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.
I would've been helpful if there was a link to his site in the summary.
11-year old... shouldn't this be 'senior' VP of sales?
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 was the top of my class at 13, but only because I found what I was learning to be entertaining. If I hadn't been enjoying the learning, I wouldn't have done it. If this helps kids who are otherwise not interested in learning chemistry to be more interested in learning it, then great! I understand that some people poorly implement modern experimental teaching strategies and end up with kids who learn nothing, but that doesn't mean that all modern experimental teaching strategies are crap or that all implementations of them are poor. This kid sounds like he has a pretty good idea. I wouldn't want to see a class converted to playing this game instead of using books, but if the kids enjoy the card game as a supplement to their class, and if it helps them to learn more from their class, what's the problem?
I know those words... but the way you use them, they don't make any sense...
With upper management so young, there might be some decent perks. Maybe snacktime, naps, and cartoon netwoork and console games in the breakrooms. (Naptime especially if the parents are overbearing.) I could always go for on the job naptime and ice cream Wednesdays at Coldstone.
*shrug* never worked for someone younger than me
~WBGG~ "And I'm so sad like a good book I can't put this Day Back a sorta fairytale with you" ~Tori Amos
As somewho knows something about Chemistry (going to the 2007 Moscow IChO), this idea is flawed. A high school chemistry syllabus is structered the way it is for a reason. I can think of several examples. 1. Chemistry is not all about elements, even at this basic level. For example, how will they teach acid-base chemistry? How will they teach gas laws? Even if this is just a small component of the syllabus, it is a waste. 2. There is too much of a gulf, knowledge wise, between the reactions that are listed in this RPG. For example - 2Mg + O2 -> 2MgO . This is simple to explain, using an Ionic Bonding Model. But then, using similar cards, you have 2Al + 3O2 -> Al2O3. Now you have to teach valencies. Then you have H2 + Br2 -> 2HBr. Try explaining that with an Ionic bonding model (If you can, account for it's properties). Then, lets say they do do acids. Mg + 2H+ -> Mg2+ + H2 . But how do you then account for Au not reacting with dilute acid, whereas Mg will? At this level? How do you account for Mg + Cu2+ -> Mg2+ + Cu ? Teaching electrochemistry cannot be done at similar times to teaching a simple valence bond theory, but that is what will happen with this stupid solution. My take - chemistry may be boring in high school, but so are most things. It's structed in a way that builds upon previous knowledge, and this guy is just hoping to make a quick buck off VC's with a product that is clearly not thought out.
"Sure there's porn and piracy on the Web but there's probably a downside too."
You could not be more wrong. This attitude is what separates drones from fully-formed human beings.
Sure, most teachers aren't good enough to do both, but it's that handful of wonderful teachers for whom teaching while entertaining come naturally that can instill a lifelong love of learning. It makes me sad to think you have never found learning entertaining. I can remember classes in music, film, physics, mathematics, literature and history that were great fun and in which I learned a great deal.
I pray that yours is not a widespread point of view on Slashdot because it could mean that our educational system has failed worse than I thought or that there is a high correlation between people who take an interest in technical matters and those that have no soul.
You are welcome on my lawn.
It was a practical demonstration of why leaving school early is a bad idea.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
To make you feel like a loser for not having your own company by now. I say we kick his ass and take his lunch money. I might be in my 30's, but I'm not above beating up people who make me feel threatened and useless. You in?
Perhaps a third word should be introduced, how about engaged. Whenever the student is engaged in what is being taught, they will learn more about that subject. That engagement could come because the student finds the material interesting for it's own worth; or perhaps the student is entertained by the teacher who keeps their attention while the student is learning.
I believe either method can be successful. For some students (yourself included) perhaps they would never allow themselves to be entertained while learning so that method will not work. I believe whatever method, and I am sure there are others, is employed as long as the student is engaged they will learn something. If the student simply does not care and is busy daydreaming or thinking about other classes they are engaged in, well, I can't believe they will ever gain knowledge on the subject.
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.
Dude, you want to become a CEO?
Go file incorporation paperwork. Poof you're a CEO.
it is not hard to become a CEO, it's a title on a piece of paper that costs for about $150 to file for a LLC. nothing magical, nothing powerful, nothing to give any respect to just because someone says they are a CEO.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Despite what the Dilbert strips will show, being a CEO is generally much more difficult/mentally draining than being a technical grunt with a well defined job. Take a look at a construction related industry for example: some steel worker setting beams for a structure curses the engineer all day, because the engineer has an "easy job", and sits in an office, and "doesn't know what he's doing." As someone whose been on both sides, I can tell you: being an engineer is much more difficult/stressful/ambiguous/stressful, than being the laborer. If this analogy isn't enough, think back to frosh economics, and try to explain why the supposedly "easier" job makes more money. So this engineer/worker analogy applies to the CEO/engineer comparison as well. As someone whose been on both sides, I can tell you: being a CEO is much more difficult/stressful/ambiguous/stressful. Specifically, a CEO, practically by definition, deals with more uncertainty and ambiguity than anyone else in the organization. While you think you're a rock star, because you have a well defined(or at least semi-defined) job, that you, well, rock; the CEO (the successful ones anyways) must continually "micro-invent"(yes, my phrase) in the face of near complete ambiguity, all the while playing the whole political side with investors/boards/etc... In summary, the laborer who knocks the engineer doesn't know shit, which is why: a)he makes less than the engineer. & b)he knocks the engineer. And the engineer that knocks the ceo, doesn't know shit, which is why: a) he makes less than the ceo. & b)he knocks the ceo. I know, its all generalizations, and isn't meant to be taken as a catch all for every person/ceo/engineer. But you get the idea-- I'd take physical labor any day (all other things(salary)constant, of course).
!#&*