<ol>
<li>Harvard University
----Number of billionaire graduates: 62
----Change from last year: +8</li>
<li>Stanford University
----Number of billionaire graduates: 28
----Change: +3</li>
<li>Columbia University
----Number of billionaire graduates: 20
----Change: +4</li>
<li>University of Pennsylvania
----Number of billionaire graduates: 18
----No change year-over-year</li>
<li>Yale University
----Number of billionaire graduates: 16
----No change year-over-year</li>
<li>University of Chicago
----Number of billionaire graduates: 13
----Change: +3<br></li>
<li>Massachusetts Institute of Technology
----Number of billionaire graduates: 11
----No change year-over-year </li>
<li>New York University (tie)
----Number of billionaire graduates: 10
----New entrant </li>
<li>Northwestern University (tie)
----Number of billionaire graduates: 10
----No change year-over-year </li>
<li>Cornell University (tie)
----Number of billionaire graduates: 9
----No change year-over-year </li>
<li>Princeton University (tie)
----Number of billionaire graduates: 9
----New entrant </li>
<li>University of California, Berkeley (tie)
----Number of billionaire graduates: 9
----No change year-over-year </li>
<li>University of Southern California (tie)
----Number of billionaire graduates: 9
----No change year-over-year</li>
</ol>
<p>Don’t compare apples to oranges. Columbia has graduate four times the students (factoring that business school students graduate in 2 years, law in 3 years, etc.) compared to Dartmouth, which has 8 billionaires; 2 times the students compared to MIT, which has 11 billionaires. UChicago’s beating MIT and Princeton because of it’s size and top professional schools.</p>
<p>If you account just for undergraduate, Columbia’s lead fades.</p>
<p>For engineers, it’s hard for one to be super rich, but they are very wealthy overall. Plus, for undergrad, Columbia and Duke ranks with Dartmouth and MIT, but Dartmouth and MIT have much smaller student bodies.
Why do you always have to make Columbia sounds superior to other equally excellent school? Why can’t you just love a school for all the things that actually matter (like the things you will discover about yourself there, the wonderful memories over the four years, the stimulation of the mind, etc.). This list is even more superficial and meaningless than USNews’ ranking. By the way, Warren Buffett went to Columbia for business school, you can add that to your list of things that makes Columbia the most superior school.</p>
<p>^ Did you even see the first post? It was in reply to RML’s opinion that Caltech/MIT/Dartmouth are superior to Columbia financially, and prestigiously. You didn’t read that bit one part did you?</p>
<p>Now, if the sole criterion for ranking schools is the number of alumni who eventually became billionaires, then Columbia would make it in the top 5 – top 3 even. But, sadly, this isn’t a good criterion for ranking schools. And, take note that Stanford has produced many more billionaires than Columbia has that despite Stanford is a much younger institution. So, again, your logic fails. And, the funny thing was – it fails much more miserably this time. lol</p>
<p>Ladies and Gentlemen, </p>
<p>Please ignore this stowaway kid, nothingto, and forgive him for ■■■■■■■■ and flame-baiting. He’s just a high school kid from the Bronx, NY, who fantasizes of attending Columbia someday. His HS GPA is 2.6 and his combined SAT scores is 1540.</p>
<p>^ You want me to link you to the thread about “Why doesn’t anyone like Columbia” thread? Sadly, you musn’t have forgotten you said that there salaries were higher then Columbia’s did you? Notice I also never talked about Stanford. I was only talking about MIT and Dartmouth.</p>
<p>You also gloated about how MIT has a higher salary then Columbia by saying Payscale said it. Payscale could be one of the least credible source. We just said MIT had a higher salary then Columbia because MIT has engineers which are highly payed, versus Columbias diverse career path.</p>
<p>But this study shows how wrong PayScale is. But I do grant you the point about Caltech. I don’t think you ever talked about its salary in the thread. So I might be wrong with that.</p>
<p>Oh and my GPA is 1.1 and my SAT/ACT scores are 930/2400 and 16.</p>
<p>nothingto, this will be my last post for you on this thread. </p>
<p>I never said HYSPMC are superior to Columbia financially. I don’t know how financially stable these universities are, or which of these schools have higher budget allocation for their students on per capita, but I would recon HYPSMC are more financially stable and / or have higher budget allocation for their students per capita. </p>
<p>I also did not say Dartmouth is part of HYPSMC, though I believe Dartmouth grads are paid more than Columbia grads are – in general. </p>
<p>In short, what I did say was - in general, HYPSMC grads are paid more than Columbia grads are. </p>
<p>Now, stop lying, spamming, ■■■■■■■■, flame-baiting and go back to kindergarten.</p>
Unitl recently, Chicago had about half as many undergraduates as Princeton or MIT, which both have strong graduate schools. True, Princeton has no business school and neither has law or medical schools. Though I doubt many billionaires are medical doctors.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fairly irrelevant since this is a count of living billionaires and Stanford has been in existence since well before any of them were born.</p>
<p>Of course, these numbers are so miniscule, it would be more meaningful to count multi-millionaires, but more meaningful still to count academic achievements since that, not business, is what what universities are in business to produce.</p>
What you failed to understand is that it takes time to build a school reputation. If you’ll notice, the most prestigious ones are mostly the oldest ones. So, in that respect, the oldest ones have already a “leg up” over their baby peers in attracting the best candidates from generation to generation.</p>
<p>Some of these billionaires inherited their money- rich people beget rich people so it would make sense why so many people in the ivy league are rich</p>
<p>Thanks for the undergrad list, IvyPBear, if its correct…</p>
<p>But theres a mismatch w/ undergrad > total, in a couple instances: </p>
<p>How can there be institutions with more billionaires for those with just undergrad degrees (education?) than total, eg, USC? And how can UCLA with nine, not be listed in gaibois list?</p>
<p>Also, maybe related to my question above:</p>
<p>Are those whove attended instititutions but dropped out counted?</p>
<p>For instance is Bill Gates listed for Harvard? Or Barry Diller if hes still a $B listed for UCLA - even if he attended the university for < an hour or so? David Geffen for the multitude of of universities, inc UCLA?</p>
<p>What I like about UCLAs list is they are all self-made persons - no inheritance, and a decent amount tech related, instead of low or no-tech. </p>
<p>I like Illinois list along with Michigans and Marylands because of Oracles Ellison, and the two from Google, but Im sure the latter two attribute their success to Stanford Grad. </p>
<p>Alexandre:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thatll cause anyones net worth to drop faster than any economic decline.</p>