I am not sure that "starting something" is a good idea when one of the two alternatives can be completed succesfully by applying yourself diligently (i.e. studying hard enough to pass with good grades) while the other can fail for any of a large number of reasons, mostly outside of your control.

I.e. if the author's son or daughter opts for starting a company, works hard and diligently, and after three years it goes bankrupt due to: - A competitor cuts them out of the market - New regulatory laws make the original idea unprofitable/untenable - A technical breakthrough makes the product unappealing

The boy/girl may have worked as hard as if they were in college, or even way harder. And after three years their company is in debt, they have nothing worth selling/salvaging, and they are 3 years late to go to college.

Also, it is not clear if the parent intends to provide something more than just seeding money. From the article it looks like that. Is this really so? Suppose that the "baby-entrepreneur" has a really dumb idea for a start-up, but they are "passionate" about this (how many 18-years old can be passionate about financially untenable ideas?). Will the author provide money even if he cannot see anything reasonable getting out of it? And after it has failed, will he have enough money to pay an equivalent sum for going back to college?

I left an amazing job at a high tech company to start my own company. We had a successful exit five years later, but I've always said that if the company went belly up after 2 or 3 years it would have been WELL worth it. I don't associate being a successful entrepreneur or having success with a big exit. The point is to learn and try new things.

Of course I'd help my kid get the company off the ground in whatever capacity they'd like. I help a half dozen companies now in an advisory role and I'd do the same for them.