In hopes to keep this on topic, I'll ask a question: what would a startup that is disruptive to our education system look like?

Automated education sounds good. But in practice systems could be much, much better. Most teaching programs I've seen are found in the bargain basement bin at Staples.

Why?

A system like YCombinator that starts at the K-12 level. Students would be trained in programming, art, writing, and other methods of creation. When they graduate they get $15,000 and one shot at starting a business. In return, the school gets 2-10% of the company.

This makes my brain explode.

Ask Sequoia for ten million and try it as a charter high school?

The charter schools (mentioned at the last part of the show) are the equivalent of start-ups, while the big public school districts are like the big corporations. I think a mixed environment of (competing) charter and public schools is the way to go.

Most people would do just about anything to avoid the kind of stress and responsibility that comes with starting a business. This is in part due to upbringing, and your system would presumably attempt to remedy that, but to what extent will it succeed?

Being surrounded by smart, driven people is good for you, but there are minor side effects. For example, you start to think of the average person as far more similar to you and your friends than he really is.

My hope is that more people would choose stressful productivity over an errant sedentary lifestyle.

Can't you think of any options in between?

It would probably fail for all but the brightest :).

I suppose it doesn't matter as much for the rest. To better actualize the potential of the top 5% would be a wonderful change.

High school kids wouldn't even need the $15K. Just give em 2 year old laptops, a hosting platform, and let the parents provide for the basic needs.

> what would a startup that is disruptive to our education system look like?

Parents taking responsibility for educating their own children. I would never leave that up to government indoctrination school.

People have been brainwashed for far too long into spending all day working for someone else, while turning over their children to yet another third party -- composed of complete strangers -- at the same time. It's bizarre.

"Custom will reconcile people to any atrocity." -- George Bernard Shaw

that's not a startup

Sure it is -- two co-founders, creating something new, and seeing it through from a nascent stage to maturity.

I'll give your parents $1,000 for a 5% share of you. Do you have an exit strategy?

Declined -- already got a better valuation. Yeah:

    Five to one, baby, 
      one in five 
    No one here gets 
      out alive

But are you making something people want? That's the hope...

Wasn't one of the main reasons as to why most of us are joining a startup or starting our own, because our schools sucked so bad? this may be strange to say, but why fix it (besides saving costs)? look at places where education is good (Japan, Europe,...) and look at their entrepreneurial environment... I don't know about you, but most of mine were just mind numbingly boring. When I got to work for the big companies, it felt more of the same.... that's why I'm trying to stay out of those sterile places forever (while simultaneous trying to keep enough financial power)

I honestly was a poor student for most of my elementary school and high school education. In University I graduated near the top of my class (pats hand on back). Ironically, I think that high school above all taught me that I wanted to do a start-up. And even more ironically, I learned most of my math and English from my parents. School however was essential in teaching me empathy, social interaction, and I met most of my friends there.

Most educational software is towards students, but I think there is a huge need to empower educators, so they can create their own tech solutions for students.

Another area is parent involvement. Unfortunately the 20/20 show did not touch this subject, but I would bet that the underperforming schools also lack parent involvement.

A school is good or bad because of the population of students, rather than the teachers. And so, if you choose a school, and if you choose the "best", it happens to be the one with the best students. When everyone does this, it quickly leads to a regression to the mean.

Depending on the geography, this isn't a problem. But in an area in which there are wildly different populations of students near one another (as in many cities, where the poor and rich neighborhoods exist close by) it won't work. Parents in rich neighborhoods won't stand and watch the average IQ of their public school drop 15 points as idiots are bused in.

1) "Best" is subjective. What you consider best for your kid most probably will not fulfill the needs of all kids.

2) IQ has absolutely nothing to do with being rich or poor.

"2) IQ has absolutely nothing to do with being rich or poor."

But being rich or poor can at least be correlated with IQ, right?

My intuition is that IQ is a greatly imperfect measure, but the correlation of high IQ to positive things and low IQ to negative things is just too strong to ignore.

Perhaps you've seen this figure: http://woodrow.typepad.com/the_ponderings_of_woodrow/images/...

Why are we even talking about IQ, like it's even important?

I could be wrong, but in my opinion the only thing that IQ has really proven is its ability to predict how well a person will do in school. I doubt it really does much for predicting titans of industry (or some other area) and success in general.

I think its main flaw is that in general, life isn't constrained to a limited set of multiple choice answers; it's a lot more open ended and chaotic. Not to mention that some of the questions used to administer these tests are biased... and o yeah, there are also different types of intelligence...

(Yes I have a high IQ, and high scores of other major ancient traditional testing methods.)

IQ or the way it's currently administered is just too archaic, limited, and just outdated. It needs to change.

I totally agree with you, chaostheory. IQ completely ignores social skills (aka Emotional Intelligence), which is extremely important.

I brought up IQ simply because the previous commenter mentioned it.

Glad I'm not the only one to think that the idea of an IQ or how it's tested needs to change - Good thing you reminded me of that book too hehe

Look at my link there. IQ correlates with lots more than taking a test. How do you explain it?

Titans of industry, if honest, will attribute lots of luck.

it's been awhile since I took psychology so I can't reference any good specific studies from the top of my head, but here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iq#Criticism

The book EQ: Emotional Quotient is probably another good place to start...

I think most business "luck" is different from lottery luck

I don't deny the problems with the measure. I think a single number doesn't make much sense.

But my intuition is that you could fairly accurately rank people by intelligence, even if the quantitative number is ill defined.

People are different. Some are better than others in real ways. Many criticisms of IQ I've seen start with the a priori assumption that somehow differences mean lower worth. Reduced to absurdity, this leads to accusations of neo-eugenics.

I don't believe that any human is worth less than another, so I have no problem saying that some people are more intelligent than others when it is obvious.

Here is why it really matters: if we better study intelligence, we're well suited to learn to control it.

Significant artificial increases in human intelligence would be as important as the computer revolution.

I don't disagree with you here. I just don't think IQ is a good tool to use; unless you're just trying to predict someone's chances of earning a doctorate (nothing more and nothing less).