to school in September, but I'll keep in touch" "Now that I'm at school every day I miss..." "can you come back and start monday?")

I think you get an overall superior package from dropping out and doing 20 under 20, joining a top company, or doing other stuff at a top level (even if it fails) than from universities today -- particularly as universities have gotten dramatically worse over the past 30 years (and especially past 5 years), and the requirement for a degree doesn't really exist (absent immigration pathways) in cs/tech.

I'd take "my YC friends" over "my college friends" overall, too.

This all assumes a highly motivated and self directed student. I don't think university really saves "I don't know what I want to do, my parents are telling me to go to Harvard so I will"; IMO if you're 16-18 and have no idea what kind of things you enjoy you've already failed/been failed.

Sounds neurotic imo. You are supposed to enjoy those 4 years.

Sounds like the parent is enjoying his chosen life path even more? Or certainly more than paying for 4 years at MIT.

Not everyone is lucky enough to have rich enough parents to get a full ride, or to have poor enough parents to qualify for a free ride.

Well I’m irked by asking if it is “worth” 4 years. You should want to live in your life. Especially at a wonderful school like MIT.

College friends are probably diverse. YC friends sounds like a bunch of similarly neurotic people.

Do you not understand the concept of paying for large sums by yourself? (or paying off the loans for that sum)

It would not be that wonderful because of this burden, hence the comment.

> You can absolutely get value out of being at a good school (I'd say even a mid tier school has value) -- both academic and social. It's just...is that worth $200-300k and 4 years of your life?

Most undergraduates at top schools aren't going to come anywhere near paying $200-300k. The top schools almost all have very generous aid programs that cover most of the cost by scholarships. Here's some data for MIT [1].

[1] https://sfs.mit.edu/undergraduate-students/the-cost-of-atten...

Your link doesn’t show what percentage of undergrads receive aid. I would imagine that the vast majority of MIT undergrads come from households making >$225k, and so would receive perhaps some but not much aid. Still paying $52k / yr according to your link

> I would imagine that the vast majority of MIT undergrads come from households making >$225k

Median family income for MIT students is $137k, per this article: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobilit...

> IMO if you're 16-18 and have no idea what kind of things you enjoy you've already failed/been failed.

Please. College is a chance to gain exposure to things you otherwise never would know existed. I knew what I enjoyed doing going into college, but I found a lot more.

Insights, I think, but not really exposure.

> IMO if you're 16-18 and have no idea what kind of things you enjoy you've already failed/been failed.

I'm sorry, but that is narrow-minded to the point of absurdity.

what's 20 under 20?

Thiel's program as discussed in the article this post is about.

GP probably meant Forbes' 30 under 30.