Bringing Good Ideas to Life – Inside the Academy
When I walked into class today…I could not have been so excited! SO PUMPED!
I sat and watched five different groups give five different presentations about the business models behind their Hybrid Entrepreneur project. But, this is not just a project…these were five legitimate business ideas. Each one, tremendous…innovative…socially driven…potential to generate a profit…created to make change.
But…here is the BUT. Are these students looking at these business ideas as a project for a grade or will they turn them into a viable business idea? What is the barrier that keeps students in the academy from taking a business idea generated in a class, translate into a passion, and produce a viable business?
This takes me back to my fundamental question: can you teach entrepreneurship in a traditional education model. What do I mean? Well, we teach students that we measure success in terms of A’s, B’s, C’s, D’s, and F’s within a timeframe of the semester. It is my humble opinion that entrepreneurs build businesses beyond the timeframe of a semester and do not measure success within a frame work of grades.
Think for a second, if a student generates a great idea inside a class…how can we change the culture so that they see the value of generating this big idea into a concrete business beyond the end of the semester. Each of these five groups have tremendous business ideas, but the common resistance to capitalize on this idea is the grade they are working to achieve. Also, when the semester ends…out of sight, out of mind.
I was riding around on Saturday with one of my mentors. We were chatting up ideas, business ideas….ideas that can scale into profitable businesses. As we were chatting, we were not focusing on just the future revenue streams but the creative outlet to translate a great business idea into a scalable success. If we had a white board in the SUV, we would have been writing all over the place, connecting the dots. There is a passion behind entrepreneurship that is not measured inside the constraints of semesters and grades.
Now, back to the classroom.
At the end of the class…I challenged each student. I asked them, what would it take to take their business idea and bring it to fruition. They sat perplexed, thinking about all the other classwork they had to complete. They murmured about time and the lack of resources. So, how do we teach passion and how do we provide the access to resources to convert ideas into reality?
I say we have to take the education of entrepreneurship outside the walls of semesters and grades. We have to provide a shift in culture. Academic institutions have to invest not only in the instruction of entrepreneurship, but also the financial resources that takes good ideas and brings them to life. We see this in the business world. Look at SCLaunch investing dollars in high impact start-ups with the hope they will create jobs in South Carolina. We see new groups like the Upstate Carolina Angel Network connecting good ideas with capital to bring these ideas to life.
So here is my question, how about bring capital into the walls of the academy, investing dollars in students’ ideas for a stake in the business. Many times, I think the barrier here is the ownership of the idea. What do I mean, well institutions are interested in revenue and intellectual property. They might argue these ideas were created inside the walls of the classroom, giving them an immediate ownership of the intellectual property.
So here is my thought, my question: how can we create a culture of entrepreneurship inside the walls of academic institution to truly generate great ideas and bring them to life. We must change the culture of the academy and create a culture of real entrepreneurship…bringing good ideas to life.
I will leave you with this story. A few months ago, I had the privilege of meeting Doris Buffett. She told her story about her eagerness to give away all her money. She created the Sunshine Lady Foundation to do just that…give it all away. But, she does not invest in SOB’s (as she so eloquently stated). SOB stands for Symphonies, Orchestras, and Ballets. She invests in human capital. One of her initiatives is the Learning By Giving initiative.
“The goal of the Learning by Giving program is to support and promote the study of philanthropy at the undergraduate level nationwide in order to prepare, empower and inspire young adults to become effective, knowledgeable and skilled philanthropists and leaders in their communities. The Learning by Giving Program achieves this goal by supporting undergraduate courses in philanthropy with grants of $10,000 for students to distribute in local nonprofits as an investment in solutions to community problems. The Learning by Giving grants enable undergraduates to experience firsthand the art and science of philanthropy through courses offered in a variety of academic disciplines; and encourage the growth of undergraduates’ philanthropic values and leadership activities over their lifetime.”
WOW! Here is a lady teaching the idea of philanthropy by providing grants to support students in their desire to help local nonprofits as investments in solutions for community problems. She is providing the resources, teaching philanthropy with seed money. Imagine taking this idea and supporting entrepreneurship at the undergraduate level. Seed money supporting the ideas of tomorrow.
At Cornell, the basic entrepreneurship program has spawned a university-wide access to entrepreneurial programs or aspects of other classes/disciplines. In the core program, no real grades have ever been given; it’s not about A’s or D’s. What you call “groups” are formed as management teams. The “ideas” are presented as business plans, complete with financials. The “exam” is a presentation to a venture capital board made up of real angels and others who can give real world feedback. While there is no grade per se, there is a ranking as relates to potential viability — and the top ranked concept and presentation “wins” a small infusion of seed capital. Any/all presentations which are able to win a champion on the review board will have a chance to see the real world — seed investors, joint venture partners, intros to people who can really help. The seed capital comes from a small fund raised from alumni (“The Big Red Fund”) which is administered by students. My long time buddy David BenDaniel created the Cornell program and is consistently voted one of the top entrepreneurship profs in the nation. He has been here to lecture at Clemson at my invitation several times.
