Slashdot Mirror
13-Year-Old CEO Steals the Show At TiECON
An anonymous reader tells us about a 13-year old Silicon Valley CEO with a plan to change the way kids learn chemistry. Yesterday he stole the show at TiECON 2007, the big entrepreneur conference held in Santa Clara, CA. VentureBeat has the story and a video interview. The company's VP of sales is the CEO's sister. She's 11. They're looking for $100K to ramp up production and distribution.
One of my Many, Many, many majors was Chemistry, So I can sort of see where you are coming from. However, as the parent of a teenager who just doesn't have ANY interest in chemistry, I have to say this is a good idea. A quick check before typing this reveals that while he has no idea what a noble gas is, he can tell you everything that is written on any Pokemon or Digimon card ever made. If you make the things that you are required to have a basic grasp of into a game, you are going to make a lot of kids initial foray into science less of a nightmare, without so much risk of building a hatred of the subject that will cripple their learning for the rest of their lives.
Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
I find it kind of sad. Yeah, the world probably needs the capitalistic natural selection to move forward, but I'd wish the kids would aspire for something else too, apart from trying to be rich.
The kid's idea is stupid anyway, sure you can roleplay very basic things with it by providing an analogy, but that analogy doesn't work consistently and does not allow for a deeper understanding of chemistry. So unless you are satisfied with the "iron card and oxigen card equals rust card", it does not allow for a deeper understanding. Don't tell me kids are not supposed to learn more at that (around twelve) age, you're probably expecting too little of them.
Either this kid is a gifted one, in which case he'd better spending his time working on something that has use or he's not and probably articles like this are doing a disservice by encouraging him and by taking his idea seriously. The kid apparently has charisma, but that is only enough for deluding people.
Talking about public education, initiatives like this boy's degrade education. For example not teaching children proper algorithms for basic multiplication, division and addition but instead encouraging them to come up with their own reasoning is the equivalent of starting a coding project with two tonnes of sand and some heavy metals. Most of the kids fail at it. It is not against self development and creativity to build upon the work of others, as progress is incremental.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Either you're teaching them something or you're entertaining them. Pick one. A 13y old is more than capable of learning about a lot of things, because for example I remember doing so at that age. Science education in the USA is notoriously less than what could and should be taught.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
He's a little Prince. The USA is drifting towards little personal kingdoms. Just ask Prince Cheney who has an entourage bigger than any royal visit when he travels overseas. Look that mentality of CEO's like Darl McBride - they see themselves as barbarian kings and act accordingly.
Instead of feeling outrage at a mere thirteen year old treading on adult turf, think of it as a learning experience, a project if you like, for what is obviously a very bright kid. I'd be impressed if he were my child. Is anybody truly surprised that he is inexperienced?
In most times, most places, by most people, liars are considered contemptible. - Ursula Le Guin
For me, it still exists: Monopolistic Competition. It's like Monopoly, except actually based on economics. I'll spare you the details, but I'm sure if I sat at the kitchen table for a weekend, I'd have all the minutiae figured out and a game fully designed. I think we've all had ideas like this when we were this kid's age, and that he simply got lucky (parental intervention, a grant of $500, the support of some gullible VCs, media coverage). The idea is interesting, but it seems like something I'd see sitting gathering dust on the shelf of the Discovery Store, not catching on and sparking any revolution.
From what I can see that's where this kid is coming from. Sure, the game won't teach you things like redox reactions, or actual experimental processes, but if you get a good grounding in the basics it makes it much easier to understand the more complex things later on.
You can learn a lot about a person if you just take the time to inject them with sodium pentathol
I was also making money before I was 13, and Elementeo doesn't surprise me. It is much more easier for children to be engaged in business than adults. First, children have lots of imagination, while in general few adults retain it after they turn 22-23. Furthermore, children are usually free of debt and get free food and financial support from their parents, and children normally have no responsibilities; compare that to an adult who is indebted, needs to work in order to eat, and has a family to support. Moreover, children have more free time than adults. Another important factor that is in children's favour is that they usually have good health, while many adults do not. Lastly, laws in general seek to protect children, an advantage mature entrepreneurs cannot have.
Different kids think different things are fun. These kids might have had a ball creating that prototype, and the process of learning what's needed for a business could be really intriguing too. And don't tell me that they didn't enjoy going to some grown-up trade show and having adults shower them with attention (and possibly venture capital money). Sure, they should make sure that they don't miss out on other more "kid-like" stuff, but who says they can't play little league and run a business? Just because you couldn't have at their age doesn't mean they can't.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
Let me a draw an analogy from a little athletic coaching experience I've had.
To get an athlete to perform at his best you have to get him to do a lot of training, which can be dull. Yet the quantity of training is not everything: quality counts for more. And dull training reduces the quality of effort.
So, to prepare an athlete to do his best, you need to find the right balance of stimulation and repetition. In other words, you can't turn an athlete into a winner if there is no fun in it any more. Remove the fun, remove the willing acceptance of challenge from the athlete, and as hard as you try to drive the athlete, the best you get is solid mediocrity.
Coaching an athlete is a form of eductation. I believe the principle I have just identified is not unique to coaching, but all forms of education. If all you want is to have consistent mediocrity, then it is easiest to impose a regime of harsh, joyless drilling. That's the problem with the way most education reform "standards" are conceived in most states. They drive all students to the mean.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
On the other hand I would prefer that his leisure time be spent riding a bike, reading a book, playing with his friends, camping in the woods etc etc etc than being a CEO.
You don't get it, that's exactly what he's doing... reading a book (probably this one) and playing with his friends ("Let's play start up - I get to be CEO!") The only difference is he may make enough money during his play time to pay for college. And if not, he sure learned more than my friends and I did selling lemonade.
So he gave a speech at a conference. Some kids join theater, forensics, or the marching band, some play baseball, some make speeches to Silicon Valley executives. As long as he *wants* to do it and enjoys it, why begrudge the kid his fun??
Economics is not physics -- unfortunately, it is taught as theology, without the "assume the universe and humans are like xyz..." premise that is always taken for granted.
If a particular group earns more than another, it is obviously because it is in the self-interest of most business owners to offer one group more than another. But is it because they are required to offer that higher salary thanks to competition from other businesses? of course not! Various large employers have sufficient clout to co-operate and adjust the salary levels of a great number of professions... so why don't they?
Well, why would Romans allow their slaves to make small profit, to give them the hope that they could pay their freedom (which sometimes, they did achieve)? Because this was the minimum necessary to give them hope, while keeping them in their place. It was necessary to ensure that the real wealth and power remained with the elites and those who would reinforce their system.
Same today: it is in the wider interest of all big business owners to give the greatest compensation to those involved in bolstering our current economic/political system -- themselves, the marketer, the public relations guy, the salesman -- but to avoid most of all giving to the labourer, who is actually producing the work. It is only the "small hope" that stops him revolting.
And what of the engineer? After all, in his 80 year life he is only three years more educated than the labourer. But in his desire to better himself, he has proven himself a threat: so you give him a more seductive taste of the dream, he feels that he has earned his "improved" status, and is well-behaved once again.
As to your suggestion that a small business CEO may have a challenging job... of course, any organisation is challenging to run when you deny the most important, productive cost-cutting measure -- to eliminate yourself. It is not easy to turn your objective from production into profiteering, at which point the CEO can shine.