Slashdot Mirror
Grab A Bunk In The Dot-Com Dorm
airrage writes "According to this Washington Post article, the University of Maryland has created "dot com" like dorms complete will all the necessary executive perks: wood desks, leather chairs, wireless, whiteboards; all to encourage entrepreneurship. Apparently, it's working too. Twenty of the students have created their own start-up firms, and six are already generating revenue."
Wood desks? Leather chairs? What the fuck for? I went to an Ivy League business school, and I currently run my own business, and I've *never* heard that in order to run a company, you have to have the best equipment. If anything, it's teaching these kids to fail. Anyone who spends this much just to *start* a business on unnecessary shit doesn't know how to cut corners on luxuries to make a new business succeed. It's impossible.
If they really want to teach these kids to run companies, they should set up an office that looks like their parent's basement, complete with folding chairs, ramen noodles for food, and a barely functioning PC. That's how real businesspeople do it. These are just some spoiled little shits who would never have the balls to start a business that isn't financed by venture capitalists (of yeah, and mommy and daddy).
This post was written in a relatively successful 4 week old store while sitting on a chair from the 1970's found in a broom closet, using an old P233, which also functions as the POS system, music player for the store, bookkeeping system, and graphic design station, in a store that was painted, lighted, and outfitted solely by the owner.
In some ways, I guess it is good because people won't start selling a ripoff of the company's product, or use company tools to make an invention and then sell it for personal profit. However, I can see it being bad because it also restricts what you can do with the knowledge you gain from a job. If you are able to invent something great, using only the knowledge you have gotten from a job, it seems unfair that you don't actually have any rights to that idea.
Some say "terminal entrpreneurs" describes them better. Gotta admit though, most of these people aren't in it for the big bucks; they really just want to make enough to fund their next venture. It's these companies that get a lot more interest (note: i didn't say money) while the economy is in the dumps as it is now and it is small businesses that really create jobs. I say more power to them.
It's a neat idea. Traditionally, college students who create viable businesses in their dorms have done so in spite of their surroundings. This project sounds like a way to give students an environment and a set of expectations that's conducive to starting up a business.
For that matter, most people outside of college can and should upgrade their surroundings in ways that would boost productivity. One post-college insight I've gotten is the huge difference in the working environments that successful people choose to set up for themselves. Good chairs and whiteboards should be seen as a necessity, not a luxury.
One potential pitfall of this venture, not mentioned in the article, is how U of M is going to avoid potential liabilities and lawsuits arising from student startups that go sour. The average failed startup has nothing left to sue, whereas a state university has deep pockets for disgruntled investors.
I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
...not to mention that kind of money, I would've startrf a real business. Not another bullshit dot-com that's built around *synergy*. I probably would've gotten a few used ovens to put in there, run down to the grocery store to get the basics started, and print out a shitload of flyers to put around campus announcing my new pizza business. THAT'S a *real* business. These kids are just playing make believe. I doubt that any of 'em have ever worked a day in their priviledged little lives.
sounds counterproductive to me. They are supposed to start a business and go to school. I had a business when I was in school. Guess which activity took up most of my time? It wasn't school.
....better be making a nice amount of cash just to break even with the building they are housed in costing over 14 million.
Not necessarily. All you can say is that they aren't generating revenue. We know nothing of their expenses and we know nothing about what phase the businesses are in.
Scenario 1: Bob and Ted come up with a killer business idea. They incorporate as a business, come up with a business plan, and begin looking for investors to provide venture capital. So far, all expenses have been trivial out of pocket stuff (incorporation fees plus some phone calls and maybe minor travel). Is the business generating revenue? No. Is it fair to call it a money pit just because it's taken in some money? No.
Scenario 2: Bob and Ted have found the venture capital. They're currently in the process of spending it in order to develop the product that their business will sell. Since the product isn't ready yet, they obviously can't sell it. Is the business generating revenue? No. Is it fair to call it a money pit? Not if the product can be finished with the money they've got and will sell well.
So just because a business doesn't instantly jump from existing to generating revenue is no reason to label it a money pit. Sure there were dot coms that spent lots of cash and wound up with nothing to show for it. There were also companies that spent lots of cash and then wound up with even more cash to show for it.