That’s a response to your blog post,but the question you asked was a different one. When it comes to teaching at any/all levels there is a real conundrum because I think everybody should be taught certain things like “financial literacy” and that everyone can be taught a good bit about business practices. But here’s the problem — and it colors almost every discussion here in the Upstate — there is a big difference between being an entrepreneur and being a small businessman — and we do not make that distinction here with any clarity or difference in how we evaluate and support an enterprise. That is much to our detriment. It discourages true entrepreneurship, squanders resources, and keeps a lot of people happily pretending that we are trying to foster entrepreneurship,when in fact we pretty much avoid the upheaval that comes with that territory.
BTW, Bobby — at Cornell alone, as a guest lecturer and participant on the venture board, I’ve reviewed more than 700 business plans and presentations. Add that to the guest lectures and plan reviews at other universities (from Harvard and Dartmouth to less “marquee” names) and the number hits more than a thousand at the student level. Our deal flow at Simpson & Partners averages 20+ non-student a month — and finding an audience or money in SC is like looking for the Holy Grail — a task of mythic proportions.
Can entrepreneurship be taught? That’s a good question. It’s also a question that can apply to many disciplines. What’s different about entrepreneurship? What makes us even ask the question about whether or not it can be taught?
I suggest it has to do with the fact that being an entrepreneur is something that is more of a multi-skilled art form or discipline than, say, being a veterinarian. More like being a good politician than being a good software engineer.
What sets entrepreneurship apart from other, more easily taught subjects is the fact that its more about learning, motivation, experimentation and perhaps raw aptitude than other subjects we try to teach in our education system.
I think the best we can do is expose students to a well designed curriculum that introduces them to entrepreneurship. There are core fundamentals that any venture, whether “imitation” (opening a hair salon, or buying a franchise) or “innovation” (producing a novel product or service): things like presentation skills, market analysis, business plan writing, sales processes, hiring people, corporate structures, and so forth – these can be taught.
In the end, like many other professions that resemble an art more than a science, being a good entrepreneur requires experience. What we can do is provide the fundamentals (in an educational environment, maybe), make sure there is adequate access to capital and advice, then get out of the way and let the creative process evolve.
There will be skinned knees and tears most of the time, but that’s probably more where the learning happens than anything we can teach in school.
I agree with Virginia (is that a first?!). The Cornell model she describes sounds absolutely lovely. I’m not sure how the upstate of SC demographically compares to Ithaca NY — certainly there are some parallels, but it’s definitely not apples-to-apples. I would imagine the basic Cornell entrepreneurship model would require a base of deep-pocketed angels, world-class mentors, and other talented local supporting cast members. While we certainly don’t live in a ghost town, I think there’s still a ways to go if Clemson is comparing itself to Cornell. In a 15-20 year time horizon, I’m fairly bullish.
“how can we create a culture of entrepreneurship inside the walls of academic institution to truly generate great ideas and bring them to life?”
Lower the (perceived) risk. Few entrepreneurs would be considered risk averse. But, few entrepreneurs jump into a venture without feeling relatively confident, without any backup plans, or without understanding their own personal strengths and limitations. A student who is unencumbered by debt and benefits from a stable support infrastructure (family or otherwise) is in a much better position to take more and bigger risks. In poker terms, that student can afford to play a marginal hand and hope to catch something on the turn or the river. To continue the tired metaphor, less fortunate students burdened with debt and little to no safety net, are more apt to grind it out, never bluff, and hope to catch a few good cards. Not sure if that metaphor perfectly sets up what I’m about to say, but, who cares — I think there are a lot more “entrepreneurs” out there, but they’re hidden behind legitimate fear and circumstance.
So I’d ask, how do we do a better job of reducing the (real & perceived) risks, or at least educating around them?
Bobby, do you ever say something like, “Why don’t you quit school for a semester, pitch your idea to every investor who will listen, and swing for the fences? What’s the worst that could happen? You’re education is delayed 8 months and you might have to move back in with your parents — that’s already fairly likely given the state of the economy — so you might as well go for broke.” Is that something that you can/should tell a student? Or (if they’re truly an “entrepreneur”) should they already be thinking that?
I also wanted to comment on Virginia’s other statement:
“But here’s the problem — and it colors almost every discussion here in the Upstate — there is a big difference between being an entrepreneur and being a small businessman — and we do not make that distinction here with any clarity or difference in how we evaluate and support an enterprise.”
I agree there’s way too much ambiguity surrounding “entrepreneurship.” What, precisely, does it mean? I wrote the following on Bobby’s Facebook wall a while ago that is apropos:
“The problem is in the definition of “entrepreneurship.” It’s too subjective and constrained by cultural and societal factors. Ask a hundred people (in North America) to write a concise definition of an entrepreneur and I think you’ll get about 100 different answers–creating a fuzzy picture at best. Is an entrepreneur someone who takes a risk? Does that risk have to be in a business context? Does that risk have to lead to success? If so, how much success is required? And how are we measuring that? Wealth? Happiness? Utility? Could a doctor who saves 1,000 lives in a war zone be an entrepreneur too?
