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.

13-Year-Old CEO

[gutnor]

At least that help to demonstrate that a CEO only need to know how to make a keynote. Technical knowledge, experience, ... : that's only required for low salary workers.

Re:Relevant?

[the_unknown_soldier]

This is just a tacky thing that sounds fun to a 13-year-old

That's the whole point. It's not meant for those studying year 12 chemistry, its meant for kids. Nobody is teaching thirteen year olds "the procedure for a titration? The workings of an atomic absorption spectrometer? Electron configurations? Secondary interactions?" They are teaching them the basic concepts of chemistry that this game attempts to put forward.

Stealing childhood

[zaphod_es]

Childhood is a precious time and I would not want my kids of that age to be doing this sort of thing. Childhood is something that should be treasured and nurtured. It is very sad they way that kids are rushed to adulthood so they can become consumer units. I find the sight of 10 year old adults quite pathetic.

Re:Stealing childhood

[TobiasTheCommie]

>Childhood is a precious time and I would not want my kids of that age
>to be doing this sort of thing. Childhood is something that should be
>treasured and nurtured. It is very sad they way that kids are rushed
>to adulthood so they can become consumer units. I find the sight of
>10 year old adults quite pathetic.

Yes, it is so awfull that children don't have the time to grow up that they had 400 years ago.

I mean back then, girl had a whole 13 years to be kids before they got married off. And boys got to play and have fun untill the age of 11, at most, before they had to help their fathers with the work.

It is so true that nowadays kids have their youth stolen from them.

I mean, sure, back then kids had to work a lot harder from a younger age. and now they have to hold only parttime jobs while they go to school.

Back then kids had to work hard during the summer vacations, in the field, farming. Whereas now they can relax and spend time with friends.

Back then kids pretty much had their entire life planned and settled down by the age of 16, but now they have the choice of what work they want, and they have the time to study for it, and can wait till they are a whooping 25-26(hell, even further) before they settle down.

But yeah, kids these days, having their lifes stolen from them.

I know i would MUCH rather have my 9-14 year old kid work in a coldmine with me, than my 13 year old kid be the CEO of a little company, because, gosh, being a CEO would steal his youth from him. And working in the coalmine would only steal countless years from his life.

And i would MUCH rather have my girl married off, as soon as she hit puperty(11-13), to someone twice or thrice her age(20-30+) instead of getting to decide for herself at any time between the age of 18 and ... well, whenever...

Yes, lets go back to how it was, when kids had time to grow up.

Re:Relevant?

[ikioi]

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?

Re:13 Year old CEO?

[mad flyer]

I know those words... but the way you use them, they don't make any sense...

Why does the age matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

The mental age is what matters and if these kids have a mental age of 13, they're already more mature than most executives. They're probably also better adjusted with fewer physiological and emotional problems.

Scary isn't it?

Chemistry

[zaguar]

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.

Too young

[niceone]

You can see from just the summary that they are too young and inexperienced - if they want to be taken seriously they should be asking for at least $5M. (hmmm, funny? insightful?)

Re:Stealing childhood

[zaphod_es]

Well we seem to be pretty well agreed on almost everything. All the old abuses you list were quite dreadful. Life has improved in many ways for most people in developed economies and it is a very good thing that that those old abuses have mostly gone.

Of course the fact that things have improved enormously is no reason assume that perfection has been reached and nothing more needs to be done. You would rather your child be a 13 year old CEO than working in a mine. So would I. 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. And no, I don't think it possible to do them all.

Re:Relevant?

[A beautiful mind]

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.

There is a difference between something being deeply interesting, "cool" and entertaining. Mathematics, physics, chemistry, etc. are interesting, fascinating, but not entertaining on the level entertainment is commonly used, that is games, movies and pop music. School involves studying, exercise. Learning only by entertainment is very very hard.

I'd appreciate that you wouldn't make far reaching assumptions based on a short post of mine. Especially if you happen to be wrong about it. I have been lucky to have great teachers in high school and it was a joy to learn in their classes. They made mathematics, physics and history interesting, but their goal wasn't to entertain me, but to teach me.

Re:Chemistry

[Dr.Boje]

You make some good points, but I think you're overlooking a couple important things.

First of all, I really doubt that the intention of this game is to completely replace a chemistry class, much less a high school chemistry class; after all, this is a 13-year-old still in middle school. I think the intention of this game is to get kids interested in chemistry and teach them the basics (regardless of how basic it may be) without alienating them from the subject.

Secondly, it's understandably easy for anyone who sees "13-year-old CEO" to start hurling criticisms and nitpickings. If you just put those aside for a moment though and look at what's been produced, you'll see that the game really could be beneficial to kids that played it. Sure, they're not going to learn about acid-bases or gas laws or this and that, but that clearly wasn't the point of the game. It is what it is and it certainly has the potential to teach kids chemistry, perhaps even instilling a fondness of the subject in many of those who play (and ideally I suppose they would register for chemistry classes and enjoy learning the subject in much more detail). After all, things are apt to stick better in your memory once you associate them with something and, since a ton of kids love games, this may just be a great way for them to learn.

re-title: 13-year-old's parents push him to be CEO

[192939495969798999]

Do i detect the familiar setup of a stage mommy/daddy here somewhere going "you're not raising seed money fast enough! no dinner tonight!"

Re:Relevant?

[jcm]

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.

Re:13 Year old CEO?

[Lumpy]

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.

Re:Chemistry

[Lumpy]

Easy! havent you seen pokemon cards?

