I think it's a really stupid idea to link a grant to dropping out of school. If an idea is worth a $100000 grant, why does it stop being worth that money as soon as someone turns 21 or has a degree?
I did drop out of school and I don't regret it. Many dropouts are very successful, many more are not. And to be honest, I would sue that guy if my kids dropped out of a computational biology program to go write some social picture upload site in PHP.
The odds of some web startup working are non zero. But the odds of doing something more interesting later with that degree are also non zero. Computational biologists can create social picture upload sites as well, even when they're over 20 believe it or not.
College-aged people are grown-up enough to live their own lives. I know it would be painful to see one's child getting involved with PHP, but in the end that should be their own choice to make.
Absolutely, I just don't want some rich guy bribing them to drop out. If they develop a great passion for a startup idea, I will provide that grant myself after a period of time and after a rigorous debate.
I would hope the point of the foundation is for people whose parents cannot provide the grant after the rigorous debate.
The discussion prior to applying for the grant is a function of your family, not of the grant. Though I would also think that Peter would only fund people who have worthwhile ideas.
My initial reaction was that I agreed with you - but then I considered that an awful lot has changed in the 20+ years since I graduated with a CS degree (and indeed I dropped out from the latter stages of a PhD to co-found a startup).
I have an 11 year old son and his school has started to talk about University (mostly as vieled threats of - if he keeps his attitude to homework up he won't get into a good University etc.). By I do keep asking myself what the value of a degree is - I enjoyed the course I did immensely but I have to say that I've never regretted dropping out of the PhD I was doing, so why should this not apply to a first degree?
I suspect that, on balance, that if my son was 19 and got this offer I would say "go for it" - the experience, the opportunity and the exposure you would get is likely to be worth far more than any purely academic qualification.
What if it turns out you're a lousy entrepreneur and still want to solve hard problems? Without a degree, you're forced to be an entrepreneur. They won't employ you to work on interesting problems without any kind of formal education. Not having a PhD isn't quite the same.
It is all about risk/reward - I would assume that nobody hands out $100K without a large degree of due diligence. So by crossing that hurdle you probably have gained enough of a reputation that would equal (or exceed) the value of a CS degree.
I would also guess that most universities would allow you to put your course of hold for a year or two - keeping your options open.
I would also dispute the question about whether you need a degree (or even a higher degree) to work on "hard problems" - to me, basic aptitude, ability to self learn and sheer drive are far more important than academic qualifications of any kind. The only area where higher degrees are an absolute requirement being a few exceptionally picky employers and academia itself.
I really want to agree with you as I don't have a degree. Still I don't see why dropping out of school or being under 21 should be a precondition for a grant. That reeks of politicking.
Learning is a life long process. I would very much encourage my kid to do it - they would get to bring a passionate idea to fruitition, get exposed to running a company and get mentored by very smart entrepreneurs.
If it doesnt work out, I'll still pay for them to finish their degree the next year.
It makes a political statement that may or may not be appropriate, and helps him target the funding. I personally think it would be morally hazardous as an investment, but it is hard to fault as a grant. The requirement may simply be to avoid having kids continue with their schoolwork on the side.
>>>And to be honest, I would sue that guy if my kids dropped out of a computational biology program to go write some social picture upload site in PHP.<<<
That's precisely the problem. Writing a social picture upload site in :gasp: PHP has become a well trodden path of sorts. A supposedly sure shot guarantee for something vague and undefined. I think that the problem with trends is that the minute something becomes a trend. It stops being something worthwhile 15 minutes before that.
What's so shocking and wrong to walk off the well worn path? If they actually choose to use the $100,000 to work on something meaningful then the world might actually be a better place.
Of course, you say they don't know the basics yet! That's the interesting thing. When you learn something in the heat of passion then you burn through the same material at a rate faster than you could have ever dream of. You learn through trial and error. Understand things at a deeper level to make stuff work. Why is that so wrong?
Instead of some dumb exam your trial now lies in your creation. It either works. Or, it doesn't. Period.
Wasn't this the entire point of having an education in the first place?
No, everything about it is nonsensical. Learning can be much more intense than in school just as working can be much more intense than in some 9 to 5 job. It's not a matter of age at all.
Getting a degree has other benefits. You might develop a passion for something you didn't know before. Something that's not as approachable as PHP. Something harder. Instead of a one off payment, a degree might enable you to fund your own startup whenever you have that great idea or develop a passion for something.
