I graduated from CMU in 1987. I moved to Silicon Valley in 1990 and settled there. I worked at Silicon Graphics (SGI) in the 1990s. I married and still live in Palo Alto. It has been almost four decades since I graduated, but the university has continued to reach out for alumni-related activities (and fundraising). I enjoy some of the local events and networking opportunities. Recent graduates are the most prominent cohort attending these activities. I’ll admit that my “expire by” date has passed, yet I have contributed to social discourse with an aged, mature perspective.
My perspective is not the result of a linear path. Leaving corporate employment in 1997, I became a freelance web designer, just before the halcyon days of the dot-com era. My exposure to web technology at SGI was enough to whet my appetite for the nascent promise of connectivity via a burgeoning global network. I started serving websites from a server at my home.
My Professonal Writing degree and desktop publishing skills were enough to secure a corporate role in 1990. The ’90s was the decade that analog processes strangely co-existed with digital inevitability. The digital realm of supercomputers was still supported by analog activities. The customer support newsletter I edited was a bi-monthly hardcopy format. It’s hard to believe now that information moved at the speed of the post office, that media content was distributed on VHS and cassette tapes.
Fast-forward through the years and advances in technology. The modem, frame-relay and DSL have been replaced by high-bandwidth connections. Paper bulletins have been superceeded by digital documents. Distribution is immediate. Those quaint, quieter days of analog processes are gone, replaced by ubiquitous computing and communication over sprawling networks.
So, what of my education, the skills acquired at my alma mater? I cannot pretend that they apply, even remotely, to the new technological landscape. My relevance today is due to the skills I’ve acquired since graduating. These creative, technical and interpersonal skills service my freelance activities. My goals are now chosen from options that depend upon self-determination.
Somewhere along my alumni journey, I began attending CMU business school events in Northern California. Silicon Valley is revered for innovation and richly supported by investors eager to connect with the individuals and teams promising to develop lucrative markets. The intelligent and likely wheat is separated from the chaff of anyone else blinded by delusions of founderhood. I’ve always enjoyed imagination. In a sense, business opportunities are the product of stories which begin at the ever-present moment of “now.” The backstory is a founder’s knowledge and capacity to extrapolate ideas as plots reaching into the future.
And so, finally, I reach the beginning of my recent lesson.
Adverse Data Collection
My reasoning was simple: what’s to lose if rejection is the worst possible outcome? There was no submission fee, the only investment being my time. I’d already created a pitch deck to present the idea at a local Pitch Night event in 2025 (it was selected late and, unexpected, I missed the notice). A pitch deck was one of the requirements for CMU VentureBridge, “a pre-seed fund and accelerator for founders building bold, technical companies full-time.”
Okay, so I wasn’t working on the idea full-time. But isn’t the promise of funding the ability to work full-time on the idea after you receive it? As I will explain, the application process is specific, but some of my responses are exceptions. I rely on exceptions. I appeal to contrarians who appreciate the efforts of other contrarians that reach into the void.
There was a Google document to be completed. Specific answers are requested for specific questions. Problems arise when the plot has not been specifically implemented. I share the application questions and my answers (with links to additonal media) here. I responded to questions truthfully, yet obliquely, to incorporate some “wiggle room” in my answers. My proposal defines a multiple-entity organization of which one I have established as an LLC. My first legal entity was established in 2019 and is a work-in-progress. I’m learning about corporate mechanisms by building infrastructure, maintaining records and mandatory filings.
The conglomerate outlined in the proposal aims to utilize land capital owned by my family. With corporate governance of the property, ownership can be divided by issuing shares rather than an informal agreement between family members. My role has been to identify and solicit support for this possible transition.
As I expected, my proposal was not selected for the CMU VentureBridge program. However, I would like to be positive in acknowledging their consideration. In the first round of evaluation, the organizers arranged a short videoconference with each respondent. This revealed the human participants and provided entrants with feedback and practice in justifying their proposals.
The final message I received was cordial:
“Thank you for taking the time to apply to VentureBridge and for sharing your work with us. We had a very strong pool this year, and after careful review, we won’t be moving forward with your application.
We recognize the amount of effort that goes into building and putting these applications together, and we’re grateful you considered VentureBridge.”
Their decision was correct. I benefitted from the process. My fanciful submission becomes a deliberate part of my story for being shared.