“An “entrepreneur” in America might be a simple fish monger in Greece. Likewise, a tyrant or tribal leader in Kazakhstan might be considered an “entrepreneur” if he was born and raised in America. My hunch is that there are a blend of factors that can lead to someone who possesses the traits that other people point toward and say, “that person has ‘it’.” These traits have likely been around in humanity forever and are malleable enough to fit a lot of different environmental challenges.
“Perhaps the better question is: do your strengths and weaknesses allow you to take advantage of your environment in such as way that you can be successful. If not, where can you go where they do? With a free-ish society, we can basically shop around to find the place we fit the best. I think that’s why we have such an entrepreneurial culture in America–whatever that means.
So, I challenge anyone (mostly Virginia though) to proffer a definition for “entrepreneurship” that goes beyond the dictionary** — put the finest point on it as possible.
** The dictionary says, “a person who organizes and manages any enterprise, especially a business, usually with considerable initiative and risk.” Leaves a lot of wiggle room.
Marc, Evan, and Virginia…I would like to get all three of you in a room and continue this conversation. I have been thinking through your responses…and each one of you provides so much insight to my thoughts. I think the biggest thing I would like to define is the word entrepreneurship. To me, it has become a buzz word…an economic engine to grow programs at universities and in the world of economic development. I am not so much concerned with that…but I am more interested in the passionate side of entrepreneurship. As I teach class after class…I see the students walking through the higher education arena like it is a machine. Trust me…I did it as well. Class to class, working for a grade, not thinking of the big picture. Now the only context I have is Clemson. The idea of entrepreneurship is an attractive way to instill passion in students, generate great ideas, and break away from the norms that everyone must have a corporate job in a cookie cutter society. There are so many smart, passionate students…they are trained to think within a rubric that compartmentalizes learning. Imagine taking that roughly $100K invested in their four year degree and put it towards and entrepreneurial experience. Now this would not work for all students, many of which are receiving a degree based on particular track line the medical profession. But, I want to find a way to identify students with great ideas, empower them to chase the dream, surround them with leaders who can guide them through the process, and possibly pitch to have access to seed money. If we invest in the students…the return could be tremendous. I know that I am an optimist in in this space. I know Virginia has much more experience with this than I…but I want our higher education system to evolve…to truly support where great ideas come from.
I know the pain it caused Evan to have to agree with me, but as Bobby notes — I have more experience — and as the only person in the discussion who is over 100 I lay claim not only to that experience but also to having helped shape the discussions with my old buddies Schumpeter and Drucker as we were sitting around one day bemoaning the loss of the good old days when you kids knew how to treat us with respect!
So here ya go, chilluns — some thoughts on entrepreneurs — and why they’re not just small biz folks running mom’n’pop shops.
Schumpeter talked about “the perennial gale of creative destruction” as the life force of a vibrant economy — and thought of entrepreneurs as those who kept the gale force winds blowing. No,Evan, that does not mean that entrepreneurs are wind bags, but it does speak to the matter of degree. Entrepreneurs are, in many ways, much “bigger” versions of typical business folks. While an ordinary biz might generate a really good income — even millions over its life time — an entrepreneurial venture goes after real wealth, many millions, usually as fast as possible to distribute among investors who have been caught up in the entrepreneur’s vision/passion for creating competitive advantage and a big market presence through innovation. The innovation can take many forms — technological being the most obvious, but definitely not the only — I’ve even seen it in odd places like what Pleasant Rowland did with American Girl dolls. The vision/passion thing is what makes entrepreneurs analyze risk differently from ordinary biz owners — it is wrapped up in the assessment of themselves as the “risk mitigator” — they KNOW they can succeed in achieving their dreams so they do not perceive risk as others/outsiders might — and, indeed, may see it as part of the adventure of creation.
BTW — the word is defined as coming from the French, but if you go way back to old French and deconstruct it, it is not just about managing or orchestrating an endeavor but from 2 words — entre = between and prendre =to seize or grasp — so it was about seeing things that were “between the cracks” or hidden to others, and seizing the opportunity that those hidden clues offered. Not part of the modern lexicon but an interesting foray into how words/meanings come into play
Now, back to our program. If you take the elements above (and don’t want to bother reading Drucker or Schumpeter — or heaven forbid — are Keynesian) an entrepreneur is someone who sees and seizes opportunities that others miss or perceive as too risky. He has exceptional levels of confidence in his ability to succeed in winning the brass ring even when others are still focused on the risk (risk reward ratio is just about reversed for him) and believes his idea and capacity to deliver are BIG — so big that he will create wealth, not just good income — and is therefore quite sanguine about the idea of letting other invest — they are not at risk either, they’re embarking on a great “venture adventure” with him. He will blow those gale winds of change by delivering true innovation that 1)creates clear competitive advantage in 2)a large, growing, important market and 3)is able to create timely, substantial returns that go beyond ordinary ROI levels all the way to wealth. If you want ordinary, buy a mutual fund — entrepreneurship is about the lust for the extraordinary in business.
And on that cheerful note, I need to grab a couple of hours of sleep. Excuse typos and rambling, too tires to read this over. And Bobby, when are you picking up the tab for coffee to get us all in a room to blather on about this s#*t?