What if that social picture upload site bores you after a while or doesn't make you rich and you'd rather write algorithms to find patterns in cancer genes? Where will Peter Thiel be when you decide you want to go back to uni to study theoretical physics because you hate PHP?
My point is that I don't want to write a bunch of idiotic code to serve up images on the web no matter how much money that would bring. I would rather write algorithms that simulate the cellular environment as you said, but in this case wouldn't it be better to follow a path like this? Using the money to focus on what you need to learn and working with people who actually know what they're talking about?
It's fine if you get into an awesome college like MIT and Stanford where you can do something analogous to this through UROPs, but what about those kids who can't afford it? Wouldn't this be a golden opportunity to them?
Yet again, just like in college it depends on what kind of person you are. If you want to just chase dollars then you really might be better off in school, but if you want to work hard on hard problems and actually make a contribution. Then this just might be the best thing in the world. For example, where I live an undergrad doing research is unheard of. It's pure sanctimonious nonsense. Students are expected to mug up for exams get good grades, get a job then go do their masters. Or, do a MBA and then.... Well I guess you get the drift.
What happens to someone passionate in a grind like that? For someone like that Peter Thiel's endeavor might actually make a lot of sense.
I don't deny that it could be an opportunity for someone. But to provide that opportunity, the stipulation that you need to drop out of school is completely unnecessary. It excludes other people who might have good ideas and passion as well. This is Peter Thiel making a point about the education system. I get that point, but I don't like the way he makes it.
The issue this. If someone likes to solve hard problems but isn't a good entrepreneur he/she needs a degree. Just look at who Google hires. Or Halcyon Molecular, the company mentioned in the article (http://halcyonmolecular.com/team/positions-available/). We need many more people solving hard problems than we will have good entrepreneurs. Getting that degree means to leave a door open that you can walk through if it turns out you're a lousy entrepreneur but still want to solve hard problems. That said, it's better to drop out of school than be totally frustrated by it. It's better regardless of whether you get a $100,000 grant or not.
[Apparently Paul Graham doesn't like our debate though. It's a flame war apparently, even though I didn't think it was. That's why it takes longer and longer and loooonger for the "reply" link to appear]
Nah. If my guess is right then it's an exponential function of some sort. You know, the deeper nested the reply the greater the power of some f(x) and longer the time it takes for the reply to hit. There is a way around it though. If you directly link to a comment. A reply box automatically appears.
You know, what I haven't mentioned so far is that I want to go back to college someday and learn everything I can for the sheer pleasure of it. Perhaps, even get that oft dreamed of PhD. So, yes I understand your point, but don't you think that it will be a net win to apprentice under people like Peter Thiel?
He can teach anyone a lot about how to actually get around the entire changing the world charade. If it doesn't work out then fine you have a line on your CV re-enter college and apply whatever you've learnt over there. In a lot of ways that would be the most fruitful thing to do as real knowledge really lies between intersections of concepts. It's like one line of thought represents this plane on which we can walk, but the weird stuff always happens in the intersections of planes. Two, three or more concepts meeting and making shapes that confound us. If you really want to do something with your life then training under someone like that would be like magic.
He could probably teach me more about navigating that space than 90% of the college professors out there. So, in a way it's still a net win, don't you agree?
Ah, brilliant I didn't know that direct link trick :-) I know it's some function that determines when the link appears, but PG wrote that function (presumably) with some intention that I don't really understand. Some very crude form of stopping flame wars I would have suspected.
I don't know that it's that simple to go back to uni any time you want. You need the funding, you need to be admitted, you need to find the motivation, and depending on your age, some carreer paths might be closed at that point.
That said, I agree that it could be a great experience being coached by Thiel and his guys. Personally I would definately prefer that to a university degree. If kids learn that much though, why can this not be done in cooperation with some university so those kids get a degree afterwards? I feel a bit strange making the case for formal education as I'm usually on the other side of this debate and I dropped out of school the day the law let me.
Meh. It's a sign that I've been playing with HN far too long.
You know nothing worth doing is ever that easy. At my age going to university is fraught with problems too and I doubt it that I will be able to get the most out of the experience as compared to the bleak old age of 25. I've just got too many issues to worth through to do anything else. It's tiring. So, this actually makes a lot of sense.
I think that it's a statement about commitment. He's blowing $100k on these kids and they better put their eggs where their mouth is. I know that it is impossible to juggle both college and something like this at once, and it would be a tiring endeavor to tie up with schools. Plus it's awesome PR. So, I guess he didn't think twice about tying up with someone.
