[johnnybgoode]

I'd be curious to learn more about your thinking on this. A few years ago you were heading in the other direction -- i.e., you were talking about how people could or should start companies at younger and younger ages.

pg, May 2005: "The three big powers on the Internet now are Yahoo, Google, and Microsoft. Average age of their founders: 24. So it is pretty well established now that grad students can start successful companies. And if grad students can do it, why not undergrads?"

pg, now: "Someone who can start a successful startup at 19 can do it as well or better at 22."

It seems this logic can be extended to say people should wait even longer. Someone with a few years of experience at 26 should be able to do a better job of starting a company than someone at 22.

So I'm interpreting this as a major change in your thinking. It certainly isn't a crime to change your mind; I'm just curious about how and when it happened.

[arvinjoar]

Let's say YC funds a 19 year old who bets everything on his startup instead of going to college. The startup fails and he has nothing to show for it. This puts pg in a bad spot, since he enabled someone who could be deemed a kid to screw himself royally.

I don't think it's a likely scenario though since getting accepted to YC and running your own startup should be enough of a merit to get you employed somewhere.

However, out of all the people accepted into YC there has to be at least one example of a person who not only did worse by doing a startup early on, but actually hurt himself pretty badly in the process. Of course, this is pure speculation, and there might not be any such cases.

Basically my theory is that pg just doesn't think it is worth it to potentially have blood on his hands (indirect as it might be).