There's a difference between optimizing for current conditions, and changing future conditions.
Optimizing for current conditions: right now, a lot of the best job applicants have degrees from top-tier schools, and if you need to hire someone today, using education as a job filter is a reasonable choice.
Changing future conditions: there are plausible arguments that universities should not have a monopoly on education and credentialing, and promoting alternatives to a college degree may be a reasonable long-term advocacy and philanthropic goal.
The real story is: what's going on with this new hedge fund? Is the focus on "conclusions that are fundamentally correct but missed by most of the world" an actual strategy or a contrarian buzzword?
Optimizing for current conditions: right now, a lot of the best job applicants have degrees from top-tier schools, and if you need to hire someone today, using education as a job filter is a reasonable choice.
Changing future conditions: there are plausible arguments that universities should not have a monopoly on education and credentialing, and promoting alternatives to a college degree may be a reasonable long-term advocacy and philanthropic goal.
The real story is: what's going on with this new hedge fund? Is the focus on "conclusions that are fundamentally correct but missed by most of the world" an actual strategy or a contrarian buzzword?