> I would sue that guy if my kids dropped out of a computational biology program to go write some social picture upload site in PHP.
So, your kid applies for a grant because he thinks it's good for his life. The Thiel Foundation gives him $100,000. And you'd like to sue the foundation for giving your kid money that the kid applied for to do what he wants with? That's... kind of crazy to me.
No, you shouldn't take "sue" too literally. I know it's totally impractical. I just think it's a stupid and completely unnecessary stipulation to _require_ kids to drop out of school and at the same time exclude everyone else who might have a good idea and a passion.
> No, you shouldn't take "sue" too literally. I know it's totally impractical.
Okay, that makes sense.
> I just think it's a stupid and completely unnecessary stipulation to _require_ kids to drop out of school and at the same time exclude everyone else who might have a good idea and a passion.
I kind of like it, myself. He's partially making a statement about the mainstream education path - personally, I think people would be better off if they worked and/or traveled from 18 to 20 or so, and then went into university with some experience and critical thinking.
I remember I went back to university some years after dropping out, and I already had experience in entrepreneurship and writing the popular company newsletter, as well as writing contracts, specs, marketing materials, and lots of communications with clients, staff, contractors, etc. Back at university, I had a required course on writing. It was taught by a young adjunct English professor who had done less writing than me whose ideas were absolutely terrible. She was big on form and rules, but didn't understand that the point of writing is to communicate. Her rules were getting in the way of communication. Luckily, I knew better, so I did what I could to get through the class but didn't let her corrode my practical writing with her rules-based nonsense. Especially in business, it's important to communicate clearly - none of the most successful people I know obey grammar and rules very strictly. I feel bad for the younger people that get exposed to such poor quality ideas before seeing how the real world operates.
There's nothing preventing your communications from having good grammar. Are you really saying that good grammar would have detracted from your communications? I'm curious.
> Are you really saying that good grammar would have detracted from your communications? I'm curious.
I am saying that, yes. Basically, the time it takes to filter a complex thought into correct grammar is frequently a waste of thought cycles.
An example - I was invited to lunch with a good friend of mine who was a broker, and with a top real estate developer in Los Angeles. The developer was an immigrant to America, and he's really rough around the edges. Mid-lunch he calls out, "Water no cold!" to the staff. (He meant no ice. They figured it out)
I'll use run on sentences if it lets me construct an idea the way I want. I'll use the dash sometimes - y'know, kind of like that, even if it's not appropriate. Sometimes I'll comma sentences together, like I did the sentence before this, even if it's not strictly correct.
As long as it reads correctly to people and ideas get across, it works. Kill floweryness. Kill fluff. When I write to my literary agent to schedule a meeting, he writes back "confirmed" - nothing else. First time I saw that, I was like, "Well, that's kind of short of him." But then when I saw how fast he responds and how much he got done, I started just writing "Confirmed." to people. Though, I capitalized the "C" and added a period, so maybe I'm not in his ballpark yet.
You gotta think what your goal is when you write - if taking the time to grammar-ize something correctly doesn't help you get that goal, forget the grammar. Communicate your message clearly, that's all that matters.
I agree that a message needs to be communicated clearly and that whatever aids in the message's clarity should be used (or left out).
The example from your literary agent makes sense only in the context of scheduling a meeting--the day, time, and place (or medium) you have suggested. This goes, it seems to me, to a message's completeness. Sure, your agent is efficient as long as the agent's confirmation is held in the context of your request. But on its own, the agent's message falls short.
Grammar and punctuation should aid in concise and complete communication. I love the way many authors can skirt good grammar while achieving better communication. So I agree with your conclusion. Tim
I actually agree with the main point. In every one of the examples, however, the person who spoke isn't thinking about communication, but about himself.
"Water no cold!" may result in snickers amongst the wait staff, and they may not even understand. "Water, no ice please" is certainly more respectful and appropriate. Simply saying "confirmed" is easier for your agent, but it may insult the recipient by being so terse.
Use good grammar with acquaintances to show respect and professionalism. Use your own style with people who know you well to show your personality.
Comments
I think it's a really stupid idea to link a grant to dropping out of school. If an idea is worth a $100000 grant, why does it stop being worth that money as soon as someone turns 21 or has a degree?
I did drop out of school and I don't regret it. Many dropouts are very successful, many more are not. And to be honest, I would sue that guy if my kids dropped out of a computational biology program to go write some social picture upload site in PHP.