I trump your water card with concentrated Hydrochloric acid!

Wait! did you add the water card to the acide card or the other way around?

Water into acid, why?

BOOOM! all your cards have acid burns on their faces!

WTF is wrong with slashdot?

[sloth jr]

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.

Honestly - how about aspiring to TEACH KIDS IN WAYS THEY WANT TO LEARN?
There, read his webpage [elementeo.com] - find out what his intentions are, rather than just making stuff up.

The kid's idea is stupid anyway

If you can impart two or three important concepts in this game, which seems more than likely, you've basically got Super Flashcards. And frankly, just getting kids to KNOW the names of elements is one step to getting them to ask questions about elements. What happened to slashdot's ability to dream? I don't get it, I really don't.

Bottom line is, Anshul Samhar inspires, whereas YOU just piss on the parade.

Re:Relevant?

[TheMeuge]

<blockquote>Education's job is to create a thinking population, so that they won't sell their vote for a hotdog and fries next election.</blockquote>

Exactly - can't have them selling their vote for hotdog and fries when selling it for the safety of their eternal soul is much more sexy.

Re:13-Year-Old CEO

[Bobby Mahoney]

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).

Re:13-Year-Old CEO

[WilliamSChips]

think back to frosh economics, and try to explain why the supposedly "easier" job makes more money.

Because the CEO sets his own salary?

Also, go talk to Paul Graham. He knows more than you do, given the fact that when he was running a startup he was juggling the jobs of CEO, programmer, system administrator, sales, and just about everything else a big business shuttles off to seperate departments. He defines the PHB as a manager who doesn't program.

Also, way too often, the CEO often doesn't know anything about programming, Ballmer just to name one, and in those cases, disaster results. A computer company CEO that doesn't know how to program is like an engineer who doesn't know the laws of physics or how his building materials work. This would never even be considered for an engineer but is almost par for the course for a bad computer company.

Also, ambiguity isn't the end-all-be-all for difficulty. Actually, your primary job should be to know enough to remove that ambiguity. The only way you can have near-complete ambiguity is if you're given no input at all. And if you're a CEO with no input at all, there is a communications problem on your side which needs to be fixed.

This kid is my hero.

[CompmanJX3]

This kid is in middle school, he, like most kids, hates textbooks, but unlike most kids, he actually came up with an alternative. He's touting it like a replacement for textbooks, and of course it would work better as a supplement, but it's still a great idea. And if the parents are helping out, they're doing the right thing. If my kid came up to me with a brilliant, if not necessarily feasible idea, I wouldn't want to quash his dreams right away. I'd want to encourage him. Any kid that's come this far isn't going to be shaken by temporary failure. Look at the about the creator page on his website and read his quotes in the article. Just because he's thirteen doesn't mean he shouldn't be taken seriously, it just means that he has a different approach than most adults.

As for the game's actual usefulness... I remember how much more exciting world history was for me because I recognized the names of cultures and cities from Civilization II. This could inspire the same kind of fascination in kids for Chemistry. Most kids aren't taught a lot of Chemistry until the middle of high school, and I don't think anyone other than the creators think this can replace textbooks completely, but how cool would it feel to walk into your high school chemistry class and already know about valence and the periodic table from a card game you played in middle school? If this game inspired a lifelong love of chemistry in a few kids and helped a few more understand the basic concepts... that alone, I think, would be worth it.

Re:Stealing childhood

[Mix+Master+Nixon]

You know who ought to be making educational games for kids? Smart kids. Adults are reliably clueless about what kids like and don't like. (Get off my lawn.) So, some kids make up a game and sell it. It's educational. They're clearly having a blast doing it, at least as far as I can tell. It's a 21st Century lemonade stand gone thermonuclear, and I salute them. Wish that was MY childhood.

Re:13-Year-Old CEO

[Miseph]

"Also, way too often, the CEO often doesn't know anything about programming, Ballmer just to name one, and in those cases, disaster results. A computer company CEO that doesn't know how to program is like an engineer who doesn't know the laws of physics or how his building materials work. This would never even be considered for an engineer but is almost par for the course for a bad computer company."

Only coders ever seem to think that. Ballmer may be a poor CEO, but it has nothing to do with his not knowing how to code, because it really doesn't matter at all if the CEO can code. An engineer certainly needs to know what his building materials can do, but he doesn't need to know exactly how steel is refined because it doesn't make any difference. We don't make bankers learn how to use a printing press either; or show prosecutors how the lock mechanism on a pair of handcuffs is built.

I've worked for large corporations where the CEOs started out doing the grunt work, and I haven't been thrilled with the types of decisions they make: I find that they tend to micromanage and make rules apply across the company that may well have worked in the shop they personally ran 10 years ago, but really can't be applied across the board; they also tend to disregard info from the bottom solely on the basis that they have been there, and it shouldn't make a difference.

Re:13 Year old CEO?

[obarel]

I'm always amazed at those messages: "We recently hired xyz and it turns out he's totally useless."

Not blaming any one, but are job interviews out of fashion? What sort of questions do people ask in interviews? Or, in other words, can't you tell within 20 minutes that someone simply doesn't have a clue?

More stupid shit makes the front page at Slashdot.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only is Slashdot becoming a day-later Digg mirror, but the worst fucking stories are the ones making the jump.

Slashdot has been in decline ever since the VA Software buyout. The evidence shows it's pretty well close to dead.

The truth hurts, doesn't it?