Isn't this a Catch-22 though? In order to show that you can contribute PRs to the codebase, you must first get hired to AirBnB. And in order to get hired, you must first show your ability to contribute.
You mention that a way to show ability to contribute is through "professional references and career advancement", but doesn't that also first require that you get into the company first? For the former, you need work to find colleagues who can give meaningful references, and for the latter, you need to enter the job first in order to advance in it.
Am I missing something? Is there any way to get these jobs without first getting the (dubious) credential from universities?
It sounds like you actually largely agree with SomeCallMeTim. His point above is that solving Education is a Big Problem that has many non-trivial issues involved (entrenched interests, low budgets, slow purchase cycles, etc.), yet he "still wants to try." You make the point that the "industry is not welcoming for entrepreneurs", but at the same time, you are running an education start-up, which suggests to me that you believe it is possible to make a dent in the problems plaguing education.
My Big Problem to solve is education as well, and currently, I'm still trying to figure out the best way to tackle the root cause. I feel we are all inclined to use technology as the path to success, but perhaps more fundamental issues need to be dealt with first. If this is the case, then which issue do we initially target -fighting predatory business practices, creating a culture that values education, establishing employment credibility for non-traditional education, something else?
As I just mentioned in another response, you should look at Sudbury Schools [1] for inspiration on how education should work.
The entire current educational system is based on creating interchangeable docile workers for manufacturing jobs.
What we need moving forward are creative, intelligent, and self-motivated individuals who will create value in a service/information economy.
I just listened to a story on public radio that talked about business-without-employees, and referred to the new "Participation Age" as the future. It's worth a listen. [2] He also brings up Sudbury Schools as an example of this philosophy as it applies to education.
Yes, I agree with both of you about the desired direction of change. Where I disagreed was with the assertion that the problem with edutech companies is one of putting technology ahead of "interface". I also hope that innovative school structures help solve some of these problems.
I agree with enraged_camel, but not for the straightforward reasons. First, as a non-technical founder who recently learned (basic) coding skills, I can confirm his first and third claims - learning to program does make it easier to find developer support and it will greatly improve your appreciation for the technical aspects of the business.
However, most important should be the second claim since learning to code will help you build a crude MVP, allowing you to reach customers and validate your idea. In this sense, enraged_camel and OP are both correct because they both point back to the same concept of reaching customers.
IMHO though, it comes down to what value a company is providing. If it is a tech start-up where the software product is the main value-add, then a core competency must include programming. If it is a real estate start-up with a website, then learning to code can probably be pushed off in favor of customer development. So in the OP's case, the question would be, are we in business to build a SaaS tool to help teams or are we satisfied helping team management improve in any way possible?
Completely agree! For my start-up, beyond the core features, there's been a versioning system, front-end framework, database set-up, server maintenance, keeping up with patches to your coding language, fine-tuning CSS, analytics packages, user feedback tools, and that's just the list that I came up with in 10 seconds. In reality, there's actually much more.
You mention that a way to show ability to contribute is through "professional references and career advancement", but doesn't that also first require that you get into the company first? For the former, you need work to find colleagues who can give meaningful references, and for the latter, you need to enter the job first in order to advance in it.
Am I missing something? Is there any way to get these jobs without first getting the (dubious) credential from universities?