The odds of some web startup working are non zero. But the odds of doing something more interesting later with that degree are also non zero. Computational biologists can create social picture upload sites as well, even when they're over 20 believe it or not.
College-aged people are grown-up enough to live their own lives. I know it would be painful to see one's child getting involved with PHP, but in the end that should be their own choice to make.
Absolutely, I just don't want some rich guy bribing them to drop out. If they develop a great passion for a startup idea, I will provide that grant myself after a period of time and after a rigorous debate.
What the heck do you think Peter Thiel's evil motives are here? He's trying to help those people and disagrees with you about how best to help them.
I would hope the point of the foundation is for people whose parents cannot provide the grant after the rigorous debate.
The discussion prior to applying for the grant is a function of your family, not of the grant. Though I would also think that Peter would only fund people who have worthwhile ideas.
My initial reaction was that I agreed with you - but then I considered that an awful lot has changed in the 20+ years since I graduated with a CS degree (and indeed I dropped out from the latter stages of a PhD to co-found a startup).
I have an 11 year old son and his school has started to talk about University (mostly as vieled threats of - if he keeps his attitude to homework up he won't get into a good University etc.). By I do keep asking myself what the value of a degree is - I enjoyed the course I did immensely but I have to say that I've never regretted dropping out of the PhD I was doing, so why should this not apply to a first degree?
I suspect that, on balance, that if my son was 19 and got this offer I would say "go for it" - the experience, the opportunity and the exposure you would get is likely to be worth far more than any purely academic qualification.
What if it turns out you're a lousy entrepreneur and still want to solve hard problems? Without a degree, you're forced to be an entrepreneur. They won't employ you to work on interesting problems without any kind of formal education. Not having a PhD isn't quite the same.
It is all about risk/reward - I would assume that nobody hands out $100K without a large degree of due diligence. So by crossing that hurdle you probably have gained enough of a reputation that would equal (or exceed) the value of a CS degree.
I would also guess that most universities would allow you to put your course of hold for a year or two - keeping your options open.
I would also dispute the question about whether you need a degree (or even a higher degree) to work on "hard problems" - to me, basic aptitude, ability to self learn and sheer drive are far more important than academic qualifications of any kind. The only area where higher degrees are an absolute requirement being a few exceptionally picky employers and academia itself.
I really want to agree with you as I don't have a degree. Still I don't see why dropping out of school or being under 21 should be a precondition for a grant. That reeks of politicking.
Learning is a life long process. I would very much encourage my kid to do it - they would get to bring a passionate idea to fruitition, get exposed to running a company and get mentored by very smart entrepreneurs.
If it doesnt work out, I'll still pay for them to finish their degree the next year.
What is the downside?
Good if it works out like that. But what's the point of linking the grant to dropping out?
It makes a political statement that may or may not be appropriate, and helps him target the funding. I personally think it would be morally hazardous as an investment, but it is hard to fault as a grant. The requirement may simply be to avoid having kids continue with their schoolwork on the side.
>>>And to be honest, I would sue that guy if my kids dropped out of a computational biology program to go write some social picture upload site in PHP.<<<
That's precisely the problem. Writing a social picture upload site in :gasp: PHP has become a well trodden path of sorts. A supposedly sure shot guarantee for something vague and undefined. I think that the problem with trends is that the minute something becomes a trend. It stops being something worthwhile 15 minutes before that.
What's so shocking and wrong to walk off the well worn path? If they actually choose to use the $100,000 to work on something meaningful then the world might actually be a better place.
Of course, you say they don't know the basics yet! That's the interesting thing. When you learn something in the heat of passion then you burn through the same material at a rate faster than you could have ever dream of. You learn through trial and error. Understand things at a deeper level to make stuff work. Why is that so wrong?
Instead of some dumb exam your trial now lies in your creation. It either works. Or, it doesn't. Period.
Wasn't this the entire point of having an education in the first place?
I don't need to be convinced that learning can be much much more intense than it usually is in school.
So, should you not celebrate such an endeavor?
No, everything about it is nonsensical. Learning can be much more intense than in school just as working can be much more intense than in some 9 to 5 job. It's not a matter of age at all.
Getting a degree has other benefits. You might develop a passion for something you didn't know before. Something that's not as approachable as PHP. Something harder. Instead of a one off payment, a degree might enable you to fund your own startup whenever you have that great idea or develop a passion for something.
What if that social picture upload site bores you after a while or doesn't make you rich and you'd rather write algorithms to find patterns in cancer genes? Where will Peter Thiel be when you decide you want to go back to uni to study theoretical physics because you hate PHP?
