First they say that 56% of companies started in 2004 were still in business in 2010. Then they reference the VC rule of thumb that 4 of 5 companies will flounder and dismiss VC companies as being "riskier". But then for their argument on making "real money" as an entrepreneur they reference the same VC companies that they already dismissed as being riskier and having a failure rate far higher than the 44% the article led off with.
> First they say that 56% of companies started in 2004 were still in business in 2010. Then they reference the VC rule of thumb that 4 of 5 companies will flounder and dismiss VC companies as being "riskier".
The fact that having VCs lowers your chance of success seems lost on them.
It is perhaps due to a conflict of interest: Harvard is invested in several VC funds.
First they say that 56% of companies started in 2004 were still in business in 2010. Then they reference the VC rule of thumb that 4 of 5 companies will flounder and dismiss VC companies as being "riskier". But then for their argument on making "real money" as an entrepreneur they reference the same VC companies that they already dismissed as being riskier and having a failure rate far higher than the 44% the article led off with.