"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? (...)

The less it costs to start a company, the less you need the permission of investors to do it. So a lot of people will be able to start companies now who never could have before.

The most interesting subset may be those in their early twenties. I'm not so excited about founders who have everything investors want except intelligence, or everything except energy. The most promising group to be liberated by the new, lower threshold are those who have everything investors want except experience." - http://www.paulgraham.com/hiring.html

If PG has genuinely changed his mind in the face of new evidence, we should award him points for that. But he should also come out and admit it.

I didn't get the vibe that PG was saying not to start a company in college. I may have misinterpreted him incorrectly, but to me the advice was to not do both simultaneously.

He does mention that there are certain things you can't do if you start a successful company at a young age, but to me the main point was that when you take on a startup you have to be completely invested, and if you're still in school it will be very hard to find time work on both the company and maintain your grades.

So if you exclude 20 and 21, you are still in your early twenties and you just graduated from college.

PG is a living man. the essay is a dead document.

Everybody should adjust to facts and experience. PG points to an important issue that this is an important period in life where you are old enough to to do things kids can't, yet young enough without the daily responsibilities which will patiently wait for you for the next decades. The startup can wait after these unique years

Refusing to change your mind in light of contradicting evidence is not a virtue :-)

For the record, I do recall that YC changed their policy on this rather early-on its history (explicitly advising undergrads against applying) and pg has repeatedly told "Ask HN" posters on this site not to drop out of college.

Yea, I was kind of surprised when he said college students shouldn't start startups.

This could be partially because 10 years ago, PG thought startups were undervalued in society and wanted to preach them as a valid alternative route to success. Now startups are the new Pogs, with everybody in Intro to CS wanting to be a part of their college's official startup program. So maybe now he thinks they're overvalued and wants college kids to know that even if they could reach that "The Social Network"-ian dream (which, by definition, a majority of them can't), it wouldn't be worth it and they should enjoy their carefree life a little more before they bite off more than they can chew.

Or, like brudgers said, maybe it's a sign of personal progression. The overactive young PG wanted people to live the obsessively fast lifestyle like he did, but now the older and wiser PG thinks it wouldn't have done him too much harm if he spent a couple of more years crashing in random hotels around Beijing. Certainly the more amusing of explanations, I guess.

I think he's been iffy on that question for at least years. I remember a talk where he disagreed with an audience member who was suggesting people should always drop out.

Yeah I find that statement strange.

Not only that, but haven't the majority of the 'successful' founders in which he's invested either been in college or at least in their 20s?

Adjacent point: 99% of founders don't stick around with their companies for life like Mark Zuckerberg. That's an ideal scenario for a game-changing company. In the overwhelming majority of cases, you exit and move on.