Ok, seriously, this is getting ridiculous. Who the hell goes across the country compiling a list of the top ten nursery schools? I'm not convinced that such ratings are useful for universities, never mind high schools or lower tiers of education. The concept of a top-ten list of preschools just blows my mind.

(I still think it's great that PG is contributing to this in such a unique fashion, though.)

The current education system is a dire sad long term problem that is writing off a large portion of society. I believe something more sensitive and human can grow out of it.

Ken Robinson talks super lucidly about the destruction of creativity in children and the wider problems in schooling. That's great and the problem is now quite well defined. But we now need enlightened individuals to step up with solutions. We need to recognise it's the core problem humanity faces. We can't solve hard problems like energy and environmental degradation without first tackling the social problems perpetuated by Victorian schooling.

Someone with a bunch of cash needs to step up and help get the ball rolling.

- Define the desired outcome (ie. providing space and nurturing for the expression of individual talent)

- Pick the best parts of the existing schooling methods/models (Victorian / Steiner / Montessori / Summerhill / Home Schooling)

- Roll it out. Iterate. Recognise that educational needs are unique and change constantly.

- People will come. I'm a parent of three kids. Almost all our friends (especially teachers!) would run at something - if relatively large scale and supported.

Contact me if interested - maybe it's a startup! I'm really surprised there isn't more concerted action in this space.

We want creative adults. The solution is not simply to "nurture expression" in children. Most of the creative output of world history came from adults who were schooled rigorously in the techniques of their field.

Having creative adult mathematicians relies on developing skills and intuitions through rigorous training. You cannot "nurture" a child to do this.

Unsurprisingly, then, having brilliantly creative composers, painters, politicians and business professionals also requires difficult training first.

Our current educational system seems to over-emphasize the motions of developing analytical skills (without necessarily the rigor of showing that your analysis is right) and offers no opportunities to develop spatial skills. I don't mean the touchy-feely "modes of learning," I mean seriously being able to look in front of you and accurately discern the spatial relationships of the objects you see.

So my suggestion would be:

- Arts education beginning with basic drawing courses and branching out into other media. Studying art history to see how artists expressed themselves through styles of iconography, realism, expressionism, etc.

But seriously, there are schools that do roughly what we are both talking about, and the key idea at all of them is to avoid this idea of a messianic administrator to lead them. At really good schools, administrators are just teachers of teachers (like Plato) and the teachers have the full power to do what they need.

I'm all for rigorous and/or difficult training, there's nowhere near enough of that. Nurture does not imply wishy washy formless ness.

This is not about left vs right, liberal vs conservative. That needs looking beyond now, I think many are ready to move on from that now.

Creativity is not just drawing pictures. Creativity is physics, maths engineering, language. It's the spark of self expression and contribution, rather than dead reproduction.

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_meyer_math_curriculum_makeover....

Hopefully that will help to get some wheels spinning?

The only other information I have is that a lot of these nurseries use tests (like "put the block in the right hole") as part of their admittance exams, and high performance those tests show absolutely no correlation with later success. (Obviously kids who do very poorly might have other issues) That's from NutureShock.

And finally, in New York City these "top" nursery schools are considered feeder schools to the "top" elementary schools, and so on, so regardless of whether the kids in them have been better educated, they might gain an admission advantage to private high schools and consequently university. See the movie "Nursery University." (That's not actually a recommendation, it was completely painful.)

High-quality nurturing can only be done by the parents (generally speaking).

All else is secondary.

1) The comment I replied to above is pretty accurate, especially for younger children. The parents and environment the child is in are the largest influence on their academic success. If the culture of the area is not about education and success in learning, you've got a long uphill battle.

Honestly, you could pump all the money in the world into the worst high school in the country and it won't make a lick of difference if the students don't want to learn. Upping the school's finances won't change the outcomes on the level people are looking for. To get those kinds of results you need to change the culture and community around education. However, if a school/community is simply lacking resources, then it could make a huge difference.

2) Sending your child to Pre-K DOES better prepare them for Kindergarten and school in general. How much a difference one could truly make over another is not something I've ever actually asked my wife. Dinner conversation for tonight :-). I would also love to see the paper araneae had read and run that by her as well.

