I hate this vision. Tell every child they're the next Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates, and then let fail over and over again (which is the fate of most startups in the valley), and watch them get discouraged and drop out when they figure out that, structurally, only a few can win big, and a few more win enough to make a living.
The article is the worst sort of magical thinking, that because some people did X and became Y, we should all start doing X. Ironically, it decries the interchangeability of the current products of the education system while arguing for a different sort of interchangeability: A system where we're all entrepreneurs instead of factory workers. How does any idea where "we're all" something seem even remotely plausible?
Comments
I hate this vision. Tell every child they're the next Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates, and then let fail over and over again (which is the fate of most startups in the valley), and watch them get discouraged and drop out when they figure out that, structurally, only a few can win big, and a few more win enough to make a living.
The article is the worst sort of magical thinking, that because some people did X and became Y, we should all start doing X. Ironically, it decries the interchangeability of the current products of the education system while arguing for a different sort of interchangeability: A system where we're all entrepreneurs instead of factory workers. How does any idea where "we're all" something seem even remotely plausible?