I understand.
My point is that I don't want to write a bunch of idiotic code to serve up images on the web no matter how much money that would bring. I would rather write algorithms that simulate the cellular environment as you said, but in this case wouldn't it be better to follow a path like this? Using the money to focus on what you need to learn and working with people who actually know what they're talking about?
It's fine if you get into an awesome college like MIT and Stanford where you can do something analogous to this through UROPs, but what about those kids who can't afford it? Wouldn't this be a golden opportunity to them?
Yet again, just like in college it depends on what kind of person you are. If you want to just chase dollars then you really might be better off in school, but if you want to work hard on hard problems and actually make a contribution. Then this just might be the best thing in the world. For example, where I live an undergrad doing research is unheard of. It's pure sanctimonious nonsense. Students are expected to mug up for exams get good grades, get a job then go do their masters. Or, do a MBA and then.... Well I guess you get the drift.
What happens to someone passionate in a grind like that? For someone like that Peter Thiel's endeavor might actually make a lot of sense.
I don't deny that it could be an opportunity for someone. But to provide that opportunity, the stipulation that you need to drop out of school is completely unnecessary. It excludes other people who might have good ideas and passion as well. This is Peter Thiel making a point about the education system. I get that point, but I don't like the way he makes it.
The issue this. If someone likes to solve hard problems but isn't a good entrepreneur he/she needs a degree. Just look at who Google hires. Or Halcyon Molecular, the company mentioned in the article (http://halcyonmolecular.com/team/positions-available/). We need many more people solving hard problems than we will have good entrepreneurs. Getting that degree means to leave a door open that you can walk through if it turns out you're a lousy entrepreneur but still want to solve hard problems. That said, it's better to drop out of school than be totally frustrated by it. It's better regardless of whether you get a $100,000 grant or not.
[Apparently Paul Graham doesn't like our debate though. It's a flame war apparently, even though I didn't think it was. That's why it takes longer and longer and loooonger for the "reply" link to appear]
Nah. If my guess is right then it's an exponential function of some sort. You know, the deeper nested the reply the greater the power of some f(x) and longer the time it takes for the reply to hit. There is a way around it though. If you directly link to a comment. A reply box automatically appears.
You know, what I haven't mentioned so far is that I want to go back to college someday and learn everything I can for the sheer pleasure of it. Perhaps, even get that oft dreamed of PhD. So, yes I understand your point, but don't you think that it will be a net win to apprentice under people like Peter Thiel?
He can teach anyone a lot about how to actually get around the entire changing the world charade. If it doesn't work out then fine you have a line on your CV re-enter college and apply whatever you've learnt over there. In a lot of ways that would be the most fruitful thing to do as real knowledge really lies between intersections of concepts. It's like one line of thought represents this plane on which we can walk, but the weird stuff always happens in the intersections of planes. Two, three or more concepts meeting and making shapes that confound us. If you really want to do something with your life then training under someone like that would be like magic.
He could probably teach me more about navigating that space than 90% of the college professors out there. So, in a way it's still a net win, don't you agree?
Ah, brilliant I didn't know that direct link trick :-) I know it's some function that determines when the link appears, but PG wrote that function (presumably) with some intention that I don't really understand. Some very crude form of stopping flame wars I would have suspected.
I don't know that it's that simple to go back to uni any time you want. You need the funding, you need to be admitted, you need to find the motivation, and depending on your age, some carreer paths might be closed at that point.
That said, I agree that it could be a great experience being coached by Thiel and his guys. Personally I would definately prefer that to a university degree. If kids learn that much though, why can this not be done in cooperation with some university so those kids get a degree afterwards? I feel a bit strange making the case for formal education as I'm usually on the other side of this debate and I dropped out of school the day the law let me.
Meh. It's a sign that I've been playing with HN far too long.
You know nothing worth doing is ever that easy. At my age going to university is fraught with problems too and I doubt it that I will be able to get the most out of the experience as compared to the bleak old age of 25. I've just got too many issues to worth through to do anything else. It's tiring. So, this actually makes a lot of sense.
I think that it's a statement about commitment. He's blowing $100k on these kids and they better put their eggs where their mouth is. I know that it is impossible to juggle both college and something like this at once, and it would be a tiring endeavor to tie up with schools. Plus it's awesome PR. So, I guess he didn't think twice about tying up with someone.
Anyway, it was awesome talking to you. :)
Take care.
See?