Education wise Pre-K will help your child with basics - colors, shapes, letters and numbers. However, the biggest thing Pre-K will do is help your child learn to socialize and interact with people their own age in a classroom setting. This doesn't sound like much, but it is actually a big deal.

3) Something not often thought about is WHEN to send your child to Kindergarten. Many schools have policies like "If your child will be 5 years old by December 31st", which may give you a choice. It is NOT always best to send your child to Kindergarten as soon as they are eligible to attend. If your child is ready, by all means send them. But if they're truly not ready, sending them is really not going to help them.

Only if you believe them. Sure, everything gets harder as you get older, including the 'basics' (such as walking). But for some learning was never easy, always hard work. The difference age adds to that is just another hurdle to overcome.

The big trick is to never stop learning.

> Now, I certainly recognize that many aspects of the current education system are overblown. But you're going to have a difficult time convincing me preschool is as dispensable as college.

Attitude is the one thing that is in-dispensable when it comes to learning, all else - including age - can be overcome.

Friends of mine joined the accounting club at their university because it had the best hockey pool.

So they end up at the end of the year invited to some wine and cheese thing where the guys from KPMG, et al, are talent scouting. Being the accounting club they are hanging out with a bunch of wall flowers. Started chatting with the guys from KPMG and at the end of the event they all have job offers, so my friend finally says we'd love to accept but we're english majors, they say, don't worry, if you really need to learn accounting we'll pay you to go take it.

But on ranking preschools...? That seems to be a stretch. All you parents out there, feel free to correct me. But my vague recollection of preschool consists of running around a playground, finger painting, and a nap.

(Btw, I don't think such a list would exist as it really doesn't matter.)

That's 1/40th of the $20k most startups get from YC.

[I don't mean to detract from the good cause being raised for here - but I think society should expect people to give back to charity/good causes/etc proportionally to their wealth - surely most young startup founders that YC attracts are likely to have limited funds and putting everything into their startups? I guess I forget trust funds, "daddy's money" etc]

I'm working on an idea (applied to this round of YC but didn't make the cut), and the primary thing I need/want from YC is the mentoring and connections. Funding-wise, the $15K or so they'd invest wouldn't shift the needle of my personal finances one bit. I saw this post and briefly considered the idea of bidding, and then flying out from Boston for lunch if I won.

I am not saying this to brag about the fact that I don't necessarily need $15K. I am saying it because it is important to recognize that not every startup founder is in the same or age income bracket.

You are also confusing or blurring the line between YC and pg. Paul would likely be able to dispense valuable advice and offer insight and perspective on the current VC trends to a wide variety of startup founders, including those that are in the mid-30's with some experience and an idea. As I write this, it occurs to me that perhaps the people who CAN spend $500 on a lunch may be the types who would need or want some kind of advice on an entry path to the game since they can't follow the live cheap and eat ramen path.

I do. I would probably donate up to $500 for this prize, but mr Graham would have to fly to Europe :-)

However, you're implying the 20k$ startups get from YC represents all the value derived from being a YC startup. If I ever apply to YC, it will be for press coverage, the YC network and sound advice.

The issue I have with YC is that I think the 'extra benefits' can be gained in other ways that doesn't require you to put a valuation on your company. I've been living here in SF for many years and I feel I have access to many of the 'extra benefits' YC gives through my own network (without having to take a specific route of funding)

That's not to say if if your idea is freaking amazing or you two click, he isn't ABLE to fund you. The chance is slim, but maybe just slightly more then meeting him on the street since he'll listen to what you have to say since your money is going to a good cause.

Either way, bid. The chance to meet him alone is worth $500 in my book.

https://pgnet.stanford.edu/give/home?mop=CC&gfty=G&p...

It would be better something like: How to meet P.G. for discussing about your startup. Simple and effective.

The implication is that the taker is making life easy for the taken, all the taken has to do is show up.

However, there is another business scenario in which a mentor uses lunch as the opportunity to schedule time with their mentee. Sharing a meal often provides a less formal setting and fosters the personal relationship.

This case appears to be a combination of the second and third scenarios.