Originally published via martinholub.com

This summer I returned to my alma mater, ETH Zurich. It’s not all sunshine and roses, of course, but one thing is exemplary. ETH takes low single digit equity in its spin-offs, usually around 2%. And this is not some oddity, in Sweden, universities do not take any equity in spinoffs at all.

In contrast, it’s been with a fanfare that Dutch universities announced common spin-off terms with equity stakes ranging from 10 to 25%, often landing around 20%. Supposedly, they expect to make some money this way, extracting means from students and employees (as is already being done via tuition in the US and the UK).

I think this business model is wrong.

Education should be a universal right and tax money can deliver that. ETH is a good example. Company creation, then, is the best way to fund universities. The more and the bigger companies you create locally the more jobs you spur and, ultimately, the more taxes you collect.

So for me it is clear, we should create the best possible conditions for spinoffs to start and scale.

But this does not stop with equity. Despite what pop culture and media has you believe, young people are not having the time of their life. Home ownership among young people is at its lowest, and this is not some kind of GenZ choice or inability to settle. Job and financial insecurity is real. Young people go out less, mate less and worry more.

Entrepreneurship is about taking risks, and we need more people to do it. Not 20% more, but 5x or 10x more. But if you are already stressed out, you are less likely to put more on your plate. You don’t have to be a scientist to understand this. I don’t want to have a system that disproportionately favors haves over have-nots. Homeowners who see their houses appreciate while extracting rent from those who cannot afford to purchase, for example.

Instead, we must focus on building systems that favor the vulnerable. This includes the young. So I am proposing to turn the current university education system on its head. Or at least substantially wrangle it.

Now it is a pyramid. The younger you are the more education you are getting. You pay for this, both with your time and your money. But this math is not mathing. In 2025 university education is less and less of a guarantee of job security. The world is changing much quicker than it used to. Education cannot stop at the “university years”.

So instead of a pyramid, I am proposing an hourglass.

First, provide a solid base of transferable skills at the undergraduate level (the base of the hourglass). Teach young people how to learn and how to teach themselves. Don’t charge them any money, and keep this as short as practical. Then let them go try to figure stuff out, and try to build something great (the middle of the hourglass). And be ready to welcome them back, 5, 10, 20, 30, or 50 years later, for continuous education (the top of the hourglass).

So in my opinion, universities should give up on trying to patch their balance sheets by tuition or spinoff equity. Instead, they should massively build up their continuous education programs and do everything they can to initiate and support spinoffs. And yes, if you insist, universities probably can charge higher tuition for continuous education, as long as people come with sufficient means.

Originally published via martinholub.com

This summer I returned to my alma mater, ETH Zurich. It’s not all sunshine and roses, of course, but one thing is exemplary. ETH takes low single digit equity in its spin-offs, usually around 2%. And this is not some oddity, in Sweden, universities do not take any equity in spinoffs at all.

In contrast, it’s been with a fanfare that Dutch universities announced common spin-off terms with equity stakes ranging from 10 to 25%, often landing around 20%. Supposedly, they expect to make some money this way, extracting means from students and employees (as is already being done via tuition in the US and the UK).

I think this business model is wrong.

Education should be a universal right and tax money can deliver that. ETH is a good example. Company creation, then, is the best way to fund universities. The more and the bigger companies you create locally the more jobs you spur and, ultimately, the more taxes you collect.

So for me it is clear, we should create the best possible conditions for spinoffs to start and scale.

But this does not stop with equity. Despite what pop culture and media has you believe, young people are not having the time of their life. Home ownership among young people is at its lowest, and this is not some kind of GenZ choice or inability to settle. Job and financial insecurity is real. Young people go out less, mate less and worry more.

Entrepreneurship is about taking risks, and we need more people to do it. Not 20% more, but 5x or 10x more. But if you are already stressed out, you are less likely to put more on your plate. You don’t have to be a scientist to understand this. I don’t want to have a system that disproportionately favors haves over have-nots. Homeowners who see their houses appreciate while extracting rent from those who cannot afford to purchase, for example.

Instead, we must focus on building systems that favor the vulnerable. This includes the young. So I am proposing to turn the current university education system on its head. Or at least substantially wrangle it.

Now it is a pyramid. The younger you are the more education you are getting. You pay for this, both with your time and your money. But this math is not mathing. In 2025 university education is less and less of a guarantee of job security. The world is changing much quicker than it used to. Education cannot stop at the “university years”.

So instead of a pyramid, I am proposing an hourglass.

First, provide a solid base of transferable skills at the undergraduate level (the base of the hourglass). Teach young people how to learn and how to teach themselves. Don’t charge them any money, and keep this as short as practical. Then let them go try to figure stuff out, and try to build something great (the middle of the hourglass). And be ready to welcome them back, 5, 10, 20, 30, or 50 years later, for continuous education (the top of the hourglass).

So in my opinion, universities should give up on trying to patch their balance sheets by tuition or spinoff equity. Instead, they should massively build up their continuous education programs and do everything they can to initiate and support spinoffs. And yes, if you insist, universities probably can charge higher tuition for continuous education, as long as people come with sufficient means.