The one thing the article failed to address was the nature of the businesses. The Maryland side of DC tends to specialize in Genomics and biotechnology, while the Virginia suburbs do the more traditional e-commerce things (odd how geographic differences spring up in virtual/tech businesses, but that's a different post). Given the massive start up costs of most biotech ventures, the fact that 6 are generating revenue may not be at all bad. But to me, the most interesting thing about this (as a Maryland grad), is the idea that taking smart students, putting them in swank digs, is somehow going to generate a better mouse trap. Whether the end product is a genome sequencer, a great work of literature, or the next great super-virus, colleges and universities seem to love chucking money at rather small groups of students in the hope of producing something special. Does it work? I don't know that it doesn't, but I can think of other projects that I think might have a better chance of success. Lastly, I think the article's description of the dorm rooms was a bit misleading. It made them sound like the students are given all the creature comforts as well as the necessary technical and business tools. But it actually doesn't sound all that different from any of the newer dorm rooms at U of M College Park -- they are all actually pretty nice -- with a few extra mechanical and technical gadgets. Just a few thoughts.
Universities don't own the ideas that students come up with on their own, outside of class, only things that you need to turn into the school. For example, a project you wrote for class could be sold by the school, but something you wrote in your dorm room in your spare time would be yours.
Lonely?
Find love on the internet
Interociter
-=What do I want? I'm an American. I want more.
Ok, Firstly I think you meant to say "Bill and Ted", but anyways...
"Scenario 2: Bob and Ted have found the venture capital. They're currently in the process of spending it in order to develop the product that their business will sell. Since the product isn't ready yet, they obviously can't sell it. Is the business generating revenue? No. Is it fair to call it a money pit? Not if the product can be finished with the money they've got and will sell well."
Sorry, but I disagree here. Your first point, alright. But this to me is the very definition of money-pit - Throwing tons of money at an idea that "will" pay off in the future. By your own scenario, the definition of money-pit can only be applied retroactively. If you throw a ton of money at something for two years, it's in limbo - if it comes up bad then it must have been a money-pit.
I'd say that a business is a money-pit untill it starts generating revenue. At that point it loses its pit status, but untill it demonstrates that you're better of investing your money than burning it...
... I suddenly have a strange compulsion to rent a Tom Hanks movie...
...Also, I didn't know Buggalo could fly.
I agree 100%. Whatever happened to pure research? It seems as though tertiary education these days is all about applying learning to make the quickest and biggest buck possible. Unless your scholarship/discovery has some sort of immediately-apparent commercial potential, most universities don't seem to be too interested in it (unless, of course, they have one of those "work for hire" type IP clauses where all your IP you develop there belongs to them).
Which is probably why most "innovations" these days don't seem to be anything radically new. They seem to be "better, faster, smaller, cheaper, smarter" versions of the same old stuff. Without research for the sake of research, we wouldn't have 99% of the "older" technology we take for granted.
Hmm, I seem to be repeating myself, to the tune of "Professionalism to excess is a bad thing." Whatever happened to having fun, anyway? Since when did our culture start glorifying the workaholic as the ultimate hero-figure anyway? I thought university was supposed to be for learning, playing, getting radicalized, pushing the boundaries, and other such similar things. University is short. Working life is long...oh, boy, is it long. I think people should enjoy it while they can. Anyway, starting my own business in a "business incubator dorm" doesn't sound like my idea of a good time -- or a good education.
I'm not a geek, I'm just a clever script.
I am a Computer Science student at the University of Waterloo. I am just getting involved in the beginnings of a company (technology related if you must know, but not a dot com). People involved are from London, Waterloo, Toronto, and elsewhere. As far as places to meet, my residence is out of the question because it is too small, and does not offer the conveniences that these students are offered. If I had access to a board-room style table with whiteboards and conferencing equipment, and all for free, then I would have a much better setup to host meetings.
I see everyone here bashing this article, but it is actually quite an interesting program. Don't forget that aside from the material perks, you are also required to live in this dorm for 1/2 of your school career, so you will be around the same group of LIKE-MINDED ENTREPRENEURIAL people. This is a huge benefit, as half of the job of 'networking' is already done for you.
The reason Santa is so jolly is that he knows where all the bad girls live.
I'm not a "real entrepreneur" at least by your definition, but it's worth mentioning that the cost of having comfortable and reliable office equipment is downright cheap. I'm not arguing for $900 leather chairs (especially since I'm vegan; ) but these days, the cost of equiping an office appropriately amounts to maybe a thousand bucks. I've got a great computer worth no more than $750, a super comfortable chair from Staples for $90, plus some other odds and ends. The bottom line is it helps my productivity and I don't feel like hell at the end of the day. Yeah, I suppose I could do my work on a folding chair and a 486 I scrounged from the Salvation Army, but why? My time and comfort is worth something, particularly when it can now be bought so cheaply.
If U of Md wants to spend a bit of money so these students have a great working environment, that's terrific. It's a super-cheap investment, which amounts to a tiny gamble. Now, let's see if it pays off.
I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
Whatever, it shows you can't prioritize well. Your job as a college student is to learn everything in the classes you enroll in. If you are going to run 2 businesses and 3 clubs, you should consider not being in college, perhaps, and save a lot of money.
(and I had a poor GPA too, but don't make excuses about it)
A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master merely stays out of the way.
If it were Bill and Ted, then the business would almost certainly become a money pit.
"But this to me is the very definition of money-pit - Throwing tons of money at an idea that "will" pay off in the future."
Except that I never said tons of money. Also, there's a difference between spending money on an idea and just throwing it at it. If I purchase a store front, renovate it to add tables and a kitchen, prepare a menu, and hire a chef and wait-staff that will begin working next week, have I created a money pit? Probably not. Yet, I've still got a week before more restaurant will take off.
There's an inherent timelag between the initial outlay of money in a business and when money starts coming back in. It varies based on the business -- in a software context, it often takes a significant amount of time before you've got something you can sell.
"By your own scenario, the definition of money-pit can only be applied retroactively."
Not quite. It can only be confirmed absolutely retroactively, but that's just because hindsight is 20/20. Before that point, it's something of a judgement call. If a business is spending what it expected to spend, and it's on-track for the goals that it has set, then it seems odd to label it a money pit.
For example, let's say Bob and Ted discover that there's a good market for a certain software product, via carefully conducted market studies. Now let's say they find that, as far as they can tell, no one is developing such a product. They plan out the software development and decide that it'll take 6 months of work from a 3 man programming team to get this done. Since Bob and Ted are both business students who don't know how to program, they use their venture capital to hire 3 programmers. At the 3 month mark, the project is on schedule and shaping up great. At the 5 month mark, it's slightly ahead of schedule. Bob and Ted have spent 15 months worth of programmer pay, and they've gotten exactly what they were expecting from the spent money. Is this a money pit? I honestly believe it isn't, as there's nothing to imply that they're wasting the money.
Now consider a similar case. Only at the 4 month mark, they discover that they're behind schedule and hire a 4th programmer. At the 5 month mark, they're further behind schedule, and they have reason to believe that they greatly overestimated the demand for their software. In this case, they are most likely wasting money, and it's already turning into a money pit.
The key thing is that a money pit is a pit. The business has started tossing cash into it, and isn't getting results. In the non-pit case, even though there's no revenue, there are measurable results to indicate that the money has been properly spent and that the business is on the right track for profitability.
"I'd say that a business is a money-pit untill it starts generating revenue. At that point it loses its pit status, but untill it demonstrates that you're better of investing your money than burning it..."
That method prevents you from seeing the big picture. If an investment is at the point where it has an 80% chance of paying off tenfold what you put into it over the next 3 years, but it's not paying off yet, then you're certainly better off than if you had burned the money. All investment is a gamble, but some of it is a gamble where the odds are stacked in your favor. If that's the case, then it's considered a good investment up until/unless it actually fails. In the long run (or over a variety of investments), the investor wins.
Not a product in sight. If any of these people where to actually be bright enough to deal in actual "see, order, touch, own" products -- then would not the money better be spent on shipping, distribution, collections, customer service. I think that was the whole problem with the .com bust -- all sorts of tools (leather chairs, compuers, ping pong tables) and no tangible product. In the end the consumer spends money on the same things they have always spent money on. Technology can only offer different avenues for shopping for and ordering product. All the technology and VC in the world is not going to replace air with product.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
There are really two classes of achievers. One is the one whose driven to bear the fruits of their mind. The other is driven to do the best he can at whatever task they are put to. That second class will have high GPAs, the first will have GPAs that are lower then what they could have if they worked harder.
I would say that most innovation comes from the first class, but that a lot of success and wealth is generated by the second class (often times by exploiting the first class, but hey)
Lonely?
Find love on the internet
Indeed.
Spoken like a true .com-er-- all about the toys and not one mention of a product. Here's a few questions I have and also what the interviewer should've asked:
.com shit... Smoke, mirrors, and speaches.
What exactly are these businesses? What are the services or products they provide? Of those, which ones are turning a profit?
Sounds to me like a bunch of
mod me down and never know the truth.
-jokerghost
Yeah, I mean, who the hell needs perseverence, rigor and accountability when you can have, uh... real-world experience. Which usually means "lived in my parents' basement for four years and ate pizza to try and be more like CowboyNeal".