My experience has been that even the lower half of Waterloo grads, in CS, are solid to good. I'd probably take the 20th percentile Waterloo grad over the 20th percentile Harvard grad absent other information.
Alternatives like the Thiel Fellowship might change this. The better students might choose these options instead.
This could break down traditional academia and legacy systems, leading to a more efficient society.
also, have we considered that optimizing for efficiency is not the best way to structure a society?
Efficient at what? Producing more highly-resourced sociopaths who share Peter Theil's values?
This presumes the context of able to be successful in business.
You may not agree with the values of Peter (I know I don't agree with all of them), but the graduates are often selected for being effective at business.
If those kinds of fellowships provide a better signal, then they would be more efficient by definition.
Your comment, though, seems to come from a place of political indignation. I hope you can reflect on how those kinds of comments reflect on your own values.
Is there a some other way to evaluate a normative discussion of social, business, and educational policy than by bringing values to bear?
To take Thiel's fellowship charitably, though, these people are both creating and extracting value. And programs like these might have a better track record of identifying, and accelerating these creators that somehow give the market what it wants. Markets aren't perfect but I'm not aware of a better system.
I am not sure Thiel's intention about talking so openly about monopoly, but I feel that effects that might align with your values are:
1. That people (hopefully regulators) are more aware of the value extracting monopolies. I know Thiel has talked very publicly against a few tech giants he doesn't like.
2. That people (hopefully creators) think more about creating tiny monopolies. The most common problem I see business creators make is that they attack a red ocean. So maybe he calls them monopolies, but I just use the term 'niche'. They're certainly a more likely way to succeed and they create value for other people.
Anyway, Thiel is also playing political games of 'us versus them' and trying not to look charitably on the others. I felt like your comment continued that sort of damaging perspective.
I don't think only sociopaths are succeeding - in fact, our world progress is proof that cooperation and trust work very well even against cynics that exploit it, overall. I also think that most people (including those that are vocal) really want good things for humanity. They might even have similar thoughts on how to get there. But the way they talk about it and their identity group seems to get in the way.
We just get stuck in narratives that focus on differences. When we do that, we don't move the other party to our side, they just dig their heels in. And we probably agree with them much more than we think.
> Thiel explained in a 2009 essay that he had come to "no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"
It looks like it was in the context of his seasteading project idea. He didn't so much want another government as no government. And not to replace a current government but to live outside it. It does sound like a fantasy, but it was certainly not in the tone of what is implied by it out of context.
I don't know a lot about Thiel but what you said made me curious if I had it wrong and this guy was a monarchist or something. There is a lot written about him but trying to find what he actually says is harder. It seems like, right and left, people try to use him as a mouthpiece because he says a lot of crazy sounding things that are often taken out of context or not fully understood in his meaning.
He recently gave an interview in the Atlantic where he touches on his political views. It's an interesting read.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2023/11/peter-t...
Some things you might be surprised by in the interview:
1. He no longer supports Trump and sees his presidency as a disappointment. He says he is now a supporter of Biden. He also stated that he didn't think the election was stolen but did think the presidency was stolen from Gore.
2. Though friends with an authoritarianist, he says he does not believe it in. He thinks Xi and Putin types will not cause innovation or greater freedom. He specifically declined to meet with Putin on invitation and instead informed the US government of the contact.
It seems like his support of Trump in his first term was a cynical accelerationist-style idea wherein to get out of a bad cycle in government, you make it worse. This is an awful idea for a few reasons. It looks like he no longer believes it though.
Another thing I think he has been very wrong on is support of cryptocurrency. Though I admit I also thought it was a good and interesting thing over a decade ago.
I'd say the worst thing about Thiel is his pessimistic tone which is paradoxical given how very optimistic he is about the potential future.
Anyway, I don't think he's what the far right wants him to be nor do I think he is what the left makes him out to be.