I can go as deep as I want as quickly as I want now.
I really think that someone should email mr. Graham about this.
edit: I just did. :)
> I would sue that guy if my kids dropped out of a computational biology program to go write some social picture upload site in PHP.
So, your kid applies for a grant because he thinks it's good for his life. The Thiel Foundation gives him $100,000. And you'd like to sue the foundation for giving your kid money that the kid applied for to do what he wants with? That's... kind of crazy to me.
No, you shouldn't take "sue" too literally. I know it's totally impractical. I just think it's a stupid and completely unnecessary stipulation to _require_ kids to drop out of school and at the same time exclude everyone else who might have a good idea and a passion.
> No, you shouldn't take "sue" too literally. I know it's totally impractical.
Okay, that makes sense.
> I just think it's a stupid and completely unnecessary stipulation to _require_ kids to drop out of school and at the same time exclude everyone else who might have a good idea and a passion.
I kind of like it, myself. He's partially making a statement about the mainstream education path - personally, I think people would be better off if they worked and/or traveled from 18 to 20 or so, and then went into university with some experience and critical thinking.
I remember I went back to university some years after dropping out, and I already had experience in entrepreneurship and writing the popular company newsletter, as well as writing contracts, specs, marketing materials, and lots of communications with clients, staff, contractors, etc. Back at university, I had a required course on writing. It was taught by a young adjunct English professor who had done less writing than me whose ideas were absolutely terrible. She was big on form and rules, but didn't understand that the point of writing is to communicate. Her rules were getting in the way of communication. Luckily, I knew better, so I did what I could to get through the class but didn't let her corrode my practical writing with her rules-based nonsense. Especially in business, it's important to communicate clearly - none of the most successful people I know obey grammar and rules very strictly. I feel bad for the younger people that get exposed to such poor quality ideas before seeing how the real world operates.
There's nothing preventing your communications from having good grammar. Are you really saying that good grammar would have detracted from your communications? I'm curious.
> Are you really saying that good grammar would have detracted from your communications? I'm curious.
I am saying that, yes. Basically, the time it takes to filter a complex thought into correct grammar is frequently a waste of thought cycles.
An example - I was invited to lunch with a good friend of mine who was a broker, and with a top real estate developer in Los Angeles. The developer was an immigrant to America, and he's really rough around the edges. Mid-lunch he calls out, "Water no cold!" to the staff. (He meant no ice. They figured it out)
I'll use run on sentences if it lets me construct an idea the way I want. I'll use the dash sometimes - y'know, kind of like that, even if it's not appropriate. Sometimes I'll comma sentences together, like I did the sentence before this, even if it's not strictly correct.
As long as it reads correctly to people and ideas get across, it works. Kill floweryness. Kill fluff. When I write to my literary agent to schedule a meeting, he writes back "confirmed" - nothing else. First time I saw that, I was like, "Well, that's kind of short of him." But then when I saw how fast he responds and how much he got done, I started just writing "Confirmed." to people. Though, I capitalized the "C" and added a period, so maybe I'm not in his ballpark yet.
You gotta think what your goal is when you write - if taking the time to grammar-ize something correctly doesn't help you get that goal, forget the grammar. Communicate your message clearly, that's all that matters.
I agree that a message needs to be communicated clearly and that whatever aids in the message's clarity should be used (or left out).
The example from your literary agent makes sense only in the context of scheduling a meeting--the day, time, and place (or medium) you have suggested. This goes, it seems to me, to a message's completeness. Sure, your agent is efficient as long as the agent's confirmation is held in the context of your request. But on its own, the agent's message falls short.
Grammar and punctuation should aid in concise and complete communication. I love the way many authors can skirt good grammar while achieving better communication. So I agree with your conclusion. Tim
I actually agree with the main point. In every one of the examples, however, the person who spoke isn't thinking about communication, but about himself.
"Water no cold!" may result in snickers amongst the wait staff, and they may not even understand. "Water, no ice please" is certainly more respectful and appropriate. Simply saying "confirmed" is easier for your agent, but it may insult the recipient by being so terse.
Use good grammar with acquaintances to show respect and professionalism. Use your own style with people who know you well to show your personality.
Unlike what linguists would have you believe language is really bendy (check out Pinker's work http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/index.html ) and you can play around with it a lot.
Which linguist worth his money doesn't believe language is really bendy?
What if your kids didn't really enjoy computational biology but were passionate about building web products?
Then they drop out of school, as I did, and don't need to be bribed to do so.