Dang, see my supporting response below (1). I'm concerned about the depth of your thinking here. I wonder where "polemical rant" would fall in PG's list of labels used to suppress ideas (2). Just because someone's thesis is not in alignment with anyone else's doesn't make it a polemical rant. Especially when it's actually quite in alignment with the evidence, just presented differently (abundant evidence supports my thesis (3-5)).

Indeed, learning how to express one's sense of truth even if you don't have the entirety of the thing thought out is a central part of entrepreneurship, leadership, and just being decent. I submit it is with utmost humility that I expressed the zeroth iteration and appreciated encountering resistance: it is excellent for sharpening the thought. I know what I think. I need people to challenge me so I can clarify my position. I come here specifically for the follow-on question from someone who is not me.

(1) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14450217

(2) http://www.paulgraham.com/labels.html

(3) http://www.chronicle.com/article/Graduate-School-in-the/4484...

(4) http://www.chronicle.com/article/So-You-Want-to-Go-to-Grad/4...

(5) https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/07/college...

It's much simpler than that and doesn't merit a five-link rebuttal. Angry sharp-tongued rhetoric generates more angry sharp-tongued rhetoric, a.k.a. flamewars. We ask people not to comment that way and ban them if they keep doing it.

This is independent of your 'thesis', which I'm sure you could express in a thoughtful way if